pages: RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2017-09-06 | 3 | Draft Minutes September 6, 2017 the cost of operations. Cost of operations, defined by the Ordinance, does not include debt service, such as mortgage expenses. Thus, it appears there would need to be an increase in services or operation costs to warrant a landlord's right to raise rent. He stated a $30.00 (3%) appears reasonable based on the financial information provided by the tenant and landlord. Friedman noted that a large increase would impact the tenant significantly. Member Murray explained she relies on section 6-58.85 for guidance on rendering a fair decision on a rent increase. She acknowledged this is a difficult situation because it appears that the new owner was misinformed about the current tenants' rents and leases. She stated that it appears if the rent is raised to $1,500 the tenant will have to relocate. If the landlord does not receive an increase to $1,500 he may not be able to continue owning the property. She noted that the time frame used to determine a reasonable rate of return is significant and she believes a longer time frame is expected. She noted that the landlord indicated near $20,000 in capital improvements has already been invested in the property. Chair Cambra addressed Friedman's point that it seems unrealistic for a landlord to expect a newly purchased property to generate a cash flow. Cambra stated that a tenant does not have input on an owner's decision to invest in a property. He explained that capital improvements are expected to be amortized over the useful life of the improvement. Cambra also expressed concern that the landlord is not receiving income from the other unit and believes once that matter is resolved the landlord may be more flexible financially. Taking into consideration the financial hardship of the tenant, he recommended an increase between $75-$100. Member Griffiths shared that, without a change in ownership, the Committee would also be factoring into the history of past rent increases. This tenancy history shows that the rent had not been raised since the tenancy began. While the current landlord is not able to answer for the previous landlord's choices, Griffiths noted this factor of frequency should be taken into consideration. He explained that a tenant should not be held responsible for landlord's decisions that are not within their control. He proposed a $100 increase, as offered by the tenant, to a total rent of $1,200. Vice-Chair Sullivan SariƱana explained that he listened to both parties to identify their pain and flexibility. He noted that there appears to be some Page 3 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-09-06.pdf |