Washington State Community Association Budget Season Is Here!

Washington State condominium and homeowners associations' annual and special budgets are legally required to contain certain information and to be ratified by their owners. Those associations must first provide each proposed budget to their owners and schedule a meeting to consider ratification of that budget. The proposed budget must include:

(a) The projected income to the association by category;

(b) The projected common expenses and those specially allocated expenses that are subject to being budgeted, both by category;

(c) The amount of the assessments per unit and the date the assessments are due;

(d) The current amount of regular assessments budgeted for contribution to the reserve account;

(e) A statement of whether the association has a reserve study that meets the requirements of RCW 64.90.550 and, if so, the extent to which the budget meets or deviates from the recommendations of that reserve study; and

(f) The current deficiency or surplus in reserve funding expressed on a per unit basis.

Other state laws (RCW 64.34 and 64.38) require the proposed budgets of the associations to which they apply to contain additional information as well. Each proposed budget is ratified unless a group of owners of units or lots to which a majority of the total voting power in the association is allocated rejects it at that meeting.

If your board has questions or concerns about the approval and ratification of the association’s budgets, then my office is here to help!

Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Condo Declaration's Exculpatory Clause

The Washington Court of Appeals recently ruled in an unpublished opinion that a condominium's declaration exculpated the condominium association from any liability arising out of an owner's claim that the association neglected to maintain a common element. It based that ruling on a common limitation of liability clause in the condominium's declaration that broadly exculpated the association from such claims except to the extent covered by the association's insurance. The Court summarized its reasoning as follows:

"As in Scott, the exculpation from liability from water from outside or from any parts of the buildings logically includes liability based on the Association's negligence. That the exception to the exculpation exists when the Association has insurance to cover the liability implies the clause was intended to exculpate the Association from liability for damages for its own negligence."

If your condominium or homeowners association board has questions or concerns about the association's liability for an owner's claim against it, then the board should consider contacting my office.     

Two New Washington State Laws Are Designed to Increase Housing Density

The Washington State Legislature recently approved two new laws designed to increase housing density. Both laws will go into effect on July 23, 2023. The first law requires cities with over 25,000 people to allow at least duplexes in all areas and cities with more than 75,000 people to allow at least fourplexes in all areas. Community associations whose governing documents contain more restrictive housing provisions as of that date are exempt from those requirements, but they are prohibited from amending their governing documents to prohibit duplexes and other kinds of middle housing after that date. The second law states in part that the governing documents of community associations created after that date that are within an urban growth area may not impose any restriction or prohibition on the construction, development, or use on a lot of an accessory dwelling unit that the city or county where that area is located would be prohibited from imposing under that law. Those prohibited impositions are described in the new law as follows: 

(a) The city or county may not assess impact fees on the construction of accessory dwelling units that are greater than 50 percent of the impact fees that would be imposed on the principal unit;

(b) The city or county may not require the owner of a lot on which there is an accessory dwelling unit to reside in or occupy the accessory dwelling unit or another housing unit on the same lot;

(c) The city or county must allow at least two accessory dwelling units on all lots that are located in all zoning districts within an urban growth area that allow for single-family homes in the following configurations:

(i) One attached accessory dwelling unit and one detached accessory dwelling unit;

(ii) Two attached accessory dwelling units; or

(iii) Two detached accessory dwelling units, which may be comprised of either one or two detached structures;

(d) The city or county must permit accessory dwelling units in structures detached from the principal unit;

(e) The city or county must allow an accessory dwelling unit on any lot that meets the minimum lot size required for the principal unit;

(f) The city or county may not establish a maximum gross floor area requirement for accessory dwelling units that is less than 1,000 square feet;

(g) The city or county may not establish roof height limits on an accessory dwelling unit of less than 24 feet, unless the height limitation that applies to the principal unit is less than 24 feet, in which case a city or county may not impose roof height limitation on accessory dwelling units that is less than the height limitation that applies to the principal unit;

(h) A city or county may not impose setback requirements, yard coverage limits, tree retention mandates, restrictions on entry door locations, aesthetic requirements, or requirements for design review for accessory dwelling units that are more restrictive than those for principal units;

(i) A city or county must allow detached accessory dwelling units to be sited at a lot line if the lot line abuts a public alley, unless the city or county routinely plows snow on the public alley;

(j) A city or county must allow accessory dwelling units to be converted from existing structures, including but not limited to detached garages, even if they violate current code requirements for setbacks or lot coverage;

(k) A city or county may not prohibit the sale or other conveyance of a condominium unit independently of a principal unit solely on the grounds that the condominium unit was originally built as an accessory dwelling unit; and

(l) A city or county may not require public street improvements as a condition of permitting accessory dwelling units.

(2)(a) A city or county subject to the requirements of this section may not:

(i) Require off-street parking as a condition of permitting development of accessory dwelling units within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop;

(ii) Require more than one off-street parking space per unit as a condition of permitting development of accessory dwelling units on lots smaller than 6,000 square feet before any zero lot line subdivisions or lot splits; and

(iii) Require more than two off-street parking spaces per unit as a condition of permitting development of accessory dwelling units on lots greater than 6,000 square feet before any zero lot line subdivisions or lot splits.

(3) When regulating accessory dwelling units, cities and counties may impose a limit of two accessory dwelling units, in addition to the principal unit, on a residential lot of 2,000 square feet or less.