There are differences of opinion within the reserve study industry as to who “owns” the reserve study report, what degree of responsibility the reserve professional has, and how certain difficult situations in which boards can almost be held hostage by reserve studies should be reported.
One thing is clear – national reserve study standards do not provide adequate guidance in this area.
Many reserve preparers take the position that they have been engaged to perform an independent study resulting in a report of their findings, and that the reserve professional “owns” the entire report. These individuals also often take the position that their report is the basis for the Association’s long-term maintenance plan.
Unfortunately, national standards do not address this issue. For instance, there is no requirement that the reserve professional make any sort of statement regarding the work performed other than the vague reference to a site visit, nor any statement of opinion regarding the accuracy of the data presented or the degree of responsibility for the report. National standards only require comments on:
Completeness: Material issues which, if not disclosed, would cause a distortion of the association’s situationReliance on client data: Information provided by the official representative of the Association regarding financial, physical, quantity, or historical issues will be deemed reliable by the consultant
These are required disclosures that fall far short of expressing a clear, positive opinion regarding the accuracy of the report or the actual work performed.
Others believe that the report is “owned” by the Association, and that the role of the reserve professional is to assist in compiling the data and preparing the report. These individuals generally take the position that the report should be a financial reflection of the Association’s long-term maintenance plan; it does not establish the long-term maintenance plan.
Again, national standards do not provide guidance on how the reserve professional should report on his involvement with the process, nor on his opinion of the conclusions reached.
If a reserve professional chose to add “his” report to the “Association’s Reserve Study Report, what might that report by the reserve professional look like? Within the confines of current national standards, it might look something like this:
We have prepared the accompanying Reserve Funding Forecast of AssocName as of and for the thirty-year period beginning StartDate as a Level I Reserve Study. This forecast is the responsibility of Association Management.We conducted our engagement in accordance with National Reserve Study Standards of the Community Associations Institute and the Association of Professional Reserve Analysts. Those standards require that we perform a site visit to visually observe and assess the condition of the significant common area components of the Association. A Level I Reserve Study also includes assessing the significant estimates used by management, as well as evaluating the overall forecast report presentation.
This report presents, in the form of a financial forecast, information that is the representation of management of the Association. We do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the accompanying report or assumptions. Furthermore, there will usually be differences between the forecast and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences may be material. We have no responsibility to update this report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report.
While satisfactory, the above sample report wording still falls short of actually describing the work performed or of clearly stating the conclusions reached and the degree of responsibility assumed by the reserve professional. But to get to that point, national standards probably need to be modified.
The subject of Chuck Miller’s article, “Board Held Hostage by Reserve Study”, is a dilemma presented to an Association board when a reserve professional takes a position related to appropriate maintenance activities of roads that is at odds with other professionals’ recommendations.
As quoted from Chuck’s article, in this instance,the facts are that “an engineering firm specializing in geotechnical studies and pavement studies has rendered a comprehensive report on a very thorough study conducted over some period of time, including analysis of core samples, which directly refutes the conclusion of the reserve professional. In addition, a company with decades of road construction and maintenance experience that has, for many years, maintained the subject roads, has offered an opinion that directly refutes the conclusion of the reserve professional. Lastly, the predecessor reserve professional had apparently reached a conclusion concurring with the engineering firm performing the pavement study, and did not consider that complete removal and replacement of all road surfaces was a necessary maintenance activity.”