SB464 would amend Maryland’s condominium law to give a residential condominium board of directors additional authority to raise assessments. Under current law, boards may increase assessments to meet reserve funding requirements even if the governing documents restrict increases. This bill would add a second exception: boards could also increase annual assessments for non-reserve common expenses by up to 5% over the prior fiscal year’s total assessments for those expenses, regardless of any declaration, articles of incorporation, or bylaws that would otherwise require unit-owner approval or impose a cap.
The bill is narrowly focused on condominium governance and budgeting. It does not change how assessments are allocated among unit owners, but it does override private governing documents to the extent they limit a board’s ability to adjust assessments within the bill’s 5% threshold. The practical effect would be to make it easier for condominium boards to respond to rising operating costs without first obtaining approval from the council of unit owners, while leaving larger increases subject to existing governing procedures unless another law applies.
Impact
SB464 would amend § 11-110(b)(1) of the Real Property Article to expand the statutory authority of residential condominium boards. It would create a new state-law exception to condominium declarations, bylaws, and articles of incorporation by allowing boards to raise assessments for non-reserve common expenses by up to 5% in a fiscal year without unit-owner approval. The bill would therefore preempt conflicting private condominium governance provisions to that limited extent and could affect condominium associations, unit owners, and property managers statewide.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral and procedural rather than contentious. The measure is framed as a targeted administrative adjustment to help condominium boards manage common expenses and reserve funding. There is no evidence in the supplied record of formal opposition, amendments, or divided votes, though the policy change would likely be viewed favorably by boards seeking flexibility and more cautiously by unit owners concerned about reduced approval rights.
Contention
The main point of contention is the shift in control over assessment increases from unit owners to the board of directors. Supporters would likely emphasize the need for boards to respond quickly to inflation, maintenance costs, and other operating expenses, while opponents may argue that the bill weakens owner oversight and overrides negotiated condominium documents. A second possible concern is the breadth of the 5% authority, which applies notwithstanding any contrary governing document language, potentially limiting local or association-specific caps and approval requirements.