Market Segments in the Multifamily Sector

Andrew Oh, TecMRKT Works LLC

John H. Reed, TecMRKT Works LLC

Nick Hall, TecMRKT Works LLC

Tom Talerico, TecMRKT Works LLC

Jeff Riggert, TecMRKT Works LLC

Donald R. Dohrmann, ADM Associates, Inc.

Shahana Samiullah, Southern California Edison

Oscar Bloch, State of Wisconsin

ABSTRACT

The multifamily market has proven to be a particularly difficult market to penetrate

with energy efficient technologies and practices. In general, the market has been treated as if

it were homogenous and the assumption has been that split incentives are the major barrier to

making progress in the market. This paper brings together the results of three studies, two

from California and one from Wisconsin, both based on interviews and telephone surveys

with owners and operators of multifamily facilities.

The research presented in this paper finds that the market is comprised of owners who

manage their own properties and property firms that manage properties for others. There are

at least four segments among these operators: the small operator segment, the medium

operator segment, the large operator segment, and the large fee-managed operator segment.

This paper describes the segments, the key decision-makers involved in the segments, the

structures of operation, the criteria used in decision-making, and the opportunities and

barriers for implementing energy efficiency in each segment. For example, in the small

operator segment, capital and the availability of time act as barriers to implementing energy

efficiency. For the large operator segment, a key barrier is the competition among worthy

projects for capital and attributes other than cost and payback that tip selection to non-energy

related projects.

This paper presents a new and powerful way of understanding the multifamily market

that helps to set the stage for designing better and more effective programs addressing the

multifamily sector.

Introduction

The term multifamily is used to describe a broad range of living and ownership

arrangements and is often used differently from program to program and study to study.

Multifamily can refer to physical structures ranging from duplexes to multistory high-rises.

Multifamily properties can be leased to tenants or owned by the occupants. A high-rise

building with rental units is an example of the former while a high-rise condominium is an

example of the latter. While various of the authors of this study have completed studies of

The California studies on which this paper is based were funded with California Public Goods Charge Energy

Efficiency Funds. The Wisconsin study was part of a baseline study funded with Wisconsin Focus on Energy

Funds.

Commercial Buildings: Program Design and Implementation - 4.277

both owner and renter occupied multifamily dwellings, this study will mainly focus on renter

occupied buildings with four or more units.

There is a widespread belief that the multifamily market is a particularly difficult

market to penetrate with energy efficient technologies. In the 1970s and early 1980s, some

energy programs attempted to target tenants in multifamily dwellings. It became clear that

tenants, especially in rental units, are difficult to reach, are not often interested in energy

efficiency, and even if interested, are often limited to conservation rather than energy

efficiency actions.

In the past twenty-five years, energy programs have also attempted to target

multifamily property owners. Program implementers often find that the owners of

multifamily units are difficult to reach and that their interest and awareness in energy

efficiency is often low. This lack of interest is often attributed to the fact that owners make

the capital investments while tenants pay the operating costs. It is assumed that owners

minimize capital costs with little regard for the long-term operational costs that tenants incur.

The fact that most energy efficiency measures are available at a cost premium tends to

reinforce this view.

Also, there has been a general tendency to view the multifamily sector as a large

amorphous entity. In fact, this sector is highly differentiated and should be viewed as a series

of submarkets each with its own characteristics. We shall demonstrate this in the following

pages.

This paper addresses three issues:

x An overall view of the general structure of the market

x A brief view of the tenant market

x And, a more detailed discussion of owner management segments within the market

How the Data Were Collected

This paper is based on three studies. The first is a study of the multifamily sector in

California and mostly addresses the large operator rental market (ADM and TecMRKT

Works, 2000). The second is a study of hard-to-reach populations in California (Reed, et. al.,

2001) that specifically addressed the issue of renter segments in California. The third study

is a study of the multifamily operator market in Wisconsin (Xenergy, et. al.). Even though

these studies represent diverse populations, there are commonalities and differences that

contribute to a greater understanding of the market.

The California multifamily market apartment study is based on 25 in-depth

interviews, a survey of 420 multifamily housing decision makers, and on-site collection of

data about common area appliances at 540 locations throughout California. The hard-to-

reach study is based on analysis of secondary data sources and includes commercially

available market segmentation data and the analysis of saturation data. The Wisconsin study

is based on in-depth interviews with 29 market actors and surveys of 100 owners.

The General Structure of the Market

A large proportion of the multifamily rental market is concentrated in the hands of

relatively few players. At the national level, the top 50 apartment owners own or manage

4.278

approximately 2.5 million units (National Real Estate Investor, February, 2002). The largest

national firm owns or manages about a quarter of a million units while the 50

largest

company owns or manages more than 20,000 units. The 2.5 million units owned by the Top

50 firms nationally are equivalent to the total number of units in three large California utility

service territories. It is seven percent of rentals nationally. Although we do not have a firm

estimate, we know that there are many firms with 250 to 20,000 units.

In Wisconsin, we found the same patterns of concentration but at a different scale.

Sixteen percent of rental operators who had at least one building with four or more units

owned or managed 63 percent of all units in Wisconsin. Twenty-two percent of the units in

Wisconsin are owned by the 73 percent of owner/managers who own one to three properties.

When we examined just the operators with at least one building with four or more units, we

found that operators with at least 250 units, about one percent of these operators, held 25

percent of the units or about 15 percent of all units in the state.

In California, most apartment units are found in fairly large complexes. Just under

half of all California multifamily rental units in three large utility service areas are located in

complexes with 100 or more units. A fifth of all rental units in these three large service

territories are located in complexes with 250 or more units.

Complexes can have from two to tens of buildings. The most common sized rental

buildings nationally are two to four unit buildings (20 percent), but five to nine unit buildings

are quite common as are 10 to 19 unit buildings (12 percent each) (Census Bureau, 1999). In

California, the most common sized buildings are one or two story buildings with five or more

units. In our Wisconsin study, 81 percent of the structures in one sample of approximately

117 properties consisted of buildings with between four and 20 units.

Thus, what we can conclude about the structure of the multifamily rental market is

that there is a high degree of concentration in the ownership of multifamily rental units. By

targeting a relatively small number of firms, it may be possible to influence a very large

number of multifamily rental units. Five percent of the multifamily rental operators may

control as much as 75 percent of rental units in the US. There are a very large number of

rental operators who own one to four units but they own a relatively small percentage of the

total units in this country.

Also, a high percentage of rental buildings are modest sized structures, four to 20

units, which are grouped in complexes. As many as half of all rental units may be in

complexes with 100 or more units.

Tenants

While the main focus of this paper is owners and managers of multifamily rental

properties, it is useful to make a few brief observations about tenant segments.

Demographically, multifamily renters tend to be single or an adult living with children.

Multifamily renters tend to be low to middle income although there are some geographic

areas and complexes with high income.

Because of some of the data that was available to use, we were able to breakdown

multifamily renters in California into several segments. Examples of renter segments

include:

Commercial Buildings: Program Design and Implementation - 4.279

x Coastal single urban professionals who are singles mixed with some married couples

that are affluent and educated living in major cities along the California coast. This

group is mostly white with a strong Asian presence.

x Urban middle-income singles are similar to the coastal single urban professionals but

not as affluent and not so numerous.

x Ethnic blue-collar renters are found in central urban areas. These households are in

blue-collar and service occupations and tend to be Hispanic and African-American.

These singles and single parents with children have incomes below $25,000.

x Ethnic new arrivals are blue-collar and service workers who are often foreign-born

and among the most recent immigrants. These households generally have incomes

under $50,000.

We also found that there are differences in the segments found in small and large

apartment complexes. For example, in California, older and very affluent professionals tend

to live in large-scale coastal complexes. Hispanic lower income blue-collar and service

workers tend to live in smaller complexes in inland California cities.

While tenant segmentation will vary with the area of the country, it is important to

recognize that there are multifamily renter segments that are geographically,

demographically, and lifestyle based. If the goal of a program is to approach tenants, it is

important to realize that a one-size-fits-all program will not work. Multifamily renters have

different lifestyles, reading habits, shopping patterns, language ability, and they attend to

different media channels and content within the media. Attempts to effectively address

multifamily renters requires an understanding of what the segments are, where they are, and

that different media, different messages, and different products are needed to influence them.

Owner Segments

Based on the preceding observations, the most effective strategies for influencing the

energy efficiency of multifamily housing is to focus on the owners and managers. The

remainder of this paper focuses on some of what we have learned about owner/managers.

Who makes decisions about properties is dependent on a number of factors. One of

these factors is the size of holdings. As the number of units increase, owner/managers

typically rely on others to help in the decision-making. An owner with 10 units usually does

all of the decision-making. An owner with 1,000 units may delegate the detailed day-to-day

decision-making for groups of buildings or complexes to subordinates. Thus, as the size of

holdings increase, owners may become removed from the specifics of decision-making.

Another factor that influences decision-making is how owners choose to manage their

property. Some owners do not want the responsibilities of day-to-day property management

or treat property as an investment so they hire a management company to manage the

property for them. For example, owners with small numbers of multifamily units may not

want the hassles of managing a property and may turn it over to someone else. There are

numerous individuals, groups of individuals and institutions who like the stability and tax

consequences of property investments but do not want to manage real estate. These

individuals hire professional managers to oversee their property or invest in properties that

are managed for them.

4.280

The differences in the number of units and the choice of how to manage property

have consequences for who makes decisions, the amount of time and expertise that are

involved in decision-making, and the criterion variables that are factored into decisions.

Given this, we believe that there are at least four different operator segments in the

multifamily market, the small operator segment, the medium operator segment, the large

operator segment, and the fee managed operator segment. We believe that these segments

represent different target audiences that will need to be addressed with different content,

different programs, and different marketing strategies.

The small operator segment roughly corresponds to multifamily operators with 70 or

fewer units and perhaps some with larger numbers of units. The medium segment includes

many of the multifamily operators with 70 to 230 units but may include some operators with

more or fewer units. The two largest segments correspond to operators with more than 230

units but may include some operators with fewer units. The distinguishing feature between

the two largest segments is the degree to which multifamily operators fee manage property.

The Small Operator Segment

This segment is made up of owners with between four and 70 units. The units may be

located in one or more buildings. Sometimes, owners of units in this range will have several

small properties with one to 10 units in them and/or perhaps one building with a larger

number of units.

This segment is typically composed of people who have other employment and who

own and manage rental units on the side. With this number of units, the income from the

properties at least with smaller numbers of units, is probably not sufficient to allow people to

support themselves full-time.

Based on our qualitative interviews, we believe that quite a few owners in this

segment are blue-collar or persons with craft skills. These people may have gotten into the

multifamily business as an extension of their trade. Typically, owners in this segment have

the skills to complete their own maintenance and do so. They use contractors as a last resort

when the job is outside their skill set or too large, too time consuming, or too involved for

them to tackle.

In many instances, couples operate as a team to manage the business. One member of

the team may do the bookkeeping and leasing and the other member the operations and

maintenance tasks or some combination of these activities. In other instances, just one

person may operate the whole business.

The small multifamily operations are usually run from the owner’s home, or in the

case of a tradesperson owning their own business, from a business establishment. In many

instances, the residential telephone serves as the business telephone. Because these owners

hold other employment, they are often difficult to contact during normal business hours.

There is heavy reliance upon answering machines. These owners are best reached after

business hours and probably through the mail or some mechanism that is not direct one-to-

one contact.

The combination of outside employment and managing the multifamily property

means that these individuals are extremely busy. Owners in this segment are focused on the

day-to-day details of managing the business and keeping their units leased and maintained.

They do not have, and therefore do not spend, a great deal of time searching for information

Commercial Buildings: Program Design and Implementation - 4.281

or exploring options. They respond to equipment problems or physical issues associated with

their building(s) swiftly, taking the most straightforward path to problem resolution. This

frequently means one-for-one replacement and minimizing the amount of time spent

considering options.

In this segment, and for that matter in other segments, there is not likely to be on-site

personnel when the number of units in a building or complex is small, in the range of four to

10 units. Beyond this number of units, owners may have a part-time or in some cases a full-

time on-site representative. With smaller numbers of units, the representative is often a

renter who receives consideration on the rent for showing the property, doing some light

maintenance such as keeping common areas clean or mowing, completing minor repairs,

being available when tenants have problems, calling the owner when issues arise that need

the owner’s attention, and perhaps serving as a convenient agent for collecting receivables.

As should be clear, the key decision maker is the owner.

The Mid-Sized Operator Segment

The number of units owned or managed by operators in this segment starts

somewhere between 40 and 100 and may range as high as 300 to 500 units, perhaps as high

as a thousand units. In the mid-sized operator segment, the owner is can involved full-time

with property management. More importantly, what most distinguishes this operator from

the small operator is the use of some paid staff.

Although we do not have certain evidence, we suspect that the smallest mid-sized

operators typically hire maintenance personnel first. There is probably some point between

50 and 100 units when maintenance becomes too great an issue for the owner operating

alone. The owner continues managing the properties but cedes some of the maintenance

activity to a paid staff person. In some instances, this may be done by providing a

consideration for rent. Alternatively, the owner may contract some maintenance rather than

hiring staff. The important point is that there is now an additional person or persons

contributing to decision-making.

The nature of the buildings in this segment is different than in the small owner

segment. Whereas the small operator segment may have multiple one to ten unit buildings,

and perhaps one or two larger buildings than that, the medium sized operator is likely to have

one or more buildings, or perhaps one or more multifamily complexes in the range of 20 to

150 units.

Like other operators, medium sized operators use on-site renters as managers until the

number of units in a building or several buildings in a complex reach a point where the

building and the management of the building or complex needs constant attention. For larger

sized buildings or complexes, the operator may hire a professional manager or a family

member may become a full-time professional manager. At modest building/complex sizes,

there may be a single site manager who covers nearly all functions such as budget,

receivables, leasing, and tenant relations. As building/complex sizes increase, the functions

of the staff begin to diversify into management, leasing, and maintenance. Up to this point,

the owner typically retains much of the detailed decision-making authority.

As the size and number of sites and buildings increase, there begin to be intermediate

levels of managers who are responsible for multiple buildings or multiple complexes. It is at

this point that the owner tends to relinquish authority and control to senior property

4.282

managers. Thus, rather than being directly involved in much detailed decision-making about

specific buildings or complexes, and perhaps maintenance, the owner begins to become more

hands-off and begins to focus more on the financial and management aspects of the

operation.

In talking with many mid-sized operators, we have observed, although not with any

statistical rigor, that many are family firms or firms that have grown-up around one or two

individuals who represent themselves, friends, and acquaintances who are investors. Some

of the larger firms in this segment appear to be family firms where there has been a

succession of generations or at least many years to accumulate properties. This may be

indicative of the length of time it takes to accumulate wealth and build a very substantial

portfolio of property. The larger firms appear to have been fairly aggressive in their financial

dealings.

We have also spoken to operators in this group whose portfolio appears to be in

decline. These are people who built a fairly substantial portfolio of properties who have

chosen to slowly get out of the business. Whether operators are in ascent or decline can

significantly color how they make decisions and whether they are interested in issues such as

energy efficiency.

The Large Operator Segment

The large operator segment is comprised of firms with 270 to several thousands even

hundreds of thousands of units. The lower limit of this range is not fixed and there may be

firms with fewer than 270 units who fit the characteristics of this category and firms with up

to a thousand units who are more like the mid-sized operator. There is no definitive breaking

point.

The very large firms typically have holdings throughout the country. The bulk of the

large firms holdings are often on the East and West Coasts as well as in Texas and the

Southwest. Their geographically widespread holdings represent a form of diversification that

affords some protection from downturns in regional economies. Some of the smaller firms in

this group may be regionally based, for example, in the Midwest.

In general, it appears that the larger owner management firms target higher end

markets although this is not always the case. These firms may specialize, for example, in

high-rise downtown properties, low-rise suburban multifamily housing, or properties to

attract seniors, but most have a mix of multifamily property types.

The regional and national firms almost always have multiple lines of business. It is

not unusual for such firms to be broadly engaged in real estate development including the

development of multifamily housing and commercial properties. Some may have divisions

that specialize in housing for older persons and persons with special needs. Such firms

usually have a development function involving one to several people that frequently includes

the owner. The development divisions may focus on buying and upgrading existing

properties or building properties or both. Some of these firms have real estate operations,

which match tenants with commercial properties. Other complementary lines of business

include commercial office and retail space holdings, particularly strip malls or malls. We

spoke with a Milwaukee property manager who had responsibility for a residential complex

and an adjacent shopping mall. Most of the firms have property management divisions that

operate multifamily properties for others.

Commercial Buildings: Program Design and Implementation - 4.283

The organization of these large firms is complex. At the top, there is a board, a

president and/or CEO. There are generally several vice-presidents usually aligned with the

different operating divisions, for example, property acquisition, property development,

construction, multifamily housing operation, commercial property, etc.

There is also a fair amount of vertical structure. Within a multifamily housing

operating division, there may be regional directors or vice presidents who are responsible for

properties in a fixed geographical area. There may be one or two layers of property

managers beneath the regional directors depending on the number and size of properties

within a defined geographical area.

One of these layers of senior property manager is typically responsible for several

properties within more local geographical areas, for example, within the Milwaukee

metropolitan area or for an area from Northwest Illinois to Green Bay. The size of the area is

dependent on the number of units and the properties that are owned and managed. The exact

structure may vary depending on circumstances. One of the persons we interviewed was

located on-site and acted as a site manager for a particular property and also as a senior

property manager with oversight for two additional properties.

At the property level, depending on the number of units, the number of buildings, and

the location there is usually a site or property manager, perhaps an assistant property

manager, a leasing manager and some number of leasing agents. Also, there is usually a

maintenance supervisor and maintenance staff. In high-rise buildings, you may find front

desk staff, security personnel or a door person, and perhaps a concierge and cleaning staff.

The property manager is responsible for developing budgets, processing receivables,

supervising staff, tenant relations, advertising, developing proposals, etc. Leasing managers

and staff are responsible for leasing space and tenant relations.

The maintenance manager at larger properties is usually someone with some training

and/or experience who is capable of repairing and maintaining most of the equipment found

on-site. The maintenance staff are typically less well-trained helpers for the maintenance

manager. Because high-rise buildings typically have more systems and perhaps more

complex systems, the maintenance supervisors in these buildings may have more experience

and training than maintenance supervisors for other types of settings.

There is some lack of consistency in the pattern of relations between the site manager

and the maintenance supervisor. In some organizations, the maintenance supervisor reports

directly to the site manager. In other cases, the maintenance supervisor may report to

someone in facilities maintenance higher in the organization, and coordinate with the site

manager. Which of these arrangements may occur is likely affected by factors such as the

number of properties in close proximity to each other.

Although site managers may have some discretion in decision-making, they do not

have a great deal of autonomy in decision-making in these large firms. Usually, there is an

upset limit, such as $1,500 to $2,000, at which point a site manager passes the decision-

making to a senior property manager for approvals. One of the site managers we interviewed

had a decision limit of $7,500. The types of decisions that on-site managers make are usually

quite circumscribed. For instance, they may authorize a refrigerator replacement but they are

not likely to make a general change in the style, model, or efficiency rating of a refrigerator

without authorization from someone higher in the organization. A lot of the discretion and

authority for major decisions resides with the senior property managers or is initiated by

them and then moved up the chain of command. It is the property supervisors who make the

4.284

decisions and initiate proposals for changes to buildings, although site managers certainly

work with senior property managers and may be the initiators of the ideas.

Generally, a maintenance manager makes a decision about what may need to be fixed

or replaced. Depending on the relationship with the site manager, the maintenance manager

may proceed with replacements subject to predefined approval limits or understandings about

what types of replacements may be made. A maintenance supervisor typically will not be

making decisions about changes in the models of appliances that may be installed. A senior

property manager might make such decisions depending on how much autonomy the senior

property managers have in dealing with properties. Some of the large firms purchase from

national contracts or buy through contracts from local vendors. Some of the senior property

managers with whom we talked indicated that they buy from local vendors based on price.

When major changes are contemplated in buildings, for example, changing the façade

or remodeling kitchens or baths, property supervisors develop proposals for capital funds that

are presented to upper management. Upper management evaluates the proposals and makes

decisions from among groups of proposals about what to fund. Proposals are likely to be

funded if it can be shown that the changes will help to keep a building competitive (in other

words occupied), and concomitantly rental values high.

Some of the larger firms may have in-house architectural and engineering staff that

guide capital projects. Some of the people with whom we talked indicated that they did not

use in-house expertise but went instead to local architects, engineering firms, and contractors.

This probably reflects the diversified nature of these firms and the fact that in-house staff and

construction expertise are focused on development projects and somewhat removed from

day-to-day operations of buildings at the local level.

Some of these firms have technology standards that the property supervisors and site

managers are required to follow. These standards may limit what property supervisors can

do. In some instances these firms have a technology manager who evaluates technologies

and dictates what can be used. It may be possible to influence such technology managers but

they may have to be approached by regional and national organizations rather than a state

level entity because the standards may apply to thousands of properties.

The picture that emerges then is that the key decision makers for the large operators

are the senior property managers. They are the ones who initiate projects and they are the

persons who have to convince the firm to invest its capital in certain enterprises. Their

livelihoods are dependent on their ability to show a profit for the buildings they manage.

They do respond to incentives, and they are looking for ways to increase the profitability and

margins for their properties. Generally, on-site managers have some latitude to make

decisions but there are limits to the changes they can make without approval from a senior

property manager or someone higher in management.

The Large Fee Management Segment

There are a number of firms that specialize in multifamily property management.

These firms manage large numbers of units, buildings, and properties on a fee basis. Instead

of managing the investment for a company, these firms are managing the properties for a

diverse array of owners. The ownership structures of buildings may involve a single owner

or a group of investors who have purchased a building. Major institutional investors, such as

retirement funds, use property management firms. Often institutional investors will work

Commercial Buildings: Program Design and Implementation - 4.285

with a single firm to manage all of their investments in a given area. Depending on the size

of the firm and the number of properties that they manage, the management structure more or

less mimics the structure of the large-scale owner/management segment.

Here again, the senior property manager is a key player in the decision process. The

senior property manager develops budgets and revenue projections that are agreed to with the

owner. As long as the costs stay within budgets and revenue projections are met, the

property supervisor has a great deal of autonomy in dealing with the building. For example,

one of our informants has instituted a semiannual check of all faucets in her buildings. This

results in a significant reduction in water costs. This is not something requested by the

owners. This is something that she does as part of her management efforts and is suggestive

of how she attempts to manage common area costs.

A fundamental difference between owner managed properties and fee managed

properties is how trade-offs are made for capital projects. For fee-managed properties, the

property supervisor develops proposals but then must convince the owner to forgo cash flow

for the period needed to cover the costs of the project. Here the competition is not among

projects for buildings, but whatever other investments, projects or uses the owner(s) may

have for the money. The senior property manager must convince the owner that there will be

a return on investment in terms of reduced costs or sustained revenues and the owner must

decide if the return on investment is acceptable and that the short term disruption to cash

flow has value. Partially this is a problem of helping the owner to plan ahead for the changes

in cash flow.

Summary and Conclusions

It is widely believed that it is difficult to penetrate the multifamily renter market with

energy efficiency products and services. In this paper we have examined the multifamily

sector in some detail based on information compiled from three different studies. From this

we have developed three key sets of interrelated findings.

First, we find that ownership of multifamily rental properties is fairly concentrated.

A relatively small number of firms and individuals own a very substantial number of

multifamily units. If these firms and individuals are targeted, there is potential to

substantially improve the energy efficiency of a substantial number of multifamily dwellings.

A second set of findings has to do with tenants. Generally, multifamily renters are

limited in what they can do to increase the efficiency of their dwellings. Much of what they

can do is limited to the purchase and use of personal products such as lighting and personal

appliances. Program implementers sometimes think of tenants in multifamily rental housing

as being fairly homogeneous. In fact, the data show that tenants are quite diverse and that

they can be segmented into actionable groupings using readily available data if implementers

need to address them directly.

The most important findings in this paper relate to owner segments in the multifamily

market. Small operators frequently operate their properties as an adjunct to other economic

activities. They frequently do some of their own maintenance. They are time-limited which

makes it difficult to reach them and to get them to investigate new technologies. Mid-sized

operators have reached a size where they can support themselves through their multifamily

rental operations. They may have employees and a maintenance crew. The owners are the

primary decision makers in this group. For large operators and the large fee managed

4.286

operators, it is property supervisors rather than site managers who make key decisions about

properties. Usually a property supervisor will be responsible for two to seven properties.

Their duties may include retail property management as well. These decision makers

compete for capital or must justify capital expenditures to owners. Generally, their focus is

to increase the competitiveness of their properties or to be able to increase the rate of return

from leases. Thus, they tend to focus their attention on improvements that are visible or of

interest to tenants. For example, they might authorize the purchase of energy efficient

refrigerators but they are likely to make that choice based on features of the refrigerator other

than energy. Energy is a low priority issue for them. For many of these properties, energy

may be five percent or less of the budget. While on-site staff may have some budget

authority, they are not likely to be able to significantly influence major capital expenditures.

References

ADM and TecMRKT Works, Statewide Survey of Multi-family Common Area Building

Owners Market — Apartment Complexes, Rosemead: Southern California Edison,

June 2000.

Census Bureau, American Housing Study, 1999.

Reed, John H., Andrew Oh, Tom Talerico, Jeff Riggert, and Katherine Johnson, Statewide

Residential Customer Needs Assessment Study, Rosemead: Southern California

Edison, July 2001.

National Real Estate Investor, http://www.industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid

=126&releaseid=6950&magazinearticleid=116507&siteid=23, February 2002.

Xenergy, Energy Center of Wisconsin, Prahl Associates, and TecMRKT Works, Baseline

Market Research — Wisconsin Focus on Energy, Madison: Xenergy, February 2002.

Commercial Buildings: Program Design and Implementation - 4.287

4.288