pages: RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2016-07-06 | 2 | Special Meeting Minutes of the RRAC July 6, 2016 however, it was determined to be invalid under the Moratorium then in effect (a 9.5% increase had already been issued in April 2015). Mr. Petersen provided documentation of maintenance expenses (sewer, paint, roof, gutters, and dry rot) totaling over $50,000 over the past three years. Ms. Ostlund stated that there was a difference between capital expenses and cost-of-business expenses. Parties were unable to reach agreement. The Committee discussed a recommendation for the rent increase. Motion and second (Griffiths and Sullivan- SariƱana) for a 5% ($81) increase. Friedman stated that a lower rent increase would be more reasonable considering the circumstances, however, Mr. Friedman agreed to the 5% rent increase and passed the motion. Schrader was in disagreement with the motion due to the high capital improvement costs. Staff explained that the parties had 15 days to: 1) submit written acknowledgement of an agreement; or 2) request an arbitration hearing. If no action is taken by either party, the Committee's recommendation would be binding. b. Case 387 - 2611 Central Avenue Tenant/public speaker: Allen Nakamura Landlord/public speaker: Tommy Wong Mr. Nakamura stated that he did not believe that the 10% ($140) increase was justified, as he has not seen any improvements to his unit during the three-plus years he has been living there. The Wong provided documentation of a new roof installation in December 2015 that cost $10,700, and he wanted to recoup the cost of the roof. It was also explained that this would be the first rent increase since the tenant has occupied the unit. Following discussion, Mr. Nakamura did not want to accept an increase over 5% and Mr. Wong did not want to accept an increase less than 8%. The parties could not reach agreement and the Committee made a recommendation for the rent increase. Motion and second (Friedman and Shrader) for a 6.5% ($91) increase. Motion passed unanimously. Staff re-stated the options for tenant and landlord and the 15-day deadline. c. Case 388 - 2609 Central Avenue Tenant/public speaker: An-Nisaa Hamza Landlord/public speaker: Tommy Wong Ms. Hamza stated that the cost of improvements, such as the new roof, should not be the total responsibility of the tenants, as the landlord can write off these expenses on his taxes. Ms. Hamza stated that the maximum increase that she believed to be reasonable was 4% ($52). Mr. Wong stated that he would reduce the increase from 10% ($130) to 6.5% ($84.50) in order to be fair with his other tenant. Following discussion, Ms. Hamza did not want to accept an increase over 4% and Mr. Wong did not want to accept an increase less than 6.5%. Page 2 of 4 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2016-07-06.pdf |