Manufactured Home Community Utility and Infrastructure Checklist

In most manufactured home communities the operator owns the water mains, the sewer collection system and often the electrical distribution — buried, decades old, and invisible until something fails under a road in February.

This is a checklist for finding out what you actually have and what it is doing, before it tells you.

Start here: establish what you own

  • Where is the master meter, and what does the community own downstream of it?
  • Is each home separately served and metered by the utility, or is the community distributing?
  • Water main material and approximate age — galvanised, early plastic, ductile iron
  • Sewer collection material and age, and whether there are lift stations
  • Does the community own electrical distribution beyond the meter, or is each site served directly?
  • Are there as-built drawings, and do they reflect reality?
  • Is there a valve map, and has anyone tested it?

Communities where each home is separately served by the utility have a dramatically simpler operating picture. Establishing which model applies is the first task and it is not always documented — a surprising number of communities do not know with certainty where their own pipes run.

The single most valuable number

  • Water purchased at the master meter, monthly, for the last 24 months
  • Water billed to sites over the same period
  • The gap between them, tracked over time

That gap is unbilled consumption. It is either a leak, an allocation that has drifted from reality, or vacancy being absorbed — and each calls for a different response. A gap that is widening year over year is almost always a leak, and it can be established entirely from documents without anyone digging anything up.

This is the highest-return check available in the whole asset class, and most communities have never run it.

Leak detection

  • Overnight minimum consumption — is the master meter still turning at 3am when the community is asleep?
  • Month-over-month comparison against the same month last year
  • Site-level consumption where submetering exists, flagging units whose usage jumps
  • Visual checks during site walks: persistently damp ground, unexplained green patches in dry weather, water at the surface
  • Acoustic detection or pressure testing by zone where a loss is established but not located

In a master-metered community a running toilet costs the operator and costs the resident nothing, so it goes unreported for months. That is not resident bad faith — it is the incentive structure, and it is exactly what submetering corrects.

Valves

  • Can you isolate a zone? Locate the valves and confirm they operate
  • Exercise valves periodically so they do not seize
  • Record valve locations and their condition

This item looks trivial and is not. A community whose valves have seized — common where nothing has been exercised in decades — cannot isolate anything. Which means a leak that could have been contained to one zone requires excavation to find, and a repair that could have affected six homes takes water from the whole community.

Exercising valves is cheap insurance against a genuinely expensive failure mode.

Sewer and lift stations

  • Backup history — where, how often, and why
  • Cleanouts located and accessible
  • Lift station condition, age and service history
  • Alarm systems on lift stations working and monitored
  • Root intrusion where mature trees sit near the line
  • Grease and inappropriate disposal patterns, which point to a resident education need

Lift stations deserve particular attention because they are mechanical, they have shorter lives than the pipe around them, and their failure is immediate and unpleasant rather than gradual.

Recovery method

  • How are utilities currently recovered — included, flat charge, submetered, or allocated?
  • Does recovery actually cover cost, checked against the master meter bills rather than assumed?
  • Is the allocation formula defensible and applied consistently?
  • Are common area uses — irrigation, laundry, lighting — identified rather than silently folded into resident bills?
  • Is the billing compliant with applicable requirements?

Submetering readiness

If you are considering submetering, the questions that decide feasibility:

  • Is the plumbing configured for it — individual service lines per site, or shared runs?
  • What would meter installation cost, and over what disruption?
  • What is the reading infrastructure — manual, drive-by, or remote?
  • Who administers the billing?
  • What does the analysis show on consumption reduction and recovered cost against installed cost?

Submetering typically reduces total consumption noticeably once residents see their own usage, and it makes site-level leaks visible immediately. Whether it pays depends on installation cost and the size of the current gap, and it is worth running the numbers against your own consumption history rather than a general rule.

Freeze protection

  • Exposed lines under homes identified
  • Resident reminders issued before a cold snap
  • Vulnerable community-owned runs insulated or heat-traced
  • Shut-off procedure known, in case a line does split

Split lines under homes produce both a repair and a substantial water loss, and both are avoidable with a reminder that costs nothing.

When the community is the water utility

Some communities do not buy water from a municipal supplier at all. They draw it from their own well or source — which changes the operator's position entirely. The community is no longer a customer of a utility. It is one.

That brings monitoring, testing, reporting, treatment and operator certification obligations, along with responsibility for the quality of water delivered to residents. It is a genuinely different undertaking from maintaining distribution downstream of a municipal meter, and the compliance burden is continuous rather than occasional.

  • Is the community classified as a public water system?
  • What monitoring and testing is required, at what frequency?
  • Are the reports current and filed?
  • Is a certified operator required, and is one engaged?
  • What treatment is in place, and is it maintained?
  • What is the source condition — well, capacity, water quality trend?
  • Is there a backup if the source or treatment fails?

The failure that matters here is assuming the obligations are lighter than they are. A community that has drifted out of its testing and reporting schedule is not merely non-compliant on paper — it has stopped verifying the quality of the water it supplies to the people living there.

This is also a significant diligence item on any acquisition. A buyer taking on a community with its own water system is taking on a regulated utility, and the cost of bringing a lapsed system back into compliance is not always small.


Replacement planning

  • Material, age and condition recorded per section
  • Failure history — the most useful single input available
  • Replacement horizon established per component
  • Sequencing planned with road work, so the same ground is opened once
  • Funding identified — operations, reserves or borrowing

Failure history predicts the future better than any expected-life table. A main section repaired three times in five years is telling you plainly what the next few years hold, and that information usually exists in old invoices even where no formal record was kept.

The sequencing point is where real money is saved. Replacing a water main under a road and then resurfacing that road as separate projects costs substantially more than doing them together, because opening and reinstating the ground is the expensive part. See Capital Planning.

Where residents fit in

Residents own their homes, which means the boundary between the community's infrastructure and theirs runs somewhere under each house — and where exactly should be stated in the rental agreement rather than argued about after a failure.

The conventional split is that the community maintains distribution up to the site connection, and the resident is responsible from there: the connections under and into their own home, and the plumbing within it. Residents also own the consequences of what they put into the sewer, and blockages traced to a specific site are frequently recoverable where the agreement provides for it.

Two practical points follow.

Tell residents where the boundary is. A resident who does not know they are responsible for the line under their own home will not maintain it, and will be surprised by the bill.

Give them a reason to report. In a community with utilities included, a resident has no financial incentive to mention a running toilet or a damp patch under their home. Asking them to report it anyway — and responding when they do — recovers water that would otherwise leak for months.

Where to go next

Our Utility Infrastructure page covers how we manage these systems, and Mobile Home Park Management covers the wider service.

To discuss your community, contact us or request a free analysis.

About the author

Gary E. Wilson is the President and Designated Broker of Wilson Management, Inc., which he has led in serving property owners across Bellevue and the Greater Seattle area since 1982. With more than 40 years of hands-on experience, Gary helps owners protect and maximize the value of single-family, multi-family, and commercial properties.

More about Gary →  ·  Get a free rental analysis →

I have been dealing with this company for more than a decade as they manage many of my rental properties. In this regard I wish to place on record my deepest appreciation for Lisa who handles my portfolio with utmost professionalism and responds to issues promptly. She is an asset to your company.

Sampath Velamoor

Get Your Free Rental Pricing Analysis Today