Skip to content

The cost schedules

Replacement Reserves Schedule Template & Example

Last updated 2026-08-15

The replacement reserves schedule projects what the property will need over an evaluation term, and it is the most assumption-dense table in the report. Every line contains an age that was usually reported rather than documented, an expected useful life taken from a table, a remaining life derived from the two, and a cost estimated in today's dollars for work that happens years from now.

None of that is a problem, provided the assumptions are visible. A reader who can see that a roof age is reported rather than documented can decide what to do with it. A reader given only a remaining-life figure of 'two years' cannot.

The example below carries the same fictional property used across this library, and shows the three things that most often go unstated: where each expected useful life came from, how a reported age was treated when no documentation existed, and how an inaccessible component was handled — conservatively, and with the reason on the page. Where no published table gives a life for a component, the example says so rather than borrowing a number from an adjacent row, which is the honest answer and a rarer one than it should be.

Jurisdiction

Written primarily against US practice: the ASTM E2018 baseline, agency scopes such as Fannie Mae Form 4099, and — where a page says so explicitly — California statute. Client scope governs any individual engagement and may expand or reduce what is described here. State and local inspection obligations differ, and licensure requirements for the work described vary by state. Outside the US, treat the structure as transferable and the standards and statutes as not.

Replacement Reserves Schedule template

Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.

When to use this document

  • The client scope calls for a projection of capital needs over a defined term, which is standard for lender due diligence and acquisition underwriting.
  • You need to show a per-unit or per-square-foot annual figure for underwriting.
  • Not for conditions requiring attention now — those belong on the immediate repairs schedule, and carrying them in both places double-counts them.

Worked example

Fictional. The replacement reserves schedule from the Bellwether Commons assessment — 132 units in eleven two-storey buildings plus a clubhouse, built 1987, Columbus, Ohio — over a twelve-year evaluation term set by the client scope, on a March 2026 cost basis, with the clubhouse roof unobserved and most component ages reported rather than documented.

Evaluation Term and Basis

The evaluation term is twelve years, 2026 through 2037, set by the client scope agreed with Northbank Capital. It is the client's term and not a standard one: E2018-24 states no default evaluation term anywhere in its text, and where it addresses long-term costs it defines them over an evaluation period set by the user. Had this been a Fannie Mae loan the term would have come from Form 4099 instead — the loan term plus two years beyond maturity — and the Replacement Reserve would then be sized over the Guide's own period, from origination to whichever comes sooner, two years after maturity or twelve years after origination.

Costs are stated in current March 2026 dollars with no inflation applied; the client's underwriting model applies its own escalation, and applying one here would compound it. Quantities are measured or counted except where identified as estimated. This schedule carries components expected to require replacement or major repair within the term. Components with a remaining useful life beyond 2037 are not carried, even where they were observed to be aging.

Expected useful lives are taken from HUD's CNA e-Tool Estimated Useful Life Table where that table covers the component, cited per line below with the column used, and are the assessor's judgement where it does not. Every line says which.

Component Inventory

Field order on every line:
component — quantity — age and how established — expected useful life and its source — remaining useful life — unit cost — extended cost — year or years carried.
Roofing, residential buildings:
three-tab asphalt shingle — 11 buildings, approx 71,500 sq ft — 39 years, reported original to construction — EUL 20 years, HUD CNA e-Tool table, Asphalt Shingle, both columns give 20 — RUL 0-1 years — $5.85/sq ft — $418,275 — year 1
Roofing, clubhouse:
low-slope membrane, type not established — approx 5,400 sq ft — not established; recoating reported approximately eight or nine years ago — no EUL applied, because the membrane type was not established: HUD gives 15 years for adhered EPDM and for thermoplastic membranes, and 20 years for a built-up roof with gravel finish — RUL not derived — $11.50/sq ft — $62,100 — year 4, carried on the conservatism basis below rather than from a service life
Asphalt paving:
mill and overlay — approx 118,000 sq ft of drive aisles and parking — 39 years, partial overlay reported circa 2011, undocumented — EUL 20 years, assessor's judgement: no public table found for this library gives a service life for an asphalt overlay, HUD's nearest rows being Asphalt Pavement at 25 years (3.2.4.1), Curbing, Asphalt at 25 (3.2.4.4) and Asphalt Seal Coat at 5 (3.2.4.2), none of which is an overlay over an existing base — RUL 0-2 years — $3.40/sq ft — $401,200 — years 2 and 3, split by phase
Concrete walkways and curbs:
partial replacement — approx 9,000 sq ft of an estimated 34,000 sq ft — presumed original, 39 years — EUL 40 years, assessor's judgement, no published table cited — RUL 4 years, adjusted upward from the 1 year the age and EUL alone would give, because the displacement observed is confined to 14 joints on one walkway run and the remaining flatwork is sound — $9.20/sq ft — $82,800 — year 5
Domestic water heaters, in-unit:
40-gallon gas — 132 units, 110 carried — mixed, replaced on failure; 22 units evidenced as replaced 2019 or later, 7 by nameplate and 15 from the capital expenditure history — EUL 12 years, HUD CNA e-Tool table, Residential hot water heater gas or electric, Family column; the Elderly column gives 15 — staged rather than a single RUL — $1,150 each — $126,500 — years 1-6, approximately 18 per year
HVAC, split systems:
condensing units and coils — 132 systems, 91 carried — mixed; 41 evidenced as replaced 2017 or later, 6 by nameplate and 35 from the capital expenditure history — EUL 15 years, HUD CNA e-Tool table, Electric AC condenser pad or rooftop; HUD lists the furnace or air handler separately at 20 years, and this line follows the condenser because the condensers are what was observed and dated — staged rather than a single RUL — $4,300 each — $391,300 — years 1-8
Windows:
vinyl replacement, partial replacement at 25 percent of units — 132 units — installed circa 2008, reported — EUL 30 years, assessor's judgement — RUL 12 years — $3,900 per unit — $128,700 — year 12
Exterior painting and sealant:
full cycle — 11 buildings plus clubhouse — last cycle reported 2018 — EUL 8 years, HUD CNA e-Tool table 3.3.2.4.5, Paints and stains, exterior, both columns give 8, and consistent with the reported cycle length — RUL 0-1 years — $61,000 per cycle — $122,000 — years 1 and 9
Siding repair and partial replacement:
estimated 12 percent of wall area — 11 buildings — original, 39 years — no EUL applied, condition-driven — n/a — lump sum — $148,000 — years 2 and 3
Stair systems:
remaining wood stair runs not carried on the immediate repairs schedule — 14 runs of 22 — original, 39 years — EUL 30 years, HUD CNA e-Tool table 3.3.2.7.1, Exterior Stairs, wood frame/stringer, both columns give 30 — RUL 2-4 years, adjusted upward from the zero the age and EUL alone would give: these 14 runs are the ones where probing found no rot, and the 8 that did are on the immediate repairs schedule — $7,625 per run — $106,750 — years 3 and 4
Pool and pool deck:
resurfacing and equipment replacement — one pool — last resurfaced reported 2016 — EUL 10 years for the equipment, HUD CNA e-Tool table 3.2.7.8, Pool/Spa pumps and equipment, both columns give 10; HUD gives the pool deck 15 years at 3.2.7.6 and this line bundles the two, which is a departure stated here rather than hidden — RUL 0-1 years — lump sum — $84,000 — year 2
Clubhouse interiors:
flooring, fixtures and HVAC — one clubhouse — HVAC nameplate 2009, finishes undated — no single EUL applied, carried as a bundled refresh — n/a — lump sum — $112,000 — year 6
Site lighting:
pole and fixture replacement — 34 poles — 39 years, reported original — EUL 30 years, assessor's judgement and a deliberate departure from the HUD table, which gives ground lighting 10 years at 3.2.8.2.8 and building-mounted lighting 10 at 3.2.8.2.9: those rows price a fixture, and this line is the poles and their bases as well, which outlast several generations of fixture. HUD permits a justified departure and this is the justification — RUL 0-2 years — $2,850 each — $96,900 — years 2 and 3
Laundry equipment, common:
12 machines — leased and vendor-maintained per management — excluded, see exclusions
Electrical distribution:
unit and building panels — not carried, see exclusions and the immediate repairs schedule
Term total, all components:
$2,280,525
Contingency at 15 percent:
$342,079 — the percentage is the assessor's judgement for this property, not a convention; no standard or agency scope used in this library establishes a contingency percentage for a reserve schedule, and it should not be lifted into another report as though it were one
Term total including contingency:
$2,622,604

Age and Service Life Basis

Expected useful life, generally: where HUD's CNA e-Tool Estimated Useful Life Table covers the component, this schedule uses it and says so on the line, naming the column used. That table is free to download and is the only publicly available service-life table this library has verified. Three things about it are worth stating rather than burying. It gives two columns, Family and Elderly, which differ for some components — the residential water heater is 12 years in the first and 15 in the second, and this property is conventional multifamily, so the Family column is used. It is organised to the 2008 edition of the E2018 outline and the published file carries a 2017 date. And HUD itself treats the values as averages a preparer may depart from, provided the departure is justified in the record. Where the table has no row for the component — an asphalt overlay is the case that matters most here — no number is borrowed from an adjacent row; the line says the life is the assessor's judgement. On a Fannie Mae loan this choice would not be the assessor's: Form 4099 directs the consultant to the Estimated Useful Life Tables at its Appendix F.

Residential roofing: age reported by both the property manager and the maintenance manager as original to 1987 construction. No invoices, permits or warranties were provided, and none were located in the capital expenditure history supplied for 2019 to 2025. The reported age is corroborated by observation — granule loss, mat exposure on south-facing slopes, and ridge cupping consistent with a shingle roof at or past service life — so the reported age is used with a 20-year life from the HUD table, which puts the roofs 19 years past it.

Domestic water heaters and HVAC: ages taken from nameplate manufacture dates in the 15 units observed, and from the capital expenditure history supplied for 2019 to 2025. Seven of the 15 units observed carried water heaters dated 2019 or later; 15 further units are evidenced as replaced in that period by invoice, giving 22 excluded and 110 carried. The sample proportion was deliberately not extrapolated to the balance. Extrapolating 7 in 15 across 132 units would have excluded about 62 and carried about 70, reducing this line by roughly $46,000 on the strength of a 15-unit sample; carrying every unit not individually evidenced is the more conservative treatment and is the one used. The same method gives 41 excluded and 91 carried for the split systems. What remains unknown is the age of the appliances in the units neither observed nor invoiced, which is the weakest ground in this schedule and is identified as such: they are carried at full replacement within the term, which will overstate the reserve if some of them are newer than assumed.

Asphalt paving: a partial overlay circa 2011 was reported by the maintenance manager and is undocumented. Observed condition — alligator cracking through the wearing course across the northern drive aisle, with base failure suspected in two areas — is consistent with an overlay of that age over an original base, and the schedule carries mill and overlay rather than full reconstruction. If base failure proves widespread on removal, that treatment is inadequate and the cost rises substantially.

Conservatism Applied

Clubhouse roof: approximately two thirds of the roof area could not be observed, as no ladder of adequate length was available on site and no interior roof hatch exists. The maintenance manager reported a recoating approximately eight or nine years ago; no documentation was provided, and the original installation date is unknown. Two treatments were available. Carrying a recoating at year 8 would cost approximately $18,900. Carrying full replacement at year 4 costs $62,100. The schedule carries full replacement, because a membrane of unknown age, previously recoated, and unobserved across most of its area cannot responsibly be assumed to have a decade of life left in it. If the client wishes to refine this, observation of the full roof area — a lift or a drone would suffice — would settle it and could reduce the reserve by roughly $43,000.

Electrical distribution panels: not carried in this schedule at all. Because the panel type could not be established, any figure would be a guess dressed as a projection. The exposure is described in the immediate repairs schedule instead, where it belongs as an open question rather than a funded line.

Stair systems: the immediate repairs schedule carries 8 of 22 exterior stair runs on an assumed quantity. This schedule carries 14 further runs across years 3 and 4 — the balance — on the basis that runs of identical construction and exposure will require replacement within a few years of each other. If the immediate repairs assumption proves high, this line grows correspondingly; the two are complementary and should be read together.

Annual Summary and Normalised Figures

Year figures below are the component schedule only; the contingency is carried once, at the end, rather than spread across the years.

Year 1:
$551,575 — residential roofing, the first painting cycle, and the first year of the water heater and HVAC staging
Year 2:
$519,450 — first paving phase, siding, pool, site lighting, continued staging
Year 3:
$404,325 — second paving phase, siding, site lighting, first stair phase, continued staging
Year 4:
$183,475 — clubhouse roof, second stair phase, continued staging
Year 5:
$150,800 — concrete walkways, continued staging
Year 6:
$182,300 — clubhouse interiors, final year of water heater staging
Year 7:
$47,300 — HVAC staging only
Year 8:
$51,600 — final year of HVAC staging
Year 9:
$61,000 — second exterior painting cycle
Year 10:
nil — no expenditure scheduled
Year 11:
nil — no expenditure scheduled
Year 12:
$128,700 — partial window replacement
Component total:
$2,280,525
Term total including contingency:
$2,622,604
Normalised:
$1,656 per unit per year, across 132 units and twelve years

The average is the least useful number in this section and is provided only because underwriting models ask for it. Approximately two thirds of the term's spend — $1,475,350 of $2,280,525 — falls in years one through three, and two years in the middle of the term carry nothing at all. A reserve funded at the twelve-year average from year one would be roughly $820,000 short by the end of year three. The distribution above, not the average, is the number to plan against.

Exclusions

Items on the immediate repairs schedule are not repeated here. Laundry equipment is leased and maintained by the vendor per the property manager, and is excluded on that basis; if the lease is assumed at acquisition, the buyer should review its terms, which were not provided. Unit interior finishes — carpet, cabinetry, countertops — are excluded as cosmetic and as a function of the buyer's renovation intentions rather than the property's condition; a repositioning budget is not a reserve schedule. Components with a remaining useful life beyond 2037 are excluded, including the vinyl replacement windows except the 25 percent partial replacement carried in year 12. Environmental conditions of every kind are outside the scope of this assessment and are neither observed nor carried.

Section-by-section guide

What each section is for, what a good one contains, and where they typically go wrong.

1.Evaluation Term and Basis

State the term and where it comes from before the first line item. A reserve total is meaningless without it, and no standard supplies one: E2018-24 states no default evaluation term and no number of years anywhere in its text, and where it addresses long-term costs it defines them as costs over an evaluation period defined by the user. Terms come from clients. On a Fannie Mae multifamily loan, Form 4099 sets the Evaluation Period as the term of the proposed loan plus two years beyond maturity — but note that the Guide sizes the Replacement Reserve itself over a different period, from the origination date to whichever comes sooner, two years after maturity or twelve years after origination, so on a loan longer than ten years the two do not coincide. Say whether costs are in current dollars and whether any inflation assumption was applied.

2.Component Inventory

One row per component, in one field order, every row: system, quantity and unit, installed age and how it was established, expected useful life and its source, remaining useful life, unit cost, extended cost, and the year or years the expenditure falls in. It is a table in every real report and it should read as one here — a paragraph of comma-separated components cannot be scanned down a column, which is the only way anybody reads a reserve schedule. Quantities should be measured or counted where possible and identified as estimated where not.

3.Age and Service Life Basis

For each major component, say how its age was established — documentation, nameplate, or report — and where the expected useful life came from. This is the section that lets a reviewer replicate your arithmetic rather than take it on trust. E2018-24 defines expected useful life but prescribes no source for it, which is a deliberate asymmetry: the guide does list the sources a consultant may use for costs and gives no equivalent list for service lives. On a Fannie Mae loan the choice is made for you — Form 4099 directs the consultant to the Estimated Useful Life Tables at its Appendix F, describing them as average values that do not replace professional judgement. Off one, the only free and publicly downloadable table this library has verified is HUD's CNA e-Tool Estimated Useful Life Table, which gives two columns, Family and Elderly, that differ for a handful of components. Its caveats matter as much as its numbers: it is organised to the 2008 edition of the E2018 outline, the PDF carries a 2017 date, and HUD treats its values as averages a preparer may depart from with a justification recorded alongside. Name the table, name the edition, and name every line where you departed from it. Not every component has a published life at all — say so where that is the case rather than borrowing a number from an adjacent row.

4.Conservatism Applied

Where a component could not be observed, or its age could not be established, say how that uncertainty was resolved and in which direction. Resolving uncertainty toward the cheaper answer without saying so is the failure mode this section exists to prevent.

5.Annual Summary and Normalised Figures

The year-by-year total across the term, plus the per-unit or per-square-foot annual figure if the client expects one. Show the yearly distribution rather than only the average: a schedule whose spend is concentrated in the first three years funds very differently from a flat one, and the average conceals exactly that.

6.Exclusions

What is not carried: items on the immediate repairs schedule, cosmetic work, tenant improvements, components with a remaining life beyond the term, and anything outside scope.

Common mistakes

The failure modes that show up most often when this document is reviewed later.

Reporting the average annual figure without the yearly distribution.

A front-loaded schedule and a flat one produce the same average and completely different funding requirements. The average is the number underwriting asks for; the distribution is the number that is true.

Treating a reported age as a documented one.

Most component ages come from a conversation, not a file. That is workable — provided the schedule says which is which, so a reader knows where the soft ground is.

Resolving an unobserved component toward the cheaper answer.

An inaccessible roof is a reason for a more conservative reserve, not a less conservative one. Fannie Mae's May 2024 PCA FAQ said exactly that about roofs that cannot be accessed. The conservative choice is defensible; the optimistic one has to be explained later, usually to someone unhappy.

Carrying the same item in both schedules.

It double-counts the cost, and on an agency loan can result in the same work being escrowed twice. Each item belongs on exactly one schedule.

Extrapolating from a unit sample without flagging it.

Applying the equipment ages found in 15 units to 132 is a reasonable inference and a fragile one. Name it as the weakest inference in the schedule if that is what it is — that sentence buys more credibility than it costs.

Printing an expected useful life without saying where it came from.

The EUL drives the remaining life, which drives the year, which drives the whole schedule, so it is the one number a reviewer most needs to trace. E2018-24 prescribes no source, which means the source is yours to name — a published table with its edition, or your own judgement stated as such.

Filling a gap in the table with the nearest row.

HUD's table has no row for an asphalt overlay; it has Asphalt Pavement at 25 years (3.2.4.1) and Asphalt Seal Coat at 5 (3.2.4.2). Citing 25 for an overlay attributes a figure to a source that does not contain it, which is worse than the honest alternative of saying no published life was found.

Questions

What evaluation term should I use?
Whatever the client scope specifies, stated on the page. E2018-24 sets no default: it states no evaluation term and no number of years anywhere in its text, and defines long-term costs over an evaluation period set by the user. On a Fannie Mae multifamily loan, Form 4099's Evaluation Period is the loan term plus two years beyond maturity — though the Guide sizes the Replacement Reserve itself from origination to the sooner of two years after maturity or twelve years after origination, so on a loan longer than ten years the two periods are not the same and the schedule should say which it answered. Figures like ten or twelve years that circulate as conventions are client practice, not standards. There is no universally correct term, only an unstated one, which is the problem.
Where should the expected useful lives come from?
Name a source and its edition, whichever you use. E2018-24 defines expected useful life but prescribes no source for it — notably, it does list the sources a consultant may use for costs, so the silence on service lives is deliberate rather than an oversight. On a Fannie Mae loan, Form 4099 directs the consultant to the Estimated Useful Life Tables at its Appendix F and describes them as average values that do not replace professional judgement. Off one, HUD's CNA e-Tool Estimated Useful Life Table is free, public and downloadable, with two columns, Family and Elderly, that differ for some components. The CAI and APRA reserve study standards define useful life as a term but publish no values, so they cannot be cited for a number. And some components — an asphalt overlay, an elastomeric traffic coating — have no published life in any free table we have found, which is worth saying on the page rather than filling with a borrowed figure.
Should reserve costs be inflated to the year of expenditure?
Say which you did. Current-dollar costs with the client applying its own escalation is the most common arrangement, and inflating them yourself on top of a model that also escalates them double-counts. Either approach is fine; leaving it unstated is not.
Is there a standard per-unit reserve figure lenders expect?
Fannie Mae's PCA FAQ answers this directly: with the exception of Small Mortgage Loans underwritten under Part III, Chapter 9 of the Multifamily Guide, Fannie Mae does not specify a Replacement Reserve range. The Chapter 9 carve-out is narrow and specific — a Small Mortgage Loan is one with an original loan amount of $9 million or less, and its underwritten Replacement Reserve expense is the greatest of $200 per unit at a Property Condition Rating of 1, $250 per unit at 2, $300 per unit at 3, or the amount otherwise required under Part II, Chapter 4. It is a carve-out on funding, not on the assessment: Chapter 9 still requires full compliance with the Part II, Chapter 4 property evaluation requirements. Treat any per-unit rule of thumb you hear elsewhere as a sanity check on your arithmetic, never as an input to it.
How do I handle a component I could not observe?
Carry it conservatively, say that you did, and say what would resolve it and what the difference would be. That gives the client a priced decision — spend a small amount to observe the component, or fund the conservative figure — instead of a number they cannot interrogate.

The blank template

Exactly what is in the Word download, so you can see the structure before deciding whether you want it.

Evaluation Term and Basis

Evaluation term: [ ______________________ ]
Source of the term: [ ______________________ ]
Cost basis date: [ ______________________ ]
Inflation assumption: [ ______________________ ]
[Evaluation term, its source, cost basis (current dollars or inflated), and any inflation rate applied.]

Component Inventory

[For each component: description, quantity and unit, age, expected useful life, remaining useful life, unit cost, extended cost, year(s) anticipated.]

Age and Service Life Basis

[For each major component: how the age was established, the named source and edition of the expected useful life, and any adjustment made for observed condition.]
  • Documented (invoice, permit, warranty) — the strongest basis
  • Nameplate or manufacture date — strong for equipment
  • Reported by staff — record who said it and when
  • Estimated from observation — say what the estimate rests on
  • Expected useful life — name the table and edition, or state plainly that no published life was found and the figure is your judgement

Conservatism Applied

[Each component where information was incomplete, and the more or less conservative treatment applied, with the reason.]

Annual Summary and Normalised Figures

[Year-by-year totals, term total, and the normalised annual figure with its denominator.]

Exclusions

[Items deliberately excluded from this schedule and why.]

Download this template

Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.

Sources

Related templates

This page is a documentation aid — not engineering advice, not legal advice, and not a substitute for the standard or client scope your engagement runs under. A template cannot tell you what your assessment requires. The worked example describes a fictional property, and its costs, quantities and service lives are illustrative only.