The scope & schedule of an Association’s reserve expenses are defined in the Reserve Study’s Component List. But once the Component List has been established, should the Reserve contributions necessary to fund those expenses be calculated using the “Straight Line” Method (officially called the Component Method) or the “Cash Flow” Method (sometimes called the “Pooled” Method)?
Someone who attended one of our recent webinars asked an interesting follow-up question worth sharing. His association manager had recently told him that a Funding Plan based on the Straight Line methodology (also known as the Component Method in National Reserve Study Standard terminology) was more accurate than a Funding Plan based on the Cash Flow methodology, and he wanted my opinion on the matter.
What’s better – $50/mo Reserve contributions (as part of your condo’s total monthly assessment) or $70/mo? All other things being equal, I’d rather pay a $50 monthly bill than a $70 monthly bill. But… not all other things are equal.
At Association Reserves we understand board members face a big challenge to budget for the maintenance and replacement of their association’s major common area assets. Boards typically have little knowledge of project costs and when those costs are expected to occur.
It is true that accuracy of Reserve projections increases as the projected expense approaches. An expense expected in the next five years (Remaining Useful Life of 0-4 yrs) is much more certain in timing and cost than an expense projected 25 or so years away.
