By Maris S. Davies, Esq.
In a prior blog post we discussed House Bill 18-1342, which proposed that all pre-Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) communities, i.e. communities formed prior to July 1, 1992, comply with the budget veto process found in Section 303(4)(a) of CCIOA, which is currently only applicable to post-CCIOA communities.
Yesterday, during the second reading of the bill, the House passed HB 18-1342 an amended bill. The amendment specifically indicates that the CCIOA budget process will not apply to pre-CCIOA communities if: (1) the association’s declaration sets a maximum assessment amount or limits the increase in an annual budget to a specific amount, and (2) the budget proposed by the board does not exceed such maximum or limit as outlined in the declaration.
If signed into law as amended, pre-CCIOA communities will have to comply with the CCIOA budget ratification procedures found in Section 303(4)(a) unless the pre-CCIOA community’s declaration meets the exception stated above and the board stays within the stated budgetary restrictions in the declaration.
Please note if this bill is signed into law it will be effective for any and all budgets adopted by pre-CCIOA communities as of July 1, 2018.
If you have any questions on the above, or the budget process in general, please contact any of our attorneys at (303) 432-9999.
4 responses to “Proposed Amendments to Pre-CCIOA Communities Right to Veto Association Budget Bill”
I don’t see what difference it makes. No association has ever vetoed a budget under the CCIOA process.
The problem is also the implications regarding amending a budget even if it isn’t vetoed. The legislation needs to exempt communities whose covenants restrict an increase in assessments, not just “budgets.” Although one should control the other, it is the “assessment” increase that is more commonly limited in the covenants and it would be better if the legislation used this term expressly.
I don’t understand the core issue being addressed by this proposed legislation. As Joe points out above – ‘it’ didn’t appear to be broken – why fix it?
I would think if a reserve is under the amount needed to support the community it can raise
What ever is necessary to bring the reserve up to what ever it takes to keep the community financially save!