pages: RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-02-22 | 2 | Approved Minutes February 22, 2017 Proposed Rent Increase: $1,000.00 (50.0%), effective March 15, 2017 This rent increase review was originally scheduled for the February 6, 2017 Rent Review Advisory Committee meeting. The review was postponed two weeks to the February 22, 2017 meeting. Staff researched the number of housing units on the property and determined that there is only one housing unit; therefore the rent increase is exempt from a binding decision. The tenant, Merin Lund, stated that there should be no rent increase. Ms. Lund stated that the rent increase is not warranted given the property's current condition. She also noted that the rent was raised $500.00 in March 2016 and $100.00 the previous fall. These previous increases have been a financial burden on her and she is not in a position to pay for an additional increase in the amount requested by the landlord. Additionally, Ms. Lund has several concerns regarding maintenance of the property. In July 2016, she said mold had been discovered in the unit and she remains concerned that the efforts to eliminate the mold have not been successful. Ms. Lund stated that she believes the large rent increase is in retaliation of her raising concerns about the mold to the landlord. She noted that she would prefer to live in a unit that was healthy for her family and that she does not have full use of the property because the landlord uses some space for storage and occasionally stays in a shed in the back of the property. Ms. Lund said that she has been a good tenant for the eight years she has resided at the property. The landlord, Ms. Hanson, stated that the rent increase will raise rent to comparable rates for similar units. The landlord noted that she considers rent of similar units to range between $3,000 and $3,200. She explained that the increase is also related to her interest in seeking a reasonable return on the property; currently, she noted that she has not yet made a profit on the property. In addition, Ms. Hanson explained the rent increase was necessary for recent and projected capital expenses for the property including foundation work, window repair, gutter repair, mold removal, and yardwork. She said there had been a temporary reduction in rent of $200 for several months in 2016. She stated that she is a diligent landlord and follows up on maintenance and code enforcement issues. Mr. Cheung, the attorney for Ms. Hanson, explained that the rent increase is necessary to cover maintenance costs. He suggested postponing the increase to give the tenant a chance to search for a new unit. Ms. Lund stated she was open to this option but would need at least 4 or 5 months to search for new housing. Mr. Cheung stated that postponing the rent 4 months while the tenant searched for a new unit would be acceptable to the landlord. He suggested that the rent increase to $3,000.00 become effective March 15th, but not be enforced for 4 months. If the tenant does not vacate the unit at the end of the 4 months, the tenant would owe the amount of the rent increase ($1,000) for the 4 months it was delayed. Mr. Cheung explained that he could draft an agreement to ensure those conditions enforceable. Page 2 of 5 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-02-22.pdf |