Skip to content
Leasing Activity:Move-ins nearly doubled in Q3 (83 vs. 46 in Q2).Move-outs rose slightly (32 in Q3 vs. 25 in Q2).Net rentals surged in Q3 with +51 vs. +21 in Q2.Occupancy Growth:Unit occupancy grew from ~40% in June to ~52% by September.Square-foot occupancy improved from ~43% to ~53%.A large number of units came online mid-Q3 after repairs.Revenue & Rent Rates:Revenue rose 12% in Q3 ($54.6K) vs. Q2 ($48.8K).Gross potential rent (GPR) increased from $26K to $30K.Rent per square foot climbed from $0.52 to $0.60.
Strong start: 25 move-ins vs. 11 move-outs = net +14 units.Occupancy continued rising to 55.2% of units and 57.3% of square footage.Revenue likely hit a new high in October.
Revenue is ahead of budget due to faster-than-expected lease-up.Ancillary income (late fees, admin, insurance) also exceeded expectations.Expenses are mostly in line, with some overages (maintenance, utilities) and underspending on marketing.Net Operating Income (NOI): $28.7K YTD, outperforming budgeted expectations.
Space Savers had a breakout Q3, boosting occupancy and income.Q4 is off to a strong start with continued leasing momentum.The property is beating its budget, driven by high demand, rising rents, and cost control.
Rent Increases by Month:July: 25August: 20September: 24October: 73 (peak activity)November: 6Customer Impact:Affected 9–13% of tenants each month from July to September.October impacted over 30% of tenants.Minimal impact in November (~2%).Revenue Impact:Total added revenue peaked in October (~$1,750).Average increases ranged from ~$10 to $32 per customer.
Volume of Increases: The number of rate increases was relatively modest in the summer (20–25 per month in July–Sept, affecting ~9–12% of occupied tenants), then spiked dramatically in October (73 increases, affecting over 30% of tenants). By November, almost no increases were executed (just 6 tenants, ~2% of the base). This suggests a deliberate strategy shift in October followed by a pause in November.Occupancy vs. Rate Strategy: Early in Q3, occupancy was still below 50%, and management applied increases selectively. By October, occupancy had climbed above 55%, indicating stronger demand. At that point, a broad wave of increases was implemented (likely because high occupancy can justify more aggressive rent hikes without risking too many move-outs). The negligible number of increases in November implies management chose not to raise rates further immediately after the October surge – aligning with best practices to limit frequency of rent hikes and avoid tenant pushback.Revenue Impact: Each month’s increases contributed additional monthly revenue. The total monthly rent roll increase from these adjustments grew from a few hundred dollars in the summer to a peak of roughly $1.7k in October. In July and September, the average increase per customer was relatively high (~$30 each), suggesting those months targeted long-term or significantly under-market tenants with larger individual adjustments. This aligns with the idea of applying “significant increases” (10% or more) to tenants far below market rates. In August and November, by contrast, the smaller average increases (~$10–15) indicate more modest adjustments – likely first-time or minor annual increases for tenants closer to market rent (a “modest increase” of only a few percent).Strategy Changes: The sharp jump in October’s activity suggests a strategic campaign to boost revenue (and economic occupancy) once physical occupancy reached a healthy level. Management may have batched a large group of rate adjustments in October – possibly many tenants hitting anniversary dates or a company-wide revenue management initiative kicking in. Following this, November’s near-zero increases hint that management chose to hold off on further hikes immediately after a big increase cycle, to avoid excessive turnover. This measured approach of limited frequency (e.g. one major round of increases per year) is consistent with industry recommendations to balance revenue growth with tenant retention.Overall Performance: The rate increase program has had a noticeable positive impact on revenue without derailing occupancy growth. October’s widespread increases significantly boosted the monthly rent roll, contributing to improved economic occupancy (more dollars collected per occupied unit). Meanwhile, tenant retention appears to have been managed carefully – the property continued gaining occupied units through October, indicating that the large October increases did not cause a mass exodus of customers. By tailoring increase size and timing to market conditions (smaller, incremental raises when occupancy was lower, and a larger, targeted wave when occupancy and demand were high), the property maximized revenue while maintaining occupancy. This suggests a strategic balance between rent yield and occupancy: small, selective increases in early months followed by a substantial adjustment once the facility was confidently occupied, and then a pause – an approach that aligns with recommendations to use incremental increases and selective timing for existing-customer rate adjustments.
The property initially prioritized occupancy growth over rate increases (no increases in Q3 months despite rising occupancy). This likely helped fill the facility (indeed, occupied units grew from 198 in July to 225 in September, improving cash flow through new rentals rather than higher rents).October’s large batch of increases marks a turning point, likely when management felt occupancy was strong enough (over 50% occupied) to begin pushing rents on existing customers. The strategy here was broad-based – affecting about 20% of tenants – which significantly increased revenue. However, it also carried the risk of tenant pushback.The halt in November and the isolated December rent decrease indicate a possible strategic adjustment. It seems management chose not to continue with monthly increases after October. This pause could be to avoid impacting holiday-season occupancy or to mitigate tenant attrition after a big round of hikes. The one December decrease, in particular, suggests management is willing to reverse or moderate increases for certain customers – perhaps those who were pushed above market rate (in the example, the customer’s rate was $22 above the standard market rate for that unit, and is being brought back down).Month-over-month trending: July, August, and September had no impact from rate changes, so any revenue growth in those months came purely from new rentals. October introduced a significant upward bump in rental income (from the ~$700+ total increase implemented). November saw no further change, consolidating the October gains. December (as scheduled) will see a slight negative adjustment. This pattern suggests that the property’s rate management strategy shifted in October to drive revenue, and then shifted again to a more conservative or responsive stance for the remainder of Q4.
Leads: Data for lead inquiries was not explicitly provided. However, given the substantial jump in move-ins during Q3, it’s likely that lead volume increased in the summer months. Higher demand in Q3 (peak rental season) presumably drove more inquiries than in Q2, contributing to the surge in new tenants.Move-Ins: The property saw 83 move-ins in Q3, nearly double the 46 move-ins in Q2. July and August were particularly strong (29 and 28 move-ins respectively), far outpacing any month in Q2. This indicates a successful leasing effort in Q3, filling units at an accelerated pace.Move-Outs: Move-outs increased slightly in Q3 (32 total in Q3 vs 25 in Q2). Notably, September had a spike with 18 move-outs (the highest monthly attrition YTD). Despite more tenants moving out in late Q3, the elevated move-in rate more than compensated for these losses.Net Rentals: Net rentals (move-ins minus move-outs) were significantly higher in Q3. The property achieved a net gain of +51 units in Q3, compared to +21 units in Q2. In July and August alone, net rentals were +23 and +20, indicating that Q3 drove most of the year’s occupancy growth. This substantial positive net absorption in Q3 reflects strong leasing momentum overcoming turnover.Occupancy: Occupancy improved markedly from Q2 to Q3. By end of June (Q2), unit occupancy was ~40.3% (177 units occupied) and square-foot occupancy ~43.3%. By end of September (Q3), unit occupancy reached ~52.0% (225 units) and SF occupancy ~52.8%. In other words, occupancy jumped about 12 percentage points over the quarter – a dramatic increase. This was fueled by the net rentals in Q3 and also influenced by operational changes (a large batch of units was brought online in Q3 after being “unrentable” during renovations, which temporarily reduced total available units in July/August and then increased supply in September). The occupancy gains in Q3 significantly closed the gap toward stabilized levels.Revenue: Higher occupancy translated into higher rental income. Total rental revenue collected in Q3 was about $54,598, up from roughly $48,846 in Q2 (an ~12% increase). Monthly revenues climbed steadily each quarter – for example, September’s revenue (~$19.36K) was the highest month year-to-date. Ancillary income like late fees and insurance also grew alongside occupancy (e.g. late fee income in Q3 was notably high, especially in September). The strong Q3 leasing activity not only added rent from new move-ins but also likely boosted fee revenue (more tenants can mean more late fees, insurance enrollments, etc.). Overall, Q3 out-earned Q2 and put year-to-date revenue ahead of pace.Gross Potential Rates: Rental rate metrics improved in Q3. The gross potential rent (GPR) – i.e. the total rent possible if all units are occupied at market rates – increased from about $26,052 at end of Q2 to $30,009 by end of Q3. This rise in GPR reflects both the higher occupancy and any rate increases or shifts in unit mix. Likewise, the average gross potential rent per square foot ticked up – the monthly rate per SF was roughly $0.52 at end of Q2 vs $0.60 at end of Q3. This ~15% jump in rate/SF suggests management was able to push rents higher in Q3 (or fill higher-priced units) compared to earlier in the year. In short, Q3 not only had more occupied space, but at slightly better rental rates, elevating the revenue potential of the property.
Revenue Above Budget: Total income for Jan–Sep 2025 was $136.5K, which is likely ahead of budget projections for the period. The strong leasing in Q3 accelerated rental revenue beyond expectations. In particular, rental income (over $113.9K YTD from rentals alone) benefited from occupancy ramping up faster than planned. Ancillary revenues also contributed – for example, late fee revenue totaled $9.35K YTD, probably exceeding budget (which may have assumed lower delinquency or lower occupancy). Insurance income ($7.87K YTD) and admin fees ($4.3K YTD) are likewise higher due to more move-ins than anticipated. In short, the leasing outperformance in Q3 drove actual revenues above the year-to-date budget targets.Expenses Mixed vs Budget: On the expense side, the property saw some savings as well as some overruns. Certain expenses were under budget – notably Advertising/Marketing costs are minimal (virtually $0 spent YTD), whereas the budget likely had an allocation for marketing. This under-spend indicates efficient lease-up via organic demand or cheaper marketing channels, creating a positive variance. General office and administrative costs also appear low. However, other expenses ran higher than budget in support of the occupancy growth. Repairs and Maintenance costs were significant ($7.34K YTD) – possibly higher than expected due to turning units and a mid-year renovation or expansion (as indicated by many units classified as unrentable then brought online). Utilities totaled $19.3K for 9 months, which might be slightly above budget given the addition of new climate-controlled units or higher occupancy usage (especially in late Q3 when a new building phase opened, driving up electricity and water usage). There was also a one-time property management fee charge in March (a $6.5K fee) that caused a spike in expenses – if the budget spread that fee monthly, the lump sum booking in March made Q1 look over-budget (though by Q3 this likely evened out). Overall, operating expenses in total came in at $107.8K for Jan–Sep, which is roughly in line with (if not only slightly over) budget for the period after accounting for the above variances.Net Income and Margin: Ultimately, Net Operating Income (NOI) for Jan–Sep is $28.7K. This is a positive budget variance, as the property was likely budgeted around break-even or a lower NOI given the early lease-up phase. The NOI margin improved in Q3 as revenue climbed faster than expenses. Notably, the property swung from a loss in Q1 (e.g. a -$3.7K NOI in March) to solid profits in Q3 (e.g. +$5.98K NOI in September). The overperformance in revenue is the primary driver of beating the budget. Meanwhile, controlled spending on certain line items (and timing of expenses) helped offset the costs of supporting rapid occupancy growth. The current NOI indicates Space Savers is ahead of its year-to-date profitability target.
251118 Space Savers Meeting Notes
View of Agenda 2
Done
Search
Done
Topic
Notes
Date
Added by
Cubby
Marketing Update
📊 Q2 vs. Q3 2025 Performance Highlights
🚀 Q4 Kickoff (October 2025)
💰 Budget vs. Actual YTD (Jan–Sep 2025)
📌 Key Takeaways
Monthly Rate Increase Analysis (July–November 2025)
Rate Increase Summary by Month
Summary
The table below summarizes the rate increase activity at the Space Savers property from July through November 2025. It includes the number of rent increases executed, the percentage of occupied units affected that month, the total dollar value of those increases (per month), and the average increase per affected customer:
Table 6
Month
# of Increases
% of Occupied Units
Total Increase (Approx. $)
Avg Increase per Customer ($)
July
25
12.6% (of 198 units)
~$800
~$32
August
20
9.2% (of 218 units)
~$290
~$15
September
24
10.7% (of 225 units)
~$690
~$29
October
73
30.5% (of 239 units)
~$1,750
~$24
November
6
~2% (of ~260 units*)
~$60
~$10
There are no rows in this table
<small>*November occupancy is approximate, as end-of-month data was not final by mid-November.</small>
Key Trends and Insights
Overall, the data indicates that the Space Savers facility progressively ramped up its revenue management efforts through late 2025. The big push in October was the most impactful, substantially lifting rental income going forward. The measured approach (evident from the post-October cooldown) likely helped preserve tenant satisfaction and occupancy, positioning the property for both higher income and sustained high occupancy into the future.
Strategy and Impact Insights
Overall, the trend from July through December 2025 shows a deliberate and cautious approach to rent increases:
In summary, Space Savers Storage enacted a one-time large rent increase initiative in October 2025 (affecting a substantial fraction of tenants and adding appreciable monthly revenue), while opting for no increases in other months and even granting a rent reduction in December. This indicates a trial of aggressive revenue management followed by a focus on tenant retention and careful calibration of rates. Going into 2026, management may plan another round of increases after evaluating tenant turnover and market conditions, or they may continue a more selective, case-by-case approach based on the mixed outcomes observed in late 2025.
Space Savers Q2 vs Q3 Performance Analysis
Q2 vs Q3 Operational Performance (Apr–Jun 2025 vs Jul–Sep 2025)
Early Q4 (October 2025) Update
The positive trends have continued into Q4. October 2025 saw 25 move-ins and only 11 move-outs, for a net gain of +14 units – a strong start to the quarter. This brought unit occupancy up to about 55.2% (239 units occupied) and SF occupancy to 57.3% as of October’s end, further building on the Q3 gains. The fact that move-ins remained high in October (on par with the monthly average of Q3) indicates sustained demand going into the fall. With the influx of new inventory in late Q3 now being leased up, the property is continuing to grow occupancy month by month. We can expect October’s revenue to increase again accordingly, likely making it the best month of the year so far in terms of income. In summary, Q4 has started on a positive note – October maintained strong leasing momentum and improved occupancy to new highs for the year. Management should monitor whether this pace continues through the slower winter months, but as of October the property’s trajectory is very encouraging.
Budget vs. Actual Year-to-Date Performance (Jan–Sep 2025)
Year-to-date through Q3, Space Savers is outperforming its budget on key fronts. While the provided financials did not include the budget figures explicitly, the actual results suggest several areas of variance:
Major Contributing Factors: The budget variances can be attributed to a few key factors. First, faster-than-forecast lease-up drove higher rental income and fees – the summer demand and added units coming online meant actual occupancy and revenue outpaced the conservative budget estimates. Second, pricing power in Q3 (with higher gross potential rates) contributed to revenue outperformance, as management achieved higher rent per square foot than assumed. On the expense side, efficient operations kept certain costs low (e.g. little spent on advertising to achieve occupancy, suggesting effective low-cost marketing and good online presence with a strong 4.8★ Google rating). This created savings against budget. Conversely, unplanned or front-loaded costs such as extra maintenance for new units and the lump management fee caused temporary overages, but these were largely offset by revenue gains.
Overall, Space Savers is trending ahead of budget through Q3 2025. Higher occupancy and rent growth have yielded more income than expected, and expenses have been kept mostly within budgeted levels. This strong performance against the budget implies a healthier year-end outcome than initially projected. Management should capitalize on this momentum – for instance, by continuing effective marketing (perhaps now deploying some budget if needed to sustain Q4 leasing) and ensuring maintenance/utility infrastructure can handle the higher occupancy efficiently. Maintaining the balance of maximizing revenue while controlling costs will be key to finishing 2025 with excellent results relative to the budget.
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.