Nevada HOA Reserve-Study Funding Calculator

How this calculator works

This calculator projects Nevada community-association reserve funding under NRS 116.31152 (reserve study required every five years; annual disclosure of percent-funded on Nevada Real Estate Division Form 350) and NRS 116.3115(2)(b) (reserve adequacy as a board fiduciary duty). It reports the current percent-funded ratio under the Community Associations Institute and Association of Professional Reserve Analysts framework with banding (poorly, fairly, well, fully funded), projects the reserve balance and percent-funded ratio at year 30 given a planned annual contribution and inflation-and-investment-return assumptions, and back-solves for the year-1 contribution required to hit a target percent-funded by year 30.

The output is a screening tool for the board-and-manager conversation. The binding funding plan and the NRS 116.31152 annual disclosure require a credentialed reserve analyst (CAI Reserve Specialist or APRA Professional Reserve Analyst) and component-by-component projection that this calculator does not produce.

The relevant NRS 116 statutes

NRS 116.31152 is the operative Nevada reserve-study statute. It requires every common-interest community to commission a reserve study by a qualified analyst at least once every five years and to disclose the reserve-funding status annually to unit owners. The reserve study must identify each major replacement component (roofing, paving, painting, mechanical, structural), the useful life of each, the remaining useful life, the replacement cost, and the recommended annual funding contribution. The annual disclosure must report the current reserve balance, the percent-funded ratio, and the funding plan.

NRS 116.3115 establishes the annual-budget procedure. Subsection (2)(b) makes reserve adequacy a board fiduciary duty: the board must adopt an annual budget that provides for the association's long-term maintenance and replacement obligations. When the budget under-funds the reserve-study recommendation, the board has a documented fiduciary risk that owners can litigate on a post-failure basis.

NRS 116.3115(3) establishes the special-assessment and reserve-transfer procedures the board must follow if the reserves are inadequate to fund a specific replacement obligation.

Nevada Real Estate Division Form 350 is the prescribed annual reserve-funding disclosure form, distributed to every unit owner with the annual budget and filed with the Division. It is the unit-owner-facing artifact of the NRS 116.31152 transparency requirement.

The CAI / APRA / CRA percent-funded framework

The Community Associations Institute and the Association of Professional Reserve Analysts established the percent-funded ratio as the U.S. standard for evaluating reserve adequacy. Percent-funded is:

percent-funded = current reserve balance divided by useful-life liability

The useful-life liability is the dollar-weighted age of the replacement components — the cumulative funding that SHOULD have been accumulated to date if the association had funded reserves smoothly from the inception of each component's useful life. A 100 percent funded association has saved exactly what the smooth-funding model would predict; under 100 percent indicates under-funding and some special-assessment or contribution-spike risk to catch up; over 100 percent indicates over-funding.

The CAI / APRA / CRA framework bands the ratio into four categories:

• Poorly funded — under 30 percent. High special-assessment risk. The association has saved less than 30 percent of what the smooth-funding model would predict and faces meaningful catch-up risk.
• Fairly funded — 30 to 70 percent. Moderate special-assessment risk. The association is meaningfully under-funded but has enough cushion that catch-up can be planned.
• Well funded — 70 to 100 percent. Low special-assessment risk. The association is close to the smooth-funding model.
• Fully funded — 100 percent and above. The association faces no projected special-assessment risk for the projected replacement schedule.

The thresholds are practitioner conventions, not statutory. Some associations target 70 percent as a pragmatic balance between member dues levels and reserve adequacy; others target 100 percent for full insulation against special-assessment risk.

Key thresholds

Three thresholds anchor every reserve-study funding conversation.

Thirty percent — escape the poorly-funded band. Under 30 percent percent-funded, the CAI / APRA / CRA framework classifies the association as poorly funded with high special-assessment risk. Boards in this band typically receive significant pressure from owners, lenders, and prospective buyers to commit to a catch-up funding plan; resale-disclosure scrutiny is sharp.

Seventy percent — well-funded floor. At 70 percent percent-funded and above, the association is in the well-funded band. This is the most common pragmatic long-term target for boards transitioning from years of under-funding; the dues impact of pushing higher than 70 percent often outweighs the marginal special-assessment-risk reduction.

One hundred percent — fully funded. At 100 percent percent-funded, the association is fully funded under the CAI / APRA / CRA framework and faces no projected special-assessment risk for the projected replacement schedule. This is the defensible long-term target for newer or higher-end communities where member dues can support full funding without owner backlash.

Worked example 1: well-funded association on a smooth plan

A condominium with 50 units has a $250,000 reserve balance against a $600,000 useful-life liability. Planned annual contribution: $25,000. Average annual expenditure: $30,000. Inflation 3 percent, investment return 3 percent. Target: 100 percent funded by year 30.

• Current percent-funded: $250,000 divided by $600,000 equals 41.7 percent — fairly funded.
• Projected 30-year balance under the planned contribution: roughly $400,000-$600,000 depending on the exact expenditure-timing assumptions.
• Projected useful-life liability at year 30: $600,000 times (1.03 to the 30th) equals roughly $1,456,000.
• Projected percent-funded at year 30: substantially under 100 percent.
• Required year-1 contribution to hit 100 percent by year 30: substantially higher than the planned $25,000.

The calculator surfaces the contribution gap — the board can either bring the dues line up to the recommended figure or accept the trajectory of declining percent-funded over time, with the corresponding special-assessment risk.

Worked example 2: poorly-funded association needing aggressive catch-up

A planned community with 200 units has a $150,000 reserve balance against a $2,500,000 useful-life liability. Planned annual contribution: $80,000. Average annual expenditure: $100,000. Inflation 3 percent, investment return 3 percent.

• Current percent-funded: $150,000 divided by $2,500,000 equals 6 percent — poorly funded (deep into the high-risk band).
• The required contribution to escape the poorly-funded band by year 30 is meaningfully higher than the planned $80,000.
• The required contribution to reach fully funded by year 30 is substantially higher still — likely double or triple the planned contribution.

The board has three realistic paths: (1) increase the planned contribution to meet the trajectory, (2) commit to a series of special assessments at major replacement dates, or (3) accept declining percent-funded and rely on member ability to absorb future special assessments. Each path has different fiduciary and member-relations consequences.

Worked example 3: fully funded association on autopilot

A newer master-planned community has a $4,000,000 reserve balance against a $4,200,000 useful-life liability. Planned annual contribution: $400,000. Average annual expenditure: $350,000. Inflation 3 percent, investment return 3 percent.

• Current percent-funded: $4,000,000 divided by $4,200,000 equals 95.2 percent — well funded (just below the fully-funded threshold).
• Projected percent-funded at year 30: comfortably in the fully-funded band given the planned contribution exceeds the inflation-adjusted expenditure.
• Required contribution to maintain 100 percent: roughly the planned $400,000 or slightly less.

The board can confirm the current funding pace is sustainable and is unlikely to face special-assessment pressure under the projected replacement schedule. The reserve-study disclosure on Form 350 reads well to owners and to resale-disclosure recipients.

Worked example 4: high-inflation stress case

The same condominium from worked example 1 ($250,000 balance, $600,000 liability, $25,000 contribution, $30,000 expenditure) under a 5 percent inflation assumption and 3 percent investment return.

The 5 percent inflation against 3 percent return is a real return of negative 2 percent — the fund loses purchasing power even before considering expenditures. The projected percent-funded at year 30 drops significantly, and the required contribution to hit 100 percent by year 30 climbs further than under the matched 3-percent / 3-percent assumption set. The board can use the stress case to evaluate dues-level sensitivity under sustained high-inflation regimes.

What this calculator does NOT model

This is a screening tool. It does NOT compute component-by-component reserve-study output (the calculator accepts an aggregate useful-life liability as an input rather than building it from a component schedule), does NOT model year-specific replacement-expenditure timing (the projection uses a flat inflation-adjusted average), does NOT compute special-assessment dollar amounts at specific failure dates, does NOT model multi-tier reserve funds (operating reserve vs replacement reserve), does NOT evaluate fiduciary-duty exposure under NRS 116.3115(2)(b) on a board-decision-specific basis, and does NOT model investment-portfolio composition.

For binding plans, NRS 116.31152 compliance, fiduciary-duty defense, and accurate special-assessment forecasting, commission a credentialed reserve analyst (CAI Reserve Specialist or APRA Professional Reserve Analyst). The screening output here is appropriate for budget-cycle planning, board-and-manager scenario discussion, and the conversation with the reserve analyst about scope and assumptions.

Sources

• NRS 116.31152 — reserve study required every 5 years; annual disclosure of percent-funded on Form 350.
• NRS 116.3115 — annual budget; reserve adequacy as board fiduciary duty.
• NRS 116.3115(2)(b) — operative fiduciary-duty reserve-adequacy provision.
• NRS 116.3115(3) — special-assessment and reserve-transfer procedures.
• Nevada Real Estate Division Form 350 — annual reserve-funding disclosure form.
• CAI National Reserve Study Standards — the methodological standard for U.S. reserve-study practice.
• APRA / Professional Reserve Analyst credential — practitioner credentialing framework.
• CAI Reserve Specialist (RS) credential — the CAI practitioner credential for reserve analysts.
• Nevada Real Estate Division — Office of the Ombudsman for Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels.

Last reviewed: 2026-05-16 against the operative NRS 116.31152 text and the CAI / APRA / CRA framework through Q1 2026.