Selection of Management Company

Dear Dan,

I am going to try and be as concise as possible with my response. The Board has been working very hard researching the different management companies. Some of the many things the Board has been comparing are the following: sites managed, costs, fees to the shareholders, staffing that will be on site and off site, references, site visits, IT, public records and more. The search committee has been working very hard and when the Board makes its final decision we are hopeful it will be the best one possbile. I hope that your readers will understand that this is no simple task and that there were hundreds of hours of investigation involved in this decision. Thank you.

Freda

Comparison of:

• costs,
• fees,
• service offerings,
• capabilities (back office, accounting, IT, etc.),
• number of personnel,
• site managed,
• proposed staffing (including GM, if any),
• performance at interviews (with 2nd interviews for finalists),
• references,
• public records,
• size and locations of buildings managed,
• recommendations of lawyers, auditors.

Terry

Dear Dan,

In the main, I felt we should seek companies that have experience managing properties like us.

Not only with respect to our size, but other particulars such as experience with properties with garages, retail spaces, outdoor play areas, and the like.

Most saliently for me, I felt we should examine companies that have experience with housing complexes that, like us, started out as Mitchell-Lama or Article V of the NYS Housing Finance Law, and then went private. Companies with several of these kinds of properties in their portfolio might be better prepared for interaction with our diverse and rapidly changing constituencies, as well as experience with large and difficult boards, and aging infrastructure like ours.

In assessing a company, I am inclined to favor companies whose presentations are more brass tacks than salesmanship. I credit this focus with the fact that the Building Engineers of many hundreds of Public Schools are my clients. In my ten years serving these clients, I have learned a great deal of about effective building management priorities and practices, and the value of having trained and licensed professionals at the helm. With this in mind, I was pleased when one company pointed out the bulge in the brickwork surrounding our new water tank. This must be remedied soon, regardless of the managing agent we select, and I am glad it is now on our to-do list. These kinds of observations make an impression on me.

Nevertheless, in my view, the on-site manager will be the most important determinant of success, and so that too will influence my vote.

It goes without saying that a high standard regarding the references, reputation, back office strength, and management background, etc. of the candidate companies was a requirement for me.

Regarding our approach, we tapped as candidates companies that we, or friends or colleagues of ours “heard of.” If I realized that this would be the case, I think it couldn’t have hurt to ask all shareholders if they knew of someone. In any event, while I would have liked a more systematic approach, I am hopeful that – and I think it entirely possible – that we will end up with a company whose skills are equal to or greater than our merit and our needs.

-Eric

Dan

This is a Board decision and the Board has been working hard to finalize this decision. The committee head is our President, Karen Wolfson. If I answered your questions I might be seen as undermining her authority or going outside our Board communication lines. I suggest that you contact her and ask this question.

Lee