Please see our example SIRS report here.
The law is sufficiently vague that it requires some interpretation in certain areas.
One example relates to the funding plan. There is no guidance in the law for how to allocate existing association funds between SIRS components and non SIRS components, or even if an allocation is allowed. Our interpretation is that it is appropriate to allocate existing fnds based on the relationship of total cost of RIRS component to non SIRS components. If the cost of total components is $1,000,000 and SIRS components total cost is $600,000 (60%) then existing funds would be allocated 60% to the SIRS funding plan.
There is no authority in the law for this but it is a reasonable interpretation. A different interpretation might instead allocate based on "weighted" timing of exenditures. Also no authoiry for that interpretation. As reserve preparers our job is to advise our clients. We generally recommend allocation based on cost but also that the board of directors vote to approve this allocation method and seek advise of legal counsel .
Another example replates to components. There is not a lways a clear line regarding whether or not components are SIRS components. The exampe we hve seen several times relates to emergency generators - are they part of the electrical system (menaing a SIRS component) or not? We have seen different reserve preparers treating this single items differently.
A final example relates to the SIRS report. We have seen multiple situations where SIRS reports do not address all 8 of the building elements required by law. That leaves open the questions - did the preparer reach a conclusion that no funding is required which explains the ommission form the report, or did they fail to consider the component at all? Questions like this should not exists. Our approach is to make sure that our discussion of all 8 building elements is included in the report. If we don't beleive any fudning is required we will indicate that and explain why we reached that conclusion.