Onsite resident manager or a regional third party across a small park portfolio
Take a portfolio of three parks running 42, 39 and 67 lots, all within about 90 minutes of each other. An onsite resident manager, paid in a lot rent credit plus a small monthly amount, can work well at larger sites and fall apart at smaller ones. A common failure mode is the manager becoming too close to the residents she's supposed to be collecting from and stopping enforcement without ever quite deciding to. Another is simply losing the manager to a move, since the role is tied to one person living in one unit. Moving smaller parks to a regional third party at roughly 5.5 percent of collections plus a per-lot fee tends to improve collections by a few points within six months, but it comes at the cost of soft information. A third party enforces evenly, documents everything, and doesn't get emotionally entangled with residents whose rent they collect, but nobody calls in a leaking service line before it becomes a bill, and notices go out on a schedule rather than after a conversation. Neither model is obviously right at the 40 to 150 lot range. The case for onsite is that the person lives in the asset and sees water pressure drop before anyone else does. The case for third party is consistency and distance from the residents. Compensation for an onsite manager who is also a resident touches employment and landlord-tenant rules that vary by state, so that structure is worth running past an attorney regardless of which model is chosen. What are operators at this size actually running?
At 40 to 150 lots, what management structure would you run?
26 votes