Explore

251216 Gary Meeting Notes

View of Agenda

View of Agenda

Done

Topic

Notes

Date

Added by

I have asked Larissa why Arnold is 8 points less occupied in June (24 net loss). What was done in May and June to get 47 net renters?

Wed, Sep 17

Who to talk to about credit card processing. Paying $76 more per location.

Wed, Sep 17

Great job on reviews 5 stars need to get quicker responses to reviews.

Wed, Sep 17

Tyler had 10 move-ins and 11 move-outs, no reviews earlier than 6 weeks. Granted all five stars, which is fabulous, but no reviews

Wed, Sep 17

Arnold had 111 move-ins in the last 5 months, with only 10 reviews in four months, starting at

Wed, Sep 17

There are no rows in this table

⁠

Portfolio Snapshot (YTD Jan–Oct 2025)

Arnold is the clear out performer and is carrying the portfolio.

Grantville is stable and profitable but has softened late in the year.

Tyler is the weakest asset; improving, but still underperforming expectations.

Arnold’s NOI alone exceeds the combined NOI of both Topeka properties.

⁠

Property-Level Summary

Arnold Self Storage — Strong Win

Revenue: ~$285K

Expenses: ~$118K

NOI: ~$167K (≈59% margin)

What’s working

Strong lease-up and sustained occupancy growth

Excellent cost control relative to scale

Best NOI margin in the portfolio

Watch-out

High debt service below NOI is pressuring true cash flow (not an ops issue)

Bottom line: Operationally excellent; best-in-class performer.

⁠

Topeka – Grantville — Solid but Slipping

Revenue: ~$169K

Expenses: ~$96K

NOI: ~$74K (≈43% margin)

What’s working

Largest revenue generator in Topeka

Consistent positive NOI

Expenses generally in line with size and revenue

Where it’s slipping

Occupancy decline late in the year (~95% → ~79%)

NOI margin meaningfully below Arnold

Bottom line: Stable and profitable, but needs leasing momentum restored.

⁠

Topeka – Tyler — Underperforming

Revenue: ~$77K

Expenses: ~$43K

NOI: ~$33K (≈43% margin, thin in many months)

What’s working

Occupancy recovery in the back half of the year

Recent monthly revenue trending up

Where you’re losing

Early-year vacancy crushed revenue

Fixed costs too heavy for property size

One-off repairs materially impact NOI

Very little margin for error

Bottom line: Improving, but still fragile and below expectations.

⁠

Where You’re Winning

Arnold’s lease-up and expense discipline

Grantville’s ability to consistently produce NOI

Tyler’s late-year occupancy recovery

Where You’re Losing / Need Focus

Tyler’s scale vs. fixed cost problem

Grantville’s recent occupancy erosion

Topeka properties’ NOI margins lag Arnold significantly

⁠

High-Level Takeaway

Arnold is the engine.

Grantville is steady but needs attention.

Tyler requires active management to justify its cost structure.

ECRI Insights

⁠

The Biggest Expense Drivers (Ranked by Impact)

1. Property Taxes (High Impact, Unavoidable)

Why it matters

Large, fixed, and non-negotiable

Disproportionately hurts smaller properties

Where it hurts most

Topeka Tyler – taxes consume a much larger % of revenue

Grantville – high in dollars, but better absorbed

Arnold – least painful due to scale

Impact

Tyler’s tax burden materially compresses NOI

Even at good occupancy, Tyler’s margin ceiling is capped

Action

Review assessments and appeal if possible (highest ROI review = Tyler)

Factor taxes heavily into any long-term hold/sell decision for Tyler

⁠

2. Insurance (High Impact, Semi-Fixed)

Why it matters

Rising year over year

Largely fixed regardless of occupancy

Where it hurts

Tyler again takes the biggest proportional hit

Arnold handles it well due to revenue scale

Impact

NOI drag that does not flex with leasing

Particularly painful during low-occupancy months

Action

Shop policies across the Topeka assets together

Confirm coverage limits vs. actual risk (especially Tyler)

⁠

3. Management Fees (Meaningful, Structural)

Why it matters

Recurring

Tied to revenue but still meaningful at lower rent levels

Where it shows up

Arnold pays the most in dollars

Topeka properties feel it more in margin

Impact

Acceptable at Arnold

Margin-compressing at Tyler where every dollar counts

Action

Consider blended or stepped fee structures for smaller assets

Ensure Tyler isn’t effectively subsidizing inefficiency

⁠

4. Repairs & Maintenance (Volatile, High NOI Sensitivity)

Why it matters

Unpredictable

Hits NOI immediately

Where it hurts most

Tyler – one repair can wipe out a month’s profit

Grantville relatively stable

Arnold absorbs shocks well

Impact

Tyler’s October building repair nearly erased monthly NOI

Creates earnings volatility that investors notice

Action

Move Tyler to stricter preventative maintenance

Budget and plan capital instead of reacting monthly

⁠

5. Utilities (Moderate but Persistent)

Why it matters

Always on

Scales poorly with revenue on smaller sites

Where it hurts

Tyler and Grantville more than Arnold

Impact

Not catastrophic alone

Adds pressure when combined with taxes + insurance

Action

Audit usage (lighting, timers, gate systems)

LED and timer upgrades often pay back quickly

⁠

Expense Impact Summary by Property

Arnold

Biggest dollar expenses: management fees, taxes, insurance

Not a problem because revenue scale absorbs them

Operationally efficient

Grantville

Taxes + insurance are large but manageable

Main risk is revenue softening, not expense blowouts

Tyler

Fixed expenses are the problem

Taxes, insurance, and repairs consume too much of revenue

Thin margins amplify every expense dollar

⁠

Bottom Line (Plain English)

Taxes and insurance are the biggest structural drags

Repairs are the biggest volatility risk

Tyler feels all three the hardest

Arnold is not an expense problem

Grantville is a revenue vigilance problem

Tyler is a structural economics problem

2025 Year-to-Date Financial Performance: Arnold, Topeka Tyler & Grantville

January – October 2025 Performance Overview: The following report analyzes the year-to-date financial performance of Arnold Self Storage, Topeka Storage – Tyler, and Topeka Storage – Grantville. For each property, we summarize Total Revenue, Total Expenses, and Net Operating Income (NOI) (defined as Revenue minus Expenses). We highlight areas of strong performance (where results exceed expectations or budget targets) and areas of concern (underperformance or cost issues). A comparative summary is provided at the end for context.

Arnold Self Storage

Financial Summary (YTD Jan–Oct 2025):

Table 1

Table 1

Metric

Amount (USD)

Total Revenue

$284,735

Total Expenses

$118,041

Net Operating Income (NOI)

$166,693

There are no rows in this table

⁠

Arnold Self Storage has generated approximately $284.7K in total revenue through October 2025. This is the highest among the three properties, even exceeding the combined revenue of the two Topeka sites (which together reached about $246.2K). Key revenue streams for Arnold include storage rental income, administrative fees, late fees, and tenant insurance rebates. Strong occupancy trends have bolstered revenue – Arnold’s physical occupancy improved from roughly 68% in January to about 82% by October, significantly boosting rental income. As a result, Arnold’s year-to-date revenue likely meets or exceeds budget expectations, driven by higher-than-anticipated occupancy and rent collected.

On the cost side, Arnold incurred about $118.0K in operating expenses YTD. These expenses include marketing/advertising, insurance, property taxes, utilities, maintenance, and management fees. Notably, Arnold’s expense level is lower than the combined expenses of the two Topeka properties (which total ~$139.1K), despite Arnold being a larger facility. This indicates efficient cost management and economies of scale at Arnold. For instance, fixed costs like insurance and property tax are spread over more rental units and square footage, yielding a better expense ratio.

Net Operating Income: With strong revenues and controlled costs, Arnold achieved an NOI of approximately $166.7K through October. This represents an NOI margin of roughly 59% (NOI as a percentage of revenue), which is very robust. Arnold is performing exceptionally well – the property’s NOI not only leads all three properties but is roughly 1.5 times the combined NOI of both Topeka locations. This suggests Arnold is exceeding expectations, likely outperforming its budget targets for profitability. The high NOI indicates that revenue gains have outpaced any increases in expenses.

Performance Highlights: Areas where Arnold shines include its rental income growth (driven by rising occupancy and steady rental rates) and cost efficiency. Marketing and administrative strategies appear effective – occupancy gains have been achieved without proportionate increases in advertising spend (around $16.5K for the year, which is reasonable relative to revenue). Additionally, despite a large facility size, maintenance and utilities costs have been kept in check, contributing to the strong NOI. Overall, Arnold’s financial performance year-to-date can be characterized as very strong, with revenue trending above projections and expenses well-managed.

Areas of Note/Concern: Arnold shows little in the way of financial underperformance. One point to monitor is that Arnold carries a significant debt service (interest and mortgage payments appear below the NOI line, not included in the above expenses). In fact, after accounting for mortgage interest, Arnold’s net income turns negative. While debt costs are outside of NOI, this indicates that operational profits are being largely offset by financing costs – a consideration for overall cash flow. However, in pure operating terms, Arnold is on solid footing. Continued focus might be on maintaining the occupancy momentum and ensuring that any seasonal slowdowns or rising costs (e.g. property taxes or utilities in winter months) don’t erode the high margins achieved so far.

Topeka Storage – Grantville

Financial Summary (YTD Jan–Oct 2025):

Table 2

Table 2

Metric

Amount (USD) (approx.)

Total Revenue

~$169,400

Total Expenses

~$95,700

Net Operating Income (NOI)

~$73,700

There are no rows in this table

⁠

(The Topeka financials are reported combined; figures for Grantville are estimated based on its portion of revenue/expenses.)*

Topeka Storage – Grantville is the larger of the two Topeka facilities, and it accounts for the majority of the Topeka portfolio’s income. We estimate Grantville’s year-to-date revenue at roughly $169.4K, which is about 69% of the combined Topeka revenue. This revenue is driven mainly by storage rental income and related fees. Through much of 2025, Grantville enjoyed high occupancy – around 85%–95% in the first half – which helped it generate strong rental revenues. In fact, for the early months of the year, Grantville was likely performing at or above revenue expectations, benefiting from its solid tenant base.

However, there was a softening in occupancy later in the year. By October, occupancy had slipped to around 79%, resulting in some leveling off of rental income. Even so, in October Grantville still produced $17.9K in income – more than double Tyler’s revenue that month – underscoring its importance. Grantville also earned ancillary income (admin fees, late fees, etc.), which further bolstered total revenue. Overall, Grantville’s YTD revenue appears on track, though the late-year occupancy dip might put it slightly behind aggressive targets if it was expected to remain near full occupancy.

On the expense side, Grantville’s operating expenses are estimated at about $95.7K for Jan–Oct. This includes its share of advertising, utilities, insurance, property taxes, maintenance, and other operating costs. Some costs scale with its larger size – for example, Grantville’s property tax liability for 2025 is about $22.7K (roughly 60% of the total Topeka real estate taxes). Other costs, like marketing and management fees, have been allocated proportionally. Notably, Grantville’s expenses are higher in absolute terms than Tyler’s, but in many categories they are not proportionally higher – indicating reasonable cost control. For instance, in October Grantville had ~$9.49K in expenses versus Tyler’s ~$6.67K; while higher, this is expected given Grantville’s greater revenue and size. Key expense items included management fees (roughly $12.2K YTD for Grantville), property insurance (~$8.4K), and repairs/maintenance. Maintenance costs have been moderate for Grantville; aside from routine landscaping and minor repairs, no major unbudgeted maintenance hit Grantville in the period (e.g., in October it had only ~$60 in building repair costs vs. over $1,300 for Tyler’s building repair).

Net Operating Income: We estimate Grantville’s NOI at approximately $73.7K year-to-date, which equates to an NOI margin of ~43% on its revenue. Grantville is the primary profit center of the two Topeka sites – for example, in October it contributed 86% of the total Topeka NOI (about $8.44K of the $9.8K combined). Year-to-date, Grantville’s NOI is likely on par with, or slightly below, budget expectations. Its strong first-half performance buoyed NOI, but the combination of a late-year occupancy decline and normal expense levels has kept its margin in the mid-40s rather than expanding. Still, Grantville is performing well overall: it consistently produces solid positive NOI and has generally met operational expectations.

Performance Highlights: Grantville exhibits strength in revenue generation, particularly in maintaining high rental income through most of the year. It effectively leverages its size – even with recent occupancy softening, the facility’s large unit count and square footage generate significant rent. Additionally, expense management has been decent. Most operating expenses have been proportional to its size, and there were no extraordinary overruns year-to-date. The property tax and insurance costs are substantial in dollar terms, but were known fixed costs (and presumably budgeted accordingly). Grantville’s ability to cover these and still deliver a comfortable NOI indicates a stable operation.

Areas of Concern: Going forward, occupancy decline is the key concern. The drop from ~95% to ~79% occupancy by October suggests potential competitive pressure or seasonal move-outs. This could put pressure on revenue if not reversed; management may need to increase marketing or promotions (which could raise costs) to boost occupancy. Additionally, while not a major issue yet, Grantville’s NOI margin (circa 43%) is lower than Arnold’s (~59%), implying there might be room to improve efficiency. Focus areas could be utilities and administrative costs – for instance, ensuring energy usage and other overhead are optimized. No critical over-budget expense is evident for Grantville, but maintaining its current cost discipline is essential, especially if revenue growth stalls. In summary, Grantville is performing well but should be watched for occupancy and expense creep to ensure it continues to hit its financial targets.

Topeka Storage – Tyler

Financial Summary (YTD Jan–Oct 2025):

Table 3

Table 3

Metric

Amount (USD) (approx.)

Total Revenue

~$76,800

Total Expenses

~$43,400

Net Operating Income (NOI)

~$33,400

There are no rows in this table

⁠

(Figures for Tyler are estimated from combined financials; see notes below.)

Topeka Storage – Tyler is the smaller facility of the two, and its financial performance has been more modest. We estimate Tyler’s total revenue through October at roughly $76.8K, which is about 31% of the combined Topeka revenue. Early in 2025, Tyler faced challenges: its occupancy dropped from an initial ~89% in January to around 72% by March, significantly impacting rental income in the first quarter. This downturn likely put Tyler behind its revenue budget early in the year. The good news is that occupancy has since rebounded – by October, Tyler was back near ~89-90% occupied. This recovery has translated into improved monthly revenue; for example, Tyler’s October revenue was about $8.0K, which is its highest monthly income in the period. Ancillary income (late fees, admin fees) for Tyler has been small (a few hundred dollars per month), so its revenue swings are mostly driven by rental occupancy and rates. Overall, Tyler’s YTD revenue is likely below the initial budget target, due to the weak first half, but the recent upward trend is closing the gap.

Tyler’s operating expenses for Jan–Oct are estimated around $43.4K. In many categories, Tyler’s expenses are similar in magnitude to Grantville’s despite the property’s smaller size – this is because of fixed costs. For example, Tyler’s property tax for the year is about $14.5K (the remaining ~39% of Topeka’s $37K total taxes), a significant expense against its lower revenue. Likewise, insurance for Tyler is on the order of $5.4K/year. These necessary fixed costs mean Tyler has a higher expense burden relative to its income. We also observe that maintenance and repair costs hit Tyler hard in 2025. There were notable repairs in at least one month – e.g. in October, Tyler incurred about $1.34K for building repairs (versus almost none for Grantville), likely for a floor repair or similar one-time fix. Routine operating costs like utilities, though smaller in absolute terms, are not much lower than Grantville’s (Tyler’s utilities were ~$305 in October vs Grantville’s $855), again reflecting that basics like electricity, internet, and water have minimum costs regardless of property size. Marketing and management fees were allocated to Tyler as well (for October, Tyler bore ~$748 in advertising and $780 in management fee). In total, Tyler’s cost base is significant relative to its income. There is evidence that Tyler’s expenses may have run above expectations in certain areas – for instance, the unplanned repair costs and possibly slightly higher utilities or marketing needed to re-fill units may have caused minor budget overruns.

Net Operating Income: Tyler’s NOI is approximately $33.4K for the first ten months, yielding an NOI margin of about 43% – notably the lowest in absolute terms among the three properties. In fact, Tyler’s contribution to the overall portfolio NOI is quite small. For example, in October, Tyler produced only $1.36K in NOI, versus $8.44K from Grantville; that single-month snapshot highlights how thin Tyler’s operating profit can be. Earlier in the year, there may have been months where Tyler’s NOI was near zero or even slightly negative (during the low occupancy stretch), though later months with higher occupancy are positive. Compared to budget, Tyler’s NOI is likely underperforming – the shortfall in revenue combined with relatively inflexible expenses means NOI has lagged what one would expect if occupancy had remained stable. Even with the recent improvements, year-to-date NOI is modest.

Performance Highlights: On a positive note, Tyler’s trajectory in the latter part of the year is upwards. The property successfully leased up units after the spring slump, demonstrating effective management response (e.g. local marketing or promotions to attract tenants). October’s revenue (~$8K) was a high point, and November/December could continue this momentum. If expenses are kept stable, improved revenue will directly boost NOI in coming months. Another relative strength is that Tyler’s basic operating expenses are relatively controlled on a per-unit basis – for instance, management fees (which are often percentage-based) were scaled to revenue, and discretionary spending has been cautious. There is also the benefit that many of Tyler’s major expenses (taxes, insurance) are now fixed for the year, so any incremental revenue in the final months flows through to NOI at a high rate.

Areas of Concern: Tyler is clearly the most financially vulnerable of the three properties. Its small scale means fixed costs take a big bite out of income. The mid-year occupancy dip revealed that even a short period of lower revenue can nearly eliminate Tyler’s profit. Going forward, sustaining high occupancy is critical – Tyler needs to remain near full (and possibly consider rate increases where market allows) to improve its financial performance. The property’s NOI margin (~43%) is low, and in some months was much lower, so there is limited cushion if anything goes awry. Expense management will be key: identifying ways to trim costs without harming operations could help (for example, sharing resources with Grantville for marketing or maintenance could reduce duplication). Also, the unexpected repair costs point to potential deferred maintenance issues; management should ensure that major repairs are budgeted or that preventative maintenance is done to avoid large hits. In summary, while Tyler’s situation improved in the latter half, it remains behind expectations year-to-date and will require continued attention to reach stronger profitability.

Comparative Summary & Key Insights

Side-by-Side Financials (Jan–Oct 2025):

Table 4

Table 4

Property

Total Revenue

Total Expenses

NOI (YTD)

NOI Margin

Arnold

$284,735

$118,041

$166,693

~59%

Topeka – Grantville

~$169,400

~$95,700

~$73,700

~43%

Topeka – Tyler

~$76,800

~$43,400

~$33,400

~43%

There are no rows in this table

⁠

Arnold vs. Topeka: Arnold Self Storage is the top performer in this group by a wide margin. It leads in all major categories – its revenue is about 16% higher than the combined revenue of both Topeka properties, and its NOI is roughly 55% higher than the combined Topeka NOI. Arnold’s superior performance is driven by both scale and efficiency: it has more units and higher total rent, and it converts a larger share of its revenue into NOI. The expense structure at Arnold is relatively lean (41% of revenue), whereas Topeka’s expenses amount to about 56% of their revenue. This means Arnold enjoys a significantly higher profit margin. The implication is that Arnold is outperforming expectations, whereas the Topeka properties have more constrained results. From a portfolio perspective, Arnold’s strong NOI is propping up overall profitability – a critical insight for stakeholders focusing on cash flow and returns.

Within Topeka (Grantville vs. Tyler): Grantville outpaces Tyler in financial contribution. Grantville generated roughly 2.2 times the revenue of Tyler and an even larger multiple of NOI (likely well over twice Tyler’s NOI year-to-date). In operational terms, Grantville has been the workhorse for Topeka, while Tyler has underperformed. The disparity boils down to size and stability: Grantville has more units and maintained better occupancy for most of the year, whereas Tyler’s smaller tenant base and vacancy issues dragged it down. It’s worth noting that Tyler’s margins have been especially thin – even when occupancy recovered by October, Tyler’s NOI margin that month was only ~17% (versus 47% for Grantville). This suggests that Tyler’s cost structure is heavy relative to its revenue, a situation to address if possible. Grantville, with its larger revenue, was able to absorb fixed costs more easily and still deliver a healthy, albeit not outstanding, margin.

Key Insights and Recommendations:

Revenue Drivers: Arnold and Grantville illustrate that occupancy and rental rates are key. Arnold’s steady occupancy rise and Grantville’s initially high occupancy drove strong revenues. Tyler’s early revenue shortfall highlights how vacancy can quickly erode income. Maintaining occupancy should be a priority for all, with tailored strategies: Arnold should continue its successful leasing momentum; Grantville might need a marketing push to regain lost tenants; Tyler must strive to keep its current occupancy high and consider incentives to avoid another dip.

Expense Management: Across the board, controlling expenses relative to revenue is crucial. Arnold sets a benchmark with an expense ratio in the low 40s%. Topeka properties, especially Tyler, should seek efficiencies to approach that benchmark. Some ideas include sharing operational resources between Grantville and Tyler (since they are in the same market) to reduce per-property costs, renegotiating service contracts (maintenance, utilities) for better rates, and carefully monitoring any discretionary spending (e.g. ads, office supplies). The data shows specific cost concerns for Tyler, so even small savings there could improve its NOI markedly.

Budget vs. Actual Performance: While we do not have the explicit budget figures in this report, we can infer performance relative to expectations. Arnold is exceeding its likely budget targets – both revenue and NOI are very strong. Grantville is probably close to its budget on revenue and NOI, with a slight caution on the recent slowdown. Tyler is under budget on NOI – it likely missed its profit target given the mid-year struggle. Going forward, management might consider revising Tyler’s budget forecasts or implementing a turnaround plan to boost its profitability (e.g. targeted marketing to drive occupancy, or exploring ways to increase rents once fully stabilized, to improve revenue without significant cost increase).

Trends and Outlook: The year-to-date figures suggest that by year-end 2025, Arnold will continue to lead by a large margin, Grantville will remain solid but needs attention to end the year strong, and Tyler will finish with only a small profit. It will be important to monitor fourth-quarter performance to see if Tyler’s uptick and Grantville’s challenges persist or improve. Additionally, external factors like seasonality (winter can slow move-ins) and economic conditions could affect Q4 revenues. Proactive steps, such as year-end promotions or adjusting pricing, could help lock in tenants and finish the year on a high note for the Topeka properties.

In conclusion, Arnold Self Storage is the standout performer with excellent revenue and NOI results. Topeka Grantville is performing well but has room to optimize, and Topeka Tyler is the weakest, requiring focused improvement. By leveraging Arnold’s best practices and addressing the specific issues at each Topeka site, the overall portfolio’s financial performance can be strengthened moving into 2026. The data so far in 2025 provides a clear roadmap of where to celebrate success (Arnold’s efficiency and Grantville’s strong revenue base) and where to concentrate management efforts (Tyler’s occupancy and cost structure, and Grantville’s late-year leasing trend).

⁠

ARNOLD Meetings (1).xlsx

6.5 KB

⁠

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.