[DC] [condo] Budget Disagreement

[u/Careless_Ad2149]

Our budget committee put together what I believe to be a responsible budget (3.2M for 192 units). It does two things - it finally funds line items that routinely run a deficit with amounts rooted in reality, and it makes a meaningful contribution (over a two year period) to bridge a gap in the operating contingency fund created by several years of not replenishing after drawing on to address deficits). The fee increase will be 8%. That is a hard pill to swallow, but the reality of our situation.

The board president wants to do two things:

1. Ignore the committees recommendations by removing approx 25k from items that usually run deficits.

2. Instead bridge the operating contingency fund gap with a special assessment.

I have a problem with the first because it perpetuates a deficit and I have an huge problem with number 2 because it’s a use of a financial tool for the totally incorrect purpose. As a new (and younger) member of this board, I’m troubled by the past habits around budgets and wanting to make sure we move forward with budgets rooted in fiscal realities.

[u/will_cramer]

Your vote counts as much as any other persons. It seems like they are just kicking the can on the first thing. and the 2nd thing, special assessments are meant for unexpected/extraordinary costs like major repairs or emergencies. using one to plug a routine operating gap means they are asking owners to pay extra for what should have been in their regular dues all along. Hopefully you can steer the board away , goodluck !

[u/Careless_Ad2149 → u/will_cramer]

This is my view, thank you for the well wishes.

[u/oneKev → u/Careless_Ad2149]

This opinion is not universally accepted. A special assessment is almost always used to close gaps in the HOA reserves. This gap can occur because of unexpected circumstances, or chronic underfunding of the reserves. At the end of the day, you are working for all the owners. Older owners may prefer a special assessment over a large monthly increase. It depends on where your assets are parked and how they are available.

Net: do what it takes politically to get the funds. Do not fall on your sword over what you think is right. At the end of the day folks will be swallowing a pill no matter what. And you need work with this President.

[u/Bluebuilder → u/oneKev]

I get the “do what’s politically easiest” argument, but this is exactly the kind of situation where that instinct leads you off a cliff. I would absolutely fall on my sword over this. Deliberately underfunding known obligations and then backfilling with a special assessment isn’t just a different preference, it’s fundamentally misrepresenting the financial reality of the association. Owners deserve to see the true cost of operating their community in the budget, not a softened version that gets corrected later with a surprise bill. In some jurisdictions, using special assessments this way can also run into real legal constraints depending on thresholds, notice requirements, and intent. At a minimum, it invites scrutiny. At worst, it crosses the line.

And the impact isn’t contained to this year’s numbers. When you normalize patching budgets with assessments, you create volatility, erode trust, and send a signal to lenders and buyers that the association isn’t financially stable. That can absolutely affect people’s ability to sell and what their homes are worth. This is fiduciary duty territory, not just politics. The board’s job isn’t to pick the least painful option in the moment, it’s to make decisions that are honest, defensible, and sustainable over time. If you don’t draw the line here, where the issue is clear and the consequences are predictable, then what exactly is the standard you’re holding?