The owner wants to cut the lifestyle director because residents run half the calendar

Question

We manage a 130-unit 55-plus community, twelve years old, sitting at 95 percent. Full-time lifestyle director costs the property about $71,000 loaded. Owner pulled the activity calendar for last quarter and pointed out that 19 of the 31 recurring events are resident-led. Card group, book club, two walking groups, a garden committee that fights constantly but shows up. His read is that he's paying a salary for twelve events and a bulletin board.

The case for cutting is straightforward. Resident-led programming is the thing residents actually want in this segment, because these are the youngest and healthiest people in senior living and a lot of them still work. A director organizing bingo for people who'd rather organize their own hiking group is spending money on the wrong product. Replace her with a part-time coordinator at 20 hours and a $12,000 activity budget and you save real money.

The case against is what I've seen happen when the staff person leaves. Resident-led groups depend on two or three organizers, and when one moves out or gets sick the group dies in six weeks and nobody restarts it. The director is also the person who notices when someone stops coming to things, which is how we've caught two situations before they became emergencies. That's not care, and I'm careful not to describe it as care, but it's worth something.

I also can't separate the director from tour conversion. Our leasing person swears prospects sign after meeting her. I have no way to prove that with 130 units and a thin data set.

So, keep the position, cut to part time, or something else?

angela_burke · Answer

Keep her. $71,000 across 130 units is $45 a unit a month. If she moves occupancy one point on a property at that rent, she's paid for. If she prevents two move-outs a year at whatever your turn cost is, most of that gap closes again.

My own team is small, and here's what stands out to me: the resident-led count argues in her favor. Nineteen resident-led groups on a 130-unit property is unusually high, and somebody recruited those organizers. Cut the position and see how many of the nineteen exist in a year. You'll find out, and it'll be an expensive way to learn it.

monica_tran3 · Answer

cobalt's math is the right frame but I'd push on the tour conversion claim before spending anything on it. Your leasing person believes it because she watches it happen, and she's also the person whose numbers look better if the director stays. Both can be true.

Cheap test that doesn't cost you the position. Track for two quarters whether the tour included a director introduction, and compare conversion. Thirty tours a quarter isn't statistical proof of anything, but if the split is 60 percent against 30 percent you've got something to show the owner other than a feeling.

The part I'd actually renegotiate is the job description. Five years running a service business taught me that the person you keep should be doing the thing only they can do. Ordering supplies and posting the calendar is a $19 an hour task.

jessreyes12 · Answer

Here's what I actually want to know: is the lifestyle director an amenity you're selling or an operating cost you're absorbing? Because if the marketing material lists activities and programming as a reason to live there, and current residents leased partly on that, cutting the staffing looks to them like a rent increase in reverse. That's a resident-relations problem in a building with a garden committee that already fights.

trellis, does the lease or the community documents say anything about programming? Probably not, but if the owner's newsletters have promised a full calendar for years, I'd want somebody to look at that before the position gets cut rather than after.

The owner wants to cut the lifestyle director because residents run half the calendar

3 replies