[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6302857,"mediaKeyId","2475907-9f3ef39b168ab6e64c35b877712c5eaa","parentId",2475907,"title","Rent board advances completeness-check plan for MNOI applications: affidavit, thresholds tied to CPI and rental-history cards proposed","audioSeconds",5278,"startMs",4467000,"endMs",9745000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2475907-9f3ef39b168ab6e64c35b877712c5eaa&start=4467&end=9745","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2475907-9f3ef39b168ab6e64c35b877712c5eaa/thumbnail_4467000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6302857/Portland/Cumberland-County/Maine/Rent-board-advances-completeness-check-plan-for-MNOI-applications-affidavit-thresholds-tied-to-CPI-and-rental-history-cards-proposed","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6302857-16b637c4ac135623c52015eed68046d4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184479&Signature=oSHBTk5~SR2DJQepP8J9iLiDVFuZPUc5pg30KglMVBOPmVS1UYW6AEcvTqXpTcjAUdTEcAUjF0z5FHZ3LWOeVmPWFrMJaqQuSW-c78JIb9HO7V2OrojW7ssAIyEoGACRZAFCuZk6uIb2t-Tz0OBJBgqU01kSzzfovmfHo6tK0olz2A1qyGRkdj5aVhbK2A80W9GS0XCqvnFFef525cDbjCrS5aguY2AofNm9u9-4NOCGvvY2o5wEh5pP4JXl3q3yuT3GW2RDluGbeVthJPrLqm4mZKdNAyO42EQ08KRSGFV~KjvrrCjiRPqi4y46j5OyZSCVrnZGw9r1MuNSpbQJ-w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Portland Maine ","date","2025-02-12T00:00:00Z","article","Kristen, a Rent Board member, and Matt Lacks, a board member working on procedures, presented a draft completeness‑check for MNOI (net operating income) applications at a February workshop and asked the board for policy direction on affidavit language, documentation thresholds and workflow changes for staff review.

The nut of the discussion: board members and staff want to reduce incomplete or inconsistent submissions and speed case processing by clarifying what documentation is required up front. The proposals include adding an applicant affidavit, requiring clearer year‑by‑year historical NOI figures, using a percentage threshold tied to CPI to trigger required receipts, and providing a simple “rental history card” to show base rent, allowed increases and banked increases.

Kristen said the completeness-check is intended “to create a process where applicants using the MNOI form can be more complete, earlier on in their application,” so the board can spend less time requesting missing documents and more time on substantive hearings. The draft includes an affidavit (language drawn from external guidance) placed near the signature line that would make applicants affirm the accuracy of submitted data.

Board discussion focused on three linked issues: thresholds for when documentary proof is required, the statutory base year to use in MNOI calculations, and how much of the tax/expense detail to ask for routinely.

On thresholds, several board members supported tying documentary triggers to CPI-based percentage changes rather than an absolute dollar amount. As one board member put it, a percentage threshold “scales” with inflationary context and avoids repeatedly changing a fixed dollar cutoff. Matt Walker (presenter) and others suggested the registration form already calculates total CPI from the base year and that the board could use that same percentage to identify expense categories that rose faster than the CPI and therefore warrant supporting documentation.

Legal counsel Aga cautioned the board about changing the ordinance’s defined base year. “I tend to agree that I don't think you can unilaterally change the base year,” she told the board, noting the ordinance presumes a 2019 pre‑rent‑control base for determining a fair return but that the board can adopt rules about how to handle rebuttals to that presumption. The board therefore discussed two related approaches: (1) keep the statutory base year (2019) as the presumption while drafting rules that clarify when an alternate base year or additional evidence is allowable; or (2) rely on CPI‑based thresholds to minimize the number of cases requiring full MNOI rebuttal analyses.

Board members and staff discussed additional practical measures: (a) require applicants to provide historical NOI (revenue and expenses) for all years between the base year and current year (the ordinance already lists historical NOI among the acceptable documentation); (b) ask for a clear monthly income-by-unit table for base and current years so reviewers can verify gross rental income; (c) introduce a rental-history card sent to registrants at registration time showing banked increases and the calculated maximum allowable increase for the next year; and (d) where a property reports anomalous numbers (for example, large $0 counts for covered units or reported increases above the cap), prioritize those properties for Licensing & Housing Safety audit before a board hearing.

Several board members said that requiring certain receipts is appropriate for categories that commonly vary and that can be verified independently (property tax bills, utility invoices, contracts for professional services). Others urged caution about demanding every receipt for small-dollar items and recommended a threshold that triggers documentation for the categories with greatest impact.

On the question of whether the board could treat the affidavit as a substitute for receipts, members and counsel rejected that approach: the affidavit would reinforce the applicant’s burden of proof and allow stronger grounds to deny an application where the form and supporting evidence materially conflict, but it would not replace the need for documentary evidence in high‑impact categories.

Counsel advised that the board can and should work on rule text and an instruction set that make the form look and act like a rule rather than an optional worksheet; Aga offered to help draft language clarifying that the board retains discretion to request additional evidence beyond the form’s baseline and that the 2019 presumption can be rebutted only with substantial documentation.

Board directions and next steps agreed at the workshop included: staff and board members will (1) refine the draft affidavit and the MNOI workbook, (2) develop specific CPI‑linked threshold options for the board to consider, (3) crosswalk form categories with IRS/tax categories to simplify applicant preparation, and (4) return a revised draft rule and form for further review. Counsel indicated she will assist with drafting rule language to ensure the form’s instruction pages make clear which fields are required and which documentary triggers will apply.

No formal vote was taken at the workshop. The board signaled broad support for the completeness‑check approach, asked staff to produce a revised draft with proposed numeric threshold options and suggested sample language that could be used to notify registrants to preserve historical records going forward.

Ending: Staff will circulate a revised draft of the completeness-check form and proposed threshold language; counsel will help craft the rule text clarifying the affidavit and the board’s authority to require additional documentation when applicants’ submissions appear inconsistent with supporting documents.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Remote Rent Board Meeting (Workshop) - February 12, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Kristen, a Rent Board member, and Matt Lacks, a Rent Board member working on procedures, presented a draft completeness‑check for MNOI applications and asked the board for direction on an affidavit, documentation thresholds and a rental‑history card.","taxTitle","Portland, Cumberland County, Maine","taxId",2582,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6302861,"Portland rent-board presentation: covered-unit medians under $1,600; zeros and exempt registrations distort dataset",3648,125000,3773000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2475907-9f3ef39b168ab6e64c35b877712c5eaa&start=125&end=3773","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2475907-9f3ef39b168ab6e64c35b877712c5eaa/thumbnail_125000.jpg","/articles/6302861/Portland/Cumberland-County/Maine/Portland-rent-board-presentation-covered-unit-medians-under-1600-zeros-and-exempt-registrations-distort-dataset","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6302861-2cf46cc0dc8446a5d49df608a48df62d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184479&Signature=CCLeG0YU5pYxS9f~4uCFu0X43FLiiVcOBKNyaBPRC4YonNg0g2CLUR4HJSSQO-1zhBC6~UXjHpXoEOtTVqWHxz~csIGwaCmbmAHJ8GAsEVEKgR5-ROrVZljlIoQyQPqzUQYZFe-TvY9Kx2Aosi-voEObVq8tJEflyECfQH8C0E3q~7G7W5vJcF3~21ZxztZIxGLuFG5o58X6-cJY2miY2~WMWp~Er8RlBxTjLin7cRnsxAL39T6JV~o0TNRZweNZXGwbDRfEKLaoIQ3kRHB7vwlIg8Y08JHvZQQUg-M-ZcxGPTVTTd34rsKrkNO24gx99qPDnGiS7n~Baah-ClqBTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Matt Walker, a Portland Rent Board member and the meeting’s data presenter, reviewed the city’s 2023–2024 rental-registration data and methodology at a February special meeting, saying the dataset should be interpreted only for covered units because many exempt units are entered as zeros in the registration software.

The presentation matters because the board must rely on the registration dataset to produce the annual rent report, to identify possible violations, and to set or recommend changes to board procedures. Board members and staff said the software’s requirement that a numeric value be entered forces many exempt units to show a $0 rent, which distorts simple counts and some summary statistics.

Walker told the board that the dataset snapshot used for the analysis compares “current” rent (November 2023) to “previous” rent (November 2022) because the full 2024 registration year was not yet available. He said he did not remove outliers except for $0 rents tied to exempt units and relied on medians rather than averages to reduce the influence of high-valued outliers.

Dylan, a Licensing & Housing Safety staff member who supplied and explained the registration data, summarized staff guidance on the zeros: “I have run into things where we thought there was a violation and turns out it was an exempt property and they just gave us all the data and did not select the exemption,” and added that some property owners register an otherwise-unoccupied unit with a 0 rent to preserve the record.

Key counts and findings Walker presented (as summarized at the meeting): 17,513 units were registered in the snapshot; about 11,000 of those were classified as covered units and roughly 6,500 as exempt. Licensing staff’s proactive auditing and enforcement covered about 3,900 units across roughly 550 properties during the reporting period, a figure the presenter said represented roughly 22% of units in the city.

On application volume, Walker read material from a quarterly report showing the board had received about 43 applications during the year; Walker said the annual report counted 14 approvals, 1 denial and 28 tabling actions. Dylan clarified to the board that the “28” figure represents the number of tabling actions logged during the year and can include multiple tablings of the same application, which inflates that count relative to the number of distinct properties still pending.

Walker presented median rents by unit type (covered units, after removing zero entries): studios roughly $1,100; one‑bedrooms about $1,400; two‑bedrooms about $1,700; three‑bedrooms about $2,000. He said the overall median rent for covered units—calculated after excluding zero entries tied to exempt registrations—was about $1,588. He emphasized those medians are medians of reported, covered-unit rents and cautioned against drawing conclusions from the exempt-unit rows, which he said “are not reliable for analysis.”

The presentation also covered rent-increase distributions. Walker reported most covered-unit increases clustered in the 5–10% band (the allowable annual-increase practices include AIP/CPI and turnover exceptions). He said about 6% of covered units reported increases greater than the allowable 10% ceiling, and that those registrations were targets for Licensing & Housing Safety investigations.

Board members and staff discussed presentation refinements requested before publication: (1) add a short executive-summary slide listing three key takeaways for council, (2) clarify the color-key and labels on district-by-district medians, (3) remove or footnote exempt-unit charts so readers do not misinterpret zeros as actual $0 rents, and (4) flag records reporting $0 for covered units for audit. Kristen, a Rent Board member, specifically suggested a brief year‑over‑year comparison on the executive summary so council members can see trends.

Recommendations Walker offered for the annual report and registry practice included: explicitly excluding exempt-unit zero entries from median and distribution calculations; a software-side “flag” or completeness check that prevents or flags clearly inconsistent registrations (for example, registrations that claim a $0 rent for a covered unit or increases over 10% without a supporting board approval); producing a “rental history card” for each registered unit that shows base rent and all allowable increases (to clarify banked increases); and giving applicants a link to the live spreadsheet with plots so other board members can reproduce or replot the analysis.

Board members thanked Walker and staff for the analysis and asked staff to correct labeling and presentation issues before the report goes to council. There were no formal votes on data-reporting practices during the workshop; the board directed staff to take the suggested edits and return a revised draft in follow-up meetings.

Walker closed by reiterating that the board should treat the covered-unit dataset as the authoritative source for rent-control analysis and that exempt-unit entries should be either reported in a clearly separate table or require legislative change to capture the same fields as covered units.

Next steps: staff will prepare a revised draft of the annual report and the board will consider the draft and the proposed completeness-check edits at a future meeting. No formal policy changes were adopted at the workshop.","Matt Walker, a Portland Rent Board member and the meeting’s data presenter, reviewed the city’s 2023–2024 rental-registration data and methodology at a February special meeting, saying the dataset should be interpreted only for covered units because many exempt units are entered as zeros in the registration software.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Rent board advances completeness-check plan for MNOI applications: affidavit, thresholds tied to CPI and rental-history cards proposed

Portland rent-board presentation: covered-unit medians under $1,600; zeros and exempt registrations distort dataset