Quote:
Posted By BruceE1 on 11/29/2021 4:09 PM
thanks for the input but perhaps I am asking the question incorrectly. Lets try the question this way. Is the way the numbers in column's A-H acceptable? if not how does column H be calculated?
Then in either case can the number in column H be adjusted if need be or are you locked into a number per the formula?
The Board is not locked into the numbers that determine what column H is. This gives the Board a lot of flexibility. Caveats: The Board needs to consult the appropriate infrastructure professionals and be reasonable when it sets the numbers that determine what column H is.
What I would do to the spreadsheet:
Column E represents a backwards-looking number. Column E adds no value to the analysis. Delete column E in its entirety.
Keep Columns A, B, C, D, F, G, and H .
Re-name Column G to something like "Amount needed in account after [years in column C]"
Delete Columns I and J. They seem to represent a bit of a misunderstanding about how reserve funding works.
The statute says the HOA should contribute the amount in column H. Column H makes both mathematical and financial planning sense. If you do not see why, please feel free to ask.
Remember that Column H depends on what the estimates are for (1) the remaining useful life and (2) the replacement cost. Importantly, the Board has the right (and I would say, duty) to change these estimates when appropriate, per this statement in FS 720:
The formula may be adjusted each year for changes in estimates and deferred maintenance performed during the year and may include factors such as inflation and earnings on invested funds. (emphasis added by AugustinD)
This means the Board has a lot of control over the numbers in column H. As it should. Why should the Board have this right? Because stuff happens that affects both these estimates. For example, if you or others notice that, say, the roads' gatoring is much worse this year than last (possibly due to poor maintenance practices in general; or maybe flooding was really bad), then the Board might want to ask a road repair expert what they think the remaining useful life is. Perhaps the remaining useful life is several years less than what the estimate was last year. If so, re-evaluating funding for the roads, using the new estimate of remaining useful life, makes perfect sense.
The point is to avoid a large special assessment having to be imposed on owners.