Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rent Increase topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Middletown commission blocks $200 rent increase for longtime tenant until pool and library access restored

Middletown Fair Rent Commission · June 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Middletown Fair Rent Commission found a requested $200 monthly increase for a Stonegate Apartments tenant to be unfair and conditioned any increase on restoring access to a promised pool and library, citing cuts to services and a 16.7% hike with limited justification.

The Middletown Fair Rent Commission on Tuesday ruled that a proposed $200-a-month rent increase at Stonegate Apartments is unfair and may not take effect until the landlord restores access to a shared swimming pool and the building library.

The finding came after tenant Thomas Wilmoth, who said he has lived at Stonegate for more than 25 years, told commissioners he faces a $200 increase and documented repeated maintenance problems under Up Realty’s management, including a broken dishwasher, unreliable elevator service, missing or non-functioning security cameras, overflowing dumpsters and a closed library. “I am here tonight to appeal a $200 a month proposed rental increase by Up Realty,” Wilmoth said in his opening statement.

Commissioners debated whether the increase, which one commissioner calculated as a 16.7% rise from the tenant’s base rent, was justified by higher operating costs or by improvements to the property. Commissioner Fennell, citing the commission’s statutory factors, said the commission had not seen evidence of corresponding increases in overhead and that cuts to services weighed against permitting the increase. “That’s 16.7% rent increase at a time when the CPI was 2.4%,” Fennell said during deliberations.

Landlord counsel argued the increase aligned with comparable rents at the property, asserting that original units command between $13.50 and $15.50 per month and that many work orders had been completed. Counsel also denied there was any retaliation and questioned the relevance of older complaints. Commissioners and counsel debated the scope of the tenant’s complaint and the weight to give prior records and work-order logs presented during cross-examination.

After discussion, the commission adopted a motion — as amended and supported by a roll-call vote — finding the increase “unfair and inequitable” on the ground that services had been cut (principle 4 of the ordinance). The order conditions the $200 increase on two requirements: the pool must be accessible, cleaned, and opened in accordance with applicable regulations, and the library must be accessible. Once the commission is satisfied those conditions are met, the rent increase may take effect and will apply for one year from the effective date.

The commission instructed staff to issue a written decision within 30 days. Commissioners also said they would follow up with city agencies on building safety matters raised during testimony — including checking whether local inspectors or the fire marshal had records about elevator safety — and reserved the right to consider procedural rule changes related to post-complaint rent charges.

Wilmoth said he appreciated commissioners’ attention to security and amenity issues affecting seniors at the property. The commission’s order sets a clear compliance path for the landlord and a procedural timeframe for when the increase could be implemented.

The commission adjourned after directing staff to circulate a written order; the written decision is expected to be issued within 30 days.