pages: RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-02-06 | 2 | Approved Minutes February 6, 2017 Committee members asked for clarification concerning the role of the tenant advocates. They verified they were authorized on behalf of Ms. Sellu to agree to a rent increase of $25.00/month and do not have authority beyond that. Mr. Roush stated that the representatives' participation on behalf of the tenant satisfies the requirements of the Ordinance that the tenant appear at the RRAC meeting. Mr. Strimling explained that Ms. Sellu was interested in resolving this matter privately with the landlord but the landlord was not open to that suggestion. Ms. Reed explained that Ms. Sellu can only accept a small increase due to her disability and her fixed income. Ms. Sellu does not consider the quality of the unit to warrant a $55.00/month increase. She noted that Ms. Sellu likes living in Alameda and considers it her home. Ms. Reed also explained that the stress of the rent review process has negatively affected Ms. Sellus health. The landlord, Mr. Galleto, explained that the building is operating at a loss and that the unit's rent is below market rate. He said he is willing to reconsider the amount of the rent increase if the tenant provides documentation to demonstrate her claim that she us unable to pay the $55.00 increase. He clarified that he would need to see the type of documentation associated with a typical rental application. The tenant advocates stated Ms. Sellu would be willing to complete a rental application form but wanted to ensure that her medical information would not be used against her and that her tenancy would not be terminated. Chair Sullivan-SariƱana emphasized that the goal of the Committee is to facilitate discussions between a tenant and a landlord in order to reach an agreement between the tenant and landlord. When parties are unable to reach an agreement, the Committee shifts from facilitators to making a recommendation regarding the amount of the rent increase. Mr. Roush added that the tenant and landlord may still negotiate an agreement after the Committee recommendation. Member Friedman recommended postponing the case to allow both parties an opportunity to negotiate. The tenant advocates stated that Ms. Sellu would like a decision this evening. The Committee agreed to make a recommendation. Vice-Chair Landess expressed concern for both parties. She acknowledged that it appeared this rent increase and review process have been stressful for the tenant. She also stated that the landlord expenses have increased. She recommended that a $55.00 (5%) is reasonable. Member Friedman noted that landlord included in the rent increase calculation costs related to a reserve fund to be used when a termination requires relocation assistance fees. While he noted this is a real cost, he did not agree that the landlord's calculation of these costs were reasonable and did not agree that the costs justify a 5% increase. In addition, he noted that he does not believe the landlord's mortgage costs are valid factors in calculating a rent Page 2 of 8 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-06.pdf |