Portland Rent Board rules fees at 28 Saint George part of rent, orders refunds and fines after appeal

The Portland Rent Board on June 11 ruled that a set of monthly charges the owner of 28 Saint George Street listed as “optional” are part of rent and therefore were an unlawful rent increase under Portland’s rent‑stabilization rules. The board ordered the landlord to reset rent for the affected unit to the last code‑compliant amount, ordered repayment to tenants and forfeiture of banked rent, and assessed civil penalties for registration and retaliatory notices.

The ruling follows a hearing in which the appellant, the Portland Tenants Union, and tenants of Unit 3 — Helen and Rayo — said the landlord, identified in board filings as John Clemens and Abigail Harper, listed amenities (parking, garden access, deck use, laundry access, storage and a pet fee) as optional items on a lease presented to new tenants. Ethan Strimling, who spoke for the tenant union, told the board the optional fees were effectively mandatory because prospective tenants were told the unit would be leased only if they accepted the listed charges. "If you don't take them, you won't get the unit," Strimling said, describing the tenants' understanding.

Why it matters: Portland's rent‑stabilization rules define a rental unit and the components that count as rent. The board found that carving previously included common‑area rights and services out of a unit and charging them separately would undermine the scope of rent controls the city adopted. The decision affects how landlords in Portland may package charges for parking, storage, outdoor space and similar features for covered units.

What the board found and ordered

- The board found by vote that tenant access to and use of driveway/parking spots, garage bays, storage, the yard/garden, laundry and the deck, and the ability to keep pets at 28 Saint George Street are components of rent under the city ordinance and that those items were included in the rent when the base rent for the unit was established.

- The board found the lease language and attendant communications showed those items had been presented as mandatory to prospective tenants. On that basis it concluded the owner had charged rent in excess of the last code‑compliant rent and therefore was in substantial noncompliance with the rent ordinance.

- The board ordered the landlord to reset the rent for Unit 3 to the last code‑compliant amount identified in the record, $1,100 per month, and to repay tenants for overcharges. The board’s computation of overpayments for Unit 3 totaled $18,396 in rent overcharges plus $364 for an overcharged security deposit and $100 for a pet deposit, for a total repayment order of $18,860 to the tenants.

- The board also ordered forfeiture of “banked rent” (rent collected above the lawful level that had been set aside) for 28 Saint George Street.

Retaliation finding and penalties

The board found that the landlord served 90‑day notices to tenants in Units 1 and 3 on June 1, 2025, shortly after the tenant union and tenants had filed a complaint and after the city had begun a violations process. The board concluded the timing and surrounding facts supported a finding of retaliation under Portland City Code section 6‑237(e). As a remedy the board voted to recommend a civil penalty equal to $200 per day per unit (that is, $400 per day total for Units 1 and 3) beginning June 1, 2025. The fines will continue to accrue until the retaliation is withdrawn by one of the following: the landlord re‑offers the unit(s) to the affected tenants for an agreed period; the tenants vacate by mutual agreement; or the tenants’ tenancies are lawfully terminated (for example after a lawful eviction). The board modeled the remedy on a prior board decision.

Registration and other penalties

The board also found the owner had failed to register Unit 3 on the city’s long‑term rental registration when required for the 2024 license year in violation of section 6‑233(a). The board recommended a penalty of $500 for that failure and recommended a penalty for the rent‑overcharge equal to $100 per month for 12 months (a $1,200 assessment), consistent with the board’s authority to apply penalties under the city’s enforcement provisions.

Evidence and testimony

Tenant union witnesses described how a previous lease (with prior owner James Coleman Motley) and online listings advertised the same common amenities without separate monthly charges. Coleman Motley testified that parking, garage access, laundry and the yard had been included in rent under his ownership. "Many of [the items] were pretty clearly outlined within the existing leases," Motley told the board.

Former Unit 3 tenant Michelle Pabo described paying $1,100 monthly for a decade under the prior landlord and said she had never been charged fees for porch, yard, garage or laundry. "Everything was included... There was never any extra fees," Pabo said.

City staff and the rental‑registration inspector (Adam, who identified himself on the record) described the enforcement challenge. The inspector told the board he had struggled to identify an enforcement hook under the city code because Article 6 and Article 12 contain different, sometimes overlapping, definitions of dwelling unit and rental unit. "I can't compel a landlord to provide anything less than the minimum... standards for a dwelling unit," he said, explaining his interpretation of what the city can compel administratively. He asked the board to clarify which article’s definition should govern enforcement in future similar cases.

Owner response and absence

The owner of 28 Saint George did not appear at the hearing. The owner’s counsel filed written materials that were part of the record; the city staff confirmed the landlord had been given notice and the opportunity to appear. The board considered written evidence and testimony from tenants and the prior owner in the owner’s absence.

Process notes and next steps

The board closed the public hearing after deliberations and voted on the findings and remedies. Board staff will prepare the formal written decision that will state the board’s findings of law and the remedies ordered. City staff has enforcement authority for some penalties; the board’s decision includes recommended civil penalties and findings that staff can use to pursue compliance.

Quotes

"If you don't take them, you won't get the unit," Ethan Strimling, Portland Tenants Union, said of the way tenants understood the optional‑fee language in the new lease.

"Many of [the items] were pretty clearly outlined within the existing leases," said former owner James Coleman Motley, describing the prior lease terms.

"Everything was included... There was never any extra fees," said former tenant Michelle Pabo, describing the prior lease under the previous owner.

"I can't compel a landlord to provide anything less than the minimum... standards for a dwelling unit," said Adam, the city's rental‑registration inspector, describing the enforcement limits he confronted when investigating the case.

Ending

The board’s written order will specify how and when repayment and forfeiture must occur and will identify the point at which the retaliation fines stop accruing if the landlord withdraws the adverse action under terms the board specified. The board's decisions in this hearing may guide future enforcement and landlord practices around how common areas and services are billed in Portland covered units.

If the landlord disputes the board’s decision, the code provides administrative and judicial review paths; city staff and the board indicated they will follow the board’s adopted procedures for finalizing the written order and notifying affected parties.