FY15 Level 1 Reserve Study Tahoma Terra Yelm, WA 98597

Transcription

1 FY15 Level 1 Reserve Study Yelm, WA 98597

2 17404 Meridian E, Suite F - PMB 208 Puyallup, WA September, Yelm, WA Board of Directors, Thank you for choosing as your trusted source for homeowners associations reserve studies. We take pride in providing associations with the most informative and easily digestible reserve studies possible. If you have any questions about the content presented in this report, please feel free to contact me by phone at , or by at Thomas@NorthwestReserveStudies.com. Sincerely, Thomas James Weems

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Association: Site Visit Date: June, Location: Yelm, WA Level of Service: Level 1 # Of Units: 340 Report Period: January 1st December 31 st Current Standing Projected Starting Reserve Balance: $113,505 Current Cost of Components: $432,172 Percent Funded: 83% Current Annual Reserve Fund Contribution: $18,000 Reserve Deficit (per unit): (-$69) Projected 2015 Reserve Expenses: $0 Projected 2015 Interest Earnings: $226 Funding Options Component Funding Model: $27, % Threshold Funding Model: $21, Interest Earnings: 0.20% Inflation Rate: 1.50% We recommend that you opt for the Component Funding Model. This would put your 2015 per unit rate at $81.42, creating an end of year reserve fund balance of $141, The contribution rate for 2015 is too low, it will eventually put the association well below what they need to replace their assets when the assets life cycle is through. I recommend raising the rate to $27, for The reserve starting balance reflects a 2014 contribution that may not have happened at the time this reserve study was published. The methods and objectives utilized in computing or evaluating s reserve fund status included an in-brief where we received a component listing and beginning balance. We then performed an on-site visit to assess the condition of the components. We then used J&M management, cost estimation software, personal experience, and private contractors to find the replacement cost and useful life projection. With this information we were able to find s current percent funded status and propose alternatives in order to better fund the life cycle cost replacement of s components. s starting Reserve Fund balance was provided by J&M Management, s association management company. Interest is calculated at the current money market account rate of.2%. Tax on income gained by that investment is calculated at 20%, the current capital gains tax rate. We recommend that this reserve analysis study be updated on an annual basis due to fluctuating interest rates, inflationary changes, and the unpredictable nature of the lives of many of the assets under consideration. This Reserve Study complies with RCW and , it also meets with the National Reserve Study Standards criteria established by the Community Associations Institute (CAI).

4 Inflation rate based upon the average increase of the Producer Price Index (PPI) over the last three years, as published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The inflation rate in this report was increased to 1.5% in order to account for variables and contingency present in the durable goods market today. The chart above compares the projected reserve ending balances of the three funding models (Current Assessment Funding Model, Threshold Funding Model and Component Funding Model) over 30 years. The chart above compares the three funding models (Current Assessment Funding Model, Threshold Funding Model and Component Funding Model) by the percentage fully funded over 30 years. This allows your association to view and then choose the funding model that might best fit your community s needs.

5 FIVE YEAR INVESTMENT STRATEGY CURRENT FUNDING MODEL Year Estimated Reserve Amount Required Projected Reserve Fund Balance Percent Funded 2015 $157,595 $131,715 84% 2016 $178,968 $148,074 83% 2017 $201,134 $164,613 82% 2018 $221,363 $178,663 81% 2019 $246,585 $196,978 80% COMPONENT FUNDING MODEL Year Estimated Reserve Amount Required Projected Reserve Fund Balance Percent Funded 2015 $157,595 $141,415 90% 2016 $178,968 $167,796 94% 2017 $201,134 $194,557 97% 2018 $221,363 $219,047 99% 2019 $246,585 $248, % 70% THRESHOLD FUNDING MODEL Year Estimated Reserve Amount Required Projected Reserve Fund Balance Percent Funded 2015 $157,595 $134,911 86% 2016 $178,968 $154,789 86% 2017 $201,134 $175,175 87% 2018 $221,363 $193,407 87% 2019 $246,585 $216,243 88% The five year investment strategy above shows what the next five years will look like with each of the alternatives has to choose from. Percent funded shows the path in which is on in order to be fully funded for when the useful life of your components has lapsed.

6 DISCLOSURE 1. Description of Other Involvement has no affiliations with the voting members of. has not received any extra benefits for its services outlined in the service agreement, nor have the voting members of Tahoma Terra received any extra benefit for selecting as its source for Reserve Studies. 2. Physical Analysis The physical analysis of was done by obtaining an initial components inventory from the board members or its designated representatives and then performing an on-site visit to thoroughly examine the assets and their condition. A visual assessment, as well as the use of private contractors were used to determine the age and useful life remaining of assets. The analysis may also include the use of field measurements at the time of the on-site inspection. Also, the use of Plat Maps, construction, and/or architectural drawings may be used to determine information about the assets. 3. Professional Credentials The Owner of has spent nearly a decade in facility management for the Department of Defense. He specialized in real property management, project planning, and performing life-cycle cost analysis on numerous government owned facilities valued at over 1 billion dollars. 4. Completeness At the time of this Reserve Study, has not received any information that, if not disclosed, would cause a distortion of the 's standing. 5. Reliance on Client Data Information provided by the official representative of regarding financial, physical, quantity, or historical issues will be deemed reliable by the. 6. Scope The Reserve Study is a reflection of information provided to and assembled for Tahoma Terra's use, not for the purpose of performing an audit, quality/forensic analysis, or background checks of historical records. 7. Reserve Balance The actual or projected total presented in this Reserve Study is based upon information provided and was not audited. 8. Reserve Projects Information provided about reserve projects will be considered reliable. Any on-site inspection should not be considered a project audit or quality inspection. 9. RCW Required Statement This reserve study should be reviewed carefully. It may not include all common and limited common element components that will require major maintenance, repair, or replacement in future years, and may not include regular contributions to a reserve account for the cost of such maintenance, repair, or replacement. The failure to include a component in a reserve study, or to provide contributions to a reserve account for a component, may, under some circumstances, require you to pay on demand as a special assessment your share of common expenses for the cost of major maintenance, repair, or replacement of a reserve component.

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RESERVE STUDY Important Information 1-1 Introduction 1-2 Funding Options 1-2 Types of Reserve Studies 1-3 Developing a Component List 1-3 Operational Expenses 1-4 Reserve Expenses 1-4 Funding Methods 1-5 Funding Strategies 1-6 Distribution of Reserves 1-7 User s Guide to Your Reserve Study 1-9 Definitions 1-9 Your Reserve Study is a Multi-Purpose Tool 1-13 PART II RESERVE STUDY Current Assessment Funding Model Summary 2-1 Current Assessment Funding Model Projection 2-2 Component Funding Model Summary 2-3 Component Funding Model Projection 2-4 Component Funding Model Assessment & Category Summary 2-5 Threshold Funding Model Summary 2-7 Threshold Funding Model Projection 2-8 Distribution of Accumulated Reserves 2-9 Annual Expenditure Detail 2-11 Detail Report by Category 2-15 Category Detail Index 2-50 Annual Expenditure Chart 2-52 Funding Model Reserve Ending Balance Comparison Chart 2-53 Funding Model Comparison by Percent Funded 2-54 Funding Model Assessment Comparison Chart 2-55 Spread Sheet 2-56

8 IMPORTANT INFORMATION This document has been provided pursuant to an agreement containing restrictions on its use. No part of this document may be copied or distributed, in any form or by any means, nor disclosed to third parties without the expressed written permission of. The client shall have the right to reproduce and distribute copies of this report, or the information contained within, as may be required for compliance with all applicable regulations. This reserve analysis study and the parameters under which it has been completed are based upon information provided to us in part by representatives of the association, its contractors, assorted vendors, specialist and independent contractors, the Community Association Institute, and various construction pricing and scheduling manuals including, but not limited to: Marshall & Swift Valuation Service, RS Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data, RS Means Repair & Remodeling Cost Data, National Construction Estimator, National Repair & Remodel Estimator, Dodge Cost Manual and McGraw-Hill Professional. Additionally, costs are obtained from numerous vendor catalogues, actual quotations or historical costs, and our own experience in the field of property management and reserve study preparation. It has been assumed, unless otherwise noted in this report, that all assets have been designed and constructed properly and that each estimated useful life will approximate that of the norm per industry standards and/or manufacturer s specifications. In some cases, estimates may have been used on assets, which have an undeterminable but potential liability to the association. The decision for the inclusion of these as well as all assets considered is left to the client. We recommend that your reserve analysis study be updated on an annual basis due to fluctuating interest rates, inflationary changes, and the unpredictable nature of the lives of many of the assets under consideration. All of the information collected during our inspection of the association and computations made subsequently in preparing this reserve analysis study are retained in our computer files. Therefore, annual updates may be completed quickly and inexpensively each year. would like to thank you for using our services. We invite you to call us at any time, should you have questions, comments or need assistance. In addition, any of the parameters and estimates used in this study may be changed at your request, after which we will provide a revised study. This reserve analysis study is provided as an aid for planning purposes and not as an accounting tool. Since it deals with events yet to take place, there is no assurance that the results enumerated within it will, in fact, occur as described. PAGE 1-1

9 PART I INTRODUCTION Preparing the annual budget and overseeing the association s finances are perhaps the most important responsibilities of board members. The annual operating and reserve budgets reflect the planning and goals of the association and set the level and quality of service for all of the association s activities. FUNDING OPTIONS When a major repair or replacement is required in a community, an association has essentially four options available to address the expenditure: The first, and only logical means that the Board of Directors has to ensure its ability to maintain the assets for which it is obligated, is by assessing an adequate level of reserves as part of the regular membership assessment, thereby distributing the cost of the replacements uniformly over the entire membership. The community is not only comprised of present members, but also future members. Any decision by the Board of Directors to adopt a calculation method or funding plan which would disproportionately burden future members in order to make up for past reserve deficits, would be a breach of its fiduciary responsibility to those future members. Unlike individuals determining their own course of action, the board is responsible to the community as a whole. Whereas, if the association was setting aside reserves for this purpose, using the vehicle of the regularly assessed membership dues, it would have had the full term of the life of the roof, for example, to accumulate the necessary moneys. Additionally, those contributions would have been evenly distributed over the entire membership and would have earned interest as part of that contribution. The second option is for the association to acquire a loan from a lending institution in order to effect the required repairs. In many cases, banks will lend to an association using future homeowner assessments as collateral for the loan. With this method, the current board is pledging the future assets of an association. They are also incurring the additional expense of interest fees along with the original principal amount. In the case of a $150,000 roofing replacement, the association may be required to pay back the loan over a three to five year period, with interest. The third option, too often used, is simply to defer the required repair or replacement. This option, which is not recommended, can create an environment of declining property values due to expanding lists of deferred maintenance items and the association s financial inability to keep pace with the normal aging process of the common area components. This, in turn, can have a seriously negative impact on sellers in the association by making it difficult, or even impossible, for potential buyers to obtain financing from lenders. Increasingly, lending institutions are requesting copies of the association s most recent reserve study before granting loans, either for the association itself, a prospective purchaser, or for an individual within such an association. The fourth option is to pass a special assessment to the membership in an amount required to cover the expenditure. When a special assessment is passed, the association has the authority and responsibility to collect the assessments, even by means of foreclosure, if necessary. However, an association considering a special assessment cannot guarantee that an assessment, when needed, will be passed. Consequently, the association cannot guarantee its ability to perform the required repairs or replacements to those major components for which it is obligated when the need arises. Additionally, while relatively new communities require very little in the way of major reserve expenditures, associations reaching 12 to 15 years of age and older, find many components reaching the end of their effective useful lives. These required expenditures, all accruing at the same time, could be devastating to an association s overall budget. PAGE 1-2

10 TYPES OF RESERVE STUDIES Most reserve studies fit into one of three categories: Level One: Full Reserve Study; Level Two: Update with site inspection; and Level Three: Update without site inspection. In a Full Reserve Study, the reserve provider conducts a component inventory, a condition assessment (based upon on-site visual observations), and life and valuation estimates to determine both a fund status and funding plan. In an Update with site inspection, the reserve provider conducts a component inventory (verification only, not quantification unless new components have been added to the inventory), a condition assessment (based upon on-site visual observations), and life and valuation estimates to determine both the fund status and funding plan. In an Update without site inspection, the reserve provider conducts life and valuation estimates to determine the fund status and funding plan. THE RESERVE STUDY: A PHYSICAL AND A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS There are two components of a reserve study: a physical analysis and a financial analysis. PHYSICAL ANALYSIS During the physical analysis, a reserve study provider evaluates information regarding the physical status and repair/replacement cost of the association s major common area components. To do so, the provider conducts a component inventory, a condition assessment, and life and valuation estimates. DEVELOPING A COMPONENT LIST The budget process begins with full inventory of all the major components for which the association is responsible. The determination of whether an expense should be labeled as operational, reserve, or excluded altogether is sometimes subjective. Since this labeling may have a major impact on the financial plans of the association, subjective determinations should be minimized. We suggest the following considerations when labeling an expense. PAGE 1-3

11 OPERATIONAL EXPENSES Occur at least annually, no matter how large the expense, and can be budgeted for effectively each year. They are characterized as being reasonably predictable, both in terms of frequency and cost. Operational expenses include all minor expenses, which would not otherwise adversely affect an operational budget from one year to the next. Examples of operational expenses include: Utilities: Bank Service Charges Accounting Electricity Dues & Publications Reserve Study Gas Licenses, Permits & Fees Repair Expenses: Water Insurance(s) Tile Roof Repairs Telephone Services: Equipment Repairs Cable TV Landscaping Minor Concrete Repairs Administrative: Pool Maintenance Operating Contingency Supplies Street Sweeping RESERVE EXPENSES These are major expenses that occur other than annually, and which must be budgeted for in advance in order to ensure the availability of the necessary funds in time for their use. Reserve expenses are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, they may include significant assets that have an indeterminable but potential liability that may be demonstrated as a likely occurrence. They are expenses that, when incurred, would have a significant effect on the smooth operation of the budgetary process from one year to the next, if they were not reserved for in advance. Examples of reserve expenses include: Roof Replacements Painting Deck Resurfacing Fencing Replacement Asphalt Seal Coating Asphalt Repairs Asphalt Overlays Equipment Replacement Interior Furnishings BUDGETING IS NORMALLY EXCLUDED FOR: Park/Play Equipment Pool/Spa Re-plastering Pool Equipment Replacement Pool Furniture Replacement Tennis Court Resurfacing Lighting Replacement Insurance(s) Reserve Study Repairs or replacements of assets which are deemed to have an estimated useful life equal to or exceeding the estimated useful life of the facility or community itself, or exceeding the legal life of the community as defined in an association s governing documents. Examples include the complete replacement of elevators, tile roofs, wiring and plumbing. Also excluded are insignificant expenses that may be covered either by an operating or reserve contingency, or otherwise in a general maintenance fund. Expenses that are necessitated by acts of nature, accidents or other occurrences that are more properly insured for, rather than reserved for, are also excluded. PAGE 1-4

12 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The financial analysis assesses the association s reserve balance or fund status (measured in cash or as percent fully funded) to determine a recommendation for the appropriate reserve contribution rate in the future, known as the funding plan. PREPARING THE RESERVE STUDY Once the reserve assets have been identified and quantified, their respective replacement costs, useful lives and remaining lives must be assigned so that a funding schedule can be constructed. Replacement costs and useful lives can be found in published manuals such as construction estimators, appraisal handbooks, and valuation guides. Remaining lives are calculated from the useful lives and ages of assets and adjusted according to conditions such as design, manufactured quality, usage, exposure to the elements and maintenance history. By following the recommendations of an effective reserve study, the association should avoid any major shortfalls. However, to remain accurate, the report should be updated on an annual basis to reflect such changes as shifts in economic parameters, additions of phases or assets, or expenditures of reserve funds. The association can assist in simplifying the reserve analysis update process by keeping accurate records of these changes throughout the year. FUNDING METHODS From the simplest to the most complex, reserve analysis providers use many different computational processes to calculate reserve requirements. However, there are two basic processes identified as industry standards: the cash flow method and the component method. The cash flow method develops a reserve-funding plan where contributions to the reserve fund are designed to offset the variable annual expenditures from the reserve fund. Different reserve funding plans are tested against the actual anticipated schedule of reserve expenses until the desired funding goal is achieved. This method sets up a window in which all future anticipated replacement costs are computed, based upon the individual lives of the components under consideration. The Northwest Reserve Studies Threshold and the Current Assessment funding models are based upon the cash flow method. The component method develops a reserve-funding plan where the total contribution is based upon the sum of contributions for individual components. The component method is the more conservative of the two funding options, and assures that the association will achieve and maintain an ideal level of reserve over time. This method also allows for computations on individual components in the analysis. The Component Funding model is based upon the component methodology. PAGE 1-5

13 FUNDING STRATEGIES Once an association has established its funding goals, the association can select an appropriate funding plan. There are four basic strategies from which most associations select. It is recommended that associations consult professionals to determine the best strategy or combination of plans that best suit the association s need. Additionally, associations should consult with their financial advisor to determine the tax implications of selecting a particular plan. Further, consultation with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) for their reporting requirements is advisable. The four funding plans and descriptions of each are detailed below. Associations will have to update their reserve studies more or less frequently depending on the funding strategy they select. Full Funding---Given that the basis of funding for reserves is to distribute the costs of the replacements over the lives of the components in question, it follows that the ideal level of reserves would be proportionately related to those lives and costs. If an association has a component with an expected estimated useful life of ten years, it would set aside approximately one-tenth of the replacement cost each year. At the end of three years, one would expect three-tenths of the replacement cost to have accumulated, and if so, that component would be fully-funded. This model is important in that it is a measure of the adequacy of an association s reserves at any one point of time, and is independent of any particular method which may have been used for past funding or may be under consideration for future funding. This formula represents a snapshot in time and is based upon current replacement cost, independent of future inflationary or investment factors: Fully Funded Reserves = Age divided by Useful Life the results multiplied by Current Replacement Cost When an association s total accumulated reserves for all components meet this criterion, its reserves are considered fully-funded. The Threshold Funding Model (Minimum Funding). The goal of this funding method is to keep the reserve cash balance above zero. This means that while each individual component may not be fully funded, the reserve balance overall does not drop below zero during the projected period. An association using this funding method must understand that even a minor reduction in a component s remaining useful life can result in a deficit in the reserve cash balance. The Threshold Funding Model. This method is based upon the cash flow funding concept. The minimum reserve cash balance in threshold funding, however, is set at a predetermined dollar amount (other than $0). The Current Assessment Funding Model. This method is also based upon the cash flow funding concept. The initial reserve assessment is set at the association s current fiscal year funding level and a 30-year projection is calculated to illustrate the adequacy of the current funding over time. The Component Funding Model. This is a straight-line funding model. It distributes the cash reserves to individual reserve components and then calculates what the reserve assessment and interest contribution (minus taxes) should be, again by each reserve component. The current annual assessment is then determined by summing all the individual component assessments, hence the name Component Funding Model. This is the most conservative funding model. It leads to or maintains the fully funded reserve position. The following details this calculation process. COMPONENT FUNDING MODEL DISTRIBUTION OF ACCUMULATED RESERVES The Distribution of Accumulated Reserves Report is a Component Funding Model calculation. This distribution does not apply to the cash flow funding models. PAGE 1-6

14 When calculating reserves based upon the component methodology, a beginning reserve balance must be allocated for each of the individual components considered in the analysis, before the individual calculations can be completed. When this distribution is not available, or of sufficient detail, the following method is suggested for allocating reserves: The first step the program performs in this process is subtracting, from the total accumulated reserves, any amounts for assets that have predetermined (fixed) reserve balances. The user can fix the accumulated reserve balance within the program on the individual asset s detail page. If, by error, these amounts total more than the amount of funds available, then the remaining assets are adjusted accordingly. A provision for a contingency reserve is then deducted by the determined percentage used, and if there are sufficient remaining funds available. The second step is to identify the ideal level of reserves for each asset. As indicated in the prior section, this is accomplished by evaluating the component s age proportionate to its estimated useful life and current replacement cost. Again, the equation used is as follows: Fully Funded Reserves = (Age/Useful Life) x Current Replacement Cost The software program performs the above calculations to the actual month the component was placed-in-service. The program projects that the accumulation of necessary reserves for repairs or replacements will be available on the first day of the fiscal year in which they are scheduled to occur. The next step the program performs is to arrange all of the assets used in the study in ascending order by remaining life, and alphabetically within each grouping of remaining life items. These assets are then assigned their respective ideal level of reserves until the amount of funds available is depleted, or until all assets are appropriately funded. If any assets are assigned a zero remaining life (scheduled for replacement in the current fiscal year), then the amount assigned equals the current replacement cost and funding begins for the next cycle of replacement. If there are insufficient funds available to accomplish this, then the software automatically adjusts the zero remaining life items to one year, and that asset assumes its new grouping position alphabetically in the final printed report. If, at the completion of this task, there are additional moneys that have not been distributed, the remaining reserves are then assigned, in ascending order, to a level equal to, but not exceeding, the current replacement cost for each component. If there are sufficient moneys available to fund all assets at their current replacement cost levels, then any excess funds are designated as such and are not factored into any of the report computations. If, at the end of this assignment process there are designated excess funds, they can be used to offset the monthly contribution requirements recommended, or used in any other manner the client may desire. Assigning the reserves in this manner defers the make-up period for any under-funding over the longest remaining life of all assets under consideration, thereby minimizing the impact of any deficiency. For example, if the report indicates an under funding of $50,000, this under-funding will be assigned to components with the longest remaining lives in order to give more time to replenish the account. If the $50,000 under-funding were to be assigned to short remaining life items, the impact would be felt immediately. If the reserves are under-funded, the monthly contribution requirements, as outlined in this report, can be expected to be higher than normal. In future years, as individual assets are replaced, the funding requirements will return to their normal levels. In the case of a large deficiency, a special assessment may be considered. The program can easily generate revised reports outlining how the monthly contributions would be affected by such an adjustment, or by any other changes that may be under consideration. PAGE 1-7

15 FUNDING RESERVES Three assessment and contribution figures are provided in the report, the Monthly Reserve Assessment Required, the Average Net Monthly Interest Earned contribution and the Total Monthly Allocation to Reserves. The association should allocate the Monthly Reserve Assessment Required amount to reserves each month when the interest earned on the reserves is left in the reserve accounts as part of the contribution. Any interest earned on reserve deposits, must be left in reserves and only amounts set aside for taxes should be removed. The second alternative is to allocate the Total Monthly Allocation to reserves (this is the member assessment plus the anticipated interest earned for the fiscal year). This method assumes that all interest earned will be assigned directly as operating income. This allocation takes into consideration the anticipated interest earned on accumulated reserves regardless of whether or not it is actually earned. When taxes are paid, the amount due will be taken directly from the association s operating accounts as the reserve accounts are allocated only those moneys net of taxes. USERS GUIDE TO YOUR RESERVE ANALYSIS STUDY Part II of your Report contains the reserve analysis study for your association. There are seven types of reports in the study as described below. REPORT SUMMARIES The Report Summary for all funding models lists all of the parameters that were used in calculating the report as well as the summary of your reserve analysis study. INDEX REPORTS The Distribution of Accumulated Reserves report lists all assets in remaining life order. It also identifies the ideal level of reserves that should have accumulated for the association as well as the actual reserves available. This information is valid only for the Component Funding Model calculation. PAGE 1-8

16 The Component Listing/Summary lists all assets by category (i.e. roofing, painting, lighting, etc.) together with their remaining life, current cost, monthly reserve contribution, and net monthly allocation. DETAIL REPORTS The Detail Report itemizes each asset and lists all measurements, current and future costs, and calculations for that asset. Provisions for percentage replacements, salvage values, and one-time replacements can also be utilized. These reports can be sorted by category or group. The numerical listings for each asset are enhanced by extensive narrative detailing factors such as design, manufactured quality, usage, exposure to elements and maintenance history. The Detail Index is an alphabetical listing of all assets, together with the page number of the asset s detail report, the projected replacement year, and the asset number. PROJECTIONS Thirty-year projections add to the usefulness of your reserve analysis study. DEFINITIONS Budget Year Beginning/Ending The budgetary year for which the report is prepared. For associations with fiscal years ending December 31 st, the monthly contribution figures indicated are for the 12-month period beginning 1/1/2015 and ending 12/31/2015. Number of Units and/or Phases If applicable, the number of units and/or phases included in this version of the report. Inflation This figure is used to approximate the future cost to repair or replace each component in the report. The current cost for each component is compounded on an annual basis by the number of remaining years to replacement, and the total is used in calculating the monthly reserve contribution that will be necessary to accumulate the required funds in time for replacement. Annual Assessment Increase This represents the percentage rate at which the association will increase its assessment to reserves at the end of each year. For example, in order to accumulate $10,000 in 10 years, you could set aside $1,000 per year. As an alternative, you could set aside $795 the first year and increase that amount by 5% each year until the year of replacement. In either case you arrive at the same amount. The idea is that you start setting aside a lower amount and increase that number each year in accordance with the planned percentage. Ideally this figure should be equal to the rate of inflation. It can, however, be used to aide those associations that have not set aside appropriate reserves in the past, by making the initial year s allocation less formidable. PAGE 1-9

17 Investment Yield Before Taxes The average interest rate anticipated by the association based upon its current investment practices. Taxes on Interest Yield The estimated percentage of interest income that will be set aside to pay income taxes on the interest earned. Projected Reserve Balance The anticipated reserve balance on the first day of the fiscal year for which this report has been prepared. This is based upon information provided and not audited. Percent Fully Funded The ratio, at the beginning of the fiscal year, of the actual (or projected) reserve balance to the calculated fully funded balance, expressed as a percentage. Phase Increment Detail and/or Age Comments regarding aging of the components on the basis of construction date or date of acceptance by the association. Monthly Assessment The assessment to reserves required by the association each month. Interest Contribution (After Taxes) The interest that should be earned on the reserves, net of taxes, based upon their beginning reserve balance and monthly contributions for one year. This figure is averaged for budgeting purposes. Total Monthly Allocation The sum of the monthly assessment and interest contribution figures. Group and Category The report may be prepared and sorted either by group (location, building, phase, etc.) or by category (roofing, painting, etc.). The standard report printing format is by category. Percentage of Replacement or Repairs In some cases, an asset may not be replaced in its entirety or the cost may be shared with a second party. Examples are budgeting for a percentage of replacement of streets over a period of time, or sharing the expense to replace a common wall with a neighboring party. Placed-In-Service Date The month and year that the asset was placed-in-service. This may be the construction date, the first escrow closure date in a given phase, or the date of the last servicing or replacement. Estimated Useful Life The estimated useful life of an asset based upon industry standards, manufacturer specifications, visual inspection, location, usage, association standards and prior history. All of these factors are taken into consideration when tailoring the estimated useful life to the particular asset. For example, the carpeting in a hallway or elevator (a heavy traffic area) will not have the same life as the identical carpeting in a seldom-used meeting room or office. Adjustment to Useful Life Once the useful life is determined, it may be adjusted, up or down, by this separate figure for the current cycle of replacement. This will allow for a current period adjustment without affecting the estimated replacement cycles for future replacements. Estimated Remaining Life This calculation is completed internally based upon the report s fiscal year date and the date the asset PAGE 1-10

18 was placed-in-service. Replacement Year The year that the asset is scheduled to be replaced. The appropriate funds will be available by the first day of the fiscal year for which replacement is anticipated. Annual Fixed Reserves An optional figure which, if used, will override the normal process of allocating reserves to each asset. Fixed Assessment An optional figure which, if used, will override all calculations and set the assessment at this amount. This assessment can be set for monthly, quarterly or annually as necessary. Salvage Value The salvage value of the asset at the time of replacement, if applicable. One-Time Replacement Notation if the asset is to be replaced on a one-time basis. Current Replacement Cost The estimated replacement cost effective at the beginning of the fiscal year for which the report is being prepared Future Replacement Cost The estimated cost to repair or replace the asset at the end of its estimated useful life based upon the current replacement cost and inflation. Component Inventory The task of selecting and qualifying reserve components. This task can be accomplished through on-site visual, review of association design and organizational documents, a review of established association precedents, and discussion with appropriate association representative(s). PAGE 1-11

19 A MULTI-PURPOSE TOOL Your Report is an important part of your association s budgetary process. Following its recommendations should ensure the association s smooth budgetary transitions from one fiscal year to the next, and either decrease or eliminate the need for special assessments. In addition, your reserve study serves a variety of useful purposes: Following the recommendations of a reserve study performed by a professional consultant can protect the Board of Directors in a community from personal liability concerning reserve components and reserve funding. A reserve analysis study is required by your accountant during the preparation of the association s annual audit. The reserve study is often requested by lending institutions during the process of loan applications, both for the community and, in many cases, the individual owners. Your Report is also a detailed inventory of the association s major assets and serves as a management tool for scheduling, coordinating and planning future repairs and replacements. Your Report is a tool that can assist the Board in fulfilling its legal and fiduciary obligations for maintaining the community in a state of good repair. If a community is operating on a special assessment basis, it cannot guarantee that an assessment, when needed, will be passed. Therefore, it cannot guarantee its ability to perform the required repairs or replacements to those major components for which the association is obligated. Since the reserve analysis study includes measurements and cost estimates of the client s assets, the detail reports may be used to evaluate the accuracy and price of contractor bids when assets are due to be repaired or replaced. The reserve study is an annual disclosure to the membership concerning the financial condition of the association, and may be used as a consumers guide by prospective purchasers. The Owners Summary meets the disclosure requirements of the California Civil Code and also the recently adopted ECHO standards. Your Report provides a record of the time, cost, and quantities of past reserve replacements. At times the association s management company and board of directors are transitory which may result in the loss of these important records. PAGE 1-12

20 Yelm, WA Current Assessment Funding Model Summary Report Date September 02, 2015 Budget Year Beginning January 01, 2015 Budget Year Ending December 31, 2015 Total Units 340 Report Parameters Inflation 1.50% Annual Assessment Increase 0.00% Interest Rate on Reserve Deposit 0.20% Tax Rate on Interest 20.00% Contingency 3.00% 2015 Beginning Balance $113, The Current Assessment Funding Model is based on the current annual assessment, parameters, and reserve fund balance. Because it is calculated using the current annual assessment, it will give the accurate projection of how well the association is funded for the next 30 years of planned reserve expenditures. Current Assessment Funding Model Summary of Calculations Required Annual Contribution $18, $52.94 per unit annually Average Net Annual Interest Earned $ Total Annual Allocation to Reserves $18, $53.56 per unit annually PAGE 2-1

21 Current Assessment Funding Model Projection Beginning Balance: $113,505 Projected Fully Current Annual Annual Annual Ending Funded Percent Year Cost Contribution Interest Expenditures Reserves Reserves Funded ,172 18, , ,595 84% ,655 18, , , ,968 83% ,235 18, , , ,134 82% ,913 18, , , ,363 81% ,692 18, , ,585 80% ,572 18, , ,514 79% ,556 18, , , ,355 78% ,644 18, , , ,696 74% ,839 18, , , ,944 73% ,142 18, , ,067 72% ,554 18, , , ,121 71% ,077 18, , , ,582 61% ,713 18, , , ,756 54% ,464 18, , ,650 54% ,331 18, , ,352 55% ,316 18, , , ,497 55% ,421 18, , , ,575 43% ,647 18, ,771 87, ,001 33% ,997 18, , ,924 36% ,471 18, , ,715 38% ,074 18, , ,393 40% ,805 18, , , ,108 34% ,667 18, ,303 13, ,830 5% ,535 18, , ,377 11% ,588 18, ,789 43, ,054 14% ,777 18, , ,554 18% ,104 18,000 82,525-2, ,941-1% ,984 18, , ,936 5% ,554 18, , ,004 9% ,267 18, ,849 48, ,141 12% PAGE 2-2

22 Yelm, WA Component Funding Model Summary Report Date September 02, 2015 Budget Year Beginning January 01, 2015 Budget Year Ending December 31, 2015 Total Units 340 Report Parameters Inflation 1.50% Interest Rate on Reserve Deposit 0.20% Tax Rate on Interest 20.00% Contingency 3.00% 2015 Beginning Balance $113, The Component Funding Model s long-term objective is to provide a plan to a fully funded reserve position over the longest period of time practical. This is the most conservative funding model. Component Funding Model Summary of Calculations Required Annual Contribution $27, $81.42 per unit annually Average Net Annual Interest Earned $ Total Annual Allocation to Reserves $27, $82.09 per unit annually PAGE 2-3

23 Component Funding Model Projection Beginning Balance: $113,505 Projected Fully Current Annual Annual Annual Ending Funded Percent Year Cost Contribution Interest Expenditures Reserves Reserves Funded ,172 27, , ,595 90% ,655 27, , , ,968 94% ,235 28, , , ,134 97% ,913 28, , , ,363 99% ,692 28, , , % ,572 28, , , % ,556 26, , , , % ,644 28, , , , % ,839 27, , , , % ,142 26, , , % ,554 25, , , , % ,077 28, , , , % ,713 30, , , , % ,464 28, , , % ,331 27, , , % ,316 26, , , , % ,421 30, , , , % ,647 32, , , , % ,997 31, , , % ,471 30, , , % ,074 29, , , % ,805 29, , , , % ,667 35, , , , % ,535 32, , , % ,588 33, , , , % ,777 32, , , % ,104 36, , , , % ,984 35, , , % ,554 34, , , % ,267 33, , , , % PAGE 2-4

24 Component Funding Model Assessment & Category Summary Description Replacement Year Life Useful Adjustment Remaining Life Cost Current Assigned Reserves Fully Funded Streets/Asphalt Asphalt Parking (Jensen Park) , ,630 Concrete Sidewalk (Tahoma Meadows) ,577 2,631 2,631 Parking Lot (Longmire Park) , ,680 Sidewalk () , ,816 Streets/Asphalt - Total $68,719 $2,631 $14,756 Fencing/Security Cedar Fence (98th Way) ,906 1,562 1,562 Cedar Fence (Behind Park at End of 99th Av ,674 1,339 1,339 Chain Link Fence (Tahoma Meadows) ,424 32,591 32,591 Chain Link Fence () ,226 2,045 2,045 Fencing/Security - Total $88,230 $37,538 $37,538 Grounds Components BBQ (Jensen Park) BBQ's (Longmire Park) , Basketball Court (98th Way) ,741 2,148 2,148 Basketball Court (Jensen Park) ,168 4,234 4,234 Basketball Hoop (98th Way) Basketball Hoops (Jensen Park) , Irrigation Control Systems (Tahoma Meadow ,850 1,644 1,644 Irrigation Control Systems () ,050 2,314 2,314 Metal Benches (Jensen Park) , Metal Benches (Longmire Park) ,195 2,878 2,878 Monument (Tahoma Meadows) ,250 3,920 3,920 Monument () ,500 1,040 1,040 Overhead Cover (Jensen Park) , ,009 Overhead Cover (Longmire Park) , ,251 Overhead Cover Roof (Jensen Park) , Overhead Cover Roof (Longmire Park) , Park Benches (Tahoma Meadows) ,240 2,096 2,096 Picnic Tables (Jensen Park) , Picnic Tables (Longmire Park) , ,562 Play Structure (Dotson Park) ,779 2,356 2,356 Play Structure (End of 99th Ave) ,974 7,190 7,190 Spin Toys (Terra View St SE) , Spring Rider (Terra View St SE) , Spring Riders (Jensen Park) , Swing Set (Jensen Park) , Tetherball (Terra View St SE) ,581 1,033 1,033 Trash Can (Jensen Park) , Trash Can (Longmire Park) , Trees & Shrubs (Tahoma Meadows) ,130 18,736 18,736 Trees & Shrubs () ,110 1,896 1,896 Walking Path (Longmire Park) , ,683 PAGE 2-5

25 Component Funding Model Assessment & Category Summary Description Replacement Year Life Useful Adjustment Remaining Life Cost Current Assigned Reserves Fully Funded Grounds Components continued... Wooden Benches () , Grounds Components - Total $225,723 $57,691 $68,375 Mailboxes Mailboxes (Tahoma Meadows) ,000 8,640 8,640 Mailboxes () ,500 3,600 3,600 Mailboxes - Total $49,500 $12,240 $12,240 Total Asset Summary $432,172 $110,100 $132,909 Contingency at 3.00% $3,405 $4,111 Summary Total $113,505 $137,020 Percent Fully Funded 83% Current Average Liability per Unit (Total Units: 340) -$69 PAGE 2-6

26 Yelm, WA Threshold Funding Model Summary Report Date September 02, 2015 Budget Year Beginning January 01, 2015 Budget Year Ending December 31, 2015 Total Units 340 Report Parameters Inflation 1.50% Annual Assessment Increase 1.50% Interest Rate on Reserve Deposit 0.20% Tax Rate on Interest 20.00% Contingency 3.00% 2015 Beginning Balance $113, The Threshold Funding Model calculates the minimum reserve assessments, with the restriction that the reserve balance is not allowed to go below $0 during the period of time examined. Threshold Funding Model Summary of Calculations Required Annual Contribution $21, $62.32 per unit annually Average Net Annual Interest Earned $ Total Annual Allocation to Reserves $21, $62.96 per unit annually PAGE 2-7

27 Threshold Funding Model Projection Beginning Balance: $113,505 Projected Fully Current Annual Annual Annual Ending Funded Percent Year Cost Contribution Interest Expenditures Reserves Reserves Funded ,172 21, , ,595 86% ,655 21, , , ,968 86% ,235 21, , , ,134 87% ,913 22, , , ,363 87% ,692 22, , ,585 88% ,572 22, , ,514 88% ,556 23, , , ,355 88% ,644 23, , , ,696 86% ,839 23, , , ,944 86% ,142 24, , ,067 87% ,554 24, , , ,121 86% ,077 24, , , ,582 82% ,713 25, , , ,756 80% ,464 25, , ,650 81% ,331 26, , ,352 82% ,316 26, , , ,497 82% ,421 26, , , ,575 79% ,647 27, , , ,001 76% ,997 27, , ,924 77% ,471 28, , ,715 79% ,074 28, , ,393 80% ,805 28, , , ,108 78% ,667 29, , , ,830 70% ,535 29, , ,377 73% ,588 30, , , ,054 74% ,777 30, , ,554 76% ,104 31, , , ,941 71% ,984 31, , ,936 73% ,554 32, , ,004 75% ,267 32, , , ,141 76% PAGE 2-8

28 Distribution of Accumulated Reserves Description Remaining Replacement Assigned Life Year Reserves Fully Funded Reserves Irrigation Control Systems (Tahoma Meado ,644 1,644 Cedar Fence (Behind Park at End of 99th Av ,339 1,339 Irrigation Control Systems () ,314 2,314 Cedar Fence (98th Way) ,562 1,562 Wooden Benches () Spin Toys (Terra View St SE) Spring Rider (Terra View St SE) Trees & Shrubs (Tahoma Meadows) ,736 18,736 Basketball Hoop (98th Way) Basketball Hoops (Jensen Park) Chain Link Fence (Tahoma Meadows) ,591 32,591 Spring Riders (Jensen Park) Trees & Shrubs () ,896 1,896 BBQ's (Longmire Park) Concrete Sidewalk (Tahoma Meadows) ,631 2,631 Metal Benches (Longmire Park) ,878 2,878 Park Benches (Tahoma Meadows) ,096 2,096 Play Structure (End of 99th Ave) ,190 7,190 Tetherball (Terra View St SE) ,033 1,033 Trash Can (Longmire Park) BBQ (Jensen Park) Basketball Court (98th Way) ,148 2,148 Basketball Court (Jensen Park) ,234 4,234 Chain Link Fence () ,045 2,045 Metal Benches (Jensen Park) Play Structure (Dotson Park) ,356 2,356 Swing Set (Jensen Park) Trash Can (Jensen Park) Mailboxes (Tahoma Meadows) ,640 8,640 Monument (Tahoma Meadows) ,920 3,920 Mailboxes () ,600 3,600 Monument () ,040 1,040 Overhead Cover Roof (Longmire Park) * Parking Lot (Longmire Park) ,680 Picnic Tables (Longmire Park) ,562 Walking Path (Longmire Park) ,683 Asphalt Parking (Jensen Park) ,630 Overhead Cover Roof (Jensen Park) Picnic Tables (Jensen Park) Sidewalk () ,816 PAGE 2-9

29 Distribution of Accumulated Reserves Description Remaining Replacement Assigned Life Year Reserves Fully Funded Reserves Overhead Cover (Longmire Park) ,251 Overhead Cover (Jensen Park) ,009 Total Asset Summary $110,100 $132,909 Contingency at 3.00% $3,405 $4,111 Summary Total $113,505 $137,020 Percent Fully Funded 83% Current Average Liability per Unit (Total Units: 340) -$69 '*' Indicates Partially Funded PAGE 2-10

30 Annual Expenditure Detail Description Expenditures No Replacement in 2015 Replacement Year 2016 Irrigation Control Systems (Tahoma Meadows) 1,878 Total for 2016 $1,878 Replacement Year 2017 Cedar Fence (Behind Park at End of 99th Ave) 1,725 Total for 2017 $1,725 Replacement Year 2018 Irrigation Control Systems () 4,235 Total for 2018 $4,235 No Replacement in 2019 No Replacement in 2020 Replacement Year 2021 Cedar Fence (98th Way) 4,271 Wooden Benches () 1,365 Total for 2021 $5,636 Replacement Year 2022 Spin Toys (Terra View St SE) 1,867 Spring Rider (Terra View St SE) 1,787 Trees & Shrubs (Tahoma Meadows) 38,989 Total for 2022 $42,642 Replacement Year 2023 Irrigation Control Systems (Tahoma Meadows) 2,084 Total for 2023 $2,084 No Replacement in 2024 Replacement Year 2025 Irrigation Control Systems () 4,700 Total for 2025 $4,700 PAGE 2-11

31 Annual Expenditure Detail Description Expenditures Replacement Year 2026 Basketball Hoop (98th Way) 883 Basketball Hoops (Jensen Park) 1,767 Chain Link Fence (Tahoma Meadows) 85,312 Spring Riders (Jensen Park) 2,756 Trees & Shrubs () 8,375 Total for 2026 $99,094 Replacement Year 2027 BBQ's (Longmire Park) 1,351 Cedar Fence (Behind Park at End of 99th Ave) 2,001 Concrete Sidewalk (Tahoma Meadows) 7,864 Metal Benches (Longmire Park) 8,602 Park Benches (Tahoma Meadows) 6,265 Play Structure (End of 99th Ave) 21,490 Tetherball (Terra View St SE) 3,086 Trash Can (Longmire Park) 1,449 Total for 2027 $52,109 No Replacement in 2028 No Replacement in 2029 Replacement Year 2030 Irrigation Control Systems (Tahoma Meadows) 2,313 Total for 2030 $2,313 Replacement Year 2031 Basketball Court (98th Way) 13,630 Basketball Court (Jensen Park) 26,862 BBQ (Jensen Park) 717 Cedar Fence (98th Way) 4,957 Chain Link Fence () 12,977 Metal Benches (Jensen Park) 3,652 Play Structure (Dotson Park) 14,947 Swing Set (Jensen Park) 1,839 Trash Can (Jensen Park) 1,539 Wooden Benches () 1,584 Total for 2031 $82,703 PAGE 2-12

32 Annual Expenditure Detail Description Expenditures Replacement Year 2032 Irrigation Control Systems () 5,216 Mailboxes (Tahoma Meadows) 34,777 Monument (Tahoma Meadows) 15,778 Total for 2032 $55,771 No Replacement in 2033 No Replacement in 2034 No Replacement in 2035 Replacement Year 2036 Mailboxes () 30,759 Monument () 8,886 Total for 2036 $39,645 Replacement Year 2037 Cedar Fence (Behind Park at End of 99th Ave) 2,323 Irrigation Control Systems (Tahoma Meadows) 2,567 Overhead Cover Roof (Longmire Park) 5,051 Parking Lot (Longmire Park) 39,962 Picnic Tables (Longmire Park) 8,126 Spin Toys (Terra View St SE) 2,334 Spring Rider (Terra View St SE) 2,234 Trees & Shrubs (Tahoma Meadows) 48,745 Walking Path (Longmire Park) 13,962 Total for 2037 $125,303 No Replacement in 2038 Replacement Year 2039 Irrigation Control Systems () 5,789 Total for 2039 $5,789 No Replacement in 2040 Replacement Year 2041 Asphalt Parking (Jensen Park) 17,999 Basketball Hoop (98th Way) 1,105 PAGE 2-13

33 Annual Expenditure Detail Description Expenditures Replacement Year 2041 continued... Basketball Hoops (Jensen Park) 2,209 Cedar Fence (98th Way) 5,752 Overhead Cover Roof (Jensen Park) 2,548 Picnic Tables (Jensen Park) 6,053 Sidewalk () 31,104 Spring Riders (Jensen Park) 3,446 Trees & Shrubs () 10,471 Wooden Benches () 1,838 Total for 2041 $82,525 No Replacement in 2042 No Replacement in 2043 Replacement Year 2044 Irrigation Control Systems (Tahoma Meadows) 2,849 Total for 2044 $2,849 PAGE 2-14

34 Detail Report by Category Asphalt Parking (Jensen Park) Asset ID 1039 Streets/Asphalt Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 30 Replacement Year 2041 Remaining Life 26 Asset Cost $12, Future Cost $17, Assigned Reserves none Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $0.68 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Asphalt parking lot located at Jensen Park. A field measurement was conducted, the measurement found 679 Square Yards (SY). The cost estimate is based of removing and replacing the entire parking lot. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Asphalt Patch Systems, Puyallup WA SY Remove & $18.00 = $12, Total = $12, Condition: The parking lot is in great condition, no cracks or any other signs of deterioration. Concrete Sidewalk (Tahoma Meadows) Asset ID 1002 Streets/Asphalt Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2027 Remaining Life 12 Asset Cost $6, Future Cost $7, Assigned Reserves $2, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $4.64 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Concrete sidewalks located at parks in Tahoma Meadows. A field measurement was conducted, the measurement found was 1,218 Square Feet (SF) in Tahoma Meadows. The cost PAGE 2-15

35 Detail Report by Category Concrete Sidewalk (Tahoma Meadows) continued... estimate is based off removing and replacing all sidewalks. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Concrete Impressions, Graham WA Play Area at the end of 99th $5.40 = $3, Play Area on Terra 5.40 = 1, Longmire 5.40 = 1, Total = $6, Condition: The sidewalks are in great condition. No signs of cracking, discoloration, or chipping found. Parking Lot (Longmire Park) Asset ID 1011 Streets/Asphalt Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 30 Replacement Year 2037 Remaining Life 22 Asset Cost $28, Future Cost $39, Assigned Reserves none Annual Assessment $1, Interest Contribution $1.80 Reserve Allocation $1, Description: Asphalt parking lot located at the Longmire Park. A field measurement was conducted, the measurement found 1600 Square Yards (SY). The cost estimate is based off removing and replacing the entire parking lot. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Asphalt Patch Systems, Puyallup WA. 1,600 - SY Remove & $18.00 = $28, Total = $28, Condition: Some signs of cracking on the curbing, but other than that the parking lot looks like it s in good condition. PAGE 2-16

36 Detail Report by Category Sidewalk () Asset ID 1031 Streets/Asphalt Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 30 Replacement Year 2041 Remaining Life 26 Asset Cost $21, Future Cost $31, Assigned Reserves none Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $1.18 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Asphalt and concrete sidewalk at Jensen Park. A field measurement was conducted, the measurement found 720 Square Yards (SY). The cost estimate is based off removing and replacing the entire sidewalk. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by two companies; Asphalt Patch Systems (Puyallup WA) for asphalt and Concrete Impressions (Graham WA) for concrete Asphalt Sidewalk Jensen $18.00 = $7, Concrete Sidewalk Jensen = 13, Concrete Sidewalk Dotson = Total = $21, Condition: The sidewalk is in great condition, no visible signs of deterioration. Streets/Asphalt - Total Current Cost $68,719 Assigned Reserves $2,631 Fully Funded Reserves $14,756 PAGE 2-17

37 Detail Report by Category Cedar Fence (98th Way) Asset ID 1040 Fencing/Security Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 10 Replacement Year 2021 Remaining Life 6 Asset Cost $3, Future Cost $4, Assigned Reserves $1, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $2.95 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Six foot cedar fence around the 98 th Way basketball court in. A field measurement was conducted, the measurement found 126 Linear Feet (LF). Replacement Cost: The cost was provided by Fence Specialists, Puyallup WA LF of $28.00 = $3, Removal of Old 3.00 = Total = $3, Condition: The fence is in great condition, no visible signs of deterioration. Cedar Fence (Behind Park at End of 99th Ave) Asset ID 1005 Fencing/Security Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 10 Replacement Year 2017 Remaining Life 2 Asset Cost $1, Future Cost $1, Assigned Reserves $1, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $2.33 Reserve Allocation $ PAGE 2-18

38 Detail Report by Category Cedar Fence (Behind Park at End of 99th Ave) continued... Description: Six foot cedar fence behind the play area at the end of 99 th Ave SE. A field measurement was conducted, the measurement found 54 Linear Feet (LF). Replacement Cost: The cost was provided by Fence Specialists, Puyallup WA LF of $28.00 = $1, Removal of Old 3.00 = Total = $1, Condition: The fence is in okay condition; it s had several boards replaced and others are beginning to bend and warp. The fence needs to be resealed in order to last its remaining useful life. The posts look to be in good condition, the only thing that may need to be replaced is the boards. Chain Link Fence (Tahoma Meadows) Asset ID 1001 Fencing/Security Placed in Service May 2006 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2026 Remaining Life 11 Asset Cost $72, Future Cost $85, Assigned Reserves $32, Annual Assessment $2, Interest Contribution $56.88 Reserve Allocation $3, PAGE 2-19

39 Detail Report by Category Chain Link Fence (Tahoma Meadows) continued... Item: Chain Link Fence (Tahoma Meadows) Description: Four foot black chain link fences around storm water retention ponds located in Tahoma Meadows and at Longmire Park. A field measurement was conducted, the measurement found was 3,697 Linear Feet (LF) in Tahoma Meadows. Replacement Cost: The cost was provided by Craftsman Repair and Remodel Estimator West Entrance $11.50 = $6, East Entrance = 8, Pond Between Terra View and 99th Ave@ = 4, Pond Between 99th Ave and 99th = 4, Pond at the end of 99th = 2, Pond Between 99th Way and 100th = 4, Pond at the end of 100th = 2, Longmire Park Retention = 7, , = 13, ,697 - Removal of old 4.46 = 16, Total = $72, Condition: Overall the condition of all the fencing is good. There is some bending in places, but it s very minor. Chain Link Fence () Asset ID 1030 Fencing/Security Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2031 Remaining Life 16 Asset Cost $10, Future Cost $12, Assigned Reserves $2, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $3.95 Reserve Allocation $ PAGE 2-20

40 Detail Report by Category Chain Link Fence () continued... Description: Four foot black chain link fences around Jensen Park in. A field measurement was conducted, the measurement found was 522 Linear Feet (LF). Replacement Cost: The cost was provided by Craftsman Repair and Remodel Estimator LF of $11.50 = $6, = 1, Removal of Old 4.46 = 2, Total = $10, Condition: The fence is in good condition, no visible signs of deterioration. Fencing/Security - Total Current Cost $88,230 Assigned Reserves $37,538 Fully Funded Reserves $37,538 PAGE 2-21

41 Detail Report by Category BBQ (Jensen Park) Asset ID 1027 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2031 Remaining Life 16 Asset Cost $ Future Cost $ Assigned Reserves $ Annual Assessment $23.37 Interest Contribution $0.22 Reserve Allocation $23.59 Description: One BBQ located at Longmire Park. Replacement Cost: The cost has been provided by Pacific Outdoor Products, Maple Valley WA. 1 - $ = $ = Total = $ Condition: The BBQ is in good condition, some slight weathering but very limited. BBQ's (Longmire Park) Asset ID 1015 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2027 Remaining Life 12 Asset Cost $1, Future Cost $1, Assigned Reserves $ Annual Assessment $46.31 Interest Contribution $0.80 Reserve Allocation $47.10 PAGE 2-22

42 Detail Report by Category BBQ's (Longmire Park) continued... Description: Two BBQ s located at Longmire Park. Replacement Cost: The cost has been provided by Pacific Outdoor Products, Maple Valley WA. 2 - $ = $ = Total = $1, Condition: The BBQ s are beginning to rust from being exposed to the elements. That being said, they should still last their expected useful life. Basketball Court (98th Way) Asset ID 1037 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2031 Remaining Life 16 Asset Cost $10, Future Cost $13, Assigned Reserves $2, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $4.15 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Concrete basketball court located at the 98 th Way Park in. A field PAGE 2-23

43 Detail Report by Category Basketball Court (98th Way) continued... measurement was conducted, the measurement found 1,989 Square Feet (SF). Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Concrete Impressions, Graham WA. 1,989 - Remove & $5.40 = $10, Total = $10, Condition: The court is in like new condition. Basketball Court (Jensen Park) Asset ID 1025 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2031 Remaining Life 16 Asset Cost $21, Future Cost $26, Assigned Reserves $4, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $8.17 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Asphalt basketball court located at Jensen Park. A field measurement was conducted, the measurement found 1,176 Square Yards (SY). The cost estimate is based off removing and replacing the entire basketball court. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Asphalt Patch Systems, Puyallup WA. 1,176 - SY Remove & $18.00 = $21, Total = $21, Condition: The asphalt court is in great condition. I found no cracks, bird baths, or any other signs of deterioration that would result in decreased useful life expectancy. PAGE 2-24

44 Detail Report by Category Basketball Hoop (98th Way) Asset ID 1038 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 15 Replacement Year 2026 Remaining Life 11 Asset Cost $ Future Cost $ Assigned Reserves $ Annual Assessment $38.61 Interest Contribution $0.38 Reserve Allocation $38.99 Description: One basketball hoop located at 98 th Way Park. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Site Lines, Everett WA. 1 - Basketball $ = $ = Total = $ Condition: The hoop is in like new condition. Basketball Hoops (Jensen Park) Asset ID 1026 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 15 Replacement Year 2026 Remaining Life 11 Asset Cost $1, Future Cost $1, Assigned Reserves $ Annual Assessment $77.22 Interest Contribution $0.76 Reserve Allocation $77.98 PAGE 2-25

45 Detail Report by Category Basketball Hoops (Jensen Park) continued... Description: Two basketball hoops located at Jensen Park Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Site Lines, Everett WA. 2 - Basketball $ = $1, = Total = $1, Condition: The hoops are in like new condition. Irrigation Control Systems (Tahoma Meadows) Asset ID 1008 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 7 Adjustment 2 Replacement Year 2016 Remaining Life 1 Asset Cost $1, Future Cost $1, Assigned Reserves $1, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $2.86 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Irrigation control systems at the parks and monuments at Tahoma Meadows. The brand PAGE 2-26

46 Detail Report by Category Irrigation Control Systems (Tahoma Meadows) continued... is designated by location below. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate has been provided by Advanced Irrigation, Pacific WA. 1 - Monument $ = $ Park at the end of 99th Ave = Terra View Park = Tetherball = = 1, Total = $1, Condition: The site visit was conducted during the day when the irrigation systems were off. The normal life span of a control system is 7 years, I ve added two additional years to this first replacement due to limited use in the first couple years. If all systems are replaced at the same time, the cost for installation would be less. Irrigation Control Systems () Asset ID 1032 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 7 Replacement Year 2018 Remaining Life 3 Asset Cost $4, Future Cost $4, Assigned Reserves $2, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $4.34 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Irrigation control systems at the parks and monuments at. The brand is designated by location below. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate has been provided by Advanced Irrigation, Pacific WA. 4 - Jensen Park $ = $1, Monument = PAGE 2-27

47 Detail Report by Category Irrigation Control Systems () continued Dotson Park = th Way Park = = 1, Total = $4, Condition: The site visit was conducted during the day when the irrigation systems were off. The normal life span of a control system is 7 years. If all systems are replaced at the same time, the cost for installation would be less. Metal Benches (Jensen Park) Asset ID 1022 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2031 Remaining Life 16 Asset Cost $2, Future Cost $3, Assigned Reserves $ Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $1.11 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Two Metal Benches located at Jensen Park Replacement Cost: The cost has been provided by Pacific Outdoor Products, Maple Valley WA. 2 - Metal $1, = $2, = Total = $2, Condition: The benches are in like new condition. PAGE 2-28

48 Detail Report by Category Metal Benches (Longmire Park) Asset ID 1014 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2027 Remaining Life 12 Asset Cost $7, Future Cost $8, Assigned Reserves $2, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $5.08 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Five metal benches located at Longmire Park and along the walking path. Replacement Cost: The cost has been provided by Pacific Outdoor Products, Maple Valley WA. 5 - Metal $1, = $5, = 1, Total = $7, Condition: The benches look to be in good condition. Slight weathering and discoloration is occurring due to being in the elements. Monument (Tahoma Meadows) Asset ID 1019 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 25 Replacement Year 2032 Remaining Life 17 Asset Cost $12, Future Cost $15, Assigned Reserves $3, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $6.96 Reserve Allocation $ PAGE 2-29

49 Detail Report by Category Monument (Tahoma Meadows) continued... Description: Monument sign at the entrance of Tahoma Meadows. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate is based off market analysis of several companies. 1 - Monument = $10, Removal of Old 2, = 2, Total = $12, Condition: The monument is in great condition, no signs of deterioration that would result in decreased useful life expectancy. Monument () Asset ID 1020 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 25 Replacement Year 2036 Remaining Life 21 Asset Cost $6, Future Cost $8, Assigned Reserves $1, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $2.03 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Monument at the entrance of PAGE 2-30

50 Detail Report by Category Monument () continued... Replacement Cost: The cost estimate is based off market analysis of several companies. 1 - Monument $5, = $5, Removal of Old 1, = 1, Total = $6, Condition: The monument shows no visible signs of deterioration. Overhead Cover (Jensen Park) Asset ID 1028 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 50 Replacement Year 2061 Remaining Life 46 Asset Cost $12, Future Cost $25, Assigned Reserves none Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $0.53 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Wooden overhead cover at Jensen Park. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Site Lines, Everett WA. 1 - Base $7, = $7, , = 1, , = 1, , = 2, Total = $12, Condition: The overhead cover is in good condition. No signs of splitting or deterioration from the elements. PAGE 2-31

51 Detail Report by Category Overhead Cover (Longmire Park) Asset ID 1016 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 50 Replacement Year 2057 Remaining Life 42 Asset Cost $26, Future Cost $49, Assigned Reserves none Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $1.15 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Wooden overhead structure at Longmire Park. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Site Lines, Everett WA. 1 - Base = $18, , = 1, , = 3, , = 3, Total = $26, Condition: The structure is in good condition. Some slight discoloration from the elements, but overall no signs of splitting or chipping. Overhead Cover Roof (Jensen Park) Asset ID 1042 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 30 Replacement Year 2041 Remaining Life 26 Asset Cost $1, Future Cost $2, Assigned Reserves none Annual Assessment $60.48 Interest Contribution $0.10 Reserve Allocation $60.58 PAGE 2-32

52 Detail Report by Category Overhead Cover Roof (Jensen Park) continued... Description: Overhead cover shingle roof located at Jensen Park. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Site Lines, Everett WA. 1 - Roof $1, = $1, Total = $1, Condition: The roof is in good condition. No visible signs of deterioration. Overhead Cover Roof (Longmire Park) Asset ID 1041 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 30 Replacement Year 2037 Remaining Life 22 Asset Cost $3, Future Cost $5, Assigned Reserves $ Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $1.11 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Roof for the wooden overhead structure at Longmire Park. PAGE 2-33

53 Detail Report by Category Overhead Cover Roof (Longmire Park) continued... Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Site Lines, Everett WA. 1 - Roof $3, = $3, Total = $3, Condition: The roof is in good condition, no signs of deterioration that would reduce its useful life expectancy. Park Benches (Tahoma Meadows) Asset ID 1004 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2027 Remaining Life 12 Asset Cost $5, Future Cost $6, Assigned Reserves $2, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $3.70 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Composite park benches with steel frames located at Tahoma Meadows. Replacement Cost: The cost has been provided by Pacific Outdoor Products, Maple Valley WA. 1 - Park at the end of 99th $1, = $1, Park on Terra 1, = 2, Tetherball 1, = 1, = 1, Total = $5, Condition: Some light wear and tear on the bottom half of the benches from use. This is normal and doesn t lower the useful life expectancy. PAGE 2-34

54 Detail Report by Category Picnic Tables (Jensen Park) Asset ID 1033 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 30 Replacement Year 2041 Remaining Life 26 Asset Cost $4, Future Cost $6, Assigned Reserves none Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $0.23 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Three metal picnic tables located at Jensen Park Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Site Lines, Everett WA. 3 - Metal Picnic $ = $2, = 1, Total = $4, Condition: The picnic tables are in like new condition. Due to the tables being under cover, 10 years have been added to the useful life expectancy. Picnic Tables (Longmire Park) Asset ID 1013 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 30 Replacement Year 2037 Remaining Life 22 Asset Cost $5, Future Cost $8, Assigned Reserves none Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $0.37 Reserve Allocation $ PAGE 2-35

55 Detail Report by Category Picnic Tables (Longmire Park) continued... Description: Two metal picnic tables located at Longmire Park. Replacement Cost: The cost has been provided by Pacific Outdoor Products, Maple Valley WA. 2 - Picnic $2, = $4, = 1, Total = $5, Condition: The picnic tables are in great condition. They re located underneath cover, protecting them from the elements. The life span is increased by 10 years due to their location. Play Structure (Dotson Park) Asset ID 1036 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2031 Remaining Life 16 Asset Cost $11, Future Cost $14, Assigned Reserves $2, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $4.55 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Timber play structure at Dotson Park in. PAGE 2-36

56 Detail Report by Category Play Structure (Dotson Park) continued... Replacement Cost: The cost has been provided by Pacific Outdoor Products, Maple Valley WA. 1 - Play $7, = $7, , = 2, Cubic Yards of Wood = 1, Total = $11, Condition: The play structure is in like new condition. Play Structure (End of 99th Ave) Asset ID 1003 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2027 Remaining Life 12 Asset Cost $17, Future Cost $21, Assigned Reserves $7, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $12.68 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Timber play structure at the end of 99 th Ave SE. Replacement Cost: The cost has been provided by Pacific Outdoor Products, Maple Valley WA. 1 - Play = $12, , = 3, Cubic Yards of Wood = 1, Total = $17, Condition: Very light wear and tear on the play structure. Some discoloration from being in the elements. I recommend resealing next year in order to have the structure last as long as expected. To reduce cost during replacement, I suggest offering the play system for free to anyone who wants to remove the component. A removal cost isn t factored because free removal is commonly performed. PAGE 2-37

57 Detail Report by Category Spin Toys (Terra View St SE) Asset ID 1006 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 15 Replacement Year 2022 Remaining Life 7 Asset Cost $1, Future Cost $1, Assigned Reserves $ Annual Assessment $85.91 Interest Contribution $1.57 Reserve Allocation $87.48 Description: Two spin toys located at the Terra View Park. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Site Lines, Everett WA. 2 - Spin $ = $1, = Total = $1, Condition: The spin toys look to be in good condition. They spin as intended and aren t beginning to bend from use. Spring Rider (Terra View St SE) Asset ID 1007 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 15 Replacement Year 2022 Remaining Life 7 Asset Cost $1, Future Cost $1, Assigned Reserves $ Annual Assessment $82.23 Interest Contribution $1.51 Reserve Allocation $83.74 PAGE 2-38

58 Detail Report by Category Spring Rider (Terra View St SE) continued... Description: Three seat spring rider at the Terra View Park. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Site Lines, Everett WA. 1 - Spring $1, = $1, = Total = $1, Condition: The spring rider looks to be in good condition. It has faded in color a touch, but structurally it hasn t deteriorated. Spring Riders (Jensen Park) Asset ID 1023 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 15 Replacement Year 2026 Remaining Life 11 Asset Cost $2, Future Cost $2, Assigned Reserves $ Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $1.19 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Two spring riders located at Jensen Park. PAGE 2-39

59 Detail Report by Category Spring Riders (Jensen Park) continued... Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Site Lines, Everett WA. 2 - Spring $ = $1, = Total = $2, Condition: The spring riders are in like new condition. Swing Set (Jensen Park) Asset ID 1024 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2031 Remaining Life 16 Asset Cost $1, Future Cost $1, Assigned Reserves $ Annual Assessment $59.94 Interest Contribution $0.56 Reserve Allocation $60.50 Description: Metal four seat swing set located at Jensen Park. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Site Lines, Everett WA. 1 - Swing $1, = $1, = Total = $1, Condition: The swing set is in like new condition. PAGE 2-40

60 Detail Report by Category Tetherball (Terra View St SE) Asset ID 1009 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2027 Remaining Life 12 Asset Cost $2, Future Cost $3, Assigned Reserves $1, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $1.82 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Tetherball and court located off Terra View. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Site Lines, Everett WA. 1 - Tetherball $ = $ SF of 5.40 = 2, Total = $2, Condition: The tetherball court is missing the tetherball. The court has some light cracking, but overall is in pretty good condition. Trash Can (Jensen Park) Asset ID 1029 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2031 Remaining Life 16 Asset Cost $1, Future Cost $1, Assigned Reserves $ Annual Assessment $50.18 Interest Contribution $0.47 Reserve Allocation $50.65 PAGE 2-41

61 Detail Report by Category Trash Can (Jensen Park) continued... Description: Garbage Receptacle located at Jensen Park. Replacement Cost: The cost has been provided by Pacific Outdoor Products, Maple Valley WA. 1 - Garbage $ = $ = Total = $1, Condition: The garbage receptacle is in like new condition. Trash Can (Longmire Park) Asset ID 1012 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 20 Replacement Year 2027 Remaining Life 12 Asset Cost $1, Future Cost $1, Assigned Reserves $ Annual Assessment $49.67 Interest Contribution $0.85 Reserve Allocation $50.52 Description: Garbage Receptacle located at Longmire Park. PAGE 2-42

62 Detail Report by Category Trash Can (Longmire Park) continued... Replacement Cost: The cost has been provided by Pacific Outdoor Products, Maple Valley WA. 1 - Garbage $ = $ = Total = $1, Condition: The garbage receptacle looks in good condition. Some slight discoloration from being out in the elements but nothing that would reduce its 20 year life cycle expectancy. Trees & Shrubs (Tahoma Meadows) Asset ID 1010 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 15 Replacement Year 2022 Remaining Life 7 Asset Cost $35, Future Cost $38, Assigned Reserves $18, Annual Assessment $1, Interest Contribution $32.85 Reserve Allocation $1, Description: Assorted trees and shrubs at the parks and entrance to the community for Tahoma Meadows. Number by location is designated below. Replacement Cost: The cost has been provided by Alpine Nursery, Puyallup WA. 7 - Trees at $75.00 = $ Shrubs at = 1, Trees at the Park at the end of 99th = Shrubs at the Park at the end of 99th Ave@ = 2, Trees at the Terra View = Shrubs at the Terra View = 1, Trees at the Tetherball = Shrubs at the Tetherball = 2, PAGE 2-43

63 Detail Report by Category Trees & Shrubs (Tahoma Meadows) continued Trees at Longmire = Boundary = Boundary = 24, Total = $35, Condition: Some trees and shrubs were dead and need to be replaced, but most were in good condition. Regular replacement of trees and shrubs is recommended in order to replace ones that die, as well as replace before trees become too large to maintain. Trees & Shrubs () Asset ID 1021 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 15 Replacement Year 2026 Remaining Life 11 Asset Cost $7, Future Cost $8, Assigned Reserves $1, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $3.62 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Assorted trees and shrubs at the parks and entrance to the community for Tahoma Terra. Number by location is designated below. Replacement Cost: The cost has been provided by Alpine Nursery, Puyallup WA. 3 - Trees at the $75.00 = $ Shrubs at the = Trees at Jensen = 1, Shrubs at Jensen = 3, Trees at Dotson = Shrubs at Dotson = Trees at the Park on 98Th = Shrubs at the Park on 98th = PAGE 2-44

64 Detail Report by Category Trees & Shrubs () continued... Total = $7, Condition: The trees and shrubs located in were in good condition. Regular replacement of trees and shrubs is recommended in order to replace ones that die, as well as replace before trees become too large to maintain. Walking Path (Longmire Park) Asset ID 1017 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 30 Replacement Year 2037 Remaining Life 22 Asset Cost $10, Future Cost $13, Assigned Reserves none Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $0.63 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Asphalt walking path around Longmire Park and towards Terra Valley Street SE. A field measurement was conducted, the measurement found 559 Square Yards (SY). The cost estimate is based off removing and replacing the entire walking path. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate was provided by Asphalt Patch Systems, Puyallup WA SY Remove & $18.00 = $10, Total = $10, Condition: The walking path is in good condition. There are a couple cracks where weeds are beginning to pop through, but overall it s in good condition. PAGE 2-45

65 Detail Report by Category Wooden Benches () Asset ID 1035 Grounds Components Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 10 Replacement Year 2021 Remaining Life 6 Asset Cost $1, Future Cost $1, Assigned Reserves $ Annual Assessment $89.96 Interest Contribution $0.94 Reserve Allocation $90.90 Description: Two wooden benches with steel frames located at Dotson Park and 98 th Way Park in. Replacement Cost: The cost has been provided by Pacific Outdoor Products, Maple Valley WA. 1 - Dotson $ = $ th Way = = Total = $1, Condition: The Dotson Park bench is slightly discolored from use. It will need to be re-stained likely next year in order for it to last its intended useful life. Grounds Components - Total Current Cost $225,723 Assigned Reserves $57,691 Fully Funded Reserves $68,375 PAGE 2-46

66 Detail Report by Category Mailboxes (Tahoma Meadows) Asset ID 1018 Mailboxes Placed in Service June 2007 Useful Life 25 Replacement Year 2032 Remaining Life 17 Asset Cost $27, Future Cost $34, Assigned Reserves $8, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $15.34 Reserve Allocation $ Description: Eighteen mailboxes for residents of Tahoma Meadows. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate is based off market analysis of several companies $1, = $25, = 1, Total = $27, Condition: The mailboxes are in good condition. No visible signs of deterioration. Mailboxes () Asset ID 1034 Mailboxes Placed in Service June 2011 Useful Life 25 Replacement Year 2036 Remaining Life 21 Asset Cost $22, Future Cost $30, Assigned Reserves $3, Annual Assessment $ Interest Contribution $7.04 Reserve Allocation $ PAGE 2-47

67 Detail Report by Category Mailboxes () continued... Description: Fifteen mailboxes located in. Replacement Cost: The cost estimate is based off market analysis of several companies $1, = $21, = 1, Total = $22, Condition: The mailboxes are in like new condition. Mailboxes - Total Current Cost $49,500 Assigned Reserves $12,240 Fully Funded Reserves $12,240 PAGE 2-48

68 Detail Report by Category Detail Report Summary Total of All Assets Assigned Reserves $110, Annual Contribution $17, Annual Interest $ Annual Allocation $17, Contingency at 3.00% Assigned Reserves $3, Annual Contribution $ Annual Interest $6.31 Annual Allocation $ Grand Total Assigned Reserves $113, Annual Contribution $18, Annual Interest $ Annual Allocation $18, PAGE 2-49

69 Category Detail Index Asset IDDescription Replacement Page 1039 Asphalt Parking (Jensen Park) BBQ (Jensen Park) BBQ's (Longmire Park) Basketball Court (98th Way) Basketball Court (Jensen Park) Basketball Hoop (98th Way) Basketball Hoops (Jensen Park) Cedar Fence (98th Way) Cedar Fence (Behind Park at End of 99th Ave) Chain Link Fence (Tahoma Meadows) Chain Link Fence () Concrete Sidewalk (Tahoma Meadows) Irrigation Control Systems (Tahoma Meadows) Irrigation Control Systems () Mailboxes (Tahoma Meadows) Mailboxes () Metal Benches (Jensen Park) Metal Benches (Longmire Park) Monument (Tahoma Meadows) Monument () Overhead Cover (Jensen Park) Overhead Cover (Longmire Park) Overhead Cover Roof (Jensen Park) Overhead Cover Roof (Longmire Park) Park Benches (Tahoma Meadows) Parking Lot (Longmire Park) Picnic Tables (Jensen Park) Picnic Tables (Longmire Park) Play Structure (Dotson Park) Play Structure (End of 99th Ave) Sidewalk () Spin Toys (Terra View St SE) Spring Rider (Terra View St SE) Spring Riders (Jensen Park) Swing Set (Jensen Park) Tetherball (Terra View St SE) Trash Can (Jensen Park) Trash Can (Longmire Park) PAGE 2-50

70 Category Detail Index Asset IDDescription Replacement Page 1010 Trees & Shrubs (Tahoma Meadows) Trees & Shrubs () Walking Path (Longmire Park) Wooden Benches () Total Funded Assets 42 Total Unfunded Assets 0 Total Assets 42 PAGE 2-51

71 Annual Expenditure Chart This chart showes the component funding model over the next 30 years, as well as the amount of expenditures and the year they are projected to be expensed. PAGE 2-52

72 Funding Model Reserve Ending Balance Comparison Chart The chart above compares the projected reserve ending balances of the three funding models (Current Assessment Funding Model, Threshold Funding Model and Component Funding Model) over 30 years. PAGE 2-53

73 Funding Model Comparison by Percent Funded The chart above compares the three funding models (Current Assessment Funding Model, Threshold Funding Model and Component Funding Model) by the percentage fully funded over 30 years. This allows your association to view and then choose the funding model that might best fit your community s needs. PAGE 2-54

74 Funding Model Assessment Comparison Chart The chart above compares the annual assessment of the three funding models (Current Assessment Funding Model, Threshold Funding Model and Component Funding Model) over 30 years. PAGE 2-55