Portland Rent Board approves rent increases, finds applications complete

[0:00] Matthew Wax: Of gap between when we started and when the attendees are actually able to see the whole meeting. [0:14] Speaker B (unidentified): Looks like that's what we got for now. [0:19] Matthew Wax: All right, so hi, everyone, and welcome to the May 27, 2026 meeting of the Portland Rent Board. I'm the chair, Matthew Wax. [0:31] Speaker B (unidentified): And let's call roll. Kristen here, [Speaker C (unidentified): Jonas?] Here. [0:41] Speaker D (unidentified): Gordon? [0:43] Speaker E (unidentified): Here. Buddy? [0:46] Speaker B (unidentified): Here. [0:48] Matthew Wax: And I'm present, and Ann Lohr is absent today. [Speaker B (unidentified): We] have two sets of minutes [Speaker B (unidentified): for approval.] Let's start with April 22nd. Did anyone have any changes they saw needed in the April 22nd [Speaker B (unidentified): minutes? Hearing] none, I'd look for a motion to approve the April 22nd, 2026 minutes as written. [1:43] Speaker F (unidentified): Motion to approve April 22nd minutes as written. Second. [1:51] Matthew Wax: Thanks, both of you. All right, if there's no discussion and the motion, I'll call to vote. The motion is to approve the April 22nd [2:04] Speaker B (unidentified): 2026 minutes. Kristin? Yes. Jonas? Yes. Gordon? Yes. Buddy? Yes. And I also vote yes. Wonderful. And then [2:20] Matthew Wax: we have May 13th minutes as well. Anyone have any changes there? Kristin? [2:33] Speaker F (unidentified): So I just want to, I just, I did not get an opportunity to watch the video for May 13th, so I'm gonna abstain from the votes. [2:42] Speaker B (unidentified): All [2:44] Matthew Wax: right, then thank you, Kristin. Any changes from anybody else who is there? Sounds good. All right, then I'd look for a motion to approve the May 13th, 2026 minutes as written. I [3:03] Speaker D (unidentified): motion to approve the May 13th minutes as written. I'll [3:13] Matthew Wax: second that, and let's call to move unless there's any further sudden discussion. Great, motion is to approve the May 13th, 2026 minutes. Chris? No, well, Christian? Jonas? Yes. Gordon? Yes. Buddy? [3:35] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes. [3:36] Speaker B (unidentified): And I also vote yes. [3:39] Speaker G (unidentified): All right. [3:42] Matthew Wax: So then I don't think those are minutes, I don't think we have any communications unless I'm missing something, Dylan? [3:55] Speaker G (unidentified): I don't think so. [4:01] Matthew Wax: Wonderful, so then I appreciate the pop in, Dylan. Let's on to unfinished business. Our first piece of unfinished business is the rent increase application for a Massachusetts ad, all three units, and I think so we've basically been waiting on this notice of violation to be resolved, so let's get in the applicant, I think if that makes sense to everyone, and just hear their summary, and I think Dylan can verify any details then. For people, Justin, give me just a sec, I'll get you in here. I think wait for it. Try [Speaker H (unidentified): it again.] Yes, all right, hi Justin, should be able to talk and get on video too. Thank you, hello, welcome back. Seems like you resolve that in a consent agreement. I don't know if there's, if you want to just kind of review at least the update to the application. [5:46] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, sure. So, I mean, I see there's new faces here. Do I'm going to do a whole 30,000 high-level overview of this application or just where we're at with the consent agreement, like the finalization of the consent agreement and where we stand today? [6:00] Matthew Wax: I think where we're at with the consent agreement, unless Jonas or Gordon, you have particular other questions on this. No. No, I think just current, yeah, updated status so that we can go through it. [6:15] Speaker I (unidentified): Yep. Perfect. So consent agreement, was signed on May 1st. And I sent proof over to Dylan for the reimbursement amounts. The tenants also confirmed that those amounts were accurate. The, one of the tenants on the first floor was given Venmo. The other one was given a check. They're just waiting there. They still haven't cashed a check, but once they do, I'll provide proof to Dylan. And then when it comes in relation to the deceased tenant, I got confirmation from corporation council the other day on how she wanted to handle it. And both of those checks have been mailed out as well. And I spoke with her today and said, as soon as they cash the check, I'll just provide [6:55] Speaker G (unidentified): Confirmation that the check is cashed. Awesome. Thanks so much. [7:00] Matthew Wax: And it looks like you did the update for the MNOI for the section 15 MNOI on that other spreadsheet for us. Us, and I thoroughly appreciate that. And all the numbers checked with me. So were there any other questions before we kind of go back? I think we are basically where we had left this off before is that we had otherwise felt really good about this application, and we're just kind of, you know, waiting for this to get resolved so we had final numbers on it. And we're hoping that we could at least vote on that and then, ideally, at the end of this meeting, approve the decision form as well, because I think it's all fully drafted up. So I didn't. Were there any other remaining questions, particularly about the update from any board members for Justin? Justin, before we kind of dive back into things. Great. All right. Thanks so much, Justin. I'm going to move you back into the attendees side of things, and we'll get into this so we can get this resolved for you. All right. So, I mean, I think I'm pretty much looking for a motion to approve this unless there's other concerns or adjustments that were thought to be needed. Did. Please raise your hand. Kristen. [8:44] Speaker F (unidentified): My only question is, what was the banked rent? Did we have any banked rent on this one? That's the only thing when I was reviewing back through this I couldn't find. I think the answer is no, but I just wanted to confirm. [9:03] Matthew Wax: Yeah, I thought we didn't have any remaining here although the nov may have changed it there we go so there was in the end of this guy there's some banked rent from the first like on page like 35 and i'm having to get justin back in here too if we want to ask him to check on that [9:41] Speaker F (unidentified): Right, there it is. Okay. That was my only question, Matt. [9:45] Matthew Wax: Yeah, and I'm not sure. I think that's the current bank for at least for that unit. Let's hear from Buddy and we may just double check with the applicant too, if that makes sense to you, Kristen. [10:01] Speaker J (unidentified): Thanks, Mr. Chair. That was my question too. So I was just going to say I think it's appropriate. I'm okay with it to bring the applicant back just to double check because that was the one thing I flagged [10:13] Matthew Wax: yep and I know I thought we had it in the actual spreadsheets here somewhere but [10:20] Speaker G (unidentified): let's pop Justin [10:22] Speaker B (unidentified): hey [10:24] Matthew Wax: Justin I just giving you back some ability to talk at least just to check on if there's current bank rent for this application vacation period other like i think we're looking at it on what like i said on page 35 for the unit two and if there was others there i thought it was in one of the spreadsheets [10:57] Speaker I (unidentified): hold on let me see what page here the only banked rent that should exist should be on unit two it should be 179 dollars and 93 cents because they haven't received they only received one price increase which was last year since they've moved in [11:18] Jeremy Hutchings: in 2021 thanks [11:23] Speaker B (unidentified): so much Justin or [11:26] Speaker E (unidentified): did [11:30] Speaker J (unidentified): you move him back Mr. Chair I just actually thought of one other thing but if that's out of order that's fine too [11:39] Matthew Wax: that's fine go ahead [11:41] Speaker J (unidentified): yeah I just a question. And please forgive me if this has already been answered. It's been a couple months. I'm just seeing the extra like the added 9960 from like sewer furnace chimney. And then I'm looking at like the expense year from the base year. Do you just like not have numbers for those expenses or where there's no expenses for those in the base year? [12:10] Speaker I (unidentified): is yeah sorry are you looking at the post-year capital improvements of 99 60 [12:21] Speaker J (unidentified): yeah i'm looking at that completed yeah that is that just folded into the capital improvement costs well no [12:31] Speaker I (unidentified): those are that's not sewer costs that's a sewer replacement and gotcha okay so that was just a new a new cost that right that's a capital improvement because of the soar kind of [12:42] Speaker J (unidentified): collapsed going from totally fine. I just wanted to double check that's what it was and it wasn't like you know a number so thanks. Yep, thanks. [12:54] Speaker B (unidentified): Again, Justin. Sure. [13:00] Matthew Wax: All right, so those questions answered. Does that put us in a place to move a judgment on this? [13:42] Speaker F (unidentified): Kristen? So I'd like to move to approve the rent increase application for 8 Massachusetts Ave., all three units in the amount of $339.56 per unit minus the banked rent for Unit 2. Is that correct? Okay, sounded [14:10] Matthew Wax: good to me. We have a second. My second. Great. And to clarify, Benjamin, I think, well, we did, but yeah, that banked rent number was the 179.93, correct? [14:30] Speaker L (unidentified): That's what everybody's seen, correct? That's what I'm seeing and what I'm hearing as well. [14:37] Speaker E (unidentified): Buddy. Yeah. [14:41] Speaker J (unidentified): And I got for a final number for that unit of it would be so it'd be 339.66 minus 179.93, right? So that's 159.73. Great. [14:58] Matthew Wax: And Justin does have this hand up, so I'm gonna allow him to talk in case we're missing something in the revision here, if that's all right with everyone. [15:11] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, hey Justin. Yeah, you've been so helpful. Stuff I'm unclear on how you're calculating the numbers. So if I look at and let's just take the 179 out of the equation for unit two, back that out later. If I look at just the fair rate of return worksheet, I'm getting, and that would include the numbers in the current year, I'm getting $229.85, right? Is that what you guys are getting? Wait, [15:56] Matthew Wax: coming back. I think Kristen's running off this application for adjustment for the consent agreement. [16:03] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, weren't we updating the income to the $48,701.40? So I was, Justin, I was using that $339,000, which was a recalculation. Is that not correct? Hold on. [16:24] Speaker I (unidentified): Yes. So, okay. So I see the $339,056 that you're talking about. Okay. But that is only for the capital improvements that are in the current year. That is not for everything else outside of the current year. So what about everything else on the spreadsheet? Because what we were doing is taking the base year of 2019 and then saying, okay, what was done in 2024? What kind of revenue was received? What were the expenses that were received? And included in that 14,136 for expenses is three thousand nine hundred and fifty four dollars in amortization, and that amortization is tied to the roof for sixteen thousand, the cabinets for unit two, and the updated doors, which over the amortization life got you to the three nine. So that was included. But what about the windows, the sore that Buddy was talking about, the furnace, the chimney, and the all of unit at three that got done in 2025? So that wasn't part of this adjusted for? No, because it wasn't. It was capital improvements out. It was capital improvements beyond the base year because it wasn't done in 2024, it was done in 2025. But it's in the, so in this year that we're looking at, it's [18:05] Matthew Wax: It's the planned capital improvement. Correct. Phase 19. [18:09] Speaker I (unidentified): Right. So, because that's the biggest chunk, right? I just redid all of unit three and the furnace and everything else. So, the $339,000 would be good if I didn't just spend all of that money in 2025. And then $339,000, it really just is the $99,000-$60,000 for units one and two. But the most majority is the $610,000-$52,000 for unit three. Because I just spent over twenty five thousand dollars in unit three. So all right, so that's [18:45] Matthew Wax: that side. All right, so that means that, so the, in this, I guess what I'm trying to get then, since we got to recalculate here, is the, is the current year. So is this 48,701.40 the true total income for the current year, and that's the adjustment that was made? That's the one adjustment that's been made to this whole calculation? [19:38] Speaker I (unidentified): The 48,701, yep, drops the rent down to the NOV amounts, which obviously impacts the net annual operating income. And then essentially arrives you at the 339.56, which is what you guys just discussed. And obviously included in that is a portion of the amortization expense, right? For the improvements that were done in 2024, which is like I said, the roof for 16,000, the cabinets for unit two, and the back doors for all three units. And, obviously calculating in what the fair rate of return percentage would be, but what it, what it's not taking into consideration. So, like I said, I'm, I, would be totally fine purposes, right? Right. To just say three thirty nine a month minus the banked rent that I had for unit two. Like, I understand that. But and I don't know. I mean, I have it in this in a spreadsheet, but Buddy must be seeing it because he sees the ninety nine sixty. So if I go. But then can I get a spreadsheet? Can we add the ninety nine sixty for units one and two and then the six ten fifty two for unit three? And then that should get us to where we need to be. So yeah, exactly, basically we need to [21:07] Matthew Wax: bring those back into this other calculations so all right where all right all right so we're we just need to bring this back around so we so the actual number so that's this is that number and then let's matt [21:48] Speaker F (unidentified): could you maybe we should project because those capital expenses should be in the annual operating. I just want to see how we're plugging [21:56] Matthew Wax: it all in. Yeah, yep, absolutely, let's give me a second. All right, I would have [22:05] Speaker J (unidentified): buddy. Yeah, I just want to make sure I 'm understanding. So Justin, it sounds like you're looking at like the red on this spreadsheet, right? Correct. Yeah, the red, the three red 99 66 and yeah, so because that's outside of the current [22:28] Speaker I (unidentified): year, right, that wasn't factored in the current year equation because it wasn't [22:32] Speaker J (unidentified): yeah, so we have to, so and you and you're trying to out, you know, most of the capital improvements you're allocating, so you know unit one will probably be kind of whatever the number is, then unit two is whatever the number is minus the banked rent, and then unit three is much higher because of that 6 10 52, correct? Okay, but it would essentially, I'm also on, I'm on mobile right now, so [23:00] Speaker I (unidentified): Oh, yeah, got it. It would be the 33, so for Unit 1, it would be $339.56, right? Because that took into consideration the fair rate of return formula, plus the amortized expense for the roof and the cabinets, plus the $99.60. [23:19] Matthew Wax: Wait, so in the case of Unit 1, the $339.56 does take into account the $99.60? No. [23:27] Speaker J (unidentified): No. No. No. Wait, I think it does. Based on the allowable rent increase is 239.04 plus that 96. [23:43] Speaker I (unidentified): No,, it can't. It can't because it wasn't factored into the 2024 current year. And if you look at the expenses, if you look at the expense worksheet, you'll see that it doesn't tie. if you look at page 723-1 you'll see that you'll see that the three components that make up the three thousand nine hundred and fifty four dollars and eighty four cents which is the amortized expense in the cap in the current year and that is the roof the cabinets and the back doors see because what you're doing what we're doing is instead of i mean i looked at it every different way you can sit here you can sit here and back out this amortized expense of 39.54 and just say let's just say Expenses are expenses. There was no capital improvements. What is the return? And that fair rate of return would have been 229, but because we added in this 39.54 because the roof, cabinets, the backdoor was done, it's bringing it up to the 339. But then all we have to do after that is layer in the capital improvements that were done in 2025 that would not have been factored in at all to that 339 number. And those are the numbers on page 17 for future investments, which is the windows, the sewer, the furnace, the chimney, and everything for unit three. Yep. And so I think number is so small for units one and two because everything was really spent on unit three. Yep. And so and the only thing now I'm [25:31] Matthew Wax: wanting to make sure that we calculate right is like, okay, so we can't really, I don't want to just take that number and another board member tell me if I'm thinking this math wrong, but I don't want to just take that number that 339.56 and add for like unit one the 99.60 for unit three to six ten because I think that fails to capture the an adjustment of the 2019 like the CPI adjustment of the 2019 money to the final 2024 money. And so that's just the piece that I want to make sure we don't miss if that makes sense, right? Because there's when we come to the actual section 15 net operating income differential calculation, that change in what it looks like the net operating income is then has that like CPI escalator to bring the old money up closer to it. So [Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, let me] project something and let's let's [27:07] Speaker G (unidentified): look at this together and we'll fix this right up. [27:11] Matthew Wax: All right, so buddy also don't if you're talking to talk please do. [27:25] Speaker J (unidentified): Yeah, I guess I just I'm looking at I'm not trying to confuse it more. So I think it's good that you're pulling it up, Mr. Chair, but I'm just looking at section 12 of the application for unit one. And it says, I'm requesting $338.64 monthly in banked rent. So that's the $239.04 current year deficit plus the $99.60. And it says, please refer to Excel spreadsheet labeled the investments 2025 completed cell N11, which is what I was referencing before. So I guess my question is, why would we add another 9960 onto that number? And if there's a clear, easy answer, that's fine. I just, I guess for me, it seems like we're applying that number twice to the total. [28:25] Speaker B (unidentified): So let's make [28:31] Matthew Wax: sure we're using this, then. I'm sharing. We can see I got a spreadsheet. [28:42] Speaker H (unidentified): Yes. Maybe, hopefully. Yes. Yes. Mm-hmm. [28:48] Matthew Wax: Great. And if I could bury some of this stuff, I could see things. Nice. [29:10] Speaker G (unidentified): So you know what, I'm going [29:21] Matthew Wax: to do a little screen management, [29:25] Speaker G (unidentified): see both these things. [29:26] Speaker B (unidentified): All right. So [29:30] Matthew Wax: to try and keep this semi-concise. All right. So let's start here with the 46,200, right? You know what? Let me just leave. And then the updated 2024 is 48,740. And all right. And so and then let's pull these guys. I'm just going to pull the I think we're seeing it here too, right? Is the original total is this right? [30:29] Speaker G (unidentified): And here's how I'll actually do [30:30] Matthew Wax: this. So I'm going to put as the original [Speaker E (unidentified): totals here.] And then I think we're going to have to But really, yeah, we will have to kind of break it down, maybe per unit or something, to get this right. But that gets us just about the numbers we're looking at here. I'm a little off because this just wants the. Let's see. That's what I was saying about the spreadsheet has a little [31:35] Speaker G (unidentified): that make me happy. Oh, whatever. I told [31:43] Matthew Wax: you the spreadsheet doesn't level to law. [31:47] Speaker F (unidentified): No, you were right. Yeah, I think what we have to do, Matt, is go back to the original operating expenses and fix the amortization, because that's what's differing. [32:02] Matthew Wax: Yeah, and so that's well, my hope was to kind of basically then just plug the new capital expense in here. And maybe we actually break it down and we do it per unit anyways. Anyways, and so maybe we say that this is one unit, although this sheet doesn't seem to be performing the way I'm expecting anyway it is. [32:35] Speaker G (unidentified): But let's find out. [32:44] Matthew Wax: Because it wants it from here. [32:52] Speaker G (unidentified): I'm going to just break in the sheet here. What if we just lose? Because [33:06] Matthew Wax: my thought is basically to break it down per unit, so we could divide these by three, and then we could add in the amounts for the other units and get them down there, if that makes sense to people. Let me, I guess, re... [33:25] Speaker I (unidentified): Could you just take out the amortization amount of the 3,954, though, and just do an apples to apples and say, this is the fair rate of return number? and then just do the amortization amounts by unit add on to that after yeah [33:45] Matthew Wax: i mean they're either way exactly if this calculation was running the way i was expecting it to so let me see what's what's the reference right because we're calculating it out and then you know so yeah i guess i mean so our base with the yeah let's do the amortization without it so let's, sorry, I would have done this whole sheet ahead of time if I realized we had this [34:36] Speaker G (unidentified): set of calculations and still overlooked the way this was going to go down. All right. So two, [34:47] Matthew Wax: all right. So in this side, we have the 10 of four, right? [34:53] Speaker B (unidentified): Let's just this [34:58] Speaker G (unidentified): whole thing, you [35:03] Speaker E (unidentified): can do a thing, come on. So once [35:19] Matthew Wax: I'm trying to make this simple without like I think it messes this form up when I try and loop around the important math parts. And then this is actually the this and of course I just screwed this up by repopulating these on this side. [36:10] Speaker G (unidentified): 1, 4, 1, 3, 6, 3, 1. Except you're still not going to do my math for me. [36:22] Matthew Wax: All right. So then 1, [36:28] Speaker G (unidentified): I want to calculate. Just do it then. Just like on the sheet. [37:16] Matthew Wax: Okay. Anyways. Equals that times the, oh, yes. [37:26] Speaker G (unidentified): Times 100, right? Bad enough. All right. doing this just like on the forum so 100 [37:56] Speaker F (unidentified): by 500 times I'm [38:40] Speaker G (unidentified): having to adjust the sound fly but 5739 at least that's right there [38:48] Matthew Wax: fair enough you should [38:54] Speaker I (unidentified): tie back to 229 72 yeah right [38:57] Speaker E (unidentified): yeah so I'm like anyway [38:59] Speaker B (unidentified): So you went, well, let's do, [39:04] Matthew Wax: oh, because I'm not, because I didn't fill out the first slide. All right. That's fine. All right. So then this, here we go. This is what's failing, right? So [40:43] Speaker I (unidentified): you have revenue of 48,701.40. You have expenses of 14,136.31. You have a net annual operating income should be $34,565.09. Yep. Okay. You have the CPI at $19.67. You have the fair net annual operating income, line six, should be $42,843. [41:08] Matthew Wax: Yeah, so I'm like, this is what's failing right here. [41:11] Speaker E (unidentified): It was this guy. [41:15] Matthew Wax: And we can just manually adjust this. Yeah. There we go. [Speaker D (unidentified): All right.] So that gives us this per unit. And then without [41:40] Speaker I (unidentified): any capital improvements at all. Yeah. [41:42] Matthew Wax: So this is without any of that. So now let's bring in these other capitals. All right. so let's bring it all right so for the just get this number out here all right so from the [42:01] Speaker D (unidentified): packet itself on three nine five four point eight five oh i'm sorry i didn't mean to interrupt you [42:09] Matthew Wax: no you good yeah that's the that's the base right and then for some of the units it's for one and two we've got the what's the 99 60 right now you're looking at a full year [42:38] Speaker I (unidentified): amortization number so if you're going to take 39 554 85 you 're going to have to take 9 716 62 to get the rest of it yep that's right you look at the annual number or the monthly number because the 99 60s yeah i yeah i see so really what i want to do though so [43:02] Matthew Wax: so that's where my thought is to actually break these down to divide these by three and bring this back around as a as a per unit so we can do units one we can see what the number will be for units one and two and then we can separately see what the number will be for [43:17] Speaker I (unidentified): the unit three right so but we can see that in the spreadsheet though right so if i look at the If we look at the spreadsheet, [Speaker B (unidentified): if we] Look at the 39, 54, 84 by unit, one, it ends up being 329.57 a month. Month. And it's broken down as 8801 for unit one, 15355 for unit two, and 8801 for unit three. [44:05] Matthew Wax: Because you also have those units because you also did all the breakdown for the other, [44:11] Speaker I (unidentified): for the 2024. That is the 2024. That's the annual amortized amount. So if you want to look at it as by unit the 39 54 84 is 329 57 and it's 8801 and that's really because of the roof for units 1 and 3 and then the countertops and the porches for unit 2. So I'm happy to look at it if you want to break everything down by unit but that would be the first portion of it because this isn't broken I say all right well it's not broken down I mean I believe let me see [44:54] Speaker D (unidentified): Let me look in the application yeah I didn't you do have it broken down in the application yeah I [45:00] Matthew Wax: do that's what I thought is that it is in the application it's also you know why the screen [45:08] Speaker G (unidentified): re-management, so it's killing me now. Get minutes counters. [45:15] Speaker B (unidentified): Invest current year, 25. [45:26] Matthew Wax: Yeah, so let's break this up. [45:28] Speaker E (unidentified): All right, so let's [45:31] Matthew Wax: look at unit one here or whatever, right? Let's look at units one, two, and three. Makes sense here. Here. And so like what you're saying basically, right, for the monthly for unit one current year, so that like current for 2025, so the unit one current year is the 8801, but actually times the 12 months yes if you want to look at it on an annual basis yep and the is the 99 60 [46:22] Speaker I (unidentified): Can we let's just do can we do 24 first because I'll have to flip to yeah totally absolutely so then unit 2 is 153 55 times 12 and unit 3 is 8801 times 12 now let's flip around So now if we're doing 2025, unit 1 is $99.60 a month. Yeah. Unit 2 is $99.60. And unit 3 is $610.52. [47:12] Speaker B (unidentified): All right. Nice. All right. Let's revise. [47:18] Speaker E (unidentified): Let's revise. So the total rate. [47:47] Speaker I (unidentified): Now, your spot check should be that you're getting your totals equal 395485 plus the other number in the application, nine. I'm into it. Yeah. [48:15] Speaker G (unidentified): Me and Google Sheets, not quite best friends yet. Yes. There we go. Got it that time. [48:26] Matthew Wax: All right. Which should be our... [48:36] Speaker D (unidentified): It should be 3,954.85 plus 9,716.62, right? [48:44] Matthew Wax: Yeah. Somebody want to double check that one? Yeah. [49:04] Speaker D (unidentified): I get 13,671.47. [49:09] Speaker I (unidentified): You're off by a cent. It's rounding. Yep. But go ahead and bring it down to 47 if you want. [49:19] Matthew Wax: Great. All right. So now let's bring these. My thought was then basically to bring these numbers out, right? So I got to take all these and divide them. [49:32] Speaker I (unidentified): When you touch 19, why would you touch 19, right? Wouldn't you just be adding that 13,000 as a capital expense to 24 to then recalculate the number because you don't, we don't want to [49:44] Matthew Wax: be touching 19. Well, I was going to divide these by three to get us a per units on them. [49:51] Speaker E (unidentified): Was my thought. Don't. [49:56] Speaker I (unidentified): We have the per unit amounts though. I just read them off like I'm trying, so I [50:00] Matthew Wax: guess so. My concern is this, like, oh, because the CPI, God, I mean, so dumb here on that, because the CPI escalation is only on the other side anyways, so it doesn't matter. I'm just, well, [50:12] Speaker I (unidentified): the CPI is, isn't the 330 the old one, is it, is it row 25 factoring in the CPI adjusted amount? So if you, if you put the capital improvement number of 13,761, it should already do the math for you. [50:26] Matthew Wax: Yep, perfectly. I'm just, exactly, that's just how much my brain doesn't want to do that right now. All right, so then back to the monthly. So exactly why did I bother? I just don't [50:41] Speaker I (unidentified): want to go, like, I don't want to go down that path because then that's going to say it's going to take the total amount divided by 12, divided by 3, and it's going to make every other number large. I want unit 3 to stay large, which is why I was saying just from the original, just take the $229.85, which is what we calculated, plus, right? [51:12] Matthew Wax: So now here we are with these monthly numbers to add to what we have here. Correct. Sorry, I super overcomplicated that in the concern of missing the CPI calculation because my brain was just telling me effective 2024 too. All right. So, that gives us some totals. Which is all equal to 229.78. And then minus banked. Same,, but here, what [52:08] Speaker G (unidentified): did we say it was, 179.93, all [52:19] Speaker E (unidentified): right, I like that, we can, I [52:24] Speaker G (unidentified): can do things, thank [52:28] Matthew Wax: you for the tolerance, all right, [52:37] Speaker E (unidentified): now, how do you feel about those [52:41] Speaker B (unidentified): numbers? Yep. [52:47] Matthew Wax: Sorry, I super over complicated that with the concern of the CPI thing. All right, I just didn't want you to lose out escalation there, but the escalation only [53:02] Speaker I (unidentified): comes on the 2019. And no, I appreciate it. I'm completely aligned with that math. [53:09] Speaker F (unidentified): Great, all right, all right. So then do you want me to rescind, Matt, because we already had a motion [53:20] Matthew Wax: in a second? Yep, exactly. So yeah, let's just bend my amend, or you can, yeah, you can withdraw. [53:31] Speaker L (unidentified): Or amend, I don't think it matters. No, hey, I'll just suggest that you withdraw, Kristin, and then and go from there. My one point of order before we go through this is just to clarify for the board, of course, that annual rent increases can't exceed 10%. And so the 92823, I'm probably the worst mathematician out of all of us here, but obviously would exceed 10% of the current [53:57] Matthew Wax: price. So the rest would be banked. Yeah,, exactly. It'll bank. And he's going to, I mean, it's what it's going to take a good few years to realize all that but yeah just wanted to make [54:07] Speaker L (unidentified): sure I was on the same page with that but Kristen yeah I would I would just ask you to withdraw the motion you can remake it at that point it'll be easier that way okay [54:17] Speaker F (unidentified): I will withdraw my motion to approve eight Massachusetts Ave all three units in the amount of 336 dollars and 37 cents Did we need to vote or can I just restate? [54:40] Speaker L (unidentified): You can simply withdraw the motion, but there needs to be a new motion and then a second, and then any discussion after that point. [54:49] Speaker F (unidentified): Matt, do you want me to just keep going? Yeah, go ahead, Kristen. Okay. I move to approve eight Massachusetts Ave, all three units in the amount of $417.31 for unit one, $302.92 for Unit 2, and $928.23 for Unit 3. I [55:16] Speaker E (unidentified): second. Thanks, Jonas. All right. [55:21] Matthew Wax: Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call it to a vote. [Speaker E (unidentified): The motion on] the floor is to approve the application for 8 Massachusetts Avenue, all three units in the amount of $417.31 for Unit 1, $302.92 for Unit 2, and $928.23 for Unit 3. [55:58] Speaker B (unidentified): Kristen? Yes. Jonas? Yes. Gordon? Yes. Buddy? Yes. And I also vote yes. [56:12] Matthew Wax: Thank you all. Thank you, Justin and I appreciate you sorry I knew it was more complicated than that and I saw your update to it was like oh great he did all the math for us and should have done the full set of calculations ahead of time there my apologies on the extra time for everyone all right that said so then council I there was a hope that maybe by the end of this meeting we could be making a vote on that when we when we approve the other findings so if you get the chance during the meeting or during a recess to do the updates it seems like your face says [56:58] Speaker L (unidentified): you already handled it I haven't updated the actual numbers that you just voted on but I've got a skeleton that if it's not perfectly done by then we can handle that at the end of the meeting so I think I think you should be in line to do that tonight that's not a problem [57:13] Matthew Wax: Thank you so much, Council. All right, so then let me stop sharing and get my screen back. All right, so that's going to bring us to unfinished business item B, which is the completeness review round two for 72 William Street, all three units. And [57:56] Speaker G (unidentified): I see Will in here. [58:02] Matthew Wax: So if it pleases the board, I'll bring them in so that they can just summarize the new information that they submitted to us. Hi, Will. You should have permission to unmute yourself and talk now if you like, and just if you wanted to kind of cover, highlight, bring up any, you know, just I guess summarize the new information that you submitted based on our requests, that would be lovely. And if you don't feel like so, that's just fine too. We have, I think you can hear me now. Wonderful. Yes, we can just now. You can see. Yeah, all right, now we're good. Hey, welcome back. Oh, thank you. Let's look. All right, so kind of starting with 72, but you're welcome to kind of summarize them both i think our requests were pretty similar for both and you did give us a whole bunch of as far as i saw all the things but let us know if there's something i don't know sure i mean i in summary i think i sent you [59:42] Speaker H (unidentified): obviously like sort of like a cover sheet describing the situation. I also sent you a sheet you asked for, a description of each apartment, the amenities, what they had for square footages, what they had for rooms. Then I also separated out on three different pages the renovation costs, cause I've fully renovated that building over the last five years. So in three different phases, I did one unit in the winter of 2021, another last winter and another this winter, so. [1:00:25] Matthew Wax: Oh, nice. And you gave us all three. Amazing. [1:00:28] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah. And I gave you, were asking for the biggest, the bigger receipts from the trades people. So I included those, not the thousands of small invoices for caulking and nails and whatever. So much appreciated. Yeah. Well, I was, I'm glad you at least summarize that part because otherwise that would have been drudgery for everybody involved. [1:00:50] Matthew Wax: Yeah. We're, we're trying to get it tighter and tighter. [1:00:53] Speaker H (unidentified): Here so we all understand. Well, it's, I, you know, I know it for you all, it's a, the whole, I mean, for everybody, not just you, but myself, this is a very vague and complex process at this point, so [1:01:06] Matthew Wax: Yeah, we'll get it simpler or Ben's working on it. Chris and I have been chipping away. We'll get back [1:01:12] Speaker H (unidentified): On our lovely time. All right, so do you need the number, the month, the numbers, summaries for 72, or are you, what do you need from me at this point? Yeah, I think we were just looking, I think [1:01:27] Matthew Wax: That was, that was a great summary of what you provided for us. There are questions from board members, particular items you're not seeing that maybe you would want to check that it isn't in there, or we just missed it, or something like that. It's a really great application. Now, thank you. World, at least, at least from my perspective. Well, I appreciate that. It's certainly like [1:01:56] Speaker H (unidentified): Like I was saying, it's vague and complex, so it's kind of hard to figure out what you want without overwhelming you with too much information. [1:02:04] Matthew Wax: Yeah, and that's kind of where we came to the completeness check, too, of like, okay, maybe you can submit a little less at first. We can tell you what we need, and then, you know, that way you're not pulling your hair out the whole time. Right. Well, yeah. Anyways, all right. [1:02:18] Speaker H (unidentified): I mean, at the end of the day, I'm trying to provide quality housing because I care about the people who live in the building. So to do that, a bit of this vehicle kind of gets in the way of it. So the way it's constructed right now, which I don't blame you guys. You guys are trying to work with a process that you didn't design. So I understand that. [1:02:46] Matthew Wax: So then were there any questions, anything from board members, items that are missing or that we're looking for? [Speaker B (unidentified): Or if] not, I'd look for a motion to find this application complete and to get a public hearing scheduled so we can get it finished processing. [1:03:18] Speaker F (unidentified): Kristen? Motion to find the application for 72 Williams Street, all three units, complete and to be scheduled at our next meeting for public comment. [1:03:34] Matthew Wax: I'll second that since I asked for it. All right, any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call it to a vote. The motion is to find the application for 72 Williams Street, all three units, complete and to be scheduled for public hearing at our next meeting. Kristen [1:04:03] Speaker B (unidentified): yes, Jonas yes, Gordon yes, Buddy yes, vote yes. I also vote yes. And [1:04:18] Matthew Wax: so that motion passes. I'm just going to leave Will here for the minute because item C of unfinished business is the application for 76 William Street, all three units. And we have the same set of information. I think I'll ask you to summarize again unless there's something particularly. Well, I think the only difference is with that [1:04:46] Speaker H (unidentified): with that building i haven't extensively renovated all the units yet i have done you know as necessary and as important for safety and comfort replace windows and that sort of thing to upgrade things just to for my tennis most of those people have been there a long time so we had a little bit we were talking about was new for you guys which was It was the people on the second floor now have four people in there. And it was originally a two-bedroom unit before I bought it. And then I changed it to keep it as a one-bedroom so I could keep them all as one-bedrooms. But because he's having trouble finding a two-bedroom unit, I said, why don't we just call this out, convert it back to a two-bedroom, add the smoke detector and a couple other things to make it safe. safe and then that's what i did and then that 's where that caught the eye of the rent control people all [1:05:46] Matthew Wax: right, and we'll have to, yeah, and I think part of, I guess we'll, we'll get to the specific questions on that because I'm sure there'll be some items we want to talk out on that in the public side, but I saw the information there. So anything still that board numbers still find missing in the 76 Williams Street application, Jonas? Yeah, and we may have [1:06:15] Speaker D (unidentified): gone over this, I just saw and I lost it, on 76 that normal repairs were up to 11,633, and I just was wondering where those normal repairs came. I guess, well, I had, I did the roof on that [1:06:36] Matthew Wax: and the driveway was the biggest chunks of that. Okay, and those were, and we have invoices now for [1:06:44] Speaker D (unidentified): those, right? Yes, you have invoices. That was, that was really what I was looking for, and we do have [1:06:48] Matthew Wax: them. Perfect, yeah, because we might, we might ship them in the cab, but yeah, I did some windows, [1:06:58] Speaker H (unidentified): David Ensign, those indoors in the first floor unit to, we're kind of grouped together, yeah, those should be in there as well. [1:07:03] Matthew Wax: David Ensign, yeah, I saw that flooring for sure, yeah. [1:07:09] Speaker H (unidentified): David Ensign, Thank you. David Ensign, you're welcome. [1:07:12] Matthew Wax: David Ensign, Any other questions or checks, otherwise look for emotion, find it complete. Lisa [1:07:27] Speaker F (unidentified): Smith, I you find 76 William Street all three units complete and scheduled for public comment at our next regularly scheduled. [1:07:35] Speaker E (unidentified): Great. [1:07:40] Speaker B (unidentified): Further discussion? [1:07:44] Matthew Wax: Seeing none, the motion on the floor that will call to a vote is to find the application for 76 William Street, all three units, complete, and to schedule it for public hearing. Kristen? Yes. Jonas? Yes. Gordon? Yes. Buddy? Yes. And I also vote yes. So, Dylan, if you can please make sure we get those scheduled on our next agenda. I'd love to get this nice application processed through. I'm also looking forward to the room adjustment discussion. Session. All right, so let me get you back out of here. Thank you so much for being here today. [1:08:37] Speaker H (unidentified): Will, and yeah, can I just ask what the next step in the process is? I don't understand the process. [1:08:42] Matthew Wax: Exactly, so there'll be a public hearing several of the next meetings, so your tenants will be notified, okay, and the and there'll be public notice given, and so that way you'll you'll you should come, right, you can, we've kind of talked a lot, but you can always give a quick little, you know, just the quick thousand mile view summary of like, hey, you know, this is renovations catching up with stuff, other buildings kind of catching up with expenses, and that way there's a chance for the tenants to speak and the public to speak if there's any concerns or anything like that, and then we'll go into deliberations in that same meeting and hopefully get it fully, both of them fully processed. Awesome, thank you. Absolutely, thank you very much, sir. Okay then, oh fun, all right, at the end we've got one more unfinished business item and that is election of a chair and vice chair, and Laura was at the forefront of kicking, taking it down the road at last meeting for lack of Buddy, I think. So, you know, I'm open to however members feel, discuss, nominate, we can move on it, or you know, we can postpone, you can hold me in Ann Lauren limbo here for a little longer, we'll probably survive, unless you have some particular points or concerns, counsel, on that. [1:10:31] Speaker L (unidentified): No, you get to stay in the roles until somebody else is elected or put in there. So kicking the can down the road keeps the status quo, but that's up to the board's discretion. [1:10:42] Matthew Wax: Yep, so up to the board, I'm happy to, well, obviously, I don't get a choice, but we can wait till we have a full board at a meeting [Speaker E (unidentified): or we can] nominate and vote here. It's fine with me either way. I'm not itching to [1:11:02] Speaker G (unidentified): I don't have concerns. [1:11:05] Matthew Wax: Chairing at least once more or 13 more times. Up to you guys. Funny. [1:11:15] Speaker J (unidentified): Thanks, Mr. Chair. I was going to nominate you to be chair again if you're down. [1:11:21] Matthew Wax: I'm, I'm fine with that. I'm not gonna say I think I'm the best chair between the meetings, [1:11:27] Speaker J (unidentified): but I certainly try. So I think you've done a great job the past year. So I would move to nominate Matthew Lax as chair of the rent board for the next year. I second it that [1:11:53] Matthew Wax: nomination or to elect. [1:11:57] Speaker J (unidentified): Did somebody else to elect friendly amendment? [1:12:05] Speaker B (unidentified): Discussion. I'm [1:12:09] Matthew Wax: fine with it. I don't want to keep anybody from the opportunity and Lord didn't necessarily even want to be vice chair. We kind of pushed her into it. So I'm not sure she objects. All right, well then let's call to a vote. All right, so the motion is to elect Matthew Lax as the chair for the next turn. [1:12:42] Speaker B (unidentified): Kristin, yes. Jonas, yes. Gordon, yes. Buddy, yes. I'll abstain. Thank you all for your vote of confidence. I [1:12:58] Matthew Wax: believe that passes. Now did somebody have feelings about vice chair? I know I'm not sure Anne-Laure super wanted to be there, so if somebody else is feeling like it, I'd say throw your hat in for it. We can also just postpone that until she's here. Buddy? [1:13:29] Speaker J (unidentified): I was going to nominate her, so maybe we should wait, unless someone else has a burning desire to do it. You know, I will say worst comes to worst. I can fill that role as someone who was chair before, but I am pretty caught up with the work these days. So maybe we should just wait unless someone here has a preference or would like to fill that role. All [1:14:01] Matthew Wax: right, well I move that we table the election of the vice chair until our next meeting with a full complement of board members, at least of our current board. Second. Thank you Buddy. In discussion, I'll call it to a vote. The motion is to table the election of the vice chair until our next meeting with a full complement of current board members. Kristen. Yes. Jonas. Yes. Gordon. Yes. Buddy. Yes. And I also vote yes. [Speaker E (unidentified): All right.] That concludes our unfinished business for the day. And so actually, I think we did that despite me slopping over some math. I think we did that pretty quickly. But I'll offer if people want a short recess before we go into the unfinished business that is the completeness review and the approval findings. People want a short bio break or something, I'd power through me personally. Yeah, raise your hand I guess if you want a break and we'll perfect. [1:15:41] Speaker E (unidentified): All right, so the unfinished [1:15:46] Matthew Wax: business item A is a completeness review for rent increase application for 693 Washington Ave. Have, and do we have a representative, the representative here? Wonderful. [Speaker B (unidentified): Jeremy, let me] Get you in here. Give it a sec, Jeremy. I think there we go. It's been real slow on me. [Speaker B (unidentified): today all] right welcome Jeremy how you doing hi so the completeness review just to kind of summarize where we're at in this process right is basically something that we found to just take a look at the application and make sure that we have all the information that we feel like would be necessary to actually deliberate and make a decision on it and that way then we'll either so this will kind of will come out of the completeness review either with a set of requests for you of some more information that we needed to see, documentation or that sort of thing, or we'll find it complete and we'll get the next step. We'll be getting that public hearing schedule as you may have just heard from the closing of the previous applications. [1:17:23] Jeremy Hutchings: And that would be where you'd make a decision if it was complete at that next meeting at that, yes. [1:17:30] Matthew Wax: So exactly. So I, well, yes, most occasionally we have extensive public hearings or something and the deliberations bleed over into the next meeting, usually at which point we try and like schedule something special just to get you handled a little faster, but we're clearly working our way through our caseload. So it seems like we should process you in that kind of hopefully just two session piece. So, all right. So then do I will, So why don't you give a quick little summary anyways, just of the application, and that way we're all on the same page. And then I'll open the floor for board members to ask questions about a piece of information they feel might be missing. [1:18:23] Jeremy Hutchings: Yeah, sure. First of all, thanks, Matt and the board. And don't worry about doing public math. Matt, it's always tough when you're under the gun. I think you did great. So, my name is Jeremy Hutchings. Also listening in on the meeting is my sister-in-law, Lita. So, I'm representing my parents, Don and Fran Hutchings, who are the owners. It's over at 963 Washington Avenue and kind of what people refer to as the North Deering area. area. The place was originally Maloon's Florist. So it was a commercial flower shop. Before that, it was run by my grandparents. And so my father bought it from them back in the 80s, I think. So over time, he added a couple apartments above the units. And as he kind of wound the business down, as he went into retirement, my parents are in their 80s, they converted it over into to more residential units. So where they are right now is, as it shows in the application, there are four residential units. They're kind of small, two upstairs and two on the ground floor. There is a non-residential use in there. It's actually a bible study group where they go over and do bible study from time to time. So that's a part of the structure. And then my father retains is a small area for just like a little office. So when he's in town, he can stop in and meet people there, meet a tenant there. There's a little bit of an office for it. And then there is a basement and a lot of the utilities are down in the basement. So that's kind of the overview of the structure. So the way we approached this application was, as my parents have run this for many, years, they didn't really track when Portland kind of was instituting or considering and then instituted the rent control. So they just kind of kept the rents kind of where they've been at for quite a while. And you can see, I think, from the data that I was able to find from my parents that the rents have been fairly stable and low. So our approach here was to hire an appraiser, which we did. We hired a local appraiser to go over and establish a couple of things with the rent should have been back in the base year and then also what it should be today and then with my sister-in-law's help the she's a cpa so she's a certified public accountant she worked with my mom to try to go back through and figure out all the information that we could but my mom didn't really take use like software she's kind of an old school type of a bookkeeper so a lot of the receipts and the information is just kind of scattered in a blizzard of paperwork all over the place so it made a little bit of a challenge but we tried to recreate as much of the rent history and other bills as we could and include that information in the application so a couple things are working against them right now as they're trying to make some a reasonable profit the first thing is the base rate was below market the second thing is the utilities if you look at the paperwork i summarize the amount of utilities and Other services that they actually pay for, and when I wasn't really involved in managing these books at all while I was growing up, or even until, you know, recently I was filing this application. But as near as I can tell, I think what the way they were looking at it was the business, when it was in operation, basically paid for a lot of these utilities, including snow plowing and, you know, mowing the lawn and all this stuff, and they just basically added meters for the power, and so that carried forward. And got caught on when the rent control got set up. The way I understand your application is you've got to keep providing the same amount of services. But that includes everything from the stormwater fee to trash, foam, snow removal, all the things I've listed in the summary letter as well as an application. So when you add up that and combine it with the low rents and the low base rate, it basically makes it not really sustainable from a profitability standpoint for them to keep going forward with renting these units out. The other thing that I would put in there to compound this is they are in their 80s and they're starting to experience some memory loss. So I have some other brothers that still live in the main area. They, my older brother's taken over kind of project management and they do pay him a small kind of a stipend to handle the management of it. But it's not, I would say, a market rate to manage the property. There are four units plus the commercial. Commercial. When you look at the application, the commercial's way to understand the rent control ordinance is the commercial is, the rent control is not, cannot be applied to commercials. From what I understand, you can correct me if I'm wrong. So I've extracted that element basically out of the application as best I could. So that's basically it. The ask here is, you can see in the cover letter I've summarized kind of down towards the bottom is an adjustment to the base year and then increasing the rents and understanding that there's a 10% maximum that caps out rather quickly. So I provided a table of getting it to market rates over the next six years. Some of the apartments will get to market rate by year five with a 10% increase annually. And then the other ask is going to be to pass through these utilities that normally would be paid by a tenant. But my parents have been subsidizing them, basically, for lack of a better term. So you'll see in the application we do have a formal appraisal. So we had that retained by a local lady that does appraisals locally, and she's very familiar with the Portland area. She's very familiar with the rent control ordinance. I think she understood the task correctly. I included that in there. She has a nice description of all the properties, the apartments, rather. I do have authority to represent. I included that as an exhibit for my parents. And actually, my sister-in-law also has power of attorney. I included some representative photos of the place. What I've not included is some capital costs. We just had, or my brother just arranged for having some major roof replacement done. Some of it turned out to need to be structural, not just, well, maybe not structural, but sheeting, you know what I mean, underneath the shingles. You can see from the photo on Exhibit B, you can see, I'm still an engineer, I actually work as a county engineer in Douglas County, Nevada, so I tend to focus on sites and for, and so I'm looking at the pavement. You can tell it's very deteriorated, a lot of potholes, a lot of alligatoring. So it'd be nice to do some site improvements if we were to get to a reasonable, you know, fair market return. I feel like I've just been droning on here. I'm happy to answer any questions from the board, but I hope it gives you that a little bit overview of the history and kind of the pickle that my parents are in, and yeah, they're very interested and providing housing. I know looking at some of the things that Portland has going on, I go back maybe once every other year or so on average, and all that industry down by the old B&M baked bean factory and all the rest that's going on in Portland looks like there's a lot of exciting stuff. It looks like housing's short or it's kind of mission critical there for Portland. I understand that. It's not unique to Portland. It's a problem everywhere. Where cost of housing is very expensive, whether you're buying or renting. And I think we're trying to keep these units in play, frankly. So that's my elevator pitch. Matt, I'm happy to take questions from the board. [1:27:14] Speaker G (unidentified): Thanks so much, Jeremy. You bet. [1:27:18] Matthew Wax: All right then, I'll open floor to the board members for completeness item questions, pieces of information that will be helpful in terms of when we get to deliberations. I'll start with some easy ones. So this is for the buildings, for total units, but your parents do not live there, right? Correct, neither, they do not live there. [1:27:54] Jeremy Hutchings: Yeah, they live in Gray and they don't have any immediate family members that live there. These are all tenants that are not related or [1:28:16] Matthew Wax: for lack of hands I'll keep going. You had mentioned showing some kind of rental like how the rents have been kept low and I just wasn't seeing it in our packet. Was there some set of like kind of rental history of like previous years? Like one of the things when we were talking about the base year adjustment and that the rents were kept low is we just want to see the historical like oh you know we've I think you know my favorite is we had a landlord give us back to like 93 or something like that like 19 we were like show us that the rents were kept low and they showed us how they had raised one of the units it's like a hundred dollars since 1997 or something like that. I saw that somewhere [1:29:05] Speaker D (unidentified): but I can't find it if [1:29:11] Matthew Wax: you're telling me it's in there I'll just I'll look. I think it is a lot of [1:29:15] Jeremy Hutchings: digest here. Yeah, I think Jonas is right and I was a little like the previous applicant will And I don't mean to cast aspersion on your application, but it was a little confusing, and I wasn't sure how far back I was supposed to go. I thought it was to the base year. I did provide a summary. [1:29:40] Matthew Wax: Oh, no, that was the assessments. [1:29:43] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, maybe that's where I got confused, is I saw the assessors going all the way back, but I thought I saw it somewhere. Yeah. [1:29:52] Jeremy Hutchings: i mean i 'm willing to i can go back in the so i was just joking with my sister-in-law by text i had her take a picture of my mom's accounting system and it was for the dining room table just covered with a blizzard of paperwork and i'm like okay this is what i need i need to go back you know at least to 2020 2019 i guess i mean i can if that if you think that's going to shed some light on it but i think you can see from the summary that we are below in some cases like 30 on a couple of the units below the market based on an actual appraisal but if it would help the application it would be a little delay in time I understand because then I'd have to be at the let's see this is May so it'd be at the June meeting and then I'd be probably heard in August or wait July yeah I know we're faster than the courts but that's not. Believe me, I work for the government as well, Matt. I understand the whole thing. I get it. But if you think that would be a useful piece, how far back would you, [1:31:00] Matthew Wax: Was this needed or is this just more of a. Yeah, well, so one of the things a lot of times we'll look at is we'll basically try and adjust for inflation. So if these rents were held low for a long time, we'll say, all right, what would this actually have at least come up to for 2019? With inflation and that sort of thing if the if the rents are really just because like we wind up having landlords leave you know a place at the same price for 10 years or something and we want to at least make sure if nothing else that when we adjust the base here that we're at least giving you what you should have you know like if it was this price back in 2005 we'll do the inflation math up and make sure if nothing else you're definitely getting an inflation adjusted for all that time where It wasn't raised year on year on year so that's right I was just going to say one [1:31:59] Jeremy Hutchings: Thing I would totally agree with you if I didn't have an appraisal of that base year because so could I use that and maybe that's something Ben could weigh in on where like I already have evidence that I'm not going to now say it's different so say for example I charged way under rent for the last 20 years I've already given you the appraisal that says look they're maybe three percent so I don't I'm not sure if that's giving you any more information I'm not going to go back on that now I 've Already presented to you that this is this is what I think is fair I was actually expecting to be higher I didn't think it was just 30 below and maybe some cases only 10% low. So in some of the apartments, for whatever reason, it's not that far off. Is that fair? [1:32:46] Matthew Wax: That's fine then. Yeah. If that's the representation you're wanting to make there, well, I'll, you know, we'll, that's the representation you want to make there. [1:33:10] Speaker J (unidentified): And would caution the applicant that, let me, sorry, I got to pull this up again, because I'm on mobile here, that, you know, our ordinance does preclude using sort of market rates to determine what is fair. We usually stick to the MNOI and the pattern of rent increases before rent control went into effect helps us sort of stay consistent with the ordinance, which accommodates those CPI adjustments so that's why I usually say and even if it's like a lease or like we've had folks in the past albeit for a different reason you know get like a swore notarized affidavit attesting to that would personally help me I can't speak for other members of the board but just something that like will carry a little bit more weight within the letter of the ordinance to show us what that pattern of rent increases would be prior to rent control [1:34:44] Jeremy Hutchings: going into effect. Yeah, but I don't think that's the way the application reads. It says you can get an appraisal if you're going to ask for an adjustment to the base year, so just following that's your own application, buddy. I hate to be argumentative though. I mean, I'm just, that's why we get the appraisal. Otherwise I wouldn't have gotten one. There's no reason to do it. But if the board thinks that would help, I can go back. I don't know how far, but I can try to go back. But I don't, I guess my point to Matt is the whole reason I got the appraisal is to establish a increase to the base year. That's per year application, which I assume is based off your ordinance. So if I'm going to be able to go back further, like to the 90s, or even, you know, whenever, I can't remember when they first started the apartments, and show that we haven't gotten the CPI adjusted inflation, or am I going to be able to adjust it above what my appraisal says? I don't think the board would want to do that because it could come back [1:35:55] Matthew Wax: quite a bit higher. See what I'm saying? Yeah, and so, and I do understand that this is the most, this is the most problematic part of our application. That's like the part we really are trying to like get fixed in a way, because it does exactly, and I'm not gonna, and that's where I'm like, I'm not gonna fault you for using the appraisal as this, particularly because it seems like pretty fair and accurate appraisal, but yes, very much. If you gave us, showed, you know, leases from the nineties and showed that you actually adjusted for inflation should have been even more. We've definitely established that as a standard way we do that math. And that would, you know, yeah, we, I would, I could see the board pushing that above the appraised market. It if it was true that, you know, this had been fair rate of return back at an earlier date and not kept up with basically as I see it. Buddy, I'll let you weigh back in there. [1:37:07] Speaker J (unidentified): No, yeah, I agree, Mr. Chair. I do think that is a problematic part of the application. You know, I will say that it is an application, it's not necessarily a guarantee of an outcome come. So I just would suggest that information would help me in coming to what a determination, a fair determination of an adjusted base rent. That's all though. Thank you. [1:37:42] Jeremy Hutchings: Does Ben have anything to weigh in on? I guess I'm kind of leaning towards doing this, but I'm just concerned for the tenants that the rent, when I apply the CPI to it, 's going to be above the appraised value. And I thought the whole point was to try to keep things. Am I missing something? I see Matt. [1:38:05] Matthew Wax: You're not missing anything except the complexity of the ordinance plus this current application, I think. Anyways, so I'm going to put it, I put it in my notes as an asked but not required request a lot of times, and so that, what I think, barring other items, a lot of times what we try and do is we say, hey, here's these couple items we're looking for, we're going to schedule the public hearing anyways, and we find this complete and the public record isn't closed, so we'd love if this information was submitted, but that's totally up to you, and I think based on where we're at discussing, that seems like the path here, so I see Ben bouncing around. [1:38:52] Jeremy Hutchings: I think he went, I always try to let the lawyer counsel, well, I always, I always try to only talk [1:39:00] Speaker L (unidentified): when asked. The only information I'll add for the board, and you've probably heard this before, is, you know, ultimately the board needs to make a decision based on the evidence that's before it. So you are not required to accept an appraisal at face value. It's an opinion of value or an opinion of what market rent would have been in the base year. So the ordinance is vague and frustratingly so as to what type of information the board can take into account count when it when looking at a base year adjustment so you know without giving any advice to the applicant i think you've you know i think mr chair you put it correctly that you know the board can make a decision to either grant a base year adjustment or to not based on the information that's provided to you can you could at your option you could take the appraised value that's been provided as sufficient evidence of what market rent could have been at that point. But I think to the applicant's point, it's true that if the evidence suggested, in fact, that rents were perhaps above market in 2017, 2018, 2019, that could have the effect of increasing the base rent even above what those appraised values are. So, it's the board's job to weigh all the evidence that you have and to make that sort of credibility determination. It's not to cast aspersions at the appraisal, but just a friendly reminder, you know, of course, as I think has already been stated, that appraisal is evidence from a licensed appraiser. I think you can and should give it the weight that you would an appraisal, but it is, again, just an opinion. And so the board's not required to accept it as definitive evidence, and you can poke holes in it and continue to ask questions to the point that you feel comfortable. So the ball is effectively in the applicant's court, but they are not required to provide you anything additional if they feel that the appraisal is sufficient in and of itself. I [1:41:26] Matthew Wax: think that kind of hits right exactly my point of the additional information, that old proof showing of earlier rental history, even if it's just a lease per unit to snapshot a period of time, helps us double make sure that we're giving you what is fairly due there. We're not here to keep rent down or push it up. We're just here to, you know, follow the ordinance as it was to be. So yeah, so it's not, you know, we're, we're not like, we're not trying to be like, well, we don't want to give more increase or something. We want you, your parents to get what [1:42:17] Jeremy Hutchings: what they deserve yeah well i well maybe we can hear the rest of the concerns and then decide if it's something that i 'll i'm gonna go digging for it i mean it sounds i think it might be higher but yeah i'm trying to keep this process going as expeditious as possible absolutely so i'll make a note to go digging and maybe if you know other board members have [1:42:45] Matthew Wax: other questions for me. Yeah, let's see, let's, other questions from board members, let's see if there's exactly, if there's anything else that would really be like a blocking factor to us getting the public hearing scheduled. No other completeness items from other board members. [Speaker B (unidentified): All] right. Not seeing any. I'd look for and move otherwise if you feel so, but I'd look for, I think, a motion to find this application complete with the request made for at least that extra information. Jeremy? [1:43:46] Jeremy Hutchings: Yeah, sorry. Quick question, Matt, before you make the motion. I'm just curious. Your meetings are the last Wednesday of the month. What is the deadline for me to gather additional, say it's just this rent thing, and say we're headed to, it sounds like maybe a June, not being presumptuous, meeting? When would I need to get Dylan, I'm assuming the additional rent info to be on the tab included in the packet? [1:44:20] Speaker E (unidentified): Perfect question. [1:44:22] Speaker G (unidentified): Dylan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:44:26] Speaker I (unidentified): So I would need the materials two weeks in advance of the meeting date. [1:44:31] Matthew Wax: So if we're looking at the June 22nd meeting, the June 10th, or excuse me, June 24th. [1:44:39] Speaker J (unidentified): Yes, June 24th meeting, June 10th would be the deadline for tabled applications. [1:44:46] Speaker B (unidentified): June 10th, got it, thank you, Dylan. Oh. [1:44:55] Matthew Wax: Yeah, we have the next month does the opposite of what this month did with the when the fourth Wednesday is, huh. All right, great then. So yeah, so somebody. Anybody have a motion for completeness here? Linda also has her hand raised, if that makes sense to you, Jeremy. Let's allow Linda to make any further comments here before we find this complete. Make sure that Linda also feels so. Linda should be able to talk. I can get you so you can get on video if you want. [Speaker E (unidentified): But I think] you just need to unmute. Sorry. Sorry. Lita? Doing [1:45:49] Jeremy Hutchings: some bad reading today. Oh, wait. She's texting me. Let's see. All right. Oh, here's her question. Only evidence of lease. What about tax returns? That might be easier for her as a CPA to find. Would tax returns be good evidence for previous rents? I'm assuming my parents weren't lying when they had their account and filed the taxes. [1:46:15] Matthew Wax: Is that wherever we can find again better than nothing for sure, right, especially yeah, if it's something clean and you know those, it's clearly for those rental units and that sort of thing, and they're you know same configuration and stuff, that's surely I think helpful. Yeah. [1:46:33] Speaker C (unidentified): yep thank you i apologize i will be the one looking for records and digging through piles and piles of information by doing temps so i just wanted to make sure that 's an acceptable evidence if we do come across some of the older tax returns to be able to provide that information. [1:46:52] Matthew Wax: I don't want to speak for the rest of the board, but that makes good sense to me. If nothing else, you'll probably come across those, or at least they'll be more easily recognizable than some other things. Especially the leases are big. People don't always keep them. [1:47:08] Speaker C (unidentified): And yes, I think I just want to emphasize the state of the records. I've only taken over accounting probably for the last nine months, and I've searched through attic and dining room tables and old bedrooms, and they're just, you never know, it could be 2019, talking about my mom, you're talking about my mom, she's meticulous, but they're everywhere, so it's been, it's been a fun hunt for sure, but we feel pretty confident that the last 12 months have been in pretty good shape, but going back and records. It's a little bit of a challenge, so I just wanted to emphasize that. Thank you, thank you, and appreciate what you've done there to get [1:47:54] Matthew Wax: everything serviceable for us. So yeah, I think whatever, if you find some things, it'll definitely be helpful, I think, you know, to Buddy's point, especially, it just, well, it helps make us able to make some easy decisions on it all. [1:48:20] Speaker E (unidentified): Right, so then [1:48:24] Speaker G (unidentified): further [1:48:30] Matthew Wax: discussion. All right, then I move to find this application, this rent increase application for 963 Washington and all four units complete, that we have a optional request for some information, but that we would like to find this complete and schedule a public [1:48:57] Speaker B (unidentified): hearing. Second. Thanks, Kristen. [1:49:03] Matthew Wax: And my sloppy motion. All right, so then can't imagine we have further discussion here, so call to vote, and the motion is to find this application complete with some optional information requested and to have it scheduled for public hearing at our next meeting. Kristin? Yes. [1:49:34] Speaker B (unidentified): Jonas? Yes. Gordon? Yes. Buddy? [1:49:39] Matthew Wax: Yes. And I also vote yes. And so, Jeremy, I'll also send over to Dylan to send over to you just that, this ask item, at least. And then you also get the communications about the public hearing, I believe, and everything else. Normally, there's more requests and I'm like, all right, you'll get all the list of requests, but here we have the one asked, and so I'll at least just try and re-summarize for you so you have something [1:50:11] Jeremy Hutchings: to write in there and email that'd be great. I'd like to thank you, Matt, and the board and the lawyer and Dylan. I know it's a lot of work to put these agenda items together, so I appreciate everyone's help. Thank you, thank you so much, thank you. All right, thank you, Jeremy. Me. Thank you, Lita. [1:50:30] Speaker G (unidentified): All right. Back out. Let's [1:50:41] Matthew Wax: see. Yeah, nice. All right. I thought I might have moved one of our board members out. All right. So lovely, then. We have another piece of unfinished business, which is actually an approval of findings, facts, and conclusions of law for a few different items, so I'll give one more double check for hands that everybody's all right and we can move on with this without a quick break or anything. Sounds great, and then let's start. Council, did you have a order you want to start? We have three of these, right, Smith's, the tenant complaint from 11 Smith, and the 305 Deering Street decision, and the eight Massachusetts have leave it completely up to the board the only [1:51:47] Speaker L (unidentified): Point I will point is because I am, I doing things slightly differently when we get to Eight Massachusetts. I've been doing a little bit of work on my offline version, and so I'll just need to share my screen there when we go, when we go through that one. The rest, or I can email it over to Dylan, he can upload it to the, to the Google Drive now. But why don't we start with either 11 Smith or a 305 Deering, just a suggestion. But it sounds great. A lot of times [1:52:20] Matthew Wax: Sometimes we screen share this thing and stare at it together and make adjustments anyways, so that wouldn't even be out of the ordinary. But let's look at 305 Deering. I think that takes it in order of when they were put it on [1:52:38] Speaker L (unidentified): And then I am happy to do the editing, or I will defer to you, Mr. Chair, if you prefer to do that [1:52:44] Matthew Wax: Oh no, you get to edit, right? Are there any edits from board members for this? I should probably [1:52:54] Speaker L (unidentified): Probably share just so. Yeah, you're welcome to. Where are we starting, with Smith or Deering? [Matthew Wax: Deering, okay, and] I guess Dylan, I had to send a request to be able to share. I'm not sure why, but there we go. Okay, so everybody can see. Then I will, I will turn it over to you, Mr. Chair, and we can make edits as we go. [1:53:38] Matthew Wax: Sounds good. I didn't have any changes I saw needed here. Other board members, any adjustments needed? I thought Ben nailed it. [1:53:55] Speaker L (unidentified): Well, credit goes to the original Ben as well. I'm not going to steal his thunder on this. He puts together very good decision documents for you all. So I want that to be noted. [1:54:07] Matthew Wax: Oh, yes. I forgot I had to specify. I think you nailed it. Yes. Yes. Yes. [1:54:16] Speaker L (unidentified): So I will just I. I don't hear any proposed changes, but just for the sake of clarity and thoroughness, I'm going to scroll down to the first seven findings of fact here just to make sure that there's nothing. And if anybody has changes that they see, please put up your hand so we can do that, and I'll move page by page down until we're done. Okay, I'm a neat freak, and I noticed that these are an aerial and not, there we go. All right, so the conclusions of law will be very familiar to you. I will move down to this part. The numbers are not highlighted, so I'll spend a stop here for a little bit so everybody can read through. Does everything look good to the board? Okay. Don't want to presume that this is the last page of the conclusions of law with the adjusted rents down at the bottom, and then those will be in the decision as well. All right. Are we ready to move down to the decision? [1:57:36] Speaker G (unidentified): Okay. Looking good to me. [1:57:38] Speaker L (unidentified): So to summarize, this is a granting of a monthly rental increase for Unit 305 of 7996 and Unit 307 of 8912. So if there aren't any changes, then the appropriate motion would be there haven't been any amendments to this either. So it would be to adopt the findings of fact of conclusions of law for 305 Deering Street, their fair rate of return application as presented. Don't [1:58:37] Matthew Wax: everybody raise your hand at once. I'll do it, Matt. [1:58:40] Speaker F (unidentified): I move to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for 305 Deering Street as presented. [1:58:50] Matthew Wax: I'll second that. [1:58:56] Speaker E (unidentified): All right. In discussion. [1:59:02] Matthew Wax: I'll call it to a vote. So the motion on the floor is to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for 305 Deering Street as presented. Kristen. [1:59:22] Speaker B (unidentified): Yes. Jonas. Yes. yes. Gordon. Yes. Buddy. Yes. And I also vote yes. [1:59:36] Matthew Wax: Thank you all. Thank you for taking us through it, counsel. [1:59:48] Speaker L (unidentified): So here is 11 Smith Street. And I presumed, I hope correctly, that your regular counsel does not read this entire document verbatim out to you. I know some attorneys do okay i'm glad to see that 's the case happy to do it 's been done before but same procedure i will pause here on the first page to give the board a chance to look over what's presented and then please raise your hand if you see anything that's not consistent again with the decision that you made back on may 13th ben [2:00:30] Matthew Wax: i have a i've read this earlier and [2:00:32] Speaker H (unidentified): And there's a typo on page four when we get to it. Right. [2:00:36] Matthew Wax: In the title, section two. Perfect. I will... [2:00:49] Speaker H (unidentified): Did note, it should be did not. Yes, it should. Perfect. [2:00:57] Speaker L (unidentified): Thanks, Gordon. I will move back up here to the first six findings of fact. Hearing none, move down to the second page. Any changes, corrections, the like? Okay. I'll just pause here for a couple seconds for numbers 14 and 15 before I go down. I guess I can actually do it like that. Anything you see up to number, we'll say through 19. Okay. [2:02:51] Speaker B (unidentified): And to 20. [2:02:57] Matthew Wax: Can we go back to 17 for a sec? Sure. It kind of caught me before. I don't know if other board members have a feeling about it but just the phrasing of threatened was not necessarily maybe how i took that particular statement and maybe just a stated that they would or something like that i think it's kind of minor in the toss of things but of the only things that weren't i wasn't sure were fully representative of my take of this whole thing. That was about it. [2:03:46] Speaker L (unidentified): Did work with plans to file? Yeah. Or intended to? [Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah. I] like intended. That's Jonas's suggestion. Yeah. [2:03:58] Speaker D (unidentified): Just less provocative. I [2:04:08] Matthew Wax: Need to write more hostility into tense madness [2:04:12] Speaker G (unidentified): than already exists. Okay. That was all. [2:04:18] Matthew Wax: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, counsel. Oh, of course. [2:04:22] Speaker L (unidentified): I will pause for conclusion one, which is very straightforward and nothing really to that. That. But I will pause here for the board to read through, excuse me, the conclusions of law regarding retaliation. Most of it is a recitation of what the ordinance says, but certainly because the board was at this meeting and I was not, I think it's important just to make sure that the next two paragraphs, starting with the board and then next, accurately represent what you heard. Does that fairly reflect the board's decision at that point? Okay. Then we'll just focus on the last paragraph. Okay. If there aren't any further changes or clarifications the board would like to make, then similarly the proper motion would be to approve the findings of facts and conclusions of law for 11 Smith Street as amended and I will leave it at that [2:07:01] Speaker B (unidentified): And then council Kristen [2:07:04] Matthew Wax: Was absent for this meeting and so I think Kristen you had made a statement actually of normally we do some sort of attestation of work done to review [Speaker B (unidentified): And I] Kristen, I'm not sure you were saying you felt that was adequate, so I don't know if you wanted to either state work done to review as the council feels adequate or otherwise maybe [2:07:35] Speaker F (unidentified): Abstain here. Oh, yes, I plan to abstain. I did not have [2:07:39] Speaker L (unidentified): A chance to review the materials. Then that's exactly what should happen. Yep, abstention would be correct. Thank you. [2:07:57] Matthew Wax: Someone want to make that motion? [2:08:03] Speaker D (unidentified): I make a motion to approve the findings of fact for 11 Smith Street as amended today wonderful [2:08:19] Speaker B (unidentified): We have a second [2:08:23] Matthew Wax: Thank you all right moment for any last minute discussion then I'll call it to a vote and the motion on the floor is to approve the findings of fact for 11 Smith Street as amended ended today. [2:08:46] Speaker B (unidentified): Kristen. Dane. Jonas. Yes. Gordon. Yes. Buddy. [2:08:57] Matthew Wax: Yes. And I also vote yes. [2:09:05] Speaker L (unidentified): You counsel. All right. So this is 8 Massachusetts Avenue. I have tried to the extent I can And based on your discussion from earlier this evening to update all of the numbers as presented, but unlike the last two, I think it's important that we make sure that we're all on the exact same page and that everything is reflected correctly. And so I am going to, you can see both pages, but I think we'll focus on the first, the base rent, current rent, and proposed rent. Those numbers are all taken directly from the application, so I think should be rather straightforward, as is the rest of the additional information. But I think, as before, I'll pause for a little bit to make sure that squares with the board's understanding of the record in front of you, as well as the discussions that we've had, and then we'll move on to the rest of the math. [2:10:21] Matthew Wax: Can you scroll down just a little so we get item two on page one? Thank you. It's [2:10:38] Speaker G (unidentified): up a little bit just [2:10:46] Speaker L (unidentified): on the second page again. This is really a recitation of the notice of violation that was filed in this case, and at least that's laid out in numbers three through six. But for seven through fourteen, or really looking at the at the numbers that the board crunched and pulled from the application earlier this evening, and so i just want to make sure, of course, that those all match as they should what we were working with, especially you, mr chair, as you were the one [2:11:25] Matthew Wax: sorry i should have shared my calculation sheet to you so you could have looked at it while we [2:11:32] Speaker L (unidentified): did this is part of the master plan. i was taking notes, i was taking notes through all of it, but again this is this is the this is the spot checking portion of the agenda to make sure that [2:11:42] Matthew Wax: these square up. part of us trying to move to doing these calculation sheets is that way Right. Council has something to work from later. [2:11:53] Speaker L (unidentified): Yeah. Never next time. That's fine. Not a problem. [2:11:55] Matthew Wax: All right. I can reshare my calculation sheet, too, if anybody wants to see that again. As it was. Number 10, I had a different number. I had 3, 4, 5, 6, 5, 0, 9. My [2:12:52] Speaker L (unidentified): question again would be, and I was pulling that from. Oh, [2:13:05] Matthew Wax: because mine has the adjusted operating without the capital. [Speaker E (unidentified): Mm-hmm. Yep. Mm-hmm.] Equals, yep. So, coming back on that, I think it's actually, the final of it would be this. The [2:13:41] Speaker L (unidentified): NOI in the application was 34-22-884, which was adjusted down based on the consent agreement to 30,610-24. If [2:14:37] Matthew Wax: I adjust the 2024, I actually wind up with the, yeah, so I wonder about the phrasing. So the actually, so if we want to, can I share back and we look at the calc sheet again? Not, I don't know, supposedly we can both share at the same time. [2:15:26] Speaker G (unidentified): That seems like a terrible idea. [Speaker B (unidentified): Let's, I guess] we'll see. you can share if that gives us both to look at. [2:15:45] Matthew Wax: But so anyways, so right. So here's our calculation without any of the capital expenses. Here's the total of the capital expenses. So I'm actually I feel like the this [Speaker E (unidentified): the final net] That operating income for the current year actually becomes this way different number, right? Because it's really, it's this income. So it's clearly these places I did the math elsewhere, right? So it's actually equals [Speaker E (unidentified): this] number includes, so this NOI number for the current year is just operating expenses without capital expense. When we pull out the amortized yearly capital expenses, which total up over in this 5K field, I actually feel like that 20,000 is that true [Speaker E (unidentified): end] number. Does that make sense to other board members? I already made a mess of this math earlier, so I'm obviously a little sheepish on it. But that's like, right, if we're talking about the truth, we're talking about if we were looking at the operating income sheet, then, right, we'd have the total. We'd total up, we'd have our expenses, and then we'd also have this capital. Like this is really the, I'm afraid if I type this in here, it's going to mess the sheet up. That's really what that looks like, and then, exactly, and then this, which makes, right, this really equals, this minus this, [2:18:25] Speaker E (unidentified): which gives us that 20k [2:18:29] Matthew Wax: number. Now, I just made a mess of the rest of the calculation, so let me take it back to the side like that, but, oh, one more, there we go. All so yes like see what I'm saying is that the actual am I making sense well I'm gonna have to [2:18:50] Speaker L (unidentified): for some reason my screen went for some reason even though I could see you started screen sharing I can't see it so I'm gonna stop sharing my screen let me [2:19:00] Matthew Wax: yeah either stop sharing or there we go now I forced it like this actual like I don't want to I'm not trying to mess with the way this form looks but right so this is really the this is the capital side of this the true comes down to this. Because otherwise, there's no way we come up with the like these numbers, right? Because the three of these, it's that gap. So [2:20:32] Speaker L (unidentified): what you're doing is taking the $34,565 and backing out all of the capital expenses to essentially reduce the net operating income. [2:20:42] Matthew Wax: income because on the form that's the that becomes the net operating income is my understanding right like if we're looking at the actual application [2:20:58] Speaker G (unidentified): I'll pull that up too yeah [2:21:22] Matthew Wax: because even without the 2025 so like here and I am looking back at the application adjustment for consent agreement. And it's like the net operating income adjusted after the consent agreement without the 2025 capital improvements is 30,610.24. So it's definitely got that. So then it comes down again. Yeah. Yeah. [2:21:59] Speaker L (unidentified): So what we should be doing then. [2:22:06] Matthew Wax: Yeah. If you want to share back to your form and we can come over there. [2:22:10] Speaker L (unidentified): My only, my only question on the, on the calculations for the board to consider is if those capital expenses were made after 2020, or if those capital improvements are made after 2024, should that be affecting the net operating income for 2024? [2:22:27] Matthew Wax: 2024, so as in the way it's particularly phrased there, so yeah, so we may need to maybe expand [2:22:35] Speaker L (unidentified): that set of findings we can certainly do that i mean i these this is not a it is a bit formulaic but not intentionally so let me share this back so peter's gonna slow down there we go So it might make sense, and this is just a proposal, and I'm not interposing any of this on the board. It may make sense to keep this number here for 2024 as 30,610.24, which would represent line three for the adjustment due to the consent agreement, and then add an additional fact regarding 2025. [2:23:41] Matthew Wax: 25, are you sharing the document again? I don't have the actual doc side, I have [2:23:52] Speaker L (unidentified): Yeah, I'm sharing my screen with Word open on it. I'm wondering whether that's just funky given the double screen share. Yeah, well, so I'm done sharing. Let's try and switch to the [2:24:06] Matthew Wax: the one at a time again. I have all of us and I have you, and it just says that you're sharing. [2:24:13] Speaker L (unidentified): You've started sharing your screen. Yeah, that's the same thing that I had before when you were sharing yours. I think, what did I do? I, yeah, I mean, I'm like, I'm not sharing anymore. I know it. Yeah, try and just reshare. If you get a full screen and then there's a view and the top right hand corner, yeah, you click on that, you should be able to go to view shared. Can everybody else see my screen? Okay, interesting. Let me stop sharing then. And then technology always gets in the way. Let's see, so [2:25:39] Speaker F (unidentified): that helped. It's just black, Ben, and it says you've started screen sharing, but double click to enter full screen mode. We can't [2:25:47] Speaker I (unidentified): see anything like, yeah, you might want to try instead of sharing the screen to share just [2:25:52] Matthew Wax: the application window of Word, and maybe it'll give it to us. It's [2:26:02] Speaker L (unidentified): also crashing my Zoom, which is wonderful. Well, that would explain why we get a black screen. Well, right, let's see. [2:26:11] Speaker B (unidentified): Let's see if, yes, hey, okay, great, so I'm [2:26:23] Speaker L (unidentified): Looking at lines 9 and 10 specifically, so again the 35,793.79 is backed out of the net operating income from the application. For the current year, 2024, adjusted by the consent agreement, would be down to $30,610.24. Perfect. So what may be helpful is to do an additional year. And this is the only part where I think the board's guidance is important. And 2025 isn't the current year in terms of the application. Right. So we can certainly put in a fact about, you know, the effect of those capital expenses on what net operating income is in 2025. But of course, it doesn't necessarily impact the diminution calculation, if that makes sense. [2:27:33] Matthew Wax: Yeah, so I think what we need to state is that the application included capital expenses, planned capital expenses for 2025 that had been completed by the time the application was being processed, if that makes sense, and total some amount of money that I can give you. [2:27:58] Speaker D (unidentified): I have the amortized portion, not the full, but it's $9,716.62. [2:28:09] Speaker L (unidentified): Amortized. That was amortized? Do we have a total? I think it's... [2:28:18] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, we do. It's... [2:28:31] Matthew Wax: Is this pre... [2:28:38] Speaker D (unidentified): Dollars and 69 cents and that's pre-amortization as I read it. Yeah, it was 55 and what was the last [2:28:48] Speaker L (unidentified): three five six nine yeah nine six 96 cents or 69 cents 69 cents 69 cents so the application included proof of plain capital expenses for 2025 that did not that had been completed by the time the application was being processed based on information submitted by the landlord the board determined these capital expenses to total 55 566.69 the landlord's operating expenses again operating expenses taken directly from the application so 10 406 21 one for the base year and then $18,091.16 for the current year. Those were unaffected by the consent agreement. So. [2:29:57] Matthew Wax: Yeah, exactly. And that, I mean, since there's some clarity about the capital expenses and line 11, particularly, I don't know if you want to call out that a portion of the which includes 2024 amortized capital expense, sure, costs [2:30:19] Speaker L (unidentified): This figure includes portion of the capital expenses noted above in finding 11. 11. [2:30:39] Matthew Wax: Well, it's not from finding 11. They were, this was the actual 2024 capital expenses, so the item 11 is a separate set of capital expenses, the capital expenses from 2024, I think, or I don't know how you want to. Yeah, they're a little, the actual order of numbers is the cleanest reader right now, that doesn't matter [2:31:09] Speaker L (unidentified): We can reorder these in whatever fashion you'd like. I'm not, I have no pride of authorship here, but I don't get the sense that number 13 is still correct, but it sounds like you'd like to add a gloss to it. [2:31:48] Matthew Wax: It's correct, it's fine, I don't, It's how we normally do it as more of the us calling out the SEPA capital improvements made me question whether, for clarity's sake, but I think we've already beaten clarity to death in the discussion. discussion and [2:32:13] Speaker L (unidentified): I guess the only part that now occurs to me is again not to make this even more complicated, but you know the current year annual income that was part of the application as you know is 50 was 52 320 which was adjusted downwards after the consent agreement, so the only I'm going to suggest that on number 15, just to say which represented a reduction from the landlord's original reported annual income in its application of $52,320. Does anybody have additional points on everything up through number 15? So conclusions of law, again, all of this is going to track what was discussed earlier. So, again, the finding of the board is that a rent increase was what the landlord was entitled to. Again, net operating income in the base year is taken from the application. Finding of the fair net operating income again 42,843.43 which comes directly from the adjustment per the consent agreement and then a difference of 12 to 24.19 between those two figures yeah [2:34:38] Matthew Wax: It just doesn't it's far with the with calling these numbers here so like it kind of brings me back to the point of before of like if we call the right like the fair net operating income definitely right but if we call the net operating income for the current year that original number that doesn't take into account the planned capital expenses the 13,000 of planned capital expenses, then it doesn't really make the math work out for what these other units are. So I feel like at least there, the, you know, the final calculation comes down to that even, yeah, I mean, I thought that number comes all the way down to the 20,893 number I had [2:35:40] Speaker L (unidentified): But yeah, because this should at least come down, I think, based on this to the 30,000 610 2442 [2:35:55] Matthew Wax: 834. No, so it should come down. So the true number that would sit at the bottom of that section seven operating expenses sheet. Sheet, and I can pull it up too for a page reference. But like the reality of that on a completed, we had to kind of break things around partially because he broke them down at first too, and then we needed to break it per unit. But the actual, like at the end of section seven that total operating expenses would actually be quite high would be this [Speaker B (unidentified): number yeah and] so the that actual the that current year is going to come all the way down to 20,893.61 which includes the planned capital expenses that have been executed but like in terms of the way the form works out that's the that 's the you know the current year line item on [2:37:24] Speaker E (unidentified): section 15 [2:37:29] Speaker L (unidentified): if we're going to do that I'm wanting to go back to finding a fact 11 then and explain why [Speaker I (unidentified): and] by that I just mean so the board has found that there are capital expenses expended totaling 55, 5, 66, 69 having not had the benefit of the previous hearing of course correct me if I'm wrong but what the board is doing essentially is allowing for those to be considered current year capital expenses and amortized over the course of their life so what it might be helpful just to explain for whomever if anybody were to read this in the future is explaining in number 11 that sort of based on the timing of everything the board permitted those to operate as you know as a full reduction of the current year net operating income does that make sense because otherwise the twenty thousand eight six eight ninety three that we're coming at otherwise it there's going to be a disconnect I agree and I think so it's either [2:38:43] Matthew Wax: whether you want to call it out like that or you want to say that okay 2024 like the final number for 2024 is the whatever the 30 000 the yeah the 30 000 number but then there's these x amount of other operating expenses that as per our application yeah we count because it's basically right it's not it's not their 2024 right expenses but the way the application calculates that's how we count them in order to calculate the increase so I proposed two parts [2:39:33] Speaker L (unidentified): so 11 up here say consistent with the board's regulations which at this point are your application. I mean, that is how it's operating. These capital expenditures, [Speaker E (unidentified): expenses,] and correct me if I'm misunderstanding. So, these capital expenses were included as an adjustment to the, let's see, applications specified - All [2:40:33] Matthew Wax: Right, like 2024 net operating expenses? Yeah, exactly. [2:40:37] Speaker L (unidentified): Yeah, net operating income for the current year. [2:40:48] Matthew Wax: And my only maybe suggestion there is these capital expenses amortized were included. [2:40:59] Speaker L (unidentified): How about were amortized and included as an adjustment? So, with that in mind, probably here, the landlord's net operating income in the current year was after taking into account amortized value of all of capital expenses presented by the landlord. The landlord. Does that make sense? So it's just to call out the fact that even though the application shows a much higher number for net operating income, that when you take the amortized capital expenses and bring it down, you get to that $20,893 number. Okay. So to go back, make sure I'm thinking of the right thing. So the fair their net operating income in 2024 per the consent agreement was $12,224.19, or the difference, excuse me. So the difference is $12,224.19, but I'm not certain whether that takes into account the capital expenses either. [2:42:51] Matthew Wax: So I think the new difference is $21,940.68. [2:43:02] Speaker L (unidentified): Can you say that again? I apologize. [2:43:06] Matthew Wax: 2, 1, 9, 4, 0, and 68 cents. 68 cents. And that was me taking the increases that we gave to each unit times 12 totaled. Just of how I worked that math backwards. [2:43:29] Speaker L (unidentified): The only question is, I'll take my calculator off the screen, is when you take the fair net operating income, which is $42,834.43 and take out the $20,893.61. Interesting. So the only difference there is if you take that $42, take out the $20, you get $21,940.82. 82 cents so we're missing 14 cents over there somehow it would be 361 yep [2:44:33] Matthew Wax: Absolutely 14 cents. [Speaker B (unidentified): ] And it may have just been lost in a compounding of roundings. Yeah, because [2:44:49] Speaker B (unidentified): because the [2:44:52] Speaker L (unidentified): only question is going to be whether that affects. Yeah. [Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah.] I'm not sure how you want to handle because the concern is so the motion that the board adopted specifies the increase in rent for each individual unit so [Speaker E (unidentified): that] is harder to undo than to essentially paper why 68 cents and 82 cents are 14 cents apart. What if we explain this as consequentially there is approximately a $21,940 difference between net and the fair net entitled to receive? That's one way to do it. I think what's important for the board's decision, of course, is that the actual increases in rent in monthly rent be identical to what was approved in the motion. And so I think it's more important that all of those numbers match than a 14 cent difference be backed out otherwise. So I would say that you do an approximation just 21 940, but I'm happy to take suggestions as well. Okay so again, and this is going to be reiterated twice, this is Ben Plant's form, and I think it makes a lot of sense, except when we're putting the same rents in there three times. But regardless, I am going to disregard this portion because we'll get back to that. The board heard testimony that there is $179.93 in banked rent for Unit 2, but nothing else for the other units. And so, this last paragraph here, again, is just a recitation of your methodology, which is to say that when banked rent exists, that you're going to deduct that from the permitted rent increases. So, in fact, this is important because these represent the increases in rent that take into account the full extent of the amortized capital expenses. but when we get up to here again we have backed out 179.93 to the point where unit two would come down to 302.92 so i'll let the rest of you read over this last page here from must consider on the way down but i think at that point we are at a at an inflection point at a decision point and [2:48:15] Matthew Wax: I'll correct the usual typo that made it to this form of that my name has two T's [2:48:22] Speaker E (unidentified): in it -huh so [2:48:37] Speaker L (unidentified): that's all that I have. I think again to summarize I think Mr. Terry did a fantastic job in getting us there with the math and I think it's been adequately explained here in terms of how you reach to that conclusion. And again you know as a basic pointer for the board the whole point of having these one is because the Freedom of Access Act requires you to and the second point is that if there's ever a challenge to one of your decisions we need to make sure that a reviewing court has all the information in front of it that it can. And I think I take pity on a judge who would want to or need to wade through all of the calculations that you do on a on a monthly basis, but I think this does as good a job as we can. And so again 417 31 for Unit 1, 302 92 for number 2, and 928 23. The only thing that comes to mind now that I've thought it is I want to go back up to this one and I make sure that we've calculated all this correctly or just captured it correctly is what I really wanted to say. In number seven, and I'll just point this out now that we've had this discussion, we do say before or during 2024, the landlord performed these capital expenditures. I thought some of the testimony had indicated that those were performed in 25. Some. [2:50:12] Speaker D (unidentified): The three that I think you specifically list were 2024. Okay. And then 2025 was just the sewer line and the furnace. us. That's my understanding. Okay. Thank you. [2:50:25] Matthew Wax: A bunch of other stuff, like the whole Unit 3 renovation [2:50:28] Speaker L (unidentified): basically. The only thing I could consider adding here if the board would like is just a further breakdown of which capital expenses were attributable to each unit, which would explain a little bit more the pretty big difference between the rental increases is permitted for each of those units but i will again this is meant to mirror your decision and not mine so that's the only suggestion here yeah [2:51:03] Matthew Wax: i mean if you want to detail that i can list the ones off from that piece you know if you wanted to say the landlord renovated unit three including or parentheses or however you do that legally the unit three specific items were windows cabinets appliances bathroom flooring painting fans and lights refinished doors sorry i went too fast oh yeah that's okay [2:51:45] Speaker L (unidentified): Okay, appliances, cabinets, doors. [2:51:50] Matthew Wax: Bathroom, flooring, painting. And [2:51:56] Speaker L (unidentified): painting. It's including, but not limited to. I just want to say replace a sewer line that services the entire building. Then the last thing I just want, and then I will be done, is I would just put that on the board, The landlord would note that comparatively large [Speaker B (unidentified): rent increase] for Unit 3 is due to the extensive capital improvements the landlord performed on that unit specifically. specifically anything further that i can add or have we i think we've gone quite far enough it's great counsel thank you appreciate your patience with me if there's nothing else then again as before the proper motion would be to adopt the findings in fact and conclusions of law for 8 massachusetts avenue as amended i [2:54:08] Speaker F (unidentified): move to find the findings in fact and conclusions of law for 8 Massachusetts Avenue, all three units, as amended. Second. [2:54:22] Matthew Wax: Thank you both. Not seeing any hands for discussion. We'll call it to a vote. And the motion is to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for 8 Massachusetts Avenue, all three units, as amended. Kristen? Yes. [2:54:45] Speaker B (unidentified): Jonas? Yes. Gordon? Yes. buddy yes and i also yes and [2:54:58] Speaker L (unidentified): I will I will send that in an attachment to you Dylan just so you can have it because it won't reflect what's actually in the Google Drive right now but I'll [2:55:06] Matthew Wax: do that momentarily. Perfect that would be wonderful because I really try and sign these right after the meeting for risk of not. Yep Dylan I guess when you get it if you want to just throw it in the folder for this meeting for 8MassachusettsEV. That's like an updated one or something. And that way, I'll pull it right from there, if that works for you. [2:55:47] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, sounds good. [2:55:48] Speaker G (unidentified): I'll let you know when I've uploaded it. [2:55:50] Speaker L (unidentified): I'm sending it right now. [2:55:53] Speaker G (unidentified): It's all right. I have more work to do tonight, so I'll move back. [2:56:05] Matthew Wax: All right, then. That leaves us with one final section of our agenda unless I'm missing any points of order that would be to adjourn. [Speaker B (unidentified): Motion to adjourn.] Second. We have a motion to adjourn. Call to a vote. [2:56:36] Speaker B (unidentified): Kristen yes Jonas yes. [Speaker D (unidentified): Gordon.] Yes Buddy yes. [2:56:45] Matthew Wax: Yes and I also vote yes and that concludes the May 27th 2026 meeting of the Portland run for thank you to all our board members our council to the city Dylan and our applicants and attendees and I know right we have no special meeting currently scheduled or anything so I think as we discuss what we'll meet back on the 24th of this [Speaker B (unidentified): month yes.] On the 24th of next month all right everybody I hope you have a wonderful night and I'll see you all next month see you guys all right good night bye everyone.