Are we thinking about reserves upside down?

Boards discuss what the fees should be. When does the property get a say?

Most reserve conversations run in the wrong direction.

The budget is treated as the starting place and the ending place. The maintenance plan is treated as the variable that circles around the budget. The board decides what fees will be acceptable, and the replacement schedule is adjusted until it fits inside that number. Components are pushed out a year. A restoration project is broken into phases. The budget holds, and the plan bends around it. The plan is being built upside down: from the budget up, rather than from the property down.

This is how most associations' budget cycles are structured. New board directors come in and follow the same cycle year over year: set a budget, plan the projects, repeat. The discussion starts and ends with the assessments and whether they should increase. It rarely invites discussion of long-term planning out to 10 or more years.

None of this reflects a lack of care. Directors are volunteers, and the terms they serve are short. A board seat turns over in a year or two. A roof lasts twenty-five. The board deciding about that roof is rarely the board seated when it fails, and no part of the annual cycle asks a director to think past the term being served. The format produces the horizon.

The property does not participate in this arrangement. Concrete deteriorates on a schedule set by exposure and construction, not by a banking balance. A roof reaches the end of its service life whether or not the reserve line was funded to meet it.

My experience in asset management leads me to a conclusion from the other direction. A board is not managing a reserve budget to minimize costs. A board is managing the association’s property, an asset that is often valued in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and the reserve budget is one part of what supports that value. It is the cost of upkeep on a shared asset.

An association is a corporation formed to maintain the common property: the roofs, the concrete, the elevators, and the pools. Maintaining the property is what maintains its value. That work is the fixed quantity. The reserve study is a road map for it. The budget is the instrument that funds it. Read in that order, the reserve budget is not a cost to be minimized. It follows from the capital plan the association is already committed to, and the question before the board is not how small the number can be made, but whether the budget supports the goal of maximizing the property’s value. This is a forward-looking conversation.

The reserve fund supports maintenance that keeps the property safe, functional, and aesthetically pleasing. It may also keep the property up to date with modern conveniences.

When reserve discussions focus on maintaining lower fees, they often include deferred maintenance, band-aid fixes that erode the fund, or forgoing modernization of amenities.

Eventually, the component’s natural schedule takes precedence, and the association experiences sharp fee increases to cover needs that have grown more expensive than they would have been on schedule.

Instability in fees due to short collection periods, special assessments, or loan repayments becomes a warning flag for prospective buyers and their lenders, who may opt for a community with slightly higher but stable fees and that has maintained its property on schedule.

The consequences are delayed, and often hard to explain to a group of owners who may not see the deterioration, and do not want to sell their homes. And the trade-off becomes a tug-of-war between cash on hand to feed the family and home prices that are only monetized when the home is sold. The decision may seem easy to homeowners at a budget meeting. But the benefits of that decision are short-lived.

The further maintenance and capital improvements fall behind, the more the property's value trails comparable communities that have kept up with their maintenance. In turn, this leads to lower returns on homeowner equity. In essence, the property sacrifices value to support the budget. The value was transferred from the property to the homeowners’ accounts. But that transfer was not dollar-for-dollar, and beneficiaries are not the same as the people who pay the end costs for that transfer.

Deferring maintenance exposes components to risks not accounted for in the reserve projections: unplanned inflation and cost shocks with less time to catch up, longer deterioration due to natural elements, and an increased risk of failure and secondary damage. Pushed-back replacements accumulate. What was scheduled across a decade becomes a cluster of projects over a shorter time period, creating operational risk and pressure on the fund.

The end result of managing for lower fees rather than for association value is higher expenses pushed onto those who bought into the association later. And that last part matters because when an owner buys into an association, they expect to pay for the components they are using. They do not expect to pay for the previous owners’ usage. That is backward.

The conversation moves in the right direction when it begins with capital planning rather than with the assessment figure. For major projects, that discussion happens months or years before work begins and answers how the property's value will be maintained well before budget season opens.

When projects are planned in advance, the scope of the work can be properly assessed, resulting in more accurate cost analyses and more time to fund. Funding built on better information improves fee stability and lets associations schedule replacements before failure forces the timing.

The property sets the reserve schedule. The budget supports it.

See Telemetryx for yourself.

Ready to see what clear reserve planning looks like for your community?

Request a Demo

This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, investment, accounting, or engineering advice.