ORANGE — Following a court order to reconsider two budget expenses requested by Leisure Woods Estates, the Orange Mobile Rent Control Board voted Monday to allow the owners of the mobile home park to increase rent by an extra $28.54 per month.
Mobile Rent Control Board Chair Jane Peirce explained to a small crowd of tenants that the Appeals Court is still reviewing the request from Leisure Woods Estates Inc. to charge tenants increased rent, retroactive to January 2024. However, the court has instructed the board to reconsider and better explain its decision regarding a rent increase in 2024.
“Tonight, our work and deliberation is limited narrowly to, how do we address what the court told us to do about a couple of things they thought we were not clear on in our previous discussion,” Peirce told meeting attendees.
In September 2024, the board approved a rent increase of $102, to be split over two years, resulting in a rent of $500 per month. Residents of Leisure Woods own the manufactured homes they live in, but they rent lot space in the 519 East River St. park. Leisure Woods had originally requested to charge tenants $588 per month, representing a 43% increase.
Subsequently, in October 2024, the Gidley family, which owns the park under Leisure Woods Estates Inc., sued the Mobile Rent Control Board, and in February of this year, Franklin County Superior Court Judge David Hodge agreed that “the board erred in calculating the fair rate and placing undue weight on the impact rental increases will have on park tenants.” Hodge ordered the town “to explain the exclusion of certain financial documents presented by Leisure Woods and balance the interests at stake.”
Leisure Woods also requested that the Superior Court approve increasing rent retroactive to January 2024. However, Hodge denied that request in April of this year. The attorney for Leisure Woods has appealed that decision and it is being reviewed by the Appeals Court.
Peirce explained that the two budget items the board had excluded were a $40,000 expense for depreciation and $70,000 for an operations manager — expenses that the board felt were not properly explained by Leisure Woods and its attorney.
Regarding depreciation, Peirce said that during deliberation in 2024, the board had requested a depreciation schedule and more details on where the figure came from, and did not receive the information that it requested. The most recent letter the board had received from attorney John Kuzinevich, on Aug. 8, 2024, stated that the depreciation value was spread out among several expense categories.
“In this letter that he sent us, he says the budget format submitted was confusing, and he says, ‘The money in the depreciation category was spent on other categories.’ I don’t know what that means,” Peirce said.
Board members questioned this and asked if Leisure Woods was “double dipping” by including depreciation in several expense categories.
“The problem is that the financials were so bad and so contradictory that we had difficulty — you all had difficulty — figuring out what were the final figures,” Town Counsel Donna MacNicol said.
Board members added that in addition to being listed as an expense, depreciation was also listed in revenues, with no explanation from Leisure Woods. They decided not to allow the depreciation value of $40,000 to be calculated into the proposed rent increase.
“We have been hand-tied by a very rudimentary spreadsheet that purports to be a budget that was never clarified for us when we asked for a breakdown of categories for the budget,” board member Julie Davis said. “The $70,000 salary [for an operations manager], it feels as though we have to accept it. The $40,000 [for depreciation] doesn’t feel justified.”
Leisure Woods had requested $170,000 for its payroll budget, which board members said was essentially double what it had been in previous years. Leisure Woods had said the increase accounted for Adam Gidley, the Leisure Woods operations manager’s salary, as well as salary increases for the park manager and other staff.
Board members said it was unclear whether Adam Gidley works full-time for the Leisure Woods site in Orange or whether his duties are split among the seven mobile home parks that are owned by the Gidley family. If he works for multiple sites, the board does not feel it is fair to saddle the Orange park’s residents with paying the entirety of his salary.
“We don’t see anything in any evidence anywhere that says there are six other project managers, one of each park. … It doesn’t feel appropriate to be around an entire $70,000 for Leisure Woods,” Peirce said. “We’re left in the dark as to what the staffing is for the other parks.”
Board members said they had asked the attorney representing Leisure Woods for additional information and did not receive a response.
“I have asked for all of these things and they have not been provided,” Davis said.
After further discussion, the board agreed that $50,000 seemed to be a reasonable salary increase, given that they did not know the full extent of the park’s staffing levels.
Board members pondered whether they should again reach out to the attorney for more details, to which Peirce said she believes Leisure Woods will likely return again in the future to ask for another rent increase and the board could seek new information then.
The Mobile Rent Control Board voted to allow a $50,000 increase to payroll, which will result in a $28.54 per month rent increase for tenants. This is on top of the rent increase of $102 per month that was approved in 2024. The board did not allow the $40,000 depreciation value or the additional $20,000 requested for salary to be added to the budget.
Residents in attendance similarly expressed frustration with the process and said they, too, have not received an explanation from the park owners as to how it is operated and where the money is being spent.
“It made it difficult for us to understand why we should support them increasing our rent,” resident Del Perry said. “They don’t respond to anything. So if we’re paying them all this money, why are they not responding to our concerns? … They should be putting this in black and white.”
