(And a $35/month tweak doesn’t solve a six-figure gap)
The gist: We’ve had two “reserve studies” in five years—2021 (by a professional) and 2025 (written in-house). Both omit the stormwater drainage system (concrete cross/valley pans, culverts, inlets). That omission hides a big, expensive asset. Until stormwater is included, any “percent funded” number is misleading.
- 2021 (professional): reported 38.44% funded on a $60,000 balance; their fully-funded target for listed items was $156,061—but stormwater wasn’t included. POUDRE-OVERLOOK-RESERVE-STUDY-2…
- 2025 (board write-up): reports 23% on a $93,103.29 balance versus $405,257 of listed replacement cost—again without stormwater. Poudre_Overlook_Reserve_Study_F…
We’re not here to play guessing games on precise stormwater dollars. The Board’s job is to include the asset and get an accurate number. Still, to show scale without inviting a rabbit hole, we’ll use a floor:
- Floor for 2020: $250,000 (stormwater replacement)
- Floor for 2025: $325,000 (apply at least +30% escalation since 2020)
If the Board believes the true numbers are lower, great—show us. The first accountability test is inclusion. Accuracy is next.
What those floors do to the “percent funded” (reality check)
2021 (using the study’s fully-funded method)
- Reported basis: $60,000 balance / $156,061 fully-funded target = 38.44%. POUDRE-OVERLOOK-RESERVE-STUDY-2…
- Add $250,000 (2020 floor) to the target ⇒ new target $406,061.
- Adjusted percent funded: $60,000 ÷ $406,061 ≈ 14.8% (≈ 15%).
2025 (using the board write-up’s simple method: balance ÷ replacement cost)
- Reported basis: $93,103.29 ÷ $405,257 = 23%. Poudre_Overlook_Reserve_Study_F…
- Add $325,000 (2025 floor) ⇒ new replacement cost $730,257.
- Adjusted percent funded: $93,103.29 ÷ $730,257 ≈ 12.8%.
Bottom line: when stormwater is included at the floor, we’re not at 38% (2021) or 23% (2025). We’re roughly 15% and 13%, respectively—deeply under-funded either way.
Why $35/month for two years doesn’t fix a six-figure omission
- Best case (all to reserves): 87 homes × $35 × 12 = $36,540/year; two years adds $73,080.
- 2025 reality (with stormwater floor): balance rises from $93,103 → $166,183 in two years, but the denominator is $730,257.
- New percent after two years (no spending assumed): ≈ 22.8%—still far from healthy, and that ignores inflation and any actual replacements.
So the $35 action is performative on a 2-year horizon. It doesn’t address the core: stormwater is missing and the funding gap is six figures.
What this really means
- The “backwards slide” headline isn’t the point. The point is: we’ve been shown numbers that exclude a huge asset class.
- The 2021 preparer later acknowledged issues; the 2025 write-up repeats the omission. Owners deserve a plan built on all the assets we own.
- Meanwhile, discretionary operating spend (Accounting, Legal, Landscaping, Fence repairs) needs discipline—but trimming ops can’t replace a capital plan for stormwater.
What responsible action looks like (and in this order)
- Commission a professional reserve study update that includes stormwater and meets industry standards (authorship/credentials, 30-year model, clear methods/assumptions).
- Adopt it by Board vote, append the report to the minutes, and direct management to follow it.
- Publish a multi-year funding path (not 2 years) that gets us out of the teens—e.g., a dues trajectory plus (if needed) a longer, lighter special assessment so owners aren’t hit with shocks.
- Tighten operating lines in parallel (Accounting, Legal, Landscaping, Fence), but don’t pretend ops cuts fund stormwater.
- Be honest with owners: we’re 0 for 2 on reserve studies that owners can rely on. The fix is straightforward—include stormwater, adopt the plan, then fund it.
Why we’re using floors (and not hand-waving)
- 2020 floor: $250,000
- 2025 floor: $325,000 (≥ +30% escalation)
These are conservative and keep the burden on the Board to provide the detailed counts, specs, and bids. If the true estimates come in lower, that’s good news—but the cost is big either way, and it must be on the books.
Sources (key figures from the HOA’s own documents)
- 2021 professional study: shows 38.44% funded; $60,000 balance; fully-funded target $156,061 (stormwater omitted). POUDRE-OVERLOOK-RESERVE-STUDY-2…
- 2025 board write-up: shows $93,103.29 balance; $405,257 replacement cost; 23% “funded” by their simple method (stormwater omitted). Poudre_Overlook_Reserve_Study_F…