How to use this page: the six tabs divide the brief. This tab is the verdict; tab 2 explains what a reserve study is and what owners have been shown; tabs 3 and 4 are the evidence; tab 5 turns it into a dues number; tab 6 lists the ten questions the Board should answer and every source. Tab 4 has a map of every street in the study with a search box; tab 5 has a dial that lets you set the dues yourself. "Take the guided tour" walks through the charts. Words with a dotted underline and a small ? open a plain-English explanation. "Larger" makes the type bigger.
The audited statements say the Association is debt-free with $12.8 million of members' equity, and they are right. They also say, in Note 1, that the roads, drains, bridges, paths and gates "are not recognized in the Association's financial statements," because association accounting rules keep common property off the books. Put it on, using the study's own figures, and this is what the books would look like.
| Cash and investments held for future repairs ("deferred reserve assessments") | $12.5M |
| Buildings, vehicles and equipment the Association bought, after depreciation | $9.0M |
| 91 miles of roads, 89 miles of storm drains, 22 miles of paths, 11 bridges, 7 gates | not recognized |
| Debt | none |
| Members' equity | $12.8M |
Note 1: common property "cannot be sold separately and has no determinable fair market value apart from its intended use." The schedule of future repairs (pp. 45–46) is management's; the auditor "does not express an opinion" on it.
| Roads, drains (maintenance), bridges, paths, marinas, equipment, at replacement cost | $66.5M |
| Less the wear already used up (the study's "fully funded balance") | −$38.1M |
| Cash set aside against that wear, end of 2026 | $10.2M |
| Wear with no money behind it (this is what "27% funded" means) | −$27.9M |
| Storm pipe, 47 to 89 miles, mostly original 1972: not in the study, wear unknown, set aside $0 | −$40M to −$121M |
Nothing on the audited balance sheet moves when a pipe fails or a road wears out. "Debt-free" and "strong financial position" are statements about cash, and both can stay true while the infrastructure does not.
Every one of the study's 423 road segments is on the map on tab 4, with the year it was last paved, the year the study resurfaces it, and how old it will be then. Type a street name:
Street names follow the Association's own street directory. County roads and the Village are not in the study.
An association owns things that wear out: roads, pipes, bridges, docks, gates, trucks. A reserve study lists each one (a ), estimates how long it lasts and what it costs to replace, and works out how much to set aside each year so the money is there when the bill comes. Two outputs matter. The required contribution is the annual deposit the plan needs. is the balance in the fund compared with what a perfectly funded association would hold given how worn its assets are.
There are two ways to run the arithmetic. The component method funds every item on its own schedule and adds them up; it is conservative and expensive. The cash-flow (threshold) method pools the money and asks only that the balance never fall below a chosen floor. This study uses the cash-flow method with a floor of 30% funded. Who chooses the floor matters, because the floor sets the number.
| Percent funded | Label | What it means in practice |
|---|---|---|
| Under 30% | Weak | A bad year (a storm, a failed pipe run, a contract repricing) forces a special assessment or deferred work |
| 30–70% | Fair | Planned work gets done; little margin for surprises; the association depends on each future vote passing |
| Over 70% | Strong | Surprises are absorbed; dues can rise with inflation and nothing else; special assessments are rare |
Every Annual Report in the member library carries the independent auditor's report (Holland, Bromley, Barnhill & Brett, LLP; an unmodified opinion each year), the consolidated statements and the notes. The audit answers one question well: is the cash where the Association says it is? It does not, and under the accounting rules for associations cannot, answer the question owners are voting on: is enough being set aside for what is wearing out?
Three things in the 2025 report matter here. Note 1 says the roads, drains, paths, bridges and gates are not recognized as assets, so there is no depreciation on them and no liability for deferred repairs. Pages 45–46 carry the required schedule of future repairs, with the auditor's disclaimer that it is management's and unaudited; it lists "Storm Drain – Maintenance, remaining life 0 to 5 years, $7.9M" and no pipe at all. Page 45 says engineering firms help estimate the lives of the drains and roads; the 2025 study was a one-day visual visit by a reserve analyst.
| Item | Value | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Level of service | Level II update | Visual observation of accessible components, July 8 2025. "No destructive testing or other testing was conducted." Underground components are explicitly excluded from the inspector's responsibility (Terms of Service, p.5-3). |
| Components / current cost | 834 / $66,512,189 | Roads 41%, storm drains 12%, bridges 8%, the two marinas 14%, lagoons 4%, paths 4%, everything else 17%. |
| Funding method and goal | Cash flow; "adequate funding with moderate contributions" | Balances kept "above a 30% fully funded level at the request of the Association" (p.1-1). |
| Inflation / interest | 3.0% / 4.22% then 3.56% | Reasonable. The 2020 study used 2.5% and 1.75%. |
| Beginning balance 2026 | $11,054,459 | Matches the Budget Book. |
| Required contribution 2026 | $5,983,247 ($1,353.68 per lot) | Falls to $4.37M (2030), $3.79M (2031), $2.86M (2032); averages $4.33M a year over thirty years because the inputs stop in 2031 (tab 3). |
| Expenditures 2026–2031 | $33.8M | $5.6M, $7.3M, $6.4M, $5.5M, $4.7M, $4.3M. Then $2.0–4.2M a year for 2032–2040. |
| Fully funded balance 2026 | $38,077,945 | Formula: current cost × effective age ÷ useful life, summed. Depends entirely on the useful lives assumed and on which assets are included. |
| Storm contingency | none | The $500,000 storm fund in the April 2026 proposal is not in the study. |
The full study has been posted in the public Governing Documents folder each time it was updated. What owners have been told about it is below, in order. The pattern: the 30% floor and the "required" number are repeated; where the floor came from, what stops in 2031, the road assumptions and the storm-pipe liability are not.
| When | Where | What was said about the study | What was not said |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 27 2020 | Budget workshop, "Reserve Study Results" | The only walk-through ever given. CAI bands (0–30 poor, 30–70 adequate, 70–100 well funded). Study cost $47.9M vs the Association's own asset plan $85M; difference is "adjustments… including allowance for stormwater system." Storm pipe replacement $39,986,695, "not a predictable useful life; allowance included: $275,000 for 2021–2027, $250,000 for 2028–2049." Recommendation: threshold plan at a "minimum cushion of 30%." | Why 30% rather than 50% or 70% was chosen, and what each would cost. |
| Mar 2020 | Annual Meeting | "National Reserve Standards indicate funding plans that maintain a minimum 30% to 70% fully funded reserve provide an adequate level of funding." | That 30% is the bottom of that range. |
| Mar 2023 | Annual Meeting (2024–26 vote) | "Required Annual Dues is based on… maintaining at least a minimum balance of 30%." "Required to maintain at least 30% funded in our Reserves, which is on the low end." Capital assets replacement value $60.4M; 32% funded. | The $40M storm-pipe figure from 2020, now absent. |
| Mar 2024, Feb 2025 | Annual Meetings | "33% funded"; replacement value $62.6M then $59.9M; 2024: $1M replaced 3,870 feet of storm pipe at Marshwood. | What 3,870 feet implies for 47 miles. |
| Dec 17 2025 | Budget Box and Budget Book p.51 | "The minimum level of the Capital Reserves Fund under the Threshold Funding Plan as adopted by the Board of Directors is 30%." 34% in 2025; 2026 to fall below 30% "as a result of Board approval." The Budget Book's cash-flow page shows percent funded 27%, 20%, 14%, 11%, 6%, 5% for 2026–2031. | That this page is the clearest disclosure owners have, on page 51 of 282. |
| Apr 6 2026 | First vote packet | "Without additional funding, our projections for the year 2026 show reserves falling below the 30% funded industry best-practice minimum threshold." Assets "worth an estimated $66.5 million." $766 of the $796 first-year increase to reserves. | Any table from the study; the required-contribution path; the 2031 cliff. |
| Aug 10 2026 | Second vote packet; Aug 18 and Sept 22 drop-ins | "Reserves do not increase to the degree previously proposed." Ending 2029 reserve cash $12.6M vs $14.3M under the first proposal. Board at the Sept 22 drop-in: the revised proposal "sought to fund planned infrastructure spending rather than create an unnecessary cushion." | That "unnecessary cushion" means anything above the 30% floor. |
Between the two votes the Association surveyed its owners (Mast 61, July 17–27 2026; 2,654 responses, a third of the community). One question asked which information matters most on dues and community investment, pick up to three. The second vote packet (August 10) opened with "You Spoke. We Acted." Here is the survey's own ranked list, next to what the packet contained, and where in this brief the answer is.
| What owners asked for (survey, pick up to three) | Chose it | What the August packet delivered | Where the answer is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project priorities and timelines | 58% | One page of six category totals for 2027–2029 (roads $8.95M, storm drains $4.37M, bridges and equipment $2.85M, paths $675K, lagoons $303K, gates $223K). No project list, no streets, no dates. | Tab 4, the map: every street with its scheduled year. Question 5. |
| A multi-year capital improvement plan | 51% | Three years of totals. The Association's own plan ends in 2031; nothing was shown beyond 2029. | Tab 3: the six-year plan and the cliff after it. Questions 2 and 8. |
| Regular progress updates on projects | 40% | Not the packet's purpose; the President's Updates continue as before. | Tab 4: the five roads in the 2026 program, marked on the map. |
| Detailed budget summaries | 30% | The dues split into operating and capital for each year, and a one-page "variance summary" (dues to reserves $18.4M instead of $23.4M; ending 2029 balance $12.6M instead of $14.3M). No percent funded, no operating detail. | The companion brief on operating costs; tab 1 here for the reserve side. Question 1. |
| Competitive bidding and contract information | 22% | Nothing. The paving and storm-drain fixed-price contracts both expire in 2028, so 2029, inside the dues period, is at market rates. | Question 6. |
| The reserve fund study | 17% | Not cited. The packet says "reserves do not increase to the degree previously proposed" and warns of "depletion of reserves, contrary to industry standards," without a number. The number in the Board's own Budget Book is 27% falling to 5%. | This tab and tab 1. Questions 1 and 8. |
| Engineering or other professional assessments | 11% | Nothing. The audited statements say engineering firms help estimate the drain and road lives; no such report is in the member library. | Tab 4. Questions 4 and 10. |
The study's two tables, pages 1-2 and 1-4, drawn as one chart. The grey bars are what the study expects to spend each year. The navy line is the contribution the "required" plan calls for; the brass line is what the Association's current plan puts in.
The Association's Budget Book and the analyst's study, side by side. For 2026–2031 the study's spending is the Budget Book's capital plan, carried across line by line. The Budget Book stops at 2031; the study keeps going with only the analyst's component list.
| 2026 | $5,584,575 |
| 2027 | $7,313,873 |
| 2028 | $6,358,993 |
| 2029 | $5,472,435 |
| 2030 | $4,684,531 |
| 2031 | $4,337,954 |
| 2032 | — the plan ends — |
| 2033 | — |
| 2034 | — |
| 2035 | — |
Same page, bottom row, "Percent Funded": 27%, 20%, 14%, 11%, 6%, 5%.
| 2026 | $5,584,573 |
| 2027 | $7,313,877 |
| 2028 | $6,358,992 |
| 2029 | $5,472,435 |
| 2030 | $4,684,531 |
| 2031 | $4,337,956 |
| 2032 | $2,826,153 · no drains, paths or patching |
| 2033 | $4,239,112 |
| 2034 | $2,492,578 |
| 2035 | $5,347,717 |
Study p.1-1: "current funding projection provided by the Association for FY 2026–2031."
The study's thirty-year spending schedule, broken out by category from its own component inventory (current cost, before inflation). Watch what happens to the storm-drain, path and road-maintenance bars at 2032.
| Item the study drops after 2031 | Today's dollars per year | 2032–2055, with 3% inflation |
|---|---|---|
| Storm-drain repair and lining | $1.4M | ≈ $46M |
| Community paths | $0.4M | ≈ $12M |
| Road maintenance (patching, curbs, striping) | $0.5M | ≈ $16M |
| Total missing | $2.3M | ≈ $74M |
Because the study's spending falls after 2031, its required contribution falls too: $1,354 per lot in 2026, $857 by 2031, about $650 by 2032. The Association's long-range plan then holds contributions flat for 24 years. Owners were asked to accept $1,354 as the engineer's number for 2027–2029 without being told that the same engineer's plan has the number falling by half within five years, or why.
With the allowances continued (and nothing else changed), the contribution that keeps the fund at the study's own 30% floor through 2055 is about $1,400 per lot, rising with inflation, not falling. With roads at the pace Public Works actually runs them, it is about $1,700. The arithmetic is on tab 5.
The study's road inventory, drawn on Skidaway Island: 423 segments, 1.27 million square yards. Colour the map three ways with the buttons; hover or tap a street for its figures; drag to move, use + and − to zoom. Or type your street on the right.
Roads are 41% of the study. The inventory lists 423 street segments, 1.27 million square yards of asphalt, all priced at $21.50 a square yard for a mill-and-pave (the Bennett contract rate). Each segment carries a date last paved, a useful life, an "adjustment" made by eye on the site visit, and a scheduled resurfacing year.
The Board told owners in April 2026 that the Association "currently meets only about 80% of annual resurfacing needs," which would put the real need near $2.8 million a year, more than double the study. One-third of the pavement in the study had its life extended by 5 to 23 years on the strength of a visual inspection; the study's own terms say it assumes "necessary preventative maintenance" and that lives change with "weather conditions, use, maintenance procedures."
Residents in the August survey said roads in good condition were being resurfaced prematurely. The study, read literally, agrees with them: it would not resurface most of those streets for another decade or two. Either the program is over-paving by roughly a million dollars a year, or the study under-provides for roads by the same amount (the model on tab 5 uses $0.8 million, between the two estimates of the program's pace), and the dues number moves by about $200 per lot a year depending on which. The pavement coring Public Works has commissioned from Terracon for the 2027 program is the evidence that settles it, and it should be published.
The inventory has no component for the pipe itself: no length, no useful life, no replacement cost. The analyst is explicit that underground components are outside the site visit. So the $66.5 million "assets" figure in the vote packet, and the $38 million "fully funded" yardstick, do not include the thing the Board's letter calls "the top priority… failing pipes, root intrusion, and structural issues."
Forty-seven miles of pipe is about 248,000 feet; 89 miles is 470,000. At the Marshwood unit cost, replacing all of it would be $64 million on the first count and $121 million on the second; the 2020 estimate was $40 million, and inflation since would put it near $48 million. Not all of it needs replacing at once, and the Board's chosen remedy where the pipe allows it is a cured-in-place liner it says lasts thirty years, which is cheaper than digging. So the number turns on three quantities nobody has published: how many feet can be lined, how many must be dug at the Marshwood price, and how many are sound. Only the camera footage, scored, answers that, which is exactly why the number belongs in a condition-based schedule rather than a six-year allowance.
Nobody hid the pipe. The Board's own emails, columns and packets describe a deteriorated system, inspected a neighborhood at a time, failing faster than expected. What none of them do is put a number on it, and the study that sets the dues prices none of it. Quotes are verbatim.
| When | Where | What the Association said |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 27 2020 | Reserve Study Results workshop, slide 47 | "Stormwater pipe $39,986,695. Not a predictable useful life; allowance included: $275,000 for years 2021–2027; $250,000 for years 2028–2049." Also: "Most infrastructure (storm drains and roads) is original." |
| Dec 2024 | President's Update | 2025 will focus on "repairing/replacing a portion of our 53-years-old, approximately 89 miles of storm drains." |
| Feb 2025 | Annual Meeting, slide 18 | "$1M Storm Drain Repair and Maintenance: 3,870 linear feet of compromised storm drains (primarily Marshwood), increase life expectancy 40 years." |
| May 28 2025 | President's Update | "A large portion of the community storm drains and outfall pipes, many that were installed 50+ years ago, are constructed of corrugated metal. These storm drains and outfall pipes have significantly deteriorated based on their age and consistent contact with saltwater." Public Works "will CIPP line the pipes in need of immediate repair." |
| Oct 7 2025 | Email, "Out of Sight, But Essential" (Board Operations & Financial Planning Task Force) | "80 miles of storm drains." "Since 2021, they have used a specialized video camera to assess the condition of our pipes from the inside." The liner is "built to last 30 years." "To date, TLA's storm drains in Marshwood have been inspected and repaired as needed. Public Works is now applying this same approach in Palmetto and will continue throughout the community." |
| Jan 27 2026 | Email, "Understanding the Big Picture of TLA Maintenance Costs" (Board task force) | About 80 miles; an inspection cycle, slip lining by section; the pipe is corrugated steel or cement; Marshwood and Palmetto were full replacements. Drain spending 2021–2026: $686,496, $849,923, $617,505, $996,447, $930,691, $1,039,000. |
| Jan 29 2026 | Public Works column | Planned lining on Oyster Reef Road was carried over from 2025 because of "unplanned work… (i.e. immediate safety failures within the storm drain system that caused potholes and road failures within the roadways)." |
| Apr 6 2026 | First vote packet | "Storm Drains – These systems are the top priority; inspections are revealing more deterioration than expected, including failing pipes, root intrusion, and structural issues." Two figures for 2027–2029 in the same packet: $4.38 million in the chart, $5,074,449 on the obligations page. |
| Apr–Aug 2026 | Public Works columns | Lagoon 36 pipe on Long Island Road "failed, requiring immediate repair" (April). A hole in the pipe below Sweet Fern Retreat caused a road failure; emergency repair, then lining (July). A Westcross pothole led the camera to "three separate structural failures within the concrete pipe"; $70,000 to line it; a patch alone "would have eventually led to a total road and pipe collapse" (August). |
| Aug 10 2026 | Second vote packet | "Storm Drains $4.37 million over 3 years." "Roads and Storm Drains Will Be Funded Regardless of the Vote Outcome." |
| Nov 2026 | Public Works columns; GM column "Why It Matters" | Camera inspections of Midpoint and Palmetto systems completed; Delegal Road and Mainsail Crossing next. And, of the marina's 1991 fuel tanks: "The tanks haven't failed… the question isn't really whether they work today. It's how long we should continue accepting the risk… acting before we have a failure gives us greater control over the cost, the timing, and ultimately the outcome." |
Move the slider to a 2028 dues level and the model does the rest, on the study as published and on the corrected study. The model is the study's own: its spending, its fully-funded balances, its interest rate. The increase starts in 2028 (a spring 2027 vote) and grows 3% a year after that; about $1,700 of 2028 dues goes to operations and the rest to the repair fund.
A cash-flow model built from the study's own tables: its spending schedule, its fully-funded balances, its interest rate. A vote in spring 2027 would set dues for 2028–2030, so 2027 stays at $2,594 and the increase starts in 2028, growing 3% a year after that. Operations take about $1,700 of the 2028 dues; the rest is the capital contribution.
| 2028 dues | Increase on $2,594 | Capital per lot | Funded 2031, as published | Funded 2031, corrected | Reaches 70%, corrected | Lowest balance 2026–40, corrected | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $2,594 | 0% | ≈$960, falling | 4% | below 0 | never | negative | The current plan. Services cut, work deferred, fund exhausted by 2031. |
| $2,900 | +12% | $1,200 | 28% | 12% | never | negative by 2035 | A token increase, the second proposal's first-year level held flat. Fails on the corrected study. |
| Second proposal, as voted on | +10% / +20% / +30% | $1,200 → $1,575 | 47% | 31% | 2047 | $6.2M | $2,850, $3,115, $3,375. Holds the floor on the corrected study for twenty years; the minimum, with no margin. |
| $3,300 | +27% | $1,600 | 49% | 33% | 2041 | $5.9M | Holds the floor on the corrected study; "fair" for fifteen years; thin. |
| First proposal, as voted on | +31% / +34% / +38% | $1,740 → $1,780 | 67% | 51% | 2034 | $9.4M | $3,390, $3,470, $3,580. Close to the right number; lacked the inflation rule, a reserve policy and a corrected study. |
| $3,500 | +35% | $1,800 | 60% | 44% | 2035 | $5.9M | Roughly the first 2026 proposal, with an inflation rule. Strong by 2035 under the corrected study. |
| $3,700 | +43% | $2,000 | 70% | 55% | 2033 | $5.9M | Margin for the 2029 contract repricing and a storm. |
| $4,100 | +58% | $2,400 | 92% | 76% | 2031 | $5.9M | Strong by 2031; on the published study it is over-funded by 2032 and the Board would have to cut dues or add projects. |
| $4,500 | +73% | $2,800 | 113% | 98% | 2030 | $5.9M | Buys two years. Costs the vote. |
Below about $3,300 the plan only works if the study's six-year horizon is right, the 2029 contract repricing is mild, and no storm comes. The second 2026 proposal, which on the corrected study holds the 30% floor and nothing more for twenty years, asked owners to take all three bets without saying so. The first failed vote in 2018 froze dues for three years; the cost of that freeze is still being paid, and a third freeze in 2030 on a thin plan would be worse.
Above about $3,700 the extra money buys an earlier arrival at "strong" and then sits. The first 2026 vote at +30% drew 48%; the second at +10% drew 62%. Cutting the ask by two-thirds bought 14 points, which says the price was never the whole problem. A 60–70% ask would lose, and the loss would be read as owners rejecting infrastructure rather than rejecting the Board.
The 460-page PDF was read in full. The Executive Summary tables (pp. 1-1 to 1-6) supply the required and current plans, expenditures and fully-funded balances for 2026–2055. The Component Inventory (pp. 4-1 to 4-23) was parsed line by line: 793 of the 834 components, including all 423 road segments (the road category totals $27,361,130, matching the study); the 41 unparsed lines are long equipment names and do not affect the categories discussed. Category totals reconcile to the study's $66,512,188.
Road statistics weight each segment by square yards. "Age at scheduled resurfacing" is the study's replacement year less its service date. "Adjustment" is the study's own column.
The map joins each study row to street geometry from the U.S. Census Bureau's TIGER/Line roads (2024) and OpenStreetMap, by name, with the Association's Street Directory as the authority on spelling: 416 of 423 rows matched (98.5% of square yards). Where the study splits one street into sections (Landings Way, Shellwind Drive, Bartram Road, West Cross, Wiley Bottom, Priest Landing, Dame Kathryn) the whole street is coloured by the square-yard-weighted figure and the card lists each section. The island outline is the Skidaway Island census-designated place. Positions are approximate to a few metres and are for identification only.
Each year: opening balance + contribution + interest (3.56% on the opening balance; the study's 2026 figure in year one) − expenditures = closing balance; percent funded = closing balance ÷ the study's fully-funded balance for that year. The model reproduces the study's own two plans to within rounding. Scenarios change only the capital contribution per lot, starting in 2028 and growing 3% a year. The "corrected" schedule adds the three dropped allowances from 2032 and $0.8M a year of roads from 2026, both inflated at 3%; it does not enlarge the fully-funded denominator, which a corrected study would, so corrected percentages overstate funding.
Limits: no storm event is modeled except as noted; the operating allocation is assumed at $1,700 in 2028 rising 3%; marina capital is as in the study (the marinas fund it from their own revenue). Figures were transcribed from PDF tables and may contain errors; the study governs.
Prepared by Larry Van Horn from documents the Association has published to owners. Corrections are welcome; the study and the audited statements govern.