Onsite manager in a park-owned home, or a regional third party. At 3 parks and 148 lots I've now been wrong both ways
My three parks run 42, 39 and 67 lots, all within about 90 minutes of each other. For two years I used an onsite resident manager at each, paid in a lot rent credit plus a small monthly amount, and it worked at the 67-lot park and fell apart at the other two. The 42-lot manager stopped enforcing anything after she became friends with the people she was supposed to be collecting from. The 39-lot manager was fine and then moved.
So I moved the two small parks to a regional third party at 5.5 percent of collections plus $9 a lot. Collections improved by about 3 points in six months and I lost every piece of soft information I used to get. Nobody tells me about a leaking service line before it becomes a bill anymore, and the notices go out on a schedule rather than after a conversation.
The case for onsite is that the person lives in the asset, sees the water pressure drop, and knows which household is in a bad month and which one is testing you. The case for third party is that they enforce evenly, they document, and they don't get emotionally entangled with residents whose rent they collect. I don't think either is obviously right at this size, and the compensation arrangement for an onsite manager who is also a resident touches employment and landlord-tenant rules that differ by state, so that part I run past an attorney every time.
What are people at 40 to 150 lots actually running.
At 40 to 150 lots, what management structure would you run?
26 votes