Portland Rent Board Approves Rent Increases and Tables One Application for Review

[0:05] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Okay. All right. Hi, everyone. Welcome to the September 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Portland Red Board. I am your chair, Matt Lacks, and let's call roll. Kristen. Here. [0:39] Jonas (Rent Board member): Oh, did you not hear me? Here. There we go. Sorry. Jonas. Here. Buddy. [0:49] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Here. And Anlor. Here. Oh, I am going to have audio problems. Okay. All right then. And Gordon will be absent and let's see why I'm missing that. All right. So then we have next on our agenda is approval of minutes. We have the August 19th and August 26th, 2026 minutes. Minutes. [1:37] Speaker D (unidentified): I move to approve both the August 19th and August 26th, 2026 minutes. [1:46] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Second. So I'm sorry, my like initial audio isn't kicking in. So if somebody said second, I didn't hear it. [1:54] Jonas (Rent Board member): Let's try. I seconded it, Matt. All right. [2:02] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Wonderful then. So we have motion and a second. Let's call to vote. Kristin, yes. Jonas, yes. Buddy, yes. And Lore, yes. And I also vote yes. All right then. So we have the communication from city staff. Both are updated. Did allowable increase yes. And another note. Any anything you wanted to say about this, Dylan? [2:52] City staff (Rent Board staff/ordinance administrator): thank you mr chair just as the memo states on september 1st as every year by ordinance the allowable increase percentage was calculated off the cpiu change for the greater Boston metro area, excuse me, which was a 3.6% change. So 70% of that brings it to 2.59. And then we round up to the nearest 10th. So the allowable increase percentage beginning January 1st, 2027 is 2.6%. Awesome. [3:33] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): I'm not super sure the short-term thing affects us, but. [3:37] City staff (Rent Board staff/ordinance administrator): Nope. That was just included just because it's also calculated on September 1st. [3:42] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Awesome. I was missing something there. [3:47] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): All right, then. Let's move on to some unfinished business we have here. We have some approval of findings, facts, and conclusions of law. I don't know if somebody had an order they particularly wanted to take these in, but otherwise I'd just say let's look at 22 South Grafton first. Anyone have any changes, amendments, concerns about this one? All right then. If not, somebody have a motion to approve. We can always take another minute if somebody's still processing and [5:02] Speaker D (unidentified): more. I move to approve the findings of fact and conclusion of law for 22 Grafton Street units 22 and 24. A [5:14] Jonas (Rent Board member): second. Wonderful. We [5:16] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I'll call it to vote. Then the motion is to approve the financing of findings of fact and conclusions of law for 22 Grafton Street units it's 22 and 24. Kristin, yes. Jonas, yes. Buddy, yes. And Lore, yes. And I also vote yes. Next we have [Speaker F (unidentified): 76] William Street, eight, and any adjustments, changes, concerns on this one. [6:18] Jonas (Rent Board member): I would move to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for 76 Williams Street, all three units. [6:27] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Awesome. Second. That we have a motion and a second and call it to vote. Motion on the floor is to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for 76 William Street, all three units. Kristen. Yes. Jonas. Yes. Buddy. Yes. And Laura. Yes. And I also vote yes. And then we have one more, and this is 132 Marginal Way. [7:09] Jonas (Rent Board member): Kristen. I would move to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for 132 Marginal Way, all 196 units. Second. [7:20] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): All right. Then we have a motion in a second. Pause for discussion. If there was any more, seeing none, I'll call it to a vote. The motion is to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for 132 Marginal Way, all 196 units. All right, Kristen. Yes. Jonas. Yes. Buddy. Yes. And Laura. Yes. And I also vote yes. All right. So. Then those are our findings, effects, and conclusion along. And so now we have the 56 Federal Street Unit 56-2 public comments. So let me go through the public hearing rules. And then we'll get John Hung in. And so we have a few of these public comments today, so I'll go over that set of rules for them. All right. Applicants, we'll start the public hearing, and applicants will state their case before the board and may present witnesses and offer documentary evidence. Following the conclusion of the applicant's case, any objector may present witnesses and offer documentary evidence. Objectors are defined as follows. In the case of a landlord, lord applicant, which these are that we're hearing today, each. Tenant of the dwelling units which are subject of the matter of the application shall be deemed to be an objector of present and participating. Additionally, the chair has at my authority, at my discretion, the ability to designate a person or organization as a specially interested party with the rights of an objector for offering evidence and conducting cross-examination. So if when we get to the objector side and you feel that you are especially interested party, just raise your hand along with them and you can state such when you start speaking. Following the conclusion of the applicant's case and any objectors cases, members of the. public who are neither applicant nor objector may offer evidence or statements relevant to the matter and each speaker will be limited to three minutes with an optional additional three minutes if there's some real continuous substance applicants may then offer rebuttal evidence and following that objectors may then offer evidence in response to any evidence first presented by the applicant during rebuttal if there are any witnesses then acting through the chair the applicant and objectors may cross-examine witnesses and then members of the board may ask questions of any interested parties including but not limited to the applicant and or objector and members of the public will then lastly be given a chance to respond to any new issues that were raised that are new prior to this segment, or since the last time we let the public speak and relevant. And at the conclusion of that, we will generally close the public portion of the proceeding and move on to deliberations. All right, then. So, can I get representative for, where are we at for 56 at all yeah get you in here so you can speak okay welcome back unmuted there we go now we should be able to hear you let's see hello near me okay yes thank you absolutely thank you for being here again [12:20] Applicant/Property owner (56-2): So today I'm just going to present my case to possible increase the rent for 56-2 as I presented in my presentation of the application on page 6 and 7 that has the income worksheet and operating expense,, mostly focused on the last year that we have done some work on the painting of the apartments and also the installation of the, I believe it's the dishwasher and the okay, maybe I'll get there. And then the also the capital expense for the washing and dryer that we install for the building, okay. And then on page nine, I circle the dishwasher and washer dryer for the periods of the depreciation. And then we go through page, see I believe it's page 14. Those are the depreciation for the dishwasher and the new dryer and washer. And because I think the dishwasher is for the unit, so it was calculated as the calculation allowed. And then the new washing dryer is for the building, which has six units, so it was divided by six. Wonderful. Okay. And then we go to page 16. It's tabulated the label performed by the owners, which occurred curl in three times of the year, installation of dishwasher, and then painting of the interior and repair of the ceiling and the wall. And then, so finally, at page 18, I based on the NOI calculation to come up with the allowable rain increase for the unit per month would be $179.36, and then the page 19 is how the monthly rent was documented for the last two years, and then page 21 is how this, if this increase is approved, how it will be applied to the future rent starting January 1st of 2027. That's all I have. And I did include the previous rent documentation, and then the receipt of the washing and dryer, and then the dishwasher that was installed there. And then also I also include the tax increase since the 2000, I think 20 or something, that we would like to apply to the increase as well. So let me know if you have any additional questions after you review the case. Thank you for me to have the opportunity to speak. [15:46] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Thank you so much. That's very nice. All right, let me get you for the moment back out into attendees and do we have any objectors in the attendees as I described just previously? You can go ahead and raise your hand if so. Not seeing any, do we have any members of the general public who would like to speak on this matter as comments or evidence relevant? I haven't seen any members of the public to comment either. That moves us right along to questions from board members. Board members, did you have any questions for, well, really just the applicant here? I'll get them back in or allow them to talk. All right, seeing none. I would then look for a motion to close the public comment section and we could move on to [17:39] Jonas (Rent Board member): deliberations. Motion to close the public comment for 56 Federal Street. I'll [17:53] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): second that all right. So we have motion and a second. Pause for a sec for any further discussion if it came up. Wonderful, and so the motion is to close the public comment for 56 Federal Street. Call to a vote. And Laura, yes. Buddy, yes. Jonas, yes. Kristin, yes. And I also vote yes. All right, that motion passes, and let's move right into deliberations. I know sometimes I kind of mess around with the order a little, but I think we don't have a ton of attendees like waiting, so I think ideally we can move through some things and get to this. And if board members feel like we have some public comment we need and they want to postpone deliberations, just bring it up. All right, so then somebody wanted to start discussion here. Have any concerns, items that you want us to adjust on the application prior to voting on it, or just a motion for approval, Jonas? [19:31] Speaker F (unidentified): I guess I was just looking at the owner-performed labor and wondering how the rest of the board felt on $75 an hour for interior painting. I think you know dishwasher installation, insulation at $100 an hour, I can see how that hourly rate is a little bit more. If the rest of the board feels good with that hourly rate, so do I. But, you know, I think it's a little bit higher than what we usually see, I guess, for owner-performed labor. [20:11] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Thanks, Jonas. Kristen? [20:13] Jonas (Rent Board member): Yeah, my only question would be, unless I missed it, I didn't... Was there a separate receipt for the price of the paint or is the price of the paint included in that? I know it's all owner-performed, but that would be my only comment. Was if that was wrapping in the cost of the paint because paint's at $50 a gallon these days, so... [20:44] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): i haven't seen a receipt for it or anything yeah i mean my yeah i didn't see a receipt or anything for it i think kind of i agree that like it's a little higher than we've been approving for some things but we haven't really set any kind of standard around it i feel like yet and i also like i guess the thing that didn't bother me about it is it didn't feel heavily padded or expanded to me in that sense of you know that it's not sometimes we see these like things with 20 hours you know or like 15 hours of owner-performed labor for tasks at a lower rate, and so that was kind of my general take of it as well. They could accomplish all those things in that time, then you know, it's kind of... it's hard with it because I do, I feel like, you know, it comes back to kind of the management fee stuff where we talk about like, oh, what's the, you know, going rate, and it's like, well, if your opportunity, your alternate cost is paying that out of pocket, then you know, would have existed potentially. So I don't know. I didn't have a problem with it here. [22:11] Jonas (Rent Board member): But Kristen. Yeah, I didn't, I didn't see anything else that really I felt stood out on this application. So I would move to approve 56 Federal Street Unit 2 rent increase in the amount of $179.36. [22:29] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): I'll second that. Wonderful. We have a motion and second. Any discussion on it? I always feel silly asking for discussion immediately after we discuss something. Procedurally, it seems right. All right, so then I'll call to a vote. The motion on the floor is to approve the application for 56 Federal Street Unit 2 in the amount of $179.36. Kristen. Yes. Jonas. Yes. Buddy. Yes. And Laura. Yes. And I also vote yes all. Right, Council Plant, is there anything further you need from us in terms of findings or anything you feel for this application in order for you to write up a decision for him? I think I have what I need, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you so much. All right. I always mess up your name, but thank you so much for your nice application and your explanation. And if you have further questions, I think about adjustment that the City Licensing Housing Safety Office is the place to contact, as you've been contacting them about the other stuff. Thank you. All right. Now, unfinished business item C is 24 Row of both units. I think we have the applicants here. Spencer, wonderful. Let me get you in here. Can you hear me? Yes. A little quiet, but that might be me. All right. Welcome, Spencer. I think as you heard, you can kind of, you know, take this time to give whatever summary you want to, you know, if there's particular points you want to make about the application or just some notes on completeness items that were maybe brought in or anything else that you feel is worth a note. Sure, so you [25:21] Applicant/Property owner (American four square, 1903): know, we have first of all, I want to thank the board for their time in hearing this application. This building is a wonderful American four square built in 1903 and it's been a rental for quite some time before we bought it last year, so you know it's been really a joy to own, but you know with that comes all of the fun things that come with a 1903 built house, so the majority of this application is all about capital improvements, seeing as we didn't own it for the majority of the year that was covered in the application. There's really very little operating expenses that we reported. Just a couple of things, you know, move in, kind of cleaning things that we did. But predominantly, you know, the chimney was initially shedding bricks and was kind of a safety issue. So we had that rebuilt from the roof line up. There was some exposed knob and tube wiring that we had cleaned up and updated to Romex. We had all the original maple wood floors sanded and refinished and then the house didn't have any insulation whatsoever in it, so we completely ripped the third floor attic down to the studs and insulated that as well as the basement to improve the energy efficiency and then of course had to re-drywall all of that lovely plaster and lath that we pulled down as well as repainting both units. My wife and I completed the painting ourselves but there seemed like enough on here that we really didn't need to include our labor in that 's just the cost of the paint and then we redid some of the kitchen tiles in the first floor unit ceiling to make those look a little bit nicer we completely redid the bathroom in unit two and installed new laundry machines up there so now each unit has its own laundry units and then we added gutters to mitigate some water issues around the property so really just kind of bringing things up to a little bit more of an acceptable standard and i'm just looking to raise the rate to be kind of commensurate with the capital improvements we've made and with that i'd like to welcome any questions if our tenants are here or from any interest of parties or members of the board [28:00] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Thank you so much, Spencer. I'm gonna move you back to the attendees for a minute. We'll go through the rest of this. All right, then, are there any people who classify as objectors? As I've read in the attendees, wonderful Alex, I see your hand there, and let's allow you to talk here all right. Alex should be able to talk once you're unmuted. If you could please introduce yourself and what your relation to the matter is. And then go ahead. [28:51] Tenant at 24 Row Avenue, Unit 1: Hello. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay. I am making a comment regarding the rent increase at 24 Row Avenue. I am the current tenant in Unit 1. For some context, I moved to Portland LEND IN DECEMBER 2025 AND STARTED RENTING THE UNIT WITH MY PARTNER AT $1,850 PER MONTH. SEEING THE REQUESTED INCREASE IN SECTION 17 TO $2,657, IT CAME TO ME AS A SURPRISE. I WAS ONLY NOTIFIED OF IT BECAUSE I WAS INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND READ THROUGH THE DOCUMENT. I greatly appreciate the work of the board to provide me with donors and allow me to make a comment. The increase requested is a 43.6 percent increase, which is greater than the 10 percent allowable per year, per the introductory information. Quote, if the amount of any rent increase granted pursuant to a fair return petition exceeds 10 percent, the portion in excess of 10 percent shall be deferred to the next year or years following the procedure for banked rent. before going through some of the finer details of the application i would also like to note that the building is not currently owner occupied i'm not sure at what point the application was filed but they did move out before the start of september 2026 the current owners have the building listed for sale and in section 21 they do mention that their plans to remain in their house had changed and so for any sort of the upcoming procedures i asked that it not be considered owner occupied so for the notes i have about the application i have three of them first for the rental income listed in sections 7 and 15 in 2025 it was provided as 1850 So this would be coming from the rent I paid for December 2025, but I did pay for the last month's rent at the same time, so it should be at least $3,700 counted. Counted. In addition, based on Section 5, stating that vacant or owner-occupied rental units at the time a petition is filed that provided annual income in the base year shall, sorry, that provided rental income in the base year shall count towards the calculation of gross rental income in the current year. So at that point, Unit 2 had been occupied by the owners in 2025 for some time after they purchased it. I don't have the purchase date off the top of my head or available to me at this time. But they were living in Unit 2 for some portion of 2025 until they vacated in 2026, and then Unit 1 was vacant sometime prior to December 2025 when I moved in. The second point I had about the application was in Section 7, the income from 2019 was listed as $30,000, but in Section 15, it's listed as $33,000. I did not go through to calculate what it ought to be. I just wanted to note that there is a discrepancy there. And then a small note is that for Section 21, the application states, quote, "we began leasing unit one in December 2025 while living in unit two." Sorry, it says, quote, "we began leasing unit one in December 2025 while living in unit one." This should be, "we began leasing unit one in 2025 while living in unit two." Unit two being the owner-occupied one and unit one being the one that I started renting in December 2025. And then I would like to thank the board once again for hearing my comment, and that's what I had to say. Thank you so much, Alex. [33:24] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Much appreciated. Let's get you back. All right, so now are there any members of the general public who have evidence or would just speak on something relevant to this matter? You can raise your hand. All. Right, I'm not seeing any Spencer. If you'd like, go ahead and raise your hand, and I can get you into talk to respond to any issues brought up there. [34:19] Applicant/Property owner (American four square, 1903): hi spencer hey can you hear me okay yes all right so alex is correct on the point that it should have been $30,000 total income for the year of 2019. However, as I think we talked about at the last meeting, those are figures that I got from the public records. So that's not a, I don't have like ledgers to support that. I just have what the registered rental income was for each unit in 2019. The other piece to what Alex said was, you know, the 10% increase is the maximum amount allowed by statute. So, you know, first of all, we weren't planning to raise our current tenants' rent at all because they've been phenomenal tenants. This was simply to allow us to bank some rent for future leases but and you know at the rate that with the inflation calculation and the maximum of 10 the requested allowances i'll probably be able to discharge my mortgage before i can raise to the requested level but again just looking to bank some rent to be able to recoup some of our investment that we made into the property but yeah that's those were the points that i had written down there and then i think he accurately stated kind of the timelines of when they moved in and i should have included i did collect first and last month rent when they leased so that amount should have been included in the current year rental income great [36:15] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): thanks so much spencer all right All right. Should you back out for a minute? Shuffle. I'll give a minute. Alex, you're welcome to raise your hand if there's anything Spencer just brought up that in response to your comments that you also would like to comment on there. Welcome [36:49] Tenant at 24 Row Avenue, Unit 1: back. I just wanted him to I just want to thank him for making his comment in response and clarifying his plan for my rent in the future. I just wanted to add that I do. It's not really a contested point, but I do have proof of the cashier's check that I paid for that initial rent and last month's rent. If the board needs it, I can provide it. [37:17] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): awesome thanks so much alex all right so this brings us to questions from members of the board so i'll open the floor up for members of the board to ask questions of the applicant the objector and of course you can ask questions of city staff now and later during deliberations I don't know it's all Right, I think actually the only question I had was for the applicant and Spencer. I was wondering if you had rented or listed the unit, two, right, that you were in back, on the market or if you found a renter for that. [38:56] Applicant/Property owner (American four square, 1903): Nope, we have not listed it as of right now. As Alex mentioned, it is the property is currently on the market for sale, but that said, it's not the market is not responding to the current listing price, so we're kind of coming up into a financial position now where it's looking more likely that we will need to rent that out. All right, thanks. [39:36] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Other questions from board members for the applicant or the objector? [39:46] Speaker F (unidentified): Jonas? Yeah, I guess I'm just curious because there is that discrepancy between $33,000 and $30,000 for the base year gross scheduled rental income based on the publicly available data. [40:05] Applicant/Property owner (American four square, 1903): And the 30,000 or the 33,000 it's the 30,000 it would be 1200 plus 1300 and then times 12 so three zero thousand is correct perfect thank [40:25] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): you jonas and spencer other questions from board members i'd look for a motion to close the public comment i'd [40:46] Speaker D (unidentified): move to close the public comment for 24 row avenue second [40:52] Jonas (Rent Board member): Thank you all. [40:57] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Right, we have a motion on the floor to close the public comment. For 24 Row, I'll call it to a vote. Kristen, yes. Jonas, yes. Buddy, yes. And Laura, yes. And I also vote, so yes. All right. So that moves us into some deliberations here. And Laura. [41:32] Speaker D (unidentified): So I've done some math focused on the rental income. So for the base year 2019, we see a rental income of $30,000. And for 2025, we see it's only $1,850. But we also know that we should also be calculating for uncollected rent. So the last month of 2025, we know that they charged $1,850 plus they got that $1,850 deposit. So I have that added to the total. And then this was, let me double check my math that I wrote down. This was unit one that was rented later for $1,850. So I did the math of $1,200 a month times 11 plus the 1850 rent for December plus the 1850 deposit and then plus $1,300 in rent for 12 months for the other unit would be the uncollected rent planned if they had been renting out both units. And the total I get for that for the income for 2025 becomes $32,500. And then if you trickle that down through all the M&OI math, that comes to $458.42 per unit per month. So I don't know if anyone else did that math or wants to double check it or if everyone agrees with that math, but I just wanted to outline. I felt like that was a good next step forward here. [43:08] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): That's great, Jonas. [43:09] Speaker F (unidentified): And I just wanted to make sure, and or your logic of using that 1200, was that what they were getting in 2019 for that unit? [43:18] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, that was the last recorded rent. So I used the 1200 and the 1300 for each unit respectively, just because those are the last numbers we had to go off of. And it seemed like there was a pattern for a few years before that, was the rent. So I would just assume continuing at that number. [43:35] Speaker J (unidentified): yep yeah [43:38] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): that's awesome, that's right where i come up awesome, well that gives us something a little more to work with, right? And then so we have some other stuff on here that is estimated, and i'd prefer to just strike those items, those whole lines, but I don't know how the rest of the board feels. I just feel like, as much you know, yeah, for items where you just really don't, where it's, it's just a guess, I don't really like putting that into the equation. And so that was like the expenses, offenses lines five and 17. I'm not sure if that makes sense to other board members. I [44:53] Speaker D (unidentified): think that makes sense to me as well. [45:01] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Well, I don't see anybody saying they hate it yet. So all right. Sometimes it's easier for us to work on the disagreements. all right so buddy yeah [45:23] Speaker J (unidentified): i guess my only thing is that like that is a cost that was incurred, right? And we don't even know what it could be in the base here. It could be have been higher or lower, so i wonder if maybe a more like fair way of doing it is to just back it out from like cpiu increases, but i'm just suggesting it. I guess it just the striking of it, i think is fine generally. I'm not like that opposed to it, just knowing that cost was paid for and incurred, to just like eliminate it completely seems a little weird. to me, but you know how we do that, i think is the question. I think maybe the most fair way is to just strike and just say zero, evens out, but in light of not having that information, but [46:32] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): something i wanted to flag, so yeah. And i know we've discussed the kind of like reverse, backing it, backfilling it with the inflation, I guess. I don't fully understand the mathematical difference there, other than when I see it on the calculation sheet. So that's where to me, I'm like, well, isn't creating it from inflation kind of the same as striking it? Because in the end, all we're doing is taking the number and adjusting it for the change in inflation anyways. If there's something that makes more sense about it there that I'm missing, I'm definitely open to that. I, it's been on my list of things that I wanted to like really dig into that I haven't yet. So because we've been talking about it on you know application revision stuff for sure, and I think you know some of the other municipalities have said they used it right. So, I mean, I don't, yeah, they, both make sense to me. I think if it's I'm just not sure the mathematical difference and [47:52] Speaker D (unidentified): I agree with you, Matt. I don't understand the mathematical difference there and I've, I've done the math of backing out those expenses as well. So I have that number too, if we want. [48:07] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): That's awesome. and particular thoughts doesn't sound like we're super pulled into one method or the other yet, Kristen. [48:27] Jonas (Rent Board member): i'm almost leaning towards more striking because we've that's historically how we've approached it and i'm line 17 is anybody's guess i mean that one would not necessarily follow it is completely what somebody decided to do so that's really hard to pin down. I mean, insurance, that one has not followed typical inflationary. So I feel like there's just too much in ambiguity there that we wouldn't be able to. I don't know that we would stand behind that methodology. I mean, I appreciate that we've tried to do that with some other things. I just don't know that these two particular categories would lend themselves to that. And I would like to hear what Ann-Laure has calculated just so we can kind of weigh how much is it really impacting if we just clean out, you know, struck both from that to make it the most apples to apples. [49:25] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): So [49:37] Speaker D (unidentified): if we do the, I'm just making sure I got this right. If we just strike both of those expense lines on each side for 2019 and 2025, it comes to a $420.68 increase per month. But if we kept both of those expense line in, it would be $458.42. So it's a difference of about $30 of an increase per unit per month. [50:10] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): yeah so that's what i kind of find hard is like granting an increase like that you know that is somewhat significant in the month to month you know it's not it's small in the actual total increase but based on an estimate is what i find hard about that so yeah i'm still for the kind of strike for now which seems like we're pulling into somewhat at least acceptance that we're all accepting that 's functional methodology for now but don't hold your tongue if you have more comments on that so The other things I've wanted to touch on and make sure we're all clear on is what happens when this rolls back into not being exempt anymore. And, Council, I didn't know if you had a read of the ordinance or somebody else does that they feel strongly about in terms of the function there that we could just reference. [51:25] Speaker J (unidentified): If I'm understanding correctly, it was, they were both covered units. Then they became exempt for a short period of time. And now they're no longer exempt. I think my understanding, I think Chapter Six, I think it has to be off the market for like five years for them to be able to set it to whatever they want, otherwise it kind of just follows the rules. I think but you're correct, it is five years. Buddy, you're correct. Yeah, so. [52:11] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Are we saying that would bring rent back to previous levels once it's no longer exempt? Or does that leave one of the units at like, does that leave Unit Two at the 1300 and Unit One at the 1850? Dylan, I love that you just came on here because all for your input. [52:36] City staff (Rent Board staff/ordinance administrator): Yeah, would you like me to shed a little light on exempt? So, there is a section in the code called 6233, reestablishment of base rent for discontinued covered units. It is the closest thing in the ordinance that mentions from going from exempt to a covered unit or vice versa. It highly depends on the time when the unit was first registered as a covered unit. Unit, because there are three different subsections that could apply. One of them is the five-year, once it's off the rental market for five years, it can be reset completely. But the other two subsections, it does depend on when it was first registered as a covered unit. [54:10] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): All right. So. So then I think like my, to the point here is that we're going to wind up with some bank rent calculation potentially, or of what those can come back on the market as, and that maybe, I don't think that, does that adjust current year then? No, because that's current slash, yeah. [54:43] Speaker J (unidentified): Buddy, sorry. Well, I think I mean, please, someone correct me if I'm wrong or you disagree, but I think the calculus would also only really apply to the unit that was occupied, right, because the other unit was still on the rental market; it was just exempt from the rent control ordinance, which I think are two different things. So, right, so I think I mean, I don't know actually if the ordinance says anything about something being exempt and then not being exempt. Maybe Dylan or Ben might know, or if the city has an interpretation of that, but so [55:42] Speaker K (unidentified): Mr. Chair, is your question essentially with respect to the owner-occupied unit, was there banked rent accruing when that was an exempt unit that would need to be backed out from your ultimate rent increase calculation? Yeah, and that, and confirming [56:07] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): that. Well, the owner-occupied unit and also the exempt unit because at that point so the unit became exempt and now it's not exempt anymore. So now it's a covered unit again. So like for a while it wasn't a covered unit and now it is again. And the last time it was a covered unit it was being rented for twelve hundred dollars, and so I think that's my, it's not considerable like point of the are we taking these like are we adjusting these rents based on that lower number, which I think makes things kind of messy, but at least the second unit there. Yeah, well, I will say I think [56:53] Speaker K (unidentified): i agree with dylan and buddy's perspective that i don't think it's clear that the ordinance addresses this issue and certainly it's not something that is addressed by, your rules, I mean, my understanding of six to 33 B two is that, if a covered unit, I guess a discontinued covered unit was required to be registered with the city as of april 1st and is removed from the rental housing market the base rent upon re-entry is a calculation of presumably what the base rent was prior to removal from the market as well as the banked rent that accrued during the time period when the unit was off the market. I guess what I would say, I mean, like, from my perspective, I've always thought that base rent and base year net operating income aren't necessarily the same thing, the same concept. [58:59] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Yeah, so that's kind of my like read of 6233 b2. Is that both of these rents are going to adjust to whatever they were so this number because this number is what was used all the way back to 2019 for the first year so 1200 and 1300 plus all of the allowed increases between now and then becomes the new base rent with no banked rent left for both of these units now that the owner's gone? And so I have you know like one item is I think the easy one is right unit two is easy or to me because unit two. We know what it's going to be and we did all our calculations based on the 1300, right? That's like and Laura's backfill of the gross rental unit for rent that could have been collected for those units. Not just yours. So like, so that one almost is a little easier, right? We can apply the increases to it and find out what the banked rent would be. And we have that number. And then we could, I guess, just back out that banked rent from the increase. Increase but unit one suggests that it should be that it's 1850 and so if we don't get to that number I'm actually wondering if it's it's lower than we're doing calculations for. I know I'm not explaining it well but that if we just did calculations for unit one based on it being at 1850. And math says it really only comes up to for ease of sake, like 1650. Once it's covered again, then are we actually like, has that skewed the way we do the MNOI and we need to like add the difference between the 1850 and the 1650 back into the increase we allow? Because that's what the current year calculation started to use at the end is the 1850 number now it's not what we use for the rest of the current year because it's vacant right but I know right in other words by. [1:01:23] Speaker K (unidentified): application of like the question is if you apply this particular provision in 6233b2 would what's allowed when the unit is coming back on market be less than what is being charged [1:01:41] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Currently? And that since we're doing an MNOI calculation partially based on that, we need to count that difference into the increase that we allow for the unit potentially, or that is just kind of lost in that it was exempt, they got to charge the extra money for it, and now it's covered and we go back to regular calculations which makes more sense to me to honestly to say what is the difference between these numbers that we see here that were the numbers for the whole other time what could they come up. in banked rent and then basically apply the formula to that to you know like as we do apply the formula back out the banked rent. and that's basically it which is what makes sense to me but i don't know if i'm making i think the [1:02:35] Speaker K (unidentified): question is maybe like even a little bit simpler than that like it really is was banked rent accruing or not right and dylan i'm curious from the city's perspective when you have a unit that is coming back on market that's been exempt after a certain period of time has the city's perspective been that unit would be entitled to banked rent that would have accrued within that time period it was off market i believe our interpretation would be only if it [1:03:08] City staff (Rent Board staff/ordinance administrator): falls under that 233b two subsection because 6231 gives all the exemptions for article 12 which includes the process of banking rent. So if a property is exempt from Article 12, they would be exempt from that subsection titled process of banking rent and the eligible increase of banking rent. [1:04:14] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): The other just even more fun twist I find to 6233b2 is the way it phrases it. So it says the base rent for such a covered unit upon re-entry to the housing market shall be the banked rent as measured from the time the covered unit was removed from the rental housing market which i kind of have a problem with because to me that suggests not that i can argue against the ordinance but we're trying to interpret it right so i'm like trying to understand how we interpret this of that does that mean that the fact that neither one of these units had their rent increased in 2021 2022 2023 2024 all of that banked rent is lost because the units were pulled off the market and now re-entered the market and all they get is that difference and i think that's i guess to me you know what it doesn't matter because if we're gonna back out the banked rent what is it doesn't change it either way that's why i talk too much [1:05:20] Speaker J (unidentified): buddy well it almost does seem like and maybe dylan if correct me if i'm wrong but i what i heard you saying was that it this section might not even really apply to this situation because it wasn't a matter of a unit just being removed from the rental market as a decision for whatever reason maybe there was renovations or whatever it was taken off of the rental market because it became exempt which means that the bank rent accrual doesn't really even apply because it was exempt from the whole article is that yeah maybe i'm off base but that's what i'm [1:06:12] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): understanding it as at least for unit one, yeah, and that's what you're saying because unit one was still on the market the whole time. Am I understanding that right, buddy? Yeah, yes, yeah. [1:06:26] Speaker J (unidentified): i mean i think unit one doesn't even apply to this because it was on the market technically i think if we're talking about the occupied one then i don't even know if this section does apply based on the city's interpretation of it being exempt from the ordinance and thus being exempt from the bank to rent process because like there's a there's many reasons why a unit might be removed from the rental market right not just exemption and it feels like what this is contemplating is one of those situations perhaps but i that's how i'm understanding things but correct anyone correct me if i'm wrong because it's kind of getting a little bit [1:07:13] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): out there right well but i agree with you that the unit one was never actually removed from the market right so yeah so unit one isn't covered by 6233b2 because it was never removed from the market in the first place which leaves us with just with unit two becoming potentially becoming the difference in the get getting the banked rent from 2024 till now okay well 2024 to the current year of the so be one year the 2024 increase that I would get for the 2025 increase and Laura I [1:08:14] Speaker D (unidentified): think it would be the 2025 increase because oh I think you're I think it would just be the 2025 increase, which would be, if we're just looking at Unit 2, it would be $32.50, because the allowable increase was 2.5%. [1:08:51] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): So I feel like I overly complexified this a lot, trying to answer questions that maybe didn't need or have answers, and we could actually probably pretty quickly get to a motion to potentially approve this. [1:09:04] Speaker D (unidentified): Anne-Laure? I'm a little confused about where that leaves us for Unit 1. So I understand Unit 1 stayed on the market. So 233B2 does not apply. So that means Unit 1 doesn't get banked rent added to it, so Unit 1's starting or base rent would be $1,200 now that it's becoming covered again? Or would it still start at $1,850? I don't know if that made sense. I'm confused about where we go from here with Unit 1. To me, what would make most sense is for it to be the rent charge in 2024, the last charged rent, plus all the allowable increases until now. But I understand that's not in the ordinance. I think for it to be 1850 is harder for me to wrap my head around because since the unit was owner-occupied, they really could have charged whatever for that rent, right? So they could have made it owner-occupied, charged you know thirty thousand dollars, and then turned it back into a covered unit. Doesn't mean you... should i don't think it means you should still be allowed to keep charging thirty thousand dollars feels like a loophole but i also don't know if there's anything the ordinance actually prevents that so i just want to understand the logic for unit one because i'm confused there with everything that we've said yeah what i what i might add i [1:10:45] Speaker K (unidentified): Mean, I think the city's perspective and it makes sense is that if a unit within an owner... If a unit is within an owner-occupied building, then it's subject to this exemption and is not accruing banked rent for the time period that it is exempt with the other units. And so I think from the city's perspective, when it becomes a covered unit again, that unit is subject to the rent that was charged when it was exempt, but banked rent was not occurring for that time period when it was exempt. So it's sort of like a check against like a windfall in potential increases once something is coming back on market when the building is no longer owner-occupied. I think to Dylan's point, and this is what Buddy identified, I mean, this 6233B2 provision is really intended only to establish base rent when, for instance, something that was owner-occupied is coming back on market. But you're using banked rent calculations as like the metric of determining what the rent is when that owner-occupied unit comes back online. Does that make sense to everyone? I mean, it's definitely a murky area of the ordinance. [1:12:36] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): So then I guess my concern is if that unit is going to come back to its previous rent, do we need to do our calculations for current year gross income based on that rental number because or that number because otherwise we're like adjusting rent based on a rent that was charged while it was exempt, like a rent that isn't isn't within the scope of rent control, right? I... [1:13:12] Speaker K (unidentified): Mean, I do think that your existing rules do establish requirements for assuming rental income when you have vacant or owner-occupied units in Section 5. [1:13:47] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Of the RentWords rules? Or vacant... [1:13:58] Speaker K (unidentified): or owner-occupied rental units at the time the petition is filed that provided rental income in the base year shall count toward the calculation of gross rental income in the current year. The rent program shall attribute rental income calculated on the basis of average rents for comparable units at the property that were most recently rented. If no comparable units on the property were rented within the last two years, initial rents for comparable units in the city may be used if there's no other basis for its calculation. [1:14:34] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Well, that makes that so much easier. So [1:14:55] Speaker D (unidentified): we use the 1850 to calculate what would have been the rental income for 2025. For [1:15:12] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): kind of seemingly both units, except the second unit two wasn't rented until September, so are we using the original numbers for months one through eight and then the 1850 for the following months? Sorry. [1:15:46] Speaker D (unidentified): When was this submitted? September 21. [1:15:52] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): It's a 2025 application, but the tenant in unit one started in September. Was my understanding at the 1820 at the 1850? I thought they started in December. Oh, December, so it's just the last [1:16:09] Speaker K (unidentified): month. Yeah, you're right. Yeah, I mean, you know, they're obviously from my perspective isn't a way to take an average when you're talking about one unit, but I think the board's practice in the past has been that when you had maybe like a vacancy for a couple months within a year, you would use the rent level that was charged for the remaining months in that year. So based on the board's past practice, I don't think that's an unreasonable approach here. [1:16:46] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Right. So that just slightly changes that final number. [1:16:54] Speaker D (unidentified): And Laura? So I'm just going to repeat the math that I did. So for unit one, we're saying that based on what Ben just said, we're pretending like the rent of $1,850 was charged for every month in 2025. And then I've added to that an additional $1,850 for that final month's rent that the renter gave. So that would total $24,050 for Unit 1's income in 2025. And then for Unit 2, we said that it would be $13,3250 because that includes a $32,050 increase from what would have been the allowable increase in 2025. 25. So that leads to an income of $15,990 for unit two for 2025. So together, that would lead to an income for 2025 for these two units of $40,040. And then when you plug all that back through the MNOI, that leads to an increase of $114.51 per unit per month. So for Unit 2, that would be added to the $1,332.50, and then for Unit 1, that'd be added to the $1,850. Jonas, I saw you nodding your head, but let me know if that makes sense or if anybody's confused by that. [1:18:53] Speaker F (unidentified): No, your logic makes sense on it. Certainly, how you explain the math is making sense to me. I guess I'm a little bit caught up on charging the $18.50 for all 12 of the months. But if that's previously what the board has done, then I see the logic staying consistent with it. It just intuitively makes more sense to me to do it kind of the other way, but keeping with the board's practice. [1:19:30] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Thanks, Jonas. Buddy? [1:19:33] Speaker J (unidentified): Yeah, that makes it makes sense to me. And it, you know, I do think like often the purpose of this methodology is to sort of recoup those extraordinary costs that are maybe driving, you know, the application one way or the other. And it seems like by doing this, it is essentially, you know, there's other things, too. But like the biggest one is these capital improvements that are getting recouped within a reasonable amount of time. So it the outcome, I think, is consistent with a situation where like they had rented it out for a full year and what it will be in the future for them. [1:20:25] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): My concern with using the 1850 number anywhere I guess in the current year calculation is that it's going away right like rents coming back down and so my concern is that if we use this number that was that's high because the unit was exempt and they could charge that and then this number comes back down to what it could be you know like lower rents based on rent control increases then we didn't grant them enough for what they did here so like the biggest thing to me like the biggest driving factor in this application reality-wise like property taxes went up some other stuff that we would work in there but there's there's a bunch of capital expenses And if we looked at like the amortized capital expense for the current year, it's like $54,092.74. Break that down by the 12 months and then break that down by unit. And that's still like $228.86 a unit of increase a month just from those. So my concern is that if we take this 1800 number, which isn't even going to stick around, right, and use that as part of the calculation, then we're kind of erasing, you know, like erasing gains that would be there based on the actual, like, rent control allowed rents. And I feel like I'm just continuing to do a terrible job of making sense of that. but like that's my what i'm concerned about is seeing the number when we know the taxes went up and we struck basically everything off here and we know that the 1850 was only really even charged for the last month of the current year to say that we're going to grant an increase that's half of what just the capital expenses would grant as increase if we blanked the entire rest of the sheet is concerning to me because the actual gross rental income is going to go down for 2026 or 2027 now that they're not in it right for 2027 the gross rental income I mean it counting the unit two the way we counted it is going to be less than we just calculated for 2025 in 2027 and that 's my concern I think that's where I've been like trying to unravel this whole thing is that i don't want us to me like it almost makes more sense to me to grant the increase entirely based on the capital improvements and nothing else than to like get into the weeds of the exact like what the rent is going to be reset to and how that one month of 1850 plays into 2025 25 and laura i [1:23:33] Speaker D (unidentified): thought ben said that and i wrote this down from the city's perspective when a owner occupied unit becomes a coverage unit again that unit is subject to the rent it was charged when it was exempt but the banked rent doesn't count so when the unit was exempt So when it was owner-occupied 1850, it won't collect any banked rent on top of that, but still it can re-enter the market at 1850. [1:24:07] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): And your other number is based on the $1,300 plus the base banked rent? [1:24:11] Speaker K (unidentified): Yes. All right, that makes sense to me. No, I understand. I'm obviously not applying these rules on the back end. Dylan is and staff is. So, Dylan, if you want to chime in here with a different perspective on how the city has applied this rule in this particular context to the extent it's come up, you know, please do so. I think from, you know, from my perspective, this board doesn't necessarily need to determine what the rent level that can be charged is going to be in the future. What you're looking at essentially is like, how do we schedule rental income at 100% for these units, given what Section 5 requires? And I mean, I think from, you know, like the first requirement is that rental income is scheduled at 100% occupancy. And I think how the board has typically done that in the past is used whatever the existing number that was charged was. Now, of course, I think you previously only encountered this in situations where it was like a gap in like the middle of the year, one or two months, maybe. So a different circumstance than when you've only got gross rental income for one for one month. But, step two of the analysis in your rules is that, you have these two different ways of calculating, rent for vacant or owner occupied rental units. And then one, you know, one of one, method, one metric, I guess, is, or one methodology is averaging rents for comparable units at the property. That is an ill fit for this situation but this makes sense to me now, yeah. And then the other is looking at comparable units in the city if there aren't comparable units at the property that were leased within the past two years. This math makes good sense to me. [1:26:32] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Then I just really wanted to make sure we weren't going to grant a lower increase and then have that unit at 1850 come back to 1200 or something and that would be problematic but that. Makes that all makes good sense to me then. Okay, based on all that I'm going to attempt to make a. [1:26:55] Speaker D (unidentified): Motion so I'd move that for 24 Row Ave we've established the base the 2025 base run is 1850 for Unit 1 and $1,332.50 for Unit 2, with an allowable increase of $114.51 per unit per month based on the MNOI calculations. And that is with that updated total $40,040 income for 2025. 25. And that is based on an 1850 rent for the whole year for unit two, plus that additional 1850 payment from the tenant and a rent of, shoot, did I mess this up? A rent of 1300. Should the income be charging a rent of 1300 for the whole year for unit two or 1332.50 for the whole year for unit two? I think 1300 right, that's what I've put into the calculation, yeah. Because it wasn't realized right because it wasn't realized and that was the last. [1:28:20] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Market run. A second. Thanks. All right, further discussion all. Right so then the motion on the floor is to approve the increase for this property for 24 Row A half units one and two in the amount of 114.51 per unit. All right, if there's no further discussion I'll call it to. Vote and. Lower your hands just up from being up right. All right I'll call that to a vote. Then Kristen yes, Jonas yes, Buddy yes, and Lauren yes. And I also vote yes. Council let us know if. If you need anything further from us in there to share up numbers or anything, and Laura can. Probably share over that math document to you. Yeah, I think I have the calculations. Thank you. Though, Mr. Chair. Great. Thank you all for bearing with me, making that unnecessarily confusing, but I really didn't want us to wind up in a situation where we granted a huge increase and the rents came out really high or the, you know, like got reset really high or granted a very small increase and the rents got set above. So thank you for tolerating the full discussion here. And as I think I hopefully say every time now, Spencer, if you have further questions and want to get details on implementing that, the city as you've been contacting them for this is the best point of contact for that and thank you so much for your time and the thorough application and the extra pieces of information from our completeness request. All right, hopefully. [1:31:04] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): I can get through the rest of this without making anything that confusing again. Let's dive into some new business. We have a rent increase application for 341 Cumberland Ave, all 29 units, and then we also have the 439 Congress Street, all 81 units. We've been handling these. We've been asked to schedule these right as blocks for the same ownership company so that we could do as they did and accept that they spread out their housing service management costs over all of the managed units equally and. So I would suggest that we handle both these at once unless Dylan's acting like maybe I should pause and let him talk. [1:31:56] City staff (Rent Board staff/ordinance administrator): Thank you, Mr. Chair. So these are owned by two separate entities. These properties, there's the first one is owned by Earl Apartments LLC and the second is managed by the same property, but the ownership entities are different. [1:32:11] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): On these two. I only read the address. Thank you so much. Wonderful. All right. Then let's get PJ in here to talk about 341 Cumberland Ave, all 29 units. There we go. As per the usual, thanks for being here, PJ. [1:32:46] Applicant's representative/agent (341 Cumberland, 439 Congress): Can you guys hear me? See me? Yes. Happy Wednesday. It's great to see all of you again, and I really appreciate your time in hearing these applications. It sounds like 341 Cumberland is first up on the docket. This is, as you pointed out, an increased housing service cost application spread across all 29 units. It's the comparison years in this application are the costs from 2022 relative to the prior year, 2021. This was filed in February of 2023. Costs rose during those years from $151,000.38 to $211,899, yielding a net increase of $60,862, which translates to $174.89 per unit per month on a pro-rata basis. Basis, we're really excited to move this application forward so we can continue reinvesting and maintain the buildings, or in this case, sorry, building singular. Thank you so much, PJ. [1:34:05] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Do we have any objectors in the audience, in our attendees? You can go ahead and raise your hand. Seeing none, do we have any members of the general public who wish to provide evidence related to this matter? You can raise your hand in the attendees if so. All right, seeing none. That. Brings us right around to questions from the board members. Unless I'm missing something, I'll. Open the floor to the board for questions from the applicant. Or to the applicant. Hi PJ, thanks again for being here, and I just wanted to check that there weren't any significant changes to the building itself in terms of number of occupied units or other, I think, or number of rentable units or other changes that would have changed the cost outside of the basic scope. [1:35:33] Applicant's representative/agent (341 Cumberland, 439 Congress): Yeah, if that's the end of the question, there's no unit count adjustment that I'm aware of. [1:35:42] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Awesome, that was the whole question. Other questions from board members if. Not then, I'd look for a motion to close the public comment portion of this. I'd move to close the public. [1:36:00] Speaker D (unidentified): comment for 341 cumberland a [1:36:04] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Second. Thank you both, the motion and the second, and pause for a moment for discussion. Seeing none, I'll call it to a vote. The motion on the floor to close the public comment for 341 Cumberland. Nav. Kristin, yes. Jonas, yes. Buddy, yes. And Laura, yes. And I also vote yes. And let's get right into deliberations for it. Any particular comments, issues, concerns, or emotion or some approval I. [1:36:55] Jonas (Rent Board member): Would move to approve the application for 341 Cumberland of all 29 units in the amount of 174 dollars and 89 cents per month. I'll. [1:37:11] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Second that all. Right, I'll again just pause for a moment, make sure there's no further discussion, nothing came up, and call it to a vote. The motion is to approve the application for 341 Cumberland Ave, all 29 units in the amount of $174.89 per month per unit. Kristen, yes. Jonas, yes. Buddy, yes. And Laura, yes. And I also vote yes. Anything further you need from us in findings council? I. [1:38:02] Speaker K (unidentified): Don't think so, Mr. Chair. [1:38:03] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you so much. All right. And so then we have another one of these applications for 439 Congress Street, all 81 units. And I'll get you right back in here, PJ. Thank. [1:38:37] Applicant's representative/agent (341 Cumberland, 439 Congress): You again, PJ. Yeah, certainly. This is a very comparable application to the previous one. This is also an increased housing service cost petition for 439 Congress spread across 81 units, again, comparing 2022 to 2021, also filed in February of 2023. At this property, housing service costs rose from $391.723 to $409.845, a net increase of $18,122, which translates to $18.64 per unit per month pro rata. We're excited to hopefully get this application finalized as well. [1:39:26] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Thanks so much, PJ. All right, I will. Again, now, do we have any objectors, tenants, specially interested parties in the audience? Wonderful, I see one, and we will. I'll get you right in here. Ryan and... Ryan, you should be able to speak in just a moment. It's being a little slow today, and if you can please just introduce yourself and your relation to the matter for starters. [1:40:18] Ryan Erickson (tenant, 439 Congress Street): Do you want video? Hi, I can't even see us very well. [1:40:26] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): So I'll just get rid of the video. [1:40:28] Ryan Erickson (tenant, 439 Congress Street): Like a dark part. Hi, we can hear you though. Hi, fantastic, that's what matters. I really appreciate how thoroughly you guys are looking into all of the items on the list in here, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that. [1:40:43] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): So one of the questions I had from... if you don't mind, could you just introduce yourselves first? [1:40:49] Ryan Erickson (tenant, 439 Congress Street): yes that's your relation to the yeah the application my name is ryan erickson i'm here with another tenant in the building i live in yeah i'm a tenant i live in one of the apartments in a studio apartment at 439 congress street and my name is ryan erickson, so I, so I'm looking over this itemized list and from 2021 to 2022, the cost of here, [1:41:22] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Let me just pull up my script here. [1:41:27] Ryan Erickson (tenant, 439 Congress Street): you, we, my landlord spent $12,555 and 52 cents more on legal costs in 2021 2022 than 2021 which is the majority of the increase on this form so we went they went from paying like 1 000 something to like 13 000 something in legal fees in one year so i'm trying to figure out where that's coming from that is the year that the rent control went into effect if i'm correct and i don't know if it has anything to do with that but I'm just I'm I'm concerned of why we're paying for this much money in legal fees, where that's coming from, what types of legal fees are they, and how they are benefiting us as renters? So, like, I guess another thing that I wanted to point out, like 10 years ago, a studio apartment in this neighborhood cost around 850 a month, but of course inflation took place, so the price of the rent goes up. And adjusted for the cost of rent for inflation, today it would be around 1200. The rent for my studio apartment is nearly 1700, so it feels like the amount that they've already... increased this rent by price gouging. The rent should already cover all of these things with a 500 difference in what would be the normal cost of inflation. So, and I realize there's probably not a lot of other people on this because it's like 18 a month. Why would anybody care? But we care because that's a bag of groceries, and we're already spending every last penny we have to pay our bills. And so 18 a month does make a difference for us. And when the rent is already so high that it should cover any... of their expenses, is it seems a bit odd to say, you know, you're gonna... that you're leasing a 2001 Toyota Camry for 1700 a month, but now they want a little bit more to fix it, to fix it up? And it doesn't make sense because the price is already so extreme. Anyways, I don't know if that makes a difference legally, but I feel like I needed to say that in front of you guys so that when rules come around, when it comes time to like make decisions on things like this, that you're just kind of aware of what... constituents are feeling. My other thing that I'm wondering is, an apartment like ours, which has had plumbing leaks for at least 90% of the time that we've... you've lived here, that have been addressed when we asked, but the new ones pop up. So there's not really any incentive to take preventative measures for these things. And when they're allowed to increase the rent by, what is it like 5% when a new tenant comes in? Like it is, and is that an additional percent? And then what is the... what is the motivation for them to try to keep tenants if they can make the rent higher when a new tenant comes in, and then just keep doing, you know, in some cases the bare minimum, rather than being proactive and giving people a decent place to live. Thanks. [1:45:15] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): So much, Ryan, did you have... [1:45:17] Ryan Erickson (tenant, 439 Congress Street): have anything else? Did you want to say anything? [1:45:24] David Piazza (tenant, 439 Congress Street): i guess the only thing i have to add is like my name is david piazza i am ryan erickson's roommate so we live in the same apartment the only thing i would like to add is like i could understand such an increase rent if that money was going back into the building to like improve it to like you know like as ryan said maintenance but as far as we can tell that is not the case it seems like that money just like disappears you know in our building directly above us there's a hallway and last year...there was a big snow melt that happened and it caused a lot of water damage. Well, there's still a massive hole in the ceiling in that hallway that's just been sitting there for who knows how many months. We've only been here for what, three months? Yeah, and so it's kind of concerning to me that they want to increase rent without putting any more money back into the property. What... [Tenant at 24 Row Avenue:...we... I guess...]...that's all I really wanted to add. Thank... [1:46:29] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair):...you, David. Thank you both so much. I'm gonna move you back to attendees for now, and you will get a chance to respond if there's any new items or evidence brought up by the applicant or members of the public. All right, are there any members of the general public that wish to comment? I can tell not, because we just heard from the only two people in our attendees, so I'll move on. PJ, you're welcome to respond to any of the points or issues brought by the applicant if you want. Just give a raise your hand, and PJ......I'm just gonna to do the allow to talk for now, unless you really want to be back on video, but this just transfers... [1:47:40] Applicant's representative/agent (341 Cumberland, 439 Congress):...you quicker. And the rest of the rent board, can you hear me loud and clear? Hopefully we appreciate the feedback as always from all of our tenants. As I stated earlier, this was a increased housing service costs application going back from 2022. So that's certainly before my time. So my level of familiarity in terms of what drove the legal costs back then is just not well versed. What I can tell you from looking through our accounting records is that there are three handful of legal expenses that went out to various law firms in totality for 13,000. What's not accurate is that the majority of increases that are driving this application are actually utilities. And as I stated at the beginning of the application hearing, we are asking for these relatively minimal increases in rent so we can continue reinvesting in the properties, and that's really the crux of the application. Thank... [1:49:07] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair):...you. Thanks so much, PJ. All... Right, Ryan, if you feel there's any new information that you do want to respond to, there you're welcome to raise your hand and I can get you back into talk. I'm not sure how much new there was there, but I will not deny you the chance to respond for the witnesses. So then I will open up the floor for questions from board members to any of the involved parties. [1:50:14] Speaker F (unidentified): Jonas? Yeah, so I am seeing an operating expense for security services for 9,000 in 2022 but nothing in 2021. Just would look for a little bit of clarity onto what security services were installed. Are we talking cameras? Are we just, you know, I saw 9,000 in one column and nothing in the other. So to me, I guess that would mean that there was some sort of specific security investment made in the property. [1:50:57] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Thanks, Jonas. PJ should be able to talk. You're ready. Thanks, [1:51:13] Applicant's representative/agent (341 Cumberland, 439 Congress): Jonas. Yeah, I'm not aware. I would have to get back on that item. I wouldn't certainly wouldn't want to provide any inaccurate information. As I said, this was outstanding since 2023 and my, the, my level of granularity awareness of this building going back five years is not as strong as I'd prefer. Thanks. [1:51:48] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): PJ, other questions from board members for the applicant? Any of the parties. If there are no further questions for the applicant or any of the objectors, I'd look for a motion to close the public comment portion of this. I'd move to close the public comment. A second. I'll pause for a moment for further discussion. Seeing none, I'll call to vote the motion on floors to close the public comment for 439 Congress Street. Kristen, yes. Jonas, yes. Buddy, yes. And Laura, yes. And I also vote yes. So then I think my main question for the board then becomes, other, I mean, unless somebody has a motion here, is that do we want to table this to get a little more information on the legal and security services costs? Jonas? [1:53:50] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah. I mean, I'm not looking for a ton of information here, but yeah, that 9,000 in security, I guess, to me, implies some investment in security. Just knowing what that is, right, would make me feel more comfortable than approving it. I'd even approve it contingent upon receiving that information as well if we didn't want to table it. [1:54:19] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): I didn't remember any of these. Thoughts from other board members? [1:54:48] Speaker F (unidentified): I will kind of just say. that i'm i'm a little reluctant to table this since it looks like this was sent in 2023 and feels like it's been tabled long enough but you know i do have that question on security but you know just want to be cognizant of our agenda and the time spent where this has been tabled so yeah [1:55:15] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Understood, Kristen. [1:55:22] Jonas (Rent Board member): Sorry, I was staring. Yeah, no, so I think it makes sense to approve the application, maybe not state the final amount until the information that Jonas is asking for is brought back. And in the event that materially changes how we review the application for the amount, then we can just adjust it at the next meeting. I mean, I think either way, they're not going to get a final finding of fact and conclusion of law until at least the next meeting anyways. So I feel like regardless of what we do, it's still going to go to the next meeting. [1:56:11] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Yeah, that's what I was like. I don't know if that conditional approval is really necessary. We could probably just take a look at some more information. [1:56:19] Speaker K (unidentified): Yeah, Mr. Chair, of the two approaches, I would recommend that the board table And given that this has been in the hopper for some length of time, I'm more than happy to prepare a draft decision so that's ready to go at the next meeting and you folks can adopt the night of. [1:56:41] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): That sounds perfect. Perfect. Then I would move that we table the application for 439 Congress Street to our next regularly scheduled meeting so that the applicant can provide some details on the security costs and the legal costs. I second. Great. All right, then. Pause for a moment for discussion. discussion all right then I'll call to a vote the motion on the floor is to table the application for 439 Congress Street to our next regularly scheduled meetings that the applicant can provide some details on the security and legal costs Kristen Yes, Jonas, yes, buddy, yes, and Laura, yes, and I also vote yes. all right thanks pj we'll make sure to get you a email from that dylan i don't know if you want me to send you over that request and right here if you feel you capture that i'll send you an email for it just afterwards it helps me track it too all right then our remaining business for the day is that we is to schedule another workshop for to continue working on application updates and also to i think start to look at the annual report so i think we all really liked keeping it to the six to Eight that worked well, and so then it's really just about a date for everyone. So keeping it to Wednesdays, either the 7th or the 14th of October, gives us that meeting without having another meeting back to back in weeks. So I don't know if either of those are particularly functional. [1:59:26] Jonas (Rent Board member): For everyone. Kristen? I just wanted to share with the group that the subcommittee will be meeting again on October 1st. So I don't know if it matters to Council or Plant if you want a little bit more time after we have the next subcommittee meeting to get anything together to prepare the next workshop, and if that influences when we would schedule our next workshop. I just want to make sure we have some meaningful time to actually provide some updates for discussion so... [2:00:02] Speaker K (unidentified): just giving you a little bit more time ben always appreciated kristen i would defer to the board's preference i certainly think i could make the seventh work or the 14th so whatever you folks would prefer works on my end. And [2:00:29] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Then does the 14th work for people? [2:00:33] Speaker F (unidentified): Yep. I was about to say I prefer the 14th, but not Strong. I... [2:00:41] Jonas (Rent Board member): Don't have issues with the 14th. [2:00:45] Speaker D (unidentified): I don't either. And I know we talked about this over email, Matt, but the draft for the annual report is finished. So this could also be a good time if we have time to review that together. [2:00:56] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Yeah, definitely. Let's make sure that's the other. We have that on the agenda. [2:01:02] Speaker F (unidentified): For there, Jonas, I think Ann or kind of brings up a good point as we're going into kind of these monthly workshops. If we do have items, and I emailed you, one Matthew, where we want to put something on the agenda for the workshop, what's the workflow associated with that? Is that just... [2:01:19] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Emailing you? I guess me and Dylan, and yeah, and yeah, I don't see a reason not to get that stuff on there. I can forward. I think you may be copied, Dylan. Maybe no, I can pour that over too... Thank you when I respond to you. Thanks, Jonas. All right, so then we'll have a workshop meeting from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Eastern Time on October 14th. I don't think we need to move about it because I think I can just call him, Dylan, if you can just please try and message Gordon, email Gordon about it because you know I'm not the best on that. Which me saying that will make sure I immediately email him. But all right, thank you everybody, and I think the last thing on our agenda is to adjourn, so somebody has a motion for that. [2:02:29] Speaker F (unidentified): I move to adjourn the Wednesday, September 23rd, 2026, Rent Control Board meeting. I'll... [2:02:39] Jonas (Rent Board member): Second. Wonderful. [2:02:42] Matt Lacks (Rent Board Chair): Then let's call it to a vote, Kristen. Yes, Jonas, yes, buddy, yes, and Laura, yes, and I also vote yes. Thank you, everybody, very much. And we'll see each other all on the 14th of October at 6 p.m. [2:03:06] Speaker D (unidentified): Everybody has a nice night.