Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rent Board Decision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portland Rent Board approves Port Property request for four buildings, sets blended $117.54 per-unit increase
Summary
After two hours of questioning and debate over pandemic-era costs and management fees, the Portland Rent Board approved Port Property Management’s grouped application for four buildings — a blended increase of $117.54 per unit — by a 4–2 vote.
The Portland Rent Board voted 4–2 on Oct. 8, 2025, to approve a grouped rent‑increase application from Port Property Management covering 89 Spruce St., 105 Forest Ave., 139 Williams St. and 202 Dartmouth St., setting a blended allowance of $117.54 per unit.
The board’s action followed a staff‑led presentation and an hour of questions from members about maintenance billing, allocation of shared expenses and whether pandemic‑era spikes in 2021–22 should determine a permanent rent adjustment. Dylan, a city staff member, described the redline changes to the ordinance and the procedural history leading to the filings; Port Property representative Ben Bergeron walked the board through the combined ledger and corrected a math error in the application that had misstated a per‑unit figure.
“We combine all of those and take the total increase and divide it by the total number of units to get a blended increase,” Bergeron said while explaining why the company grouped properties owned by a single legal entity. He also corrected an earlier narrative error and confirmed the intended blended increase of $117.54 per unit.
Board members probed line items in the ledgers, asking whether maintenance charges reflected employee wages or included overhead and profit and whether some large, one‑time repairs should be excluded. Matt Walker, a board member who voted against the final motion, argued the application type — filed under an older ordinance provision for "increased housing service costs" — could improperly double‑count inflationary impacts that the ordinance already addresses.
“The ordinance already had a spot for inflation,” Walker said. “This application seems to be recovering a pandemic-era spike in perpetuity.”
Other members, including Kristen and Buddy Moore, said the board has previously accepted similar ledgers and that invoices backing the entries exist in the agency’s drive even when condensed packets omit them. Counsel for the board summarized prior board decisions and a 2021 court reference that informed the definition of housing service costs for these applications.
Kristen moved to approve the Port Property application in the blended amount of $117.54; the board first set the amount and then voted on the main motion. The roll‑call votes were recorded as four in favor and two opposed. Chair Matt Lacks and Matt Walker voted no; Buddy Moore, Ann Lore, Kristen and Rebecca voted yes.
The board then recessed and moved on to public hearings for two separate Spar Inc. applications. The Port Property approvals relate to filings under the earlier ordinance and reflect costs incurred in 2021–22; Bergeron cautioned that those approvals do not necessarily mean landlords will immediately implement rent increases and said some increases could be “banked.”
What’s next: The board approved the allowance and will include the decision in the public record; members who objected were reminded they may submit dissents to clarify their reasoning.
