Search Results

FACING THE TRUTH ABOUT AGING INFRASTRUCTURES As buildings and their internal systems and physical components age, how can the community associations that own them best prepare to meet the unexpected—but necessary—financial demands. Over many conversations in recent years, members of the Foundation for Community Association Research (FCAR) have identified aging infrastructures—the physical structures and the components within them that community associations rely on for residents’ safety and wellbeing—as a critical concern for association managers, boards, homeowners, and residents. Too often, according to Foundation members—and despite occasional inspections and regularly scheduled reserve studies—associations fail to recognize serious structural and system failures. When damage becomes so obvious that it cannot be ignored, the tendency is to make superficial or temporary repairs and postpone comprehensive, in-depth restoration. To address this growing problem, the Foundation convened a task force in 2018, comprising attorneys, reserve specialists, engineers, insurance providers, managers, and bankers, to determine what issues are the most prevalent in failing physical components, and—especially—how associations can prepare themselves to address and resolve these issues when they inevitably arise. Community Associations Institute managers, board members, and contractors in community associations across the U.S. responded in a survey to share their recent major capital projects with the task force. More than three-quarters (81%) of survey respondents reported encountering unanticipated and unplanned-for infrastructure issues over a recent three-year period. The aggregated information and observations of these respondents revealed empirical data that can enlighten thoughtful association boards and committees, community managers, business partners and contractors, homeowners—anyone who is responsible for the investment of community assets. This project represents several years of discussion and countless hours contributed from our volunteer leadership. We are grateful to the Foundation Think Tank, which identified the need for this research and provided funding for this project, and to the members of the Aging Infrastructures Task Force for their steadfast volunteer leadership. These industry leaders ensured that we gathered the right data and completed this research NO REAL SURPRISES The overwhelming majority of issues reported by survey respondents—water intrusion in windows and siding, deteriorating balconies or fences, or failing pipes or roofing, among a variety of other problems—were not surprises to those who had to address them. Most of the participating communities encountered ongoing situations that initially were addressed with minimal work because they did not fully understand how long the problem existed and the extent of deterioration. In many cases, the underlying cause of the problem was known, however the community delayed correcting the actual cause because association decision-makers wanted to attempt a minor repair to control the damage or they needed time to develop a financial plan for the repairs. Either action deferred the maintenance and turned costly for the community. Major repairs often were initiated when liability and life and safety of the residents became concerning and intolerable. Negligence on the part of the board to allow ongoing issues, cleanups, and restorations to be done can also lead to additional unknown and hidden costs. More than one-third (36%) of respondents experienced plumbing or electrical system issues in the most recent three-year period that were not identified in their most recent reserve study. Thirty percent relayed other initially unidentified problems with components like roofs and roof sheathings, building envelope and structure, and recreational facilities BIGGEST CONCERNS More than three-quarters (80%) of those surveyed felt it was critical that their association have adequate reserves in the event of a major infrastructure failure or construction need. Nearly half (40%) of those surveyed considered deteriorating infrastructure as a top-ranked concern. More than two-thirds (70%) of survey respondents indicated that maintaining property values was of primary importance. And while about half of respondents felt their associations have adequate reserve funds on hand, just as many respondents considered their communities’ reserve funds inadequate to address any major unplanned component repair or replacement. Other challenges that communities faced when addressing major infrastructure renovations include:  Convincing homeowners to accept and contribute to costs Recruiting volunteers for the association board  Prevalent owner/resident apathy  The task force observed that association homeowners and boards often are focused on keeping regular assessments low and only investing in visible, immediate outcomes. While homeowners will tolerate a modest special assessment in an emergency, evidence in this study suggests that it’s often hard to convince them to contribute to long-term maintenance, i.e., higher regular assessments. Substantial special assessments are particularly unwelcome. Case Study – Listen to Residents COMMUNICATION, FINANCING, AND PHASED CONSTRUCTION After years of residents’ complaints about ambient noise and poor energy efficiency, in 2010, management at the University Towers Condominiums in New Haven, Conn., investigated the feasibility of replacing the 1,850 windows in the 238-unit building. Originally installed in 1958, the sliding window frames were difficult to repair because of the building’s steel and concrete construction. Management issued a request for proposals and selected a firm to proceed with the replacement of the windows. After five years of EPA testing and investigation, which revealed asbestos inside the walls and caulking around the windows, work began in 2015 on the $10 million, multi-phased project. With 80% approval from homeowners, the board was able to secure a bank loan to pay for the first phase of the project, which was estimated at $4.5 million. The association realized a savings of more than $1 million on this first phase, but the original lender said the association needed to find another lender for phase 2. Again, 80% of the association’s diverse membership voted to secure a second loan of $8 million. Both phases of the project were completed $500,000 under budget and with a high homeowner approval rating. Increasing monthly assessments enabled the association to pay off both loans. Communication with homeowners was essential during this project, according to Kate Bowman, cmca, the on-site manager. Because they had been informed and understood the need for the project’s high cost—$10 million—homeowners were willing to approve the necessary funds for it. Residents also appreciated advance notifications of disruptions. The project, which was more disruptive and costlier than originally anticipated, indicated to owners that the association’s reserves funds were inadequate and regular assessments needed to be increased. Association members also realized they needed to fund reserves at a much higher level. The board established a finance committee, which convenes quarterly. In anticipation of other large potential projects, University Towers’ reserves are now funded at nearly three times the level prior to the window replacement project. Lessons learned: “Make sure board members are educated on reserve studies and why funding reserves sufficiently is necessary. … Be vigilant with inspections and keep up with code issues. … Don’t shirk preventive maintenance. … Take the time to identify a qualified engineer and project manager.” “Getting old is expensive and cannot be avoided. It’s an issue facing every association with common area. Older associations need to get ready for higher expenses, which will likely mean higher reserve contributions, special assessments, or loan repayments.”—Robert Nordlund, pe, rs AWARENESS AND EDUCATION Infrastructure damage was discovered often during repairs or regular inspections, and water intrusion was the most frequent indicator of serious underlying damage. Associations tend to schedule major repairs based on the level of emergency or the cost. Usually, issues affecting elevators, termite infestation, and plumbing or electrical systems are attended to immediately. When possible, associations are inclined to postpone remediating problems in common areas or those related to original construction. Survey respondents indicated that it would be prudent for association leaders, including homeowners and board members, to learn more about:  How to plan and execute reserve studies How to evaluate and hire qualified engineers, architects, and contractors How to implement comprehensive inspection and maintenance programs Ongoing Communication Is Essential Survey respondents found that homeowners and residents were more receptive and supportive of major infrastructure repairs when they were given the opportunity to learn—in advance—about the scope and costs of the project from experts, like the engineers and contractors who had specific knowledge of the damage and how to fix it. They were more willing to authorize assessment increases and to agreeing that a larger portion of the association’s budget should go to reserves. Homeowners, and even renters, also appreciated regular updates on a project’s progress and alerts about upcoming but necessary disruptions, such as when to expect water or electricity to be turned off for short periods, when an elevator or other building access would be temporarily unavailable, or where to park and for how long during a paving project. REMEDIES AND LESSONS LEARNED After encountering and facing aging infrastructure issues, more than 40% of reporting communities increased their regular assessments. They also designated more money to their reserve funds and proceeded with the required work, even if that work had to be completed in planned stages. About one third of responding associations hired a reserve specialist. Bringing in an engineer, architect, or other construction expert also was beneficial to making satisfactory repairs, according to 40% of the responding communities. More than three-quarters (77%) of survey respondents hired independent construction experts to assess and/or repair damage from poor original construction. At least one-third (34%) reported hiring an expert consultant to remediate damage caused by termites or other pests. Respondents also stressed that thoroughly vetting contractor candidates is a critical and vital step in a successful project outcome. They also recommend inviting multiple bids for the work. Factors to look for when considering a contractor include:  What is the workforce composition, i.e., are all of the workers company employees, or are some subcontractors? Is there an on-site manager or supervisor who will communicate changes? Can the contractor provide references to both board members and community association managers?  Are the contractors familiar with working inhabited communities?  Is the contractor’s company financially sound? Are there any improper or prohibited connections between the contractor and board members?   Financing Major Infrastructure Improvements Survey respondents used a variety of methods to pay for their major infrastructure repairs and improvements, including:  Accessing available reserves Approving special assessments  Taking out a bank loan secured by regular assessments Insurance was rarely a factor when paying for major infrastructure repairs, according to survey respondents. The few exceptions to this include acts of nature and original construction defects or prior repair construction defects that were revealed within an insurance policy’s coverage time limits. Sometimes, individual homeowners’ policies covered at least a portion of the damage to their units, depending on deductibles and other factors. Boards and their Attitudes Arguably the biggest factors affecting how and when infrastructure damage is addressed are the association board’s attitude and perspective, and this survey revealed a wide disparity in board philosophies. While some boards are proactive and highly transparent with homeowners, the majority are reticent to increase assessments or often fail to plan long term for infrastructure maintenance. In postponing inspections, reserve studies, and—ultimately—complete repairs or renovations, boards often end up facing an exponentially more comprehensive and expensive project in the long run. In one case study, more than 80% of survey respondents encountered unanticipated and unplanned-for infrastructure issues over a recent three-year period. The construction delays aggravated the damage and  compromised residents’ safety. When homeowners wouldn’t approve the needed funds, the project manager petitioned the court for a special assessment. Positive Outcomes A large portion of survey respondents indicated that their associations made positive changes because of their experience with an aging infrastructure issue, including: z Designating more money to reserves z Conducting more frequent and thorough reserve studies, including hiring an engineer, pest control, or other construction specialist to review and assess components z Creating more formal project plans before commencing work z Planning necessary work in phases rather than delaying it altogether z Listening to and communicating with homeowners and residents more frequently and regularly z Educating homeowners and residents on their communities’ financial and maintenance needs Homeowners in most of the survey’s case studies rated the outcome of their association’s completed projects very highly. In many cases, homeowners who resisted their association’s project and—particularly its cost—at the outset, ultimately recognized the improvement and benefits to the community once the project was completed. THE RESERVE STUDY— — A CRITICAL FACTOR IN PROTECTING AGING INFRASTRUCTURES Reserve studies are at the core of planning for the long-term maintenance of building structures and the systems within them. In states where reserve studies are not required, many associations reached this conclusion on their own because of unaddressed and costly repairs. Unexpected but necessary remediation of an unplanned capital project often requires either assessing homeowners a high special assessment or obligating the association to a long-term bank loan. Either way, homeowners eventually foot the bill. To prevent such costly events, regardless of state requirements, associations need to plan for and conduct regular and comprehensive reserve studies. To be of value, a reserve study should be conducted and managed by an experienced engineer or infrastructure specialist who will inspect and determine the useful life expectancy of each building system and structure within an association. A comprehensive reserve study is well worth the cost; it is, after all, an investment in the future health of the association’s physical components. Reserve studies should be conducted on newer structures, even those built in the last decade—to assess for any possible construction defects as well as to provide a baseline evaluation and to determine the useful life of all components. One of the takeaways from this investigation is the need for an engineering or architectural inspection that would reveal common area integrity concerns. Such an inspection, performed less frequently than periodic site visit reserve study updates, would help the association anticipate and prepare for major issues outside the scope of cyclical reserve projects. Similar to major medical issues, early detection is key to minimizing and managing major aging infrastructure-type deterioration. foundation.caionline.org | www.caionline.org  © 2020 FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION RESEARCH

This article explains two common rules used by homeowner associations to protect safety, property values, and long-term community stability. 1) Minimum Lease Term (9 Months) Helps prevent short-term, vacation-style rentals and the extra traffic and noise that can come with frequent turnover. Supports a more stable, residential community where neighbors know each other. Improves safety by reducing transient occupancy and making it easier to recognize unfamiliar activity. Helps protect property values by keeping the building residential rather than hotel-like. Can support mortgage and refinancing options, since many lenders review rental activity when approving loans. Reduces wear on common areas and lowers the administrative burden created by frequent move-ins and move-outs. May help keep insurance more available and affordable by reducing perceived risk from transient use. 2) Limits on One Owner Holding Many Units Promotes fair governance by reducing the risk that a small number of investors can control votes or board decisions. Supports owner-occupancy levels that can help with mortgage approvals and resale marketability. Helps avoid high rental turnover that can affect day-to-day living and community stability. Reduces financial risk to the Association if a large owner ever falls behind on assessments. May support better insurance terms, since some carriers review rental and investor concentration. Encourages long-term care of the property by supporting a community of invested homeowners. Helps prevent one party from influencing prices by controlling too much of the available inventory. ///

Connecticut Condominium Act: Key Rules and Owner Responsibilities Understand the key rules and responsibilities under the Connecticut Condominium Act, including governance, owner obligations, and recent legal updates. LegalClarity Connecticut Published Jan 26, 2026 Condominium ownership in Connecticut is guided by specific laws that protect the rights of individual owners and the community as a whole. For most developments created after January 1, 1984, the primary legal framework is the Common Interest Ownership Act. This law provides the rules for how communities are established, managed, and maintained, ensuring that unit owners and associations understand their mutual obligations. This article explores the core legal requirements for Connecticut condominiums, including how they are governed, the financial responsibilities of owners, and the processes for enforcing rules. Understanding these regulations helps current and future residents navigate the complexities of shared property ownership while avoiding potential legal disputes. Scope and Legal Framework The Common Interest Ownership Act, found in Chapter 828 of the Connecticut General Statutes, is the main law for condominiums and other shared communities formed on or after January 1, 1984. 1  Communities built before this date may still follow older laws, though certain parts of the newer Act apply to them automatically for events occurring after the law was passed. These older developments also have the option to update their governing documents to follow the modern legal framework. 2 To legally create a condominium, a developer must record a declaration in the local land records, which serves as a formal deed-like document for the entire community. 3  When a unit is sold, the owner is generally required to provide the buyer with a resale certificate. This certificate must include important financial and legal information such as: 4 Current association fees and any unpaid assessments A copy of the association’s bylaws and rules The current operating budget and capital reserve levels Information on pending lawsuits or unsatisfied judgments Declaration and Structure The declaration is the foundational document that defines how the development is organized and governed. It must include a legal description of the property and a statement regarding the maximum number of units the developer may create. 5  The declaration also establishes how votes and financial responsibilities are split among the units. While these splits are often equal, the law allows the developer to use different formulas, provided they do not unfairly favor units still owned by the developer. 6 A key part of the declaration is the identification of limited common elements. These are areas like balconies or assigned parking spaces that are part of the shared property but are reserved for the exclusive use of specific units. Once these elements are assigned to a unit in the declaration, the allocation usually cannot be changed without the consent of the affected owners. 7 State law also gives associations the power to set rules for the community. This includes the authority to regulate the use, maintenance, and repair of common areas. While many major restrictions are found in the declaration, the association can also adopt and change bylaws and rules to manage daily life in the community. 8 Association Governance Every condominium must be managed by a unit owners’ association, which is formed no later than the date the first unit is sold. Membership in this association is limited to the unit owners, and an executive board is responsible for making daily management decisions. 9  Board meetings must generally be open to all owners, though the board can meet in private executive sessions for specific sensitive topics, such as: 10 Consulting with legal counsel Discussing current or potential lawsuits Handling labor or personnel issues Reviewing contract bids where privacy is necessary for negotiation The board is also responsible for the association’s finances. Each year, the board must propose a budget for the unit owners to consider. This budget summary must include the amount currently held in reserves for future repairs and a description of how those reserves are calculated and funded. If a majority of all owners votes to reject the budget, it will not go into effect; otherwise, it is considered approved. 11 Owner Responsibilities and Access Unit owners are generally responsible for maintaining their individual units, while the association handles the shared common elements. However, if a unit owner’s gross negligence or willful misconduct causes damage that costs more than what the association’s insurance covers, the association can charge those extra costs specifically to that owner after a hearing. 12 To ensure the safety and maintenance of the entire building, unit owners must allow the association and its employees access through their units when it is reasonably necessary for repairs. This access is not limited to emergencies and applies to any maintenance or replacement duties described in the law or the community’s governing documents. 13 Associations have the power to enforce community rules by issuing fines for violations. Before a fine is levied, the owner must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. While associations can suspend certain privileges for owners who do not follow the rules or pay fees, they cannot block an owner from accessing their unit or participating in association meetings and votes. 8 Fees, Liens, and Foreclosure Condominium associations fund their operations by charging unit owners their share of common expenses based on the annual budget. These assessments are usually made at least once a year. If an owner does not pay, the association can charge interest on the overdue amount and may also seek to recover late charges and legal fees. 1214 When assessments go unpaid, the association automatically has a statutory lien on the unit. This lien is a legal claim against the property and can eventually lead to foreclosure. In Connecticut, the association’s lien has a special priority over most other claims, including mortgages, for an amount equal to nine months of common assessments plus certain legal costs. 14 Before an association can start a foreclosure, several requirements must be met. The owner must owe at least two months of assessments, and the board must formally vote to start the action. The association is also required to send a written notice to the owner and the mortgage holder at least 60 days before the foreclosure begins, detailing the debt and the intent to foreclose. 14 Resolving Disputes If a unit owner believes the association or another owner has violated state law or the community’s rules, they have the right to take legal action to enforce those obligations. The law also allows parties to resolve their issues through alternative methods like mediation or arbitration if they agree to do so in writing. 15 Before an association brings a formal proceeding against an owner for most matters, it must schedule a hearing during a board meeting and provide the owner with at least ten days’ notice. Similarly, an owner can request a hearing before the board if they have a claim against the association. These steps are designed to resolve conflicts internally before they escalate to the court system.      LegalClarity Connecticut Welcome to LegalClarity, where our team of dedicated professionals brings clarity to the complexities of the law.No content on this website should be considered legal advice, as legal guidance must be tailored to the unique circumstances of each case. You should not act on any information provided by LegalClarity without first consulting a professional attorney who is licensed or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. LegalClarity assumes no responsibility for any individual who relies on the information found on or received through this site and disclaims all liability regarding such information.Although we strive to keep the information on this site up-to-date, the owners and contributors of this site make no representations, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on or linked to from this site. Copyright © LegalClarity  All Rights Reserved.

What Would a Well-Run HOA in CT. Look Like? A well-run HOA in Connecticut is defined by financial transparency, strong community engagement, and consistent maintenance, all governed by the state's Common Interest Ownership Act (CIOA) . Such an HOA works to protect property values while fostering a sense of community.  Governance and leadership Knowledgeable board:  A well-managed HOA has a volunteer board of directors with a deep understanding of its governing documents (bylaws and CC&Rs) and a fiduciary duty to act in the association's best interest. Fair and consistent enforcement:  Rules and regulations are enforced uniformly for all residents, without showing bias or favoritism. The board uses clear procedures for dealing with violations and handling disputes. Compliance with CIOA:  The board follows the Connecticut Common Interest Ownership Act (CIOA), which sets legal guidelines for common interest communities, including procedural rules for meetings, voting, and financial disclosures. Professional management:  Many successful HOAs hire a professional management company to handle daily operations, maintenance, and complex legal or financial issues. This ensures consistent and expert management.  Financial management Strong, transparent finances:  The board practices responsible budgeting and financial planning, which includes building a healthy reserve fund for future maintenance and major projects. Timely and clear reporting:  A well-run HOA provides residents with timely and easy-to-understand financial reports, including the annual budget. This transparency helps build trust. Efficient collections:  The HOA has an efficient process for collecting dues and handling delinquencies, which is crucial for financial health. Connecticut law gives associations the right to place liens on properties for unpaid assessments.  Maintenance and property values Proactive maintenance:  The board oversees regular and preventative maintenance of common areas and amenities, like pools, clubhouses, roads, and landscaping. This prevents small issues from becoming expensive problems. High property values:  Consistent maintenance and rule enforcement ensure a high standard of upkeep across the community, which helps to protect and enhance property values for all owners. Well-maintained common areas:  When common areas are clean and well-kept, it is a visible sign of a healthy and effective HOA.  Communication and community engagement Open and regular communication:  The board maintains open lines of communication with residents through multiple channels, such as newsletters, a community website, and email updates. This keeps members informed about new policies, events, and community initiatives. Accessible information:  Key documents like meeting minutes, agendas, and financial reports are easily accessible to residents. Connecticut law requires that financial records and meeting minutes be kept and made available. Community involvement:  A successful HOA fights apathy by encouraging residents to get involved, whether by attending meetings, volunteering for committees, or providing feedback. High owner engagement is a key indicator of a healthy association. Regular, structured meetings:  All board meetings are held with proper notice and a clear agenda, as mandated by CIOA. The board allows a reasonable opportunity for homeowners to speak on community matters.  Resident-focused approach Problem-solving mindset:  Board members view themselves as problem-solvers rather than as adversaries to residents. They address complaints fairly and professionally, striving for constructive resolutions. Emphasis on community:  Beyond regulations, a good HOA fosters a sense of community by organizing social events and creating a welcoming environment. Resident rights:  A good HOA respects residents' rights, including the right to attend meetings and contest decisions, all while operating within the confines of state and federal law.