pages: RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-15.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2019-05-15 | 2 | Approved Minutes May 15, 2019 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7-A. Case RI1236 - 1845 Poggi St., Apt. D214 Tenant: Bashir Ahmed Rumy Landlords: Andy King and Shahzad Raufi Proposed rent increase: $198.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $2,182.00, effective March 1, 2019 Mr. King said that the current owner purchased the property in 2017 and inherited deferred maintenance issues that they have addressed and will continue addressing. He said they have spent $3.5 million on improvements to the common areas and upgrades to the property, including seismic retrofitting, and repairing or replacing rotting balconies. He said they have also added amenities at the property and were looking for earning a reasonable return. He said there were currently no two bedroom units available, and the last one they rented was at a rate of over $2,700.00 per month. He added that review for the increase at this unit was postponed at a prior RRAC meeting so that it could be determined if a prior rent increase was valid and it was valid. Mr. Rumy said he had no complaints about the landlords or the property, but was requesting the RRAC decide on a lower increase or no increase as the four current residents were all students with tight financial situations. He said that he was working 20 hours per week while maintaining a 3.9 GPA. He said he and his roommates would probably not be able to continue living at the unit if the increase was imposed. He said that as students they could not work a lot because they had to study, and the school prevented them from working more than 20 hours per week, which he was currently doing. He shared that they were already finding it hard to make ends meet, and had financial aid (scholarships and loans) in addition to working and sometimes having to ask their parents for help. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if all the occupants worked and Mr. Rumy replied that two of the four currently worked, and the others did not currently as they were approaching finals and were spending all their time studying. As no agreement was reached, the parties took their seats and the Committee began deliberations. Member Sidelnikov asked staff to confirm that the issue raised in the last meeting regarding the prior rent amount had been resolved and staff confirmed it was resolved. Member Sidelnikov noted that two of the four tenants were not currently working but it seemed like they could possibly work if they needed to in order to pay an increase. | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-05-15.pdf |