What the $2,000 Board Reserve Review actually looks like

This is an independent re-run of the association’s reserve arithmetic from the records the board provided. It is not a Structural Integrity Reserve Study and does not satisfy s. 718.112(2)(g), F.S.; it is not an audit, review or compilation and expresses no assurance on the financial statements; it is not legal, engineering or accounting advice; there was no site visit and no component was inspected. It does not set the reserve budget — the board does.

Records relied on: reserve study dated 14 March 2025; adopted budget FY2026; year-end financial statement 31 December 2025; board minutes March 2025 – June 2026.

Each row is rebuilt from the study’s own inputs. Fully funded balance = replacement cost × (effective age ÷ useful life); effective age = useful life − remaining life. Annual need = (replacement cost − on hand) ÷ remaining life. Every input is shown so the association’s reserve provider, manager, auditor or counsel can reproduce or contradict any line.

Worked line, for checking: Roof, $840,000 × ((25 − 6) ÷ 25) = $638,400 fully funded; $210,000 on hand; ($840,000 − $210,000) ÷ 6 = $105,000 per year.

A real review states here where our figure differs from the study’s own, which single input causes the difference, and what each input produces. On this specimen the difference is one line: Waterproofing & exterior paint. The study carries it at a 12-year useful life; the association’s own 2019 invoice for the last application supports 10. Both are shown. The board decides which life to adopt — we do not decide it for them.

The last application is dated 2019, so as of 2026 the effective age of that line is 7 years on either view. Only the useful life is in dispute, and it moves two things: the remaining life (12 − 7 = 5 years on the study’s view, 10 − 7 = 3 on ours) and the fully funded balance.

The shorter useful life is the more conservative view: it books the same $520,000 over fewer years, so the fully funded balance on that line falls by $60,667, the funded ratio falls from 36.2% to 35.4%, and the annual requirement rises by $53,600 — $93 per unit per month. Nothing else in the schedule differs. Every figure in the rest of this specimen is computed on the 10-year life.

Closing the $1,959,050 fully-funded gap, at 48 units, with contributions continuing at about $302 per unit per month afterwards:

No option is cheaper than another. Every route pays $3,655,000 — $76,146 per unit — because the same seven components need replacing either way. What choosing early buys is a schedule the board sets rather than a letter owners receive, and time to bid the work competitively. A review that tells a board the arithmetic shrinks is wrong, and we will not write one.

That is $349 per unit per month of under-contribution at the currently adopted budget. Since 1 January 2025 an association subject to SIRS can no longer vote to waive or reduce reserves outright; CS/CS/HB 913 (2025) added narrow, time-limited exceptions, which the board should confirm with counsel before relying on any of them.

Which of the components enumerated in s. 718.112(2)(g), F.S. appear in the study provided, and which do not. An absent category is not a finding that the association failed to reserve for it — it means it was not in the records we were given.

• Roof — present in the study, rebuilt above
• Structure — present in the study, rebuilt above
• Fireproofing & fire protection — present in the study, rebuilt above
• Plumbing — present in the study, rebuilt above
• Electrical — present in the study, rebuilt above
• Waterproofing & exterior paint — present in the study, rebuilt above
• Windows & doors — present in the study, rebuilt above
• Load-bearing walls / primary structural members — carried inside the “Structure” line rather than separately; we recommend the next study separate them
• Elevators, seawall, garage slab — not in the records provided. The statute’s catch-all covers any item over $10,000 whose failure would affect a listed component, so these may belong in the study even though they are not named in it.

A figure that could not be computed is listed here. It is never estimated, never inferred, and never reported as a pass.

This review is addressed to the association. The board, every unit owner, the management company, association counsel, the auditor and the reserve-study provider may read, copy, quote and circulate it without limit within the association — including attaching it in full to a meeting notice, the meeting packet or the minutes, and posting it to an owners’ portal. The board may put it on an agenda and vote on it.

Third parties outside the association may be given a copy for information only; they acquire no right of reliance and no claim against us. Circulate it whole, or quote it with the source named — it may not be published in edited form with our name attached.

Counterparty: CondoRiskFL is the trading name of Sam Arora, sole proprietor — an unincorporated sole proprietorship. There is no separate company, LLP, LLC or corporation, and no other party is a counterparty to this engagement.