By Jenny Shamoon, Altitude Community Law, P.C. 

As communities face rising costs and aging infrastructure, many associations are exploring creative ways to manage or monetize their common elements. A significant trend involves shifting responsibility for certain portions of the community from the association to individual owners. Others are reclassifying amenities, repurposing them, or even selling portions of the common elements to generate revenue. These strategies can offer financial relief, but they come with meaningful trade-offs boards must consider carefully. 

Shifting Maintenance Responsibility to Owners

In many townhome communities, associations are amending their declarations to require owners to maintain the entirety of their residence, including exterior surfaces and landscaping. Many pre-CCIOA condominium communities have also adopted a similar approach, requiring owners to insure and maintain the entirety of their residences.  

Pros: Transferring responsibility to owners can substantially reduce operating costs. Associations may benefit from lower insurance premiums, lower reserve contributions, and the ability to maintain lower monthly assessments. For communities already operating with tight budgets, shifting maintenance obligations can relieve financial pressure and help the association avoid special assessments.

Cons: This change does not eliminate the costs of repair; it simply transfers them to homeowners. In today’s legal environment, an association’s ability to compel owners to properly insure or maintain these components is more restrictive and limited than years past. Shifting responsibility to owners as means that the association loses control over consistency, quality, and timing. One neglected roof or exterior wall can affect attached units, property values, and community appearance. 

Additionally, individual owners often cannot obtain pricing as favorable as the association could by contracting for repairs in bulk. When owners are left to handle major structural or exterior components on their own, they lose the benefit of the association’s ability to negotiate volume discounts or enter into comprehensive service agreements covering multiple units. This can result in higher out-of-pocket expenses and inconsistent repair standards across the community.  

Reclassifying or Repurposing Amenities

Another trend involves modifying the use of existing common elements. Rather than maintaining high-cost amenities that owners are unwilling to fund, associations are removing specific references in the declaration or plat map (such as “tennis court,” “pool,” or “playground”) and instead categorizing these areas simply as “common elements.” This provides flexibility to repurpose the space without violating the governing documents. 

For example, a deteriorated tennis court can be converted into open green space, which is significantly cheaper to maintain. Some communities have even gone further by subdividing portions of the common elements into buildable lots and selling them to generate revenue.  

Should Associations “Remove” Common Elements from the Declaration?

Boards often ask whether they should amend the declaration to remove certain common elements altogether. This answer depends on what “remove” means. If the association owns the property, or the property is owned in common by the unit owners, it is a common element, regardless of whether the declaration mentions it. However, removing specific amenity references can be beneficial because it gives the association greater discretion to repurpose the space without violating the governing documents. 

But this raises the question: how does reassigning or removing common element responsibilities affect the association’s reserves? While changing maintenance obligations may reduce future reserve needs, it does not alter the status of existing reserve funds. Money already collected for long-term repairs remains the property of the association and must be preserved for future community expenses. Even if the association no longer maintains a particular component, those funds cannot be returned to owners, as the current owners may not be those who originally contributed to the reserves, and refunding those amounts could create an improper benefit to such owners. In most cases, financially strained associations will still need those reserves for other capital needs within the community. 

Some associations also consider conveying property to the local municipality. While this can reduce association expenses, it raises significant concerns. Community associations were originally created because cities lacked the resources to maintain neighborhood-level amenities to the standard owners expected. Turning maintenance back over to the city may result in reduced upkeep, infrequent repairs, and declining property values, particularly for roads or large open spaces. 

Key Questions for Boards

Before shifting responsibilities or revising common element designations, boards should consider:

• Cost-effectiveness: Will owners receive better or worse pricing compared to association-negotiated bulk contracts?

• Owner reliability: Are owners likely to properly maintain and insure the components assigned to them?

• Effect on property values: Will repurposing or eliminating amenities help or harm the community long-term?

Shifting responsibilities or reimagining common elements can reduce costs and offer flexibility, but these approaches also carry risks. Boards should weight the long-term impacts on property values, maintenance consistency, owner expectations, and community cohesion. Creative solutions can benefit associations so long as the trade-offs are fully understood and carefully planned. 

Jenny Shamoon is an associate attorney in the Transactional Department at Altitude Community Law, P.C., where she advises Colorado community associations on governing documents, compliance, and general operations. Her work focuses on helping associations navigate CCIOA and implement practical, legally sound solutions.