Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mixed Income Condominium Protections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to protect deed‑restricted condo owners from assessment shocks gets hearing; committee holds for study
Summary
Senate Bill 724 would require board representation for affordable unit owners in mixed-income condominium projects, let deed‑restricted owners pay half of special assessments and allow payment plans; the committee held the bill after testimony from affected owners and advocates.
Senate Bill 724, introduced to address problems arising in mixed‑income condominium developments, received supportive testimony and was held for further study by the Senate Committee on Housing and Municipal Government.
Sponsor Senator Valverde said the bill aims to protect affordable unit owners inside mixed‑income condo associations by guaranteeing representation for deed‑restricted owners on executive boards, limiting the share of some special assessments that deed‑restricted owners must pay (set at 50 percent in the draft), and allowing affordable owners to enter payment plans for special assessments not included in the annual budget.
Several witnesses described real‑world examples. Lee Curtin Wilding, an affordable unit owner in East Greenwich, told the committee her monthly condominium fee rose from $317 in 2021 to $587 in 2024 after an association‑approved painting contract; she said the increase was imposed without owner access to the budget in advance and that deed‑restricted owners lack the resale flexibility of market buyers to absorb higher fees. “Affordable in policy, perhaps, but not in practice,” Curtin Wilding told the committee.
Melina Lodge of the Housing Network of Rhode Island supported the bill as a preservation measure for affordable ownership. Insurance and legal witnesses raised concerns about shifting costs to market unit owners and suggested safeguards to avoid surprising buyers. Christy Hannaway (insurance) said the bill should be designed to avoid placing an outsized burden on non‑restricted owners and to ensure predictability when buyers evaluate a purchase.
After testimony the committee voted to hold SB724 for further study. Members asked sponsors to work with legal, insurance and association stakeholders to refine board‑composition language, define which special assessments are eligible for the 50 percent rule, and create clear notice requirements and dispute processes for owners.
