William T. & Eleonora Rezek v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Seekonk (March 22, 2012)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



WILLIAM T. & ELEONORA REZEK  	  v.      BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF 
							   	THE TOWN OF SEEKONK


Docket No. F307271	 	    	      	Promulgated:
							 	March 22, 2012
							 

	This is an appeal originally filed under the informal procedure, pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7A and G.L. c. 59,       §§ 64 and 65, from the refusal of the Board of Assessors of the Town of Seekonk (the "appellee" or "assessors") to abate taxes on certain real estate located in the Town of Seekonk owned by and assessed to William T. and Eleonora Rezek (the "appellants" or "Inn owners") under G.L. c. 59, § 11 and 38, for fiscal year 2010.
	Commissioner Scharaffa heard the appeal and was joined by Chairman Hammond and Commissioners Egan and Mulhern in the decision for the appellee.
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellants under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and         831 CMR 1.32.
	Eleonora Rezek, pro se, for the appellants.

	Theodora Gabriel, Town Assessor, for the appellee.



FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On January 1, 2009, the appellants were the assessed owners of an improved parcel of real estate located at 120 Jacob Street in the Town of Seekonk, which they operate as a bed and breakfast or inn (the "subject property" or the "Inn").  The subject property was identified for assessing purposes on map 17, as parcel 124.  For fiscal year 2010, the assessors valued the subject property at $925,900, allocating $212,000 to the land and $713,900 to the improvements.  The assessors classified the subject property as being one-half residential and one-half commercial.  After applying a "commercial exemption" in the amount of $46,295, representing a 10% reduction to the value of the commercial half of the subject property, the assessors assessed a tax on the commercial portion, at the rate of $21.57 per thousand, in the amount of $8,987.25.  The assessors also assessed a tax on the residential portion of the subject property, at the rate of $10.57 per thousand, in the amount of $4,893.38.  The total tax assessed for the subject property was $13,880.63, plus a Community Preservation Act ("CPA") assessment in the amount of $160.30   
Seekonk's Collector of Taxes mailed the fiscal year 2010 actual tax bills on or about December 29, 2009.  In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the appellants timely paid the tax due without incurring interest.  On January 11, 2010, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellants timely filed their Application for Abatement with the assessors, which the assessors granted in part on April 5, 2010, reducing the overall assessed value of the subject property from $925,900 to $756,000.  Not content with this reduction, the appellants, on April 28, 2010, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, seasonably filed their appeal with the Appellate Tax Board (the "Board").  On the basis of these facts, the Board found that it had jurisdiction over this appeal.
The appellants presented their case-in-chief through two witnesses: Eleonora Rezek, who is one of the appellants in this appeal and one of the owners and operators of the subject property; and Lillian Orchard, who has worked for many years as the commercial review appraiser for the City of Cambridge's Assessing Department.  The appellants also submitted several exhibits into evidence including: Ms. Orchard's valuation letter; completed Bed & Breakfast Income and Expense Questionnaires for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009; and numerous labeled color photographs of the subject property.  
The assessors presented their case-in-chief through the testimony of Theodora Gabriel, the Town Assessor, and the introduction of numerous exhibits including: the requisite jurisdictional documents; a fiscal year 2010 property record card print-out for the subject property; an aerial photograph of the subject property; several other photographs of the subject property; a map of the subject property; several Seekonk Zoning Board of Appeal decisions relating to the subject property; and various marketing and puff pieces about the subject property.  Based on this evidence, the Board made the following findings of fact.
The subject property contains an approximately 5.11-acre parcel of land improved with three antique wood-framed buildings.  An in-ground swimming pool, a tennis court, a gazebo, and two parking areas are also located on the grounds of the Inn, which is known and operated as "The Historic Jacob Hill Inn - the shining light in hospitality."  Commensurate with its moniker, the Inn is marketed as a premier award-winning bed and breakfast.  It is located on a hilltop estate which is only a ten-minute drive from downtown Providence, Rhode Island but still situated in a quiet and safe neighborhood with skyline views of the city.  The original residence was built in 1723, and its addition and the other improvements on the subject property were added later.  The subject property evolved from 200 years as a private residence to a relatively short stint as a hunt club in the early 1900s.  It was then converted back to a private residence before being purchased by the appellants in 1991 and transformed into the Inn.  The appellants painstakingly renovated and restored most of the subject property by themselves over a period of about five years, and they continue to maintain and rehabilitate it.  
Several hospitality organizations consider the Inn to be the premier bed and breakfast and romantic getaway in Bristol County and for all of Rhode Island.  Some of its rankings and awards include by way of example: a five-star ranking from TripAdvisor.com; a ten-consecutive-year recipient of four diamond awards from the American Automotive Association (the "AAA"); inclusion in Zagat's "Top Ten Most Romantic Inns"; membership in and a perfect rating from Select Registry; and a feature in the Travel Channel's "Luxury Bed and Breakfasts."  
The front building which is the original homestead and is referred to as "Residence # 1" on the subject property's property record card is a 2.5-story wood-framed building with a 2-story rear addition and a total finished area of 4,190 square feet.  It contains seven guest rooms with private bathrooms, a guest kitchen, a common guest half bath and a common guest area and meeting room.  The front portion was built in 1723; the rear addition was added in the early 1900s.  This building has three fireplaces, a full basement, and a 250-square-foot porch, among other distinguishing features.
A second building which is referred to as "Residence # 2" on the subject property's property record card is a former horse barn with a full unfinished basement.  The first floor contains four guest rooms with private bathrooms, the Inn's guest dining room, reception office, and kitchen, and a common guest half bath.  The second level contains one guest room with a private bathroom along with the Inn's media center and indoor recreational area complete with a pool table.  This building's total finished area is approximately 5,578 square feet, and it also has three fireplaces.  
The third building which is referred to as "Residence # 3" on the subject property's property record card is a two-story former barn that was converted into a 1,050-square-foot, three-bay garage on the first level with the Inn owners' living quarters on the second floor.  The 787-square-foot, second-floor living area consists of two bedrooms, an open living area, a small kitchen, and a bathroom.      
All of the guest rooms have wood flooring and are tastefully decorated and furnished with oriental carpets, custom-made draperies, antiques, period pieces, and fine reproductions.  Many have exposed beam ceilings, chandeliers, fireplaces, and two-person Jacuzzi tubs.  The guest rooms that do not have wood-burning fireplaces have one or two electric hearths.  Most guest rooms have desks.  Guest rooms are further equipped with such modern amenities as HD televisions, CD players, radios, and Internet hook-ups.  The Inn also offers high-speed wireless Internet service and 24-hour, self-service fruit and hot and cold beverages.  Similar to the guest rooms, the Inn's common areas are tastefully decorated and finished with wood flooring, exposed beam ceilings, chandeliers, and vintage wainscot paneling from the hunt club.
During the relevant time period, room rates ranged from $179 to $459 per night, depending on the caliber of the guest room, with a two- or three-night minimum.  Three-night mid-week specials ranged from $537 to $999, thus averaging $179 to $333 per night.  The appellants marketed the Inn as an historic, premier, and award-winning bed and breakfast with a serene, safe, and proximate location for visitors to Providence or for couples interested in romantic getaways.  They were particular about the number and quality of their guests and attempted to minimize potential wear and tear on the subject property.      
In support of their contention that the assessors had overvalued the subject property for fiscal year 2010, the appellants relied primarily on Lillian Orchard's testimony and valuation letter which she had previously submitted to the assessors as part of the appellants' abatement claim at that level.  After considering all three of the conventional approaches for valuing property, Ms. Orchard relied on a sales-comparison approach to value the Inn owners' residence portion of the subject property and an income-capitalization approach to value the commercial inn portion of the subject property.  
In her sales-comparison approach, Ms. Orchard used four sales of single family homes located in Seekonk reasonably close to the subject property.  Each of her comparable-sale homes had four rooms, two bedrooms, and one full bathroom. These properties' sale prices ranged from approximately $135,000 to $181,000.  From these sales, which she did not adjust or consider adjusting for differences between them and the subject property's residence, Ms. Orchard estimated a $225 per-square-foot value for the subject residence's effective living area.  This estimate resulted in a rounded indicated value of $180,000 for the Inn owners' residence, the same value as that assessed for this portion of the subject property after the partial abatement.   
In her income-capitalization approach for valuing the commercial inn portion of the subject property, Ms. Orchard reported that she utilized a methodology in which the following steps were incorporated: (1) an estimate of the potential revenue from all sources; (2) an estimate of the departmental expenses; (3) an estimate of the undistributed expenses; (4) an estimate of the fixed expenses; (5) deductions for allowances;  and (6) a deduction for the income attributable to the return on the personal property.  For her final step, Ms. Orchard then applied what she considered to be an appropriate capitalization rate to the annual net-operating income derived from the preceding steps to develop an indication of value for the commercial inn portion of the subject property.
For her potential gross income, Ms. Orchard used a stabilized and rounded figure which was based on an average of the subject property's actual calendar year 2005 through 2008 gross revenues.  The following table summarizes the information upon which she relied in estimating the Inn's potential income at $210,000 for the fiscal year at issue.


Calendar Year
	
Actual Gross Revenue
	
2005	$ 175,579	
2006	$ 193,479	
2007	$ 259,805	
2008	$ 210,060
	
Four Year Average	$ 209,731	

For her expenses, she similarly used a stabilized and rounded figure which was based on an average of the subject property's actual calendar year 2005 through 2008 total expenses and her professional opinion that an amount equivalent to 70% of gross revenues best reflected a reasonable expense ratio for this type of property.  The following table summarizes the information upon which she relied in estimating the Inn's total expenses at $147,000 or approximately 70% of the gross revenues for the fiscal year at issue.
Calendar Year
	Actual Total Expenses
	
2005	$ 121,148	
2006	$ 146,554	
2007	$ 180,680	
2008	$ 168,538
	
Four Year Average	$ 154,230	
    
On a percentage basis, the subject property's actual total expenses, excluding her allowances and income attributable to the value of the personal property, represented 69%, 76%, 70%, and 80% of the gross revenues for calendar years 2005 - 2008, respectively.  
	After subtracting her actual total expenses from her actual gross revenues, Ms. Orchard's net-operating-income amounts for calendar years 2005 through 2008, before her deductions for her allowances and income attributable to the value of the personal property, are summarized in the following table.
Calendar Year
	Actual Income Before Certain Deductions
	
2005	$ 54,431	
2006	$ 46,925	
2007	$ 79,125	
2008	$ 41,522
	
Four Year Average	$ 55,501	

The stabilized net-operating-income amount that Ms. Orchard used in her methodology for estimating the value of the commercial Inn portion of the subject property for the fiscal year at issue equaled $63,000, before her deductions for her allowances and income attributable to the value of the personal property.  After applying a management-fee deduction of 3% of gross income, or $6,300, she derived a more refined net-operating-income amount of $56,700, before her deductions for her other allowances and income attributable to the value of the personal property.  Ms. Orchard did not present any relevant data or specific industry information in support of her management fee of 3% of gross income.  
	From this $56,700 more refined net-income figure,        Ms. Orchard then deducted another 2.5% of gross income, or $5,250, for her return of personal property, another 2.5% of gross income, or $5,250, as a reserve for short-lived real estate, and another $6,000 for her return on personal property, resulting in a net-operating-income amount to be capitalized of $40,200.  She chose her 2.5%-of-gross-income percentage for her return of personal property and for her reserve for short-lived real estate from her reading of a "recent" Board Findings of Fact and Report.  As for the $6,000 return on personal property, Ms. Orchard estimated the cost of the personal property at $10,000 per room, which totals $120,000 for the Inn as a whole.  She then applied a 50% depreciation factor and used a return period of 9.5 years, in deriving a value of $5,700.  The Board assumed that she then rounded this $5,700 amount up to the $6,000 figure that she used in her methodology; Ms. Orchard did not provide the Board with an explanation for this discrepancy.  
	Ms. Orchard relied on band-of-investment and mortgage-equity techniques coupled with a credit-for-equity-build-up adjustment in developing an adjusted capitalization rate to which she added a commercial tax factor of 2.16% for an overall capitalization rate of 12.9243%.  Her assumptions included a mortgage interest rate of 6.50%, a loan term of 15 years, a loan-to-value ratio of 70%, a 7-year holding period, an equity yield rate of 11.5%, and an effective tax rate of 2.16%.  In her income-capitalization methodology, however, she used an overall capitalization rate of 12.57%, and not the 12.9243% that she developed.  The Board was unable to discern why she used a different capitalization rate in her income-capitalization methodology from the one that she developed, and Ms. Orchard did not address the issue.  Moreover, she did not support the assumptions and selections that she used in her development of a capitalization rate with any relevant data or information.  
After applying her capitalization rate of 12.57% to her net-operating income of $40,200, Ms. Orchard arrived at a value of $319,809 for the commercial inn portion of subject property.  She then added the $180,000 value that she had estimated for the Inn owners' residence to reach her $499,809 estimate of value for the subject property as a whole.           
	Ms. Orchard's income-capitalization methodology is reproduced below with some minor changes to facilitate clarity.
Income collected	$  210,000	
Less expenses	$  147,000	
Expense ratio	       70%              	
NOI before deduction for allowances & return on pers. prop.	$   63,000	
Less mgt. fee @ 3%	$    6,300	
NOI before deduction for other allowances & return on per. prop.	$   56,700	
Less return of personal property @ 2.5%	$    5,250	
Less return on personal property	$    6,000	
Less reserves for short-lived real estate @ 2.5%	$    5,250	
NOI	$   40,200	
Capitalization rate	    0.1257	
Commercial Inn's real estate value	$  319,809	
Real estate value of Inn owners' residence	$  180,000	
Subject property's total real estate value	$  499,809	

For their part, the assessors offered testimony and documentary evidence to the effect that inns, less elegant and expansive than the subject Inn, were selling for $71,000 to $181,000 per guest room close to or during the relevant time period for an indicated value range of approximately $850,000 to $2,175,000 for the subject property.  After granting a partial abatement which lowered the overall assessment for the subject property for the fiscal year at issue to $756,000, the value ascribed by the assessors to the commercial inn part of the subject property resulted in a per-room value of only $48,000, well below the norm.  
The assessors also criticized Ms. Orchard's income-capitalization methodology, particularly her actual gross income figure which incorporated an occupancy rate of only 22%, while the industry standard was 65%, and her actual expenses and allowances which totaled an inordinately high percentage of 81%.  The assessors essentially maintained that Ms. Orchard's income was too low and her expenses and allowances were too high.  
The appellants, through Ms. Rezek's testimony, attempted to counter the assessors' contentions by claiming that the economy adversely affected room occupancy and the Inn's luxury status depressed its income while inflating its expenses for items such as advertising.  They did not submit, however, any relevant industry or market data or area economic information to substantiate these claims.  
After considering all of the evidence, the Board ultimately found that the appellants did not demonstrate that the subject property's assessment as abated exceeded its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.  The Board found that Ms. Orchard's methodology for valuing the commercial Inn portion of the subject property was flawed in several important respects.  First and foremost, she failed to verify the Inn's actual income and expenses with the market.  Second, she did not rely on any relevant data or specific industry information in choosing her management fee.  Third, Ms. Orchard selected her percentages for her return of personal property and her reserve for short-lived real estate from an unidentified recent Board Findings of Fact and Report; she did not attempt to equate the property and circumstances in that Findings with the subject property and its circumstances.  Fourth, Ms. Orchard apparently rounded up her return on personal property by almost 5% from the amount that she had calculated thereby inflating that deduction.  Fifth, without explanation, she used a capitalization rate in her methodology that is almost one-half point different from the one that she developed in her written submission, and she did not provide any foundation for the various assumptions that she employed in her band-of-investment and mortgage-equity techniques.  Finally, with respect to Ms. Orchard's overall methodology, the Board found that the totality of these mistakes and shortcomings adversely impacted the reliability and credibility of Ms. Orchard's estimate of the subject property's fair market value, and, as a result, the Board could not rely on it.  
The Board further found that comments by Ms. Rezek regarding the economy, competition, occupancy, and expenses were either inadequately substantiated or credibly contradicted or challenged by the assessors.  
On this basis, the Board found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the subject property's assessment, as abated, exceeded its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.  The Board, therefore, decided this appeal for the appellee.

OPINION
The assessors are required to assess all property at its fair cash value.  G.L. c. 59, § 38; Coomey v. Assessors of Sandwich, 367 Mass. 836, 837 (1975).  Fair cash value is customarily defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer in a free and open market will agree if both of them are fully informed and under no compulsion.  Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956);      Reservoir Place Realty v. Assessors of Waltham, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1995-48, 69.
Generally, taxpayers have the burden of proving that their properties have lower values than that assessed.  "[T]he Board is entitled to 'presume that the valuation made by the Assessors [is] valid unless the taxpayers . . . prov[e] the contrary.'"  General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 598 (1984)(quoting Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974)).  "'The burden of proof is upon the petitioners to make out [their] right as [a] matter of law to [an] abatement of the tax.'"  Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245 (quoting Judson Freight Forwarding Co. v. Commonwealth, 242 Mass. 47, 55 (1922)). 
In appeals before this Board, taxpayers "ʽmay present persuasive evidence of overvaluation either by exposing flaws or errors in the assessors' method of valuing, or by introducing affirmative evidence of value which undermines the assessors' valuation.ʼ"  General Electric Co., 393 Mass. at 600 (quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston, 389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).  In the present appeal, the appellants chose to introduce affirmative evidence of value.    
Generally, real estate valuation experts, the Massachusetts courts, and this Board rely upon three approaches to determine the fair cash value of property:  income capitalization, sales comparison, and cost reproduction.  Correia v. New Bedford Redev., 375 Mass. 360, 362 (1978).  "The board is not required to adopt any particular method of valuation,"              Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 397 Mass. 447, 449 (1986), but the income-capitalization method "is frequently applied with respect to income-producing property."       Taunton Redev. Assocs. v. Assessors of Taunton, 393 Mass. 293, 295 (1984).  Moreover, use of the income-capitalization method is appropriate when reliable market-sales data are not available.  Assessors of Weymouth v. Tammy Brook Co., 368 Mass. 810, 811 (1975); Assessors of Lynnfield v. New England Oyster House, 362 Mass. 696, 701-702 (1972); Assessors of Quincy v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 309 Mass. 60, 67 (1942).  The income-capitalization method is also appropriate for valuing real estate improved with a hotel or an inn, like the subject property.  See Sanmar, Inc. v. Assessors of North Adams, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2005-81, 102-106; Three Corners Realty Trust v. Assessors of Salem, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2002-47, 65-68, 70; G.F. Springfield Mgmt., Inc. v. Assessors of West Springfield, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2000-228, 247-48, 252; Red Lion Realty Trust v. Assessors of Lenox, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1998-666, 671-73, 676-77; Cambridge Hyatt Joint Venture v. Assessors of Cambridge, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990-182, 209-18.  
Under the income-capitalization approach, valuation is determined by dividing net-operating income by a capitalization rate.  See Assessors of Brookline v. Buehler, 396 Mass. 520, 522-23 (1986).  Net-operating income is obtained by subtracting expenses from gross income.  Id. at 523.  In the case of a hotel or inn, income attributable to the personal property and business component of the property is also deducted.  See Cambridge Hyatt Joint Venture, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1990 at 218-20; Hotels and Motels: A Guide to Market Analysis, Investment Analysis and Valuations 240-41 (The Appraisal Institute 1997).  However, when performing a fee-simple valuation using an income-capitalization approach, the income stream used must reflect the property's earning capacity or market rental value.  Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 397 Mass. at 451.  Using actual income figures may be acceptable, as long as they reflect the market for the particular type of property involved.  See id. at 449; see also Carye v. Assessors of Chelmsford, 394 Mass. 1001 (1985) (affirming the Board's use of actual rents for valuation because there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion that actual rents were an adequate measure of the earning capacity of the real estate at issue in that appeal). 

 Similarly, the expenses, allowances, and fees deducted should mirror the market.  General Electric Co., 393 Mass.     at 610.  In the present appeal, the Board found that Ms. Orchard did not verify or test her use of actual income and expenses with the market and she failed to utilize market data in selecting the rates and amounts of her deductions for her allowances. These failures rendered the reliability and probative value of her selections tenuous at best.  
The capitalization rate selected for use in an income-capitalization methodology should consider the return necessary to attract investment capital.  Taunton Redev. Assocs., 393 Mass. at 295.  The assumptions and information used to develop a capitalization rate should be market based.  Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 499 (13th ed. 2008) ("Direct capitalization employs capitalization rates . . . extracted from market data.") and 500 ("[D]irect capitalization processes a single year's income into an indication of value, [and it] can be used to produce a supportable indication of value when based on relevant market information.").  In the present appeal, the Board found that Ms. Orchard did not properly support or provide adequate foundation for the assumptions and selections upon which she relied in developing her capitalization rate.  Neither she nor the appellants provided sufficient evidence to support the notion that her assumptions and selections were derived from the relevant market.  
The Board also found and ruled that the sheer number of failures and shortcomings associated with Ms. Orchard's methodology further served to diminish its probative value.   See May Department Store Co. v. Assessors of Newton, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2009-153, 193 (finding and ruling that the probative value of a real estate valuation expert's testimony and report "collapsed under the weight of his numerous errors, omissions, and inconsistencies").     
As a consequence of her omissions and failures, the Board found and ruled that the value derived from Ms. Orchard's income-capitalization methodology was not a reliable, credible, or persuasive indicator of the subject property's fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.
The mere production of evidence is not enough to meet the taxpayers' burden in this regard; the evidence must be credible and persuasive.  See Foxboro Assocs. v. Board of Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 691 (1982).  In the present appeal, the Board found and ruled that the appellants' evidence was neither reliable nor credible or persuasive.  Furthermore, the Board may disbelieve a witness or reject evidence as long as it has an "'explicit and objectively adequate reason.'"  New Boston Garden Corp. v. Board of Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 556, 470 (1981).
In reaching its decision in this appeal, the Board was not required to believe the testimony of any particular witness or adopt any particular method of valuation that a witness suggested.  Rather, the Board could accept those portions of the evidence that the Board determined had more convincing weight.  Foxboro Assocs., 385 Mass. at 683; New Boston Garden Corp.,   383 Mass. at 473; New England Oyster House, Inc., 362 Mass.    at 701-702.  "The credibility of witnesses, the weight of evidence, the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are matters for the board."  Cummington School of the Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of Cummington, 373 Mass. 597, 605 (1977).  
On this basis, the Board found and ruled that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the subject property's assessment, as abated, exceeded its fair cash value for the fiscal year at issue.  The Board, therefore, decided this appeal for the appellee.
			                           THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD

				  By:				________________   				    	     Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman
A true copy,

Attest:					_
       Clerk of the Board

 On June 8, 2010, in accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 7A ("the appellee, within thirty days of the date of service of the [Statement Under Informal Procedure] may elect to have the appeal heard under the formal procedure by so notifying the clerk in writing and paying him a transfer fee"), the assessors elected to transfer the proceedings to the formal docket.

 In conjunction with the abatement, the assessors attributed $180,000, or 24% of the overall assessment, to the residential portion of the subject property and $576,000, or 76% of the overall assessment, to the commercial part.  The amount of real estate tax abated was $796.14 in addition to a portion of the CPA assessment amounting to $9.95.   
 The assessors printed out the property record card on November 2, 2010.  
 The Zagat Survey reviews and rates restaurants, hotels, and other hospitality, travel and entertainment services. 
 Select Registry is a group of about 400 "distinguished inns of North America" that are quality inspected.  The Inn is one of no more than ten ever to receive a perfect score of 200.   
 As Ms. Orchard used the term "allowances," it included management fees, reserves for replacement of short-lived real estate, and reserves for replacement of personal property.  The return on or income attributable to the personal property is considered in step 6 of her methodology.

ATB 2012-493