Okay, Chairman Johnson. Uh, we are on the record, it is recording. >> Thank you. Good evening all. Um, having been properly advertised in accordance with the sunshine laws of the state of New Jersey,
today, May 14th, this meeting of the Jersey City Rent Leveling Board is called to order at 6:05 p.m. We'd like to start off the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance >> to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> May I have a roll call, please? >> Okay. Okay. As I say your name, please
respond here or I. Alexander de Hamilton. >> I >> sorry about that. Tiffany McQuiry >> I >> James Eco >> I >> Tita Ellesio >> Hi
>> Sullivan C Sullivan Johnson >> I >> Sandra Robinson Green >> I >> and Dan Hill >> I Okay, we do have a quorum. All right. There being a quorum of the board, the meeting will proceed. Um, first I would
like to thank anyone that is present here uh for attending the meeting tonight and everyone will have an opportunity to speak. So, but please speak only when recognized by the chair. Address the board, not your adversary. Keep a presentation to the issues in
question and the board will listen to all sides of your complaint or application and come to a decision. All parties will also receive the written decision within three weeks. You will then have 45 days to appeal the decision to the superior court. So if you do not
like our decision tonight, please be civil and appeal it when you receive it in writing. I do count on your cooperation tonight. Thank you. Um like to ask if there have been any applications for propospatters
that are on tonight's agenda. Um we we did get a last minute uh request for a cancellation but we decided to to proceed forward because this case has actually been hanging in a balance for about six to six months to a year. >> Okay.
All right. It appears that we have two cases on the agenda for tonight. Uh they are pretty much companion cases. Um, but I guess we should start off um by taking a look at our claim number
H 2024004. This happens to be um a hardship application for 10 Huron Avenue. Landlord being 2011 St. Paul's Conversion Corp. Um and the landlord's attorney was
William Goberg Esquire. going to be giving that they are companion cases. The second would be claim number 202400005. Landlord being 2011 St. Paul's Conversion Corp. Excuse me. Oh yes. Um
same attorney, William Gills Goldsberg, but this is for the address at 2011 St. Paul's Avenue. And again, these are hardship applications. Um I would ask, is there anyone here tonight representing the landlord?
Okay, come in this morning. >> Sean Kilby from Rockport Management, the management company for St. Paul's Conversion Corp. >> Speak up. >> Uh my name is Sean Kilby from Rockport Management from We're the management company for 2011 St. Paul's Conversion
Corp. The attorney is unable to make it tonight. He actually had to go into the hospital last minute. >> Okay. Um well feel >> as me >> Sean S an last name Kilby K I L by Y.
>> Okay. >> I do >> I'll just interject here before we get into testimony or anything like that. Um, this case previously was before the board in last May and in that case the
commissioners Danon Hill, Sullivven Johnson, James Ecock, Alexander Hamilton, and Joseph Williams were present. I think before any of the members who are present today that were not there, if they can just confirm for the record that you reviewed the transcript of that meeting to
participate tonight. Okay, I guess I'll go first. Commissioner Green. >> Uh, yes, I've reviewed the transcript. >> Thank you, Commissioner Mccuri. >> Yes, I have reviewed a transcript. Commissioners Hill and the chair and
vice chair were there and Alexander Hamilton were there. I'm so sorry I forgot your name. >> Toita Lizoo. >> Toita Nazu. Commissioner, did you review the transcript? >> I did not. >> Okay. I think that you should um be recused
from this matter. >> Okay then. Sorry for interrupting chair. >> No, no. Um we can proceed. Uh so feel free please uh present your case. Um >> so sorry I will interrupt one more time.
>> I think before we hear anything from the landlord's representative just an overview of of what we're doing tonight is probably appropriate. This board approved a provisional hardship increase last May
um for both of these cases. In that determination, the uh formula, the hardship formula was incorrectly applied in that the recommendation did not include the
confirmed operating loss. So, the board reviewed the landlord's expenses and confirmed that they were reasonable um and that there was an operating loss. Um, but the numbers that the board approved or the increase that the board
approved only factored in the fair return. So, in order to comply with the ordinance and the constitution, the board uh needs to rectify the application of that calculation. Um, and
to explain that, I think it would be appropriate to first hear from the bureau. And I will say because we're only here to correct an error of the calculation, we're not receiving any new testimony or
um reviewing the reasonleness of primary or previously made determinations. >> And thank you. Uh and that's where I stand corrected because frankly there was a discussion um on the procedure and what you're
saying is absolutely correct. So in that case if we could have the >> Yes. Eric >> I do. Good evening commissioners. Good evening, uh, Chairman Johnson. Uh, Eric
Bolith, assistant director for Division of House, uh, housing preservation and, uh, the hearing officer for this, um, these two applications. >> I'm sorry, can you say that? >> I I am the hearing officer for these two applications. Again, we're returning
tonight. >> Um, and Mr. Bullworth, one of the things that I was just trying to make sure that I understood um were the calculations and and the calculations that were presented in your instance as far as you're concerned, these are accurate
based upon the information you have available to you at least to the bureau. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um in that particular instance, there's really no and no other questions I personally have. I mean we I think we understand at least in having the
opportunity to read through everything. The board um has a understanding of what the nature of the case really is. It's really here to go and take care of the fact that there was an error in a calculation. We're not really changing anything else um versus what we had done
before. We're now looking at square footage. And I think it would be probably appropriate just to make a motion to accept the information that's presented by the bureau. >> I ju before we do that, I'm sorry uh commissioner. Um I just wanted to state
too that uh just for the record um I know that it's in the recommendation. Uh but I just wanted to confirm that um the week of the last meeting uh our inspector uh Tom Colleen, chief inspector Tom Colleen uh verified that
all violations that were found in both buildings were abated. >> Uh and again that gets back to uh the substantial compliance which was uh also an issue with the again recalculating for square footage. Um, so I just wanted to confirm that on the record.
>> Also, assistant director, if you may, for the benefit of the board and the record, can you walk through the change in the calculation or the the correction as with the numbers and and what's happening here now? Uh, again, I just
recalculated per square footage. uh before um the calculation was based on uh per unit and uh I remember that council William Goldberg
I believe made a request that it be recalculated uh in square footage as per unit again. So uh that break that breaks it down just a little bit further. You can imagine if the units weren't the same size or sorry same number of rooms
then we could you know recalculate it per room but they they requested to do it per square footage. >> Yes. But the previous recommendation and determination by the board only included the fair return. So this correction will result in in larger rents but still
applied based on square footage. So I could you please discuss that aspect of the revised calculation with the board? Uh I be I I'm not following. >> So at the last meeting, yes,
>> there was a confirmed operating loss. >> Okay. >> And the increase only increased the rent by the result of the fair return formula and did not address the confirmed operating loss. So the increase would still result in the landlord losing
money. And >> I would have to go back to my last calculation to confirm that. Um, again, I was under the impression that Commissioner Eco motion to remand
the case to the bureau for a recommendation as to the amount of the increase per room for each apartment. Confirmation at the violations have been abated and for the landlord's attorney to provide the bureau with the necessary documentation for the bureau to proceed with his calculations.
Commissioner Isakov second the motion. the motion to remand the case to the bureau further a recommendation as to the amount of increased confirmation that f excuse me that the violations have been abated for the landlord's
attorney to present the necessary documentation to the bureau pass 60. Um, I don't recall that there was an issue with the fair return um or or or
whether it was I I would have to re I would have to review my recommendation. Okay. >> Um but again, I I recalculated it um per square footage. I just that's all I
did. I just recalculated per square footage. >> I think also I think also one of the other reasons why we kind of like um push the push the case back because there were open um open items that were weren't addressed
at the time. So because of those open items, those things weren't completed. We didn't move forward with the numbers. And then now that everything has been abated, we can go back to the new numbers. Correct. D cor director. >> Um, so yeah, I mean, yeah, there were
violations that again weren't proven uh abated by the last hearing date. Um, and that's why it was a provisional uh approval. Uh however, it wasn't a provisional approval because again,
yeah, they they wanted the uh hardship calculation recalculated per square footage, right? Or I mean, that was my understanding. >> That that's what I recall also. >> Yeah. >> Uh that we wanted I don't believe the
landlord was given any ability to increase the rents since >> No. No. Yes. Because again it was they from what my understanding was was council for a landlord requested um that
it be recalculated per square footage. >> Yes. The increase as recommended was on a perunit basis and the landlord did request it to be applied on a per square foot basis. However, to the substance of the actual numbers, for instance, for
Tenhiron, there was a confirmed operating loss and annual loss of $72,000. $72,556.54, but the recommendation, which the board approved provisionally, was to grant a monthly increase of
$2,712.50 per month. So, if that increase was granted, the landlord is still operating at a loss, which is inconsistent with the ordinance. >> Do it again.
>> I I I'm sorry. I'm reading from the the there was a June 12th, 2025 decision of the Jersey City Rent Leveling Board. Um maybe I have the wrong one.
You might have the first one, Eric. >> Um, well, there's a June 9th, 2025, but then yeah, then we have the the June 12th. Um, >> I'm sorry. >> So, I'm June 12th.
>> June June 12th, 2025. Uh, right. Yeah, that's that there's a June 12th, 2025 rent leveling board decision. Which one are is there one after this one?
>> Not that I'm aware of. I was not aware of the June 12th decision. Okay. Um, >> we got something in December of 2025 with new >> if you could I'm sorry. If you could speak into the microphone for the
record, that would be helpful. >> Sorry. >> Yeah, I have to look it up. >> I believe we received a new letter in uh December of 2025 with new amounts in it and at that time those were satisfactory to us. Um, I'll try and dig that up from
the email. >> That would be helpful as well. >> My understanding is that this matter was heard in May and there was a draft decision circulated on June 9th that incorrectly applied the formula that
raised the rents provisionally with the numbers that I just said that would still result in an operating loss. That's I'm I'm not aware of the June 12th opinion. That's my understanding of why the board is convened tonight. Um, >> yeah. I I think what what had happened
was I have the the June 12th which is referencing the hearing from November 2024. >> Mhm. >> Um, so yeah, I again I stand by my calculation. Um, I I I
adjusted it. I've definitely gone over all the proofs that were provided. Um, so as a hearing officer, yeah, I I again I stand by my recommendation. >> May you please for for the record and the board say what your calculations are, the ones that that you're standing
by that you recommend the board adopt now. Um, So, uh, 2011 St. Paul's. >> Um, you want me to just every increase per unit? >> No, I would do annual confirmed
operating loss. >> Okay. >> The F return the recommended increase. >> Okay. So the um let's see the allowed uh total income was found
for 2011 St. Paul's Avenue uh was $119,839.56. The proven annual operating expenses was 144,74.31. The operating loss was 24,8 uh sorry $864.75.
The hardship increase allowed um as per the fair return was 54,87962. Uh increase allowed monthly was $4,573.30 and the increase allowed per square foot
monthly was 56. Um, >> you said for 2011 the monthly increase was $4,573.30. >> I'm sorry. >> You said the monthly increase for 2011 was 4573.
>> Yes, that that was in the recommendation for 2011 St. Paul's. >> Thank you. >> And sorry, just bear with me. I'll grab the >> Do any of the commissioners have questions about that? and those numbers
>> personally I I do not >> okay >> I don't have a question on the calculation but what we would be ultimately approving is the bureau's calculation calculated rent increase
>> yes that calculated rent increase would be a monthly increase spread spread across the units based on square footage of $4,573, excuse me, $73. >> Sorry, any any questions for 2011 St.
Paul's? M >> and just for the record, the proofs and evidence and the receipts and everything for that number were reviewed at the previous meeting and all of the
commissioners that reviewed that had a chance to review that and the transcript of that. So that's why we're not going into that >> at this meeting. This meeting is just to correct the calculations. >> Thank you, director. >> Uh Tenhuron Avenue, you guys ready?
Okay. So, for 10 Huron Avenue, um the allowed total income was 118,87260. Uh the claimed annual operating expenses were uh $191,429.14. The operating loss is $72,556.554.
The hardship increase allowed uh per the fair return is $15,000 I'm sorry $15,1667. the increased allowed uh monthly uh sorry the allowed monthly increase is $8,7589
and then the increase allowed per square feet monthly is 84. Any questions commissioners? No questions. Okay. Well, >> does the landlord have anything? The representative landlord have anything to
say? >> And what I was Okay. after after you because I was just >> the the attorney had um requested that I just ensure that you had received his letter dated uh December 11th, 2025
uh requesting that the hardship be applied retroactively. Uh has that been reviewed? >> I don't hard you cannot retroactively increase rents. >> Uh he he was asking for it to be retroactive to the date of the
application. Um >> I do not think that the board can retroactively increase rents or ret or permit for retroactive rent increases. >> No, people have my understanding it's effective as
of the date of this decision >> hearing and the decision. >> Okay. I mean his point was just that it was >> it took a very long time to get to the decision. And so if we can go back to the point when um it initially was
submitted, if we can not necessarily go back and try and collect that all in one lump sum, but space that out over a collection period, that was his request. But um he just asked that I make sure that that was reviewed and uh >> considered that was based on the old
calculations. So now we have the new ones. This is where why we >> I believe that was based on the new ones also. Um, so >> the request is heard, but it is my understanding and my belief that retroactive rent increases violate state
law. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Can I ask a quick question? >> Oh, go ahead. So, >> yeah. If you could just step forward. I just wanted to make sure you referenced the December >> December 11th, 2025. >> December 11th. >> Yep.
>> Uh, from the rent leveling bureau. No, this was from the attorney to >> Well, if you could s I just want to see if this is the document that you were referencing because I just want to make sure that you what you were talking about >> in terms of receiving a letter. >> Oh, this is um
>> I believe this is Yes. December 12th, right? >> Okay. I just want to confirm. >> I would recommend we mark that into evidence. >> Yes, we need to mark that into evidence. And if you I'm sorry, Mr. Kirk, if you could just come up here. uh whatever you
stated I wasn't caught um on the microphone. >> Oh, you you did. Okay. >> Can you just mark that exhibit >> or something? >> I just have a question. >> Not you.
>> One one more question for the um the landlord. Exhibit A. Thank you. >> You know, these are large rent increases. I know you wanted them retroactive, but what's the plan going forward? You would apply this full rent
increase as soon as it's approved. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And I mean, I don't think we're going to be getting retroactive, but if the retroactive were approved, that would be broken out. But the full increase monthly would be applied immediately. Yes. Okay. Because yeah, a number of
these rents went up maybe 100%. >> That's understandable, but we've been operating at a deficit in those buildings for many years. Um, it's a condo building, so the owner of these units doesn't really have control over the maintenance fees which they're charged. Um, one of the buildings is
being required by the state to go undergo a facade renovation. Um, and that is basically doubled the maintenance fees. So, they're still running out of deficit even with these new and that's a temporary uh situation. So, that'll go away, but we've been
running out of deficit on these properties and basically subsidizing these rents for a very long time. So, we really need to get that money coming in as quickly as possible so they can pay their taxes. >> Yeah. Unders understood. And these I
believe are the last remaining rent control tenants in these buildings, >> correct? Yes. Uh the sponsor uh who converted the property um was left with a um hold over tenants from the conversion and most of those units have
sold but these are seniors that who have not yet moved out. >> Okay. And I think we heard from Mr. Goldberg last time that the owner was reluctant for whatever reasons uh
not to raise the rents on the tenants for a long period. So in this situation now you know he could have been raising the rents all along. >> Well I mean that's not 100% accurate. We have gone with the rent control approved
increases. Um but we had not submitted a hardship application. We had tried I think about I want to say pre- pandemic um 2019 we had submitted a hardship application but right around that time
the rules for um the submission changed. Uh I think previously it was based on can't recall at this point but it was based on the um the market value of the units and then that changed um and we
had to resubmit uh the owner of the property got sick at that time and we we just didn't resubmit the application for a couple years and then we resubmitted again I think in 2024. Um so we've been trying to get this through since then.
Um the condos have increased their maintenance fees uh significantly over the last several years. Um so that has also and property taxes have gone up. So those have really impacted the bottom line of the company. So uh that's why this
hardship has really become much more pressing over the last 10 years or so. >> Okay. Just uh to be clear, so the owner St. Paul Conversion Company >> is a separate owner from the previous
owner. >> No. Uh it's the same owner. Uh the corporation was the one who converted the condos back in the 80s. Um and they have held these units since then. Y >> Okay. All right. Well, thank you. >> Yep.
>> Is there any unreiness amongst the commissioners? um because if there is not, I was going to try to um move forward by uh offering a brief very brief synopsis of what we're looking at
here and then making a motion. Is there any unre unreiness? >> Any unreadiness or any discussion whatsoever? >> Any other discussion that you would like to present at this time? And before we go into the board's
decision, does someone want to speak to the notable absence of the tenants? >> Eric Bol again, assistant director, hearing officer. Uh yeah. So on May 8th uh I notified all the parties uh that I
was not going to be in attendance because I felt that the recommendation needed to be updated. Uh that was because on March 30th um Steve Lipsky, not one of the affected tenants, but was speaking on behalf of the affected
tenants, uh told uh notified the bureau that there was ongoing inspections. I spoke with Mr. Lipsky over the phone, which made it sound like these were inspections that were were not um what's the word? that
were that were ongoing from a previous date. Uh so from that point on I reached out to multiple divisions um to see what violations existed, what inspections
were going on. Um there was only the uh office of co- compliance from uh um department of public safety that uh was able to produce um that uh notice of violation or inspection
report. Um, after confirming that that uh notice of violations was only uh pertaining to that day, excuse me. Uh, and not not prior. This
wasn't like an ongoing inspection case or summones were issued. Um, and for the fact that the six-month provisional period had already expired and this was not dating, there was no reports dating back to that. Um, I just
wanted to update that in my recommendation. Uh, and put that on the record, make sure that that it was clear in case that the tenants had brought that up and were stating, "Oh, well, there's still violations." Okay, there's violations after the fact and it
doesn't, you know, you you have to per the ordinance provide uh time for the um property owner, property manager, whoever to abate these violations. Uh so I was looking to uh again at least add
that into the recommendation, but after uh consulting with corporate counsel, uh it was unnecessary. All I needed to do was put it on a record. So, we put we we put it back up on um on for um this date for a hearing.
>> Is there any concern that the tenants could say they may for lack of a better term that the tenants can say they were tricked? >> Um not to my knowledge, no. Um again, to uh the violations that were found um
were not life-threatening. They were not health hazards. They weren't, you know, there was no fire hazards. It wasn't a heat and hot water issue. Um, basically, uh, I actually have the the the reports on me. I was going to include that, too, of my update recommendation, but there
was nothing there that was life-threatening. >> No, no, more the tenants can't say, "Oh, we thought the meeting was off, but then it was put back on, but we really didn't know it was put back on." You know, could the tenants say they this was confused? They were confused
and you know, since no one's here, could the tenants complain that they were confused about the meeting date? >> But we Yes, but we did put uh No, because we did confirm that this meeting was taking place uh and it was going to
be heard for today. Uh we did get some requests. Uh we did not get a request from uh uh council uh William Goldberg. Uh we did get a request from uh Roberto Tarkin and at the uh last moment today
at four o'clock from uh Steve Lipsky who again not affected tenant but um is again wanted to speak on behalf of the affected tenants. >> Who was uh attorney Tarkin requesting the adjournment for on whose behalf? I
that I mean the only thing I can I would say pro we didn't receive a letter of representation from Roberto Tarkin. Um my guess is that she was probably filling in for counsel uh William Goldberg because he's um
he's hospitalized. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> Medical emergency. So he he he was definitely unable to attend tonight. In any event, the request was denied. >> Yes.
>> And what were the details of the request? Did they state again why they made the request? >> Uh yes. Hold on. Uh this was uh forwarded to um earlier. Let me just double check. So, uh from uh you want me to I can read
the whole email council. I can read the whole email. on uh where the letter >> this was yesterday from uh Robera Tarkin uh and council states uh dear u Mr.
Richardson, your staff cancelled the May 14th, 2026 meeting. Other people made other arrangements and thus cannot attend. Your action to reinstate the meeting to May 14th, 2026 on 3 days
notice is arbitrary, capriccious, and unreasonable. All parties are entitled to due process, which includes sufficient notice to attend the meeting. I suggest you speak to council for the board. Anything that happens at the
meeting can and will be overturned. The waste of time and expense can be avoided by rescheduling to June. Please consider and revise your intentions. And then fast forward to 4:23 p.m. today from uh
Steve Lipsky uh where he addresses the mayor who is also copied. Hi mayor. I will not go into details in this email about the case other than to share this email thread and the emails documenting my claims in this email that I just forwarded you just now. Last Friday, May
8th, 2026, Eric Bulwith emailed me to tell me tonight's meeting was cancelled. That's not true. I just said I wasn't going to attend. Uh on Monday, May 11, 2026, Director Shyone Richardson emailed me to confirm tonight's meeting was
cancelled. The following day, Tuesday, May 12th, 2026, Director Richardson's assistant, Jon and Noel, emailed me to inform that the meeting is being heard tonight. I hired an attorney to help me uh to help me help my 20 neighbors because I made other plans for tonight
and cannot attend the meeting tonight. The copy of her correspondence to Director Richardson is forwarded under this email. My attorney's request was denied yesterday by Director Richardson. As my attorney states in the message
below, the waste of time and expense can be avoided by rescheduling into June. I'm asking your assistance in this matter. >> So, just to overview, there was some confusion about is it being heard tonight, is it not being heard tonight, but your office told both parties or
both sides of the matter at least two days before that it was confirmed. >> Yeah. Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. Um and you know again too if you there is no I and we could check with
corporate counsel. Uh I I there's no ruling that you can't uh rule an abstentia here. I mean I I don't know what both parties would bring to the table. My only concern again was the violations that were brought to our
attention March 30th, which again just were I just were not anything substantial to where it would affect the substantial compliance clause. >> And if I can add also, uh, one of
another reasons that we felt confident moving forward tonight was tonight was basically it wasn't about testimony. It was pretty much just about calculation. And even afterwards, there's still a there's still an appeal process. And so the tenants could still appeal if they don't agree with this. But tonight wasn't a testimonial thing. It was just
more about amending the calculations. >> All right. Thank you, director. All right. >> I have a question regarding the amended calculations at uh is there a date um that the amended calculations was done
and were the tenants um informed? >> Yes. So um this was uh December 12th, 2025 and um yeah so in not only all the
tenants but um 2011 St. Poles uh Conversion Corporation uh William Goldberg, Steve Lipsky, and Rockford Management. >> Thank you. >> Uh for for both recommendations. >> All right. Well, thank you, Deputy
Director. Thank you. If there is no other discussion or unreiness, I I am prepared to present a motion to the board. Um, that motion will be a little detailed, but if you
would just bear with me because I just want to make sure that we're covering all the relevant points. So, I am presenting a motion to the board and it's based >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah, we have to close the public portion of this hearing.
>> I would say if there are many any members of the public here that would like to speak on this application, please approach the mic. Seeing no members of the public, I would recommend a motion to open and close public comment. >> Motion to open and close public comment. >> Do I have a second?
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I chair. >> No, please. >> Okay. Um, given what we've heard tonight and based upon what has been presented to the board, I was prepared to make a motion that has a little bit of detail attached
to it, but please bear with me that after the May 25th, the May I think it was May 15th, 2025 hearing, uh, there was a written decision that was issued and was brought to the attention of the board. Uh these recommendations relied
provisionally um for this hardship increases that did not include uh confirmed operating losses. And so accordingly the bureau recalculated the recommended increases to include the confirmed operating loss and the previously approved fair return.
The property owner has provided adequate proof of expenses for all the expenses included in the February 2025 recommendation and for both properties. The total annual expenses consisted of property taxes, insurance, property management services, condo association
fees, and repair and maintenance fees. Some expenses were excluded because the property owner did not identify the specific property to which such expenses applied or show proof that those expenses were paid by the owner. Specifically for both properties, the
bureau excluded claimed expenses for licensing and permitting and permits and um electricity and permitting, excuse me, electricity to the vacant units and miscellaneous expenses. And at the May 15th, 2025 hearing, the bureau represented
that the properties had not been inspected since 2024. That has been rectified. So after reviewing all the materials presented, I am uh presenting a motion that we should accept the recommendations that were presented by
the rent leveling bureau on December uh 15 of 2025. And I think that those numbers have been documented and they appear to be appropriate. And that is uh based upon the hardship
rental increases in the statute 260-10. I do believe that uh the information presented does fall within the guidelines presented and that is essentially the gist of my motion. Hope
it's not too complicated. >> So it sounds like >> I am making a recommendation to to amend the previous decision. the board's decision consistent with the calculations and the numbers that
assistant director Bullwith provided tonight. >> I appreciate your council because you presented a lot better than I did. I'd agree. >> You flatter me. Um, okay. >> Second.
>> And I guess we'll proceed to a roll call vote. Okay. We're going to have a vote. Uh, and this is pretty much to well, not pretty much to affirm the rent leveling bureau's decision in their amended calculations uh, for hardship 2024005.
And this one is first for 2011 St. Paul's Avenue. Alexander Hamilton, >> yes. >> Tiffany McQuiry, >> nay. Okay. Sandra Robinson,
>> Epstein. >> James Eco, >> yes. >> Sullivan C. Johnson, >> yes. >> And Dana Hill, >> yes. >> Okay, that is four yeses, one no, one
abstain. Uh, the motion carries. No, she she she's uh Tita is not voting. Correct. Right. Right. She's recusing the matter. All right. So that's four yeses, one no, one abstain.
The motion carries. Four to four to two. Four to one with one saying, I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. We're going to do this again. And this is a vote to affirm the bureau's amended decision for hard case
number 2024004. This is 10 Heron Avenue. Alexander Hamilton. >> Oh, I thought we need a motion for this. >> It was just >> because it's the same case. Okay. So, we need a motion uh based on the chair's uh
explanation uh to affirm the rent leveling bureau's decision. So, could we have an emotion? A motion, I'm sorry, to affirm this decision. >> Motion to accept the chair's decision. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second. Now we're going to have a vote.
>> The motion is to what? >> To accept the recommendation of the chairman's decision on the uh >> Okay. Which is a motion to accept the bureau's recommendation. Yes. Which includes the confirmed operating loss and the fair return. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Now, let's vote. Uh Alexander Hamilton. >> Yes, it did. Alexander Hamilton. >> Yes. Tiffany McQuary, >> no. >> Sandra Robinson Green, >> abstain.
>> Abstain. Uh, James Eco, >> yes. >> Seren C. Johnson, >> yes. >> Dan Hill, >> yes. >> Okay, that's four yeses, one no. The motion carries. 4 to one. Okay. Um, is there a motion to adjourn
the meeting? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> All right. Thank you for your time. >> Yeah, probably. and sticker.