You already have a tenant who is demonstrating responsibility, so it is more assessing the risk of the person moving in.

The cost is $295 and if they don't reduce your taxes by more than $295, you get back the difference (i.e. there's 0 risk for hiring them and only upside).Seems like a win/win proposition and reviews online look solid.

I know apartments help mitigate some of the risk because it is cash flowing each month while the overall appreciation can go up and down so its a little bit safer to buy something than it might be a SFR.Any thoughts on this?

Some are worst than others and therefore some are highly desired because there's little to no flood risk. 

My concern is what level interest rates may be at 7 years from now and the best way I can manage that risk. 

Flirt with the edges of your risk tolerance.

Every investor has different goals, strategies, risk tolerance, etc and it all will affect how they decide to go about their acquisitions.That being said, when talking commercial real estate you ultimately have one goal: keep your income as high as possible and your expenses as low as possible which then translates into a higher NOI and in consequence a higher value of the property.

On an individual scale, when encountering an asymmetry you make the choice to absorb or outsource that risk.

That being said I would never do that, it's a huge risk on their end.

In 2010 if you bought a property in CA or DC which are my markets, I could do a Cash-out at year one and have another $40K in equity 12 months later following that cash-out, The risk was mitigated by the hot markets.