Section: 7.2 Payment of regular annual assesments
Line Number:
Homeowner Comment: Discount should not be conditioned on voting. The discount was an incentive to ensure assessments were paid and the association did not have to take extra step to get the money owed. If the condition of voting to get a discount is kept, then the definition of a quorum needs to be updated be much higher than 20%. A quorum should be at least 50% if voting is required to receive the 5% discount. It appears that this is only being done to get to the revised quorum of 20%.
Suggested Revision: Discount should not be conditioned on voting. The discount was an incentive to ensure assessments were paid and the association did not have to take extra step to get the money owed. If the condition of voting to get a discount is kept, then the definition of a quorum needs to be updated be much higher than 20%. A quorum should be at least 50% if voting is required to receive the 5% discount. It appears that this is only being done to get to the revised quorum of 20%.
Reason/Explanation:
Submitted by: Bryan Trimberger
Administrator Response: The ballot discount will be removed and other incentives, such as entry into a raffle with prizes, will be provided to those who return a ballot.
Date Approved: 2025-12-08 21:04:26
Section: Section 7 Assessments
Line Number:
Homeowner Comment: The limit of raising the assessments by no more than 10% should be kept. By removing the 10% limit, there is no protection against a substantial increase.
Suggested Revision: The limit of raising the assessments by no more than 10% should be kept. By removing the 10% limit, there is no protection against a substantial increase.
Reason/Explanation:
Submitted by: Bryan Trimberger
Administrator Response: According to our legal review, the owner-vote requirement in Section 7.1 for annual assessment increases above 10% directly conflicts with WUCIOA (RCW 64.90.525), effective July 1, 2018 (SB 6175). A 10% cap is not legally valid and cannot be enforced. See the letter below from our attorney.
Condominium Law Group
www.condolaw.net
1833 N. 105th St, Suite 201,
Seattle, WA 98133
Phone 206-633-1520 Fax 206-633-1521
December 20, 2025
To: The Board and Owners at Canyon Lakes
From: Ken Harer, Condominium Law Group, PLLC
Re: Why Owner votes to increase annual dues are not required or allowed
I have been asked to give a legal opinion regarding the deletion of the requirement to obtain owner approval for increases in dues larger than 10% per year as provided for in Section 7.1 of the 2009 Restated CC&Rs.
In 2018, the State Legislature adopted a new law, called the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. At the time, few provisions applied to existing communities like yours. But a couple of provisions did apply to your community, including the one about budgets and assessments, RCW 64.90.525.
In addition, the legislature specifically declared that for all existing communities (like yours) that any restriction in the CC&Rs that required a vote to increase dues was void, and was replaced with the provisions for adoption and ratification of budgets (and assessments with them) as provided for in RCW 64.90.525.
Your existing section 7.1 of the CC&Rs is (and has been since 2018) superseded (completely replaced by) the budget and assessment process that provides the Board creates a budget and presents it at a meeting for ratification by the owners (as provided in RCW 64.90.525). Unless rejected by a majority of the owners in the community (not just those attending) it is ratified and legally enforceable. Statutes are copied below.
RCW 64.90.365
Common interest communities—Exceptions.
(1) Except for a plat community or miscellaneous community described in RCW 64.90.360(4) and a nonresidential or mixed-use common interest community described in RCW 64.90.100, the following sections apply to a common interest community created before July 1, 2018, and any inconsistent provisions of *chapter 58.19, 64.32, 64.34, or 64.38 RCW do not apply:
(a) RCW 64.90.370;
(b) RCW 64.90.405(1) (b) and (c);
(c) RCW 64.90.445;
(d) RCW 64.90.480(10);
(e) RCW 64.90.502;
(f) RCW 64.90.513;
(g) RCW 64.90.525;
(h) RCW 64.90.545;
(i) RCW 64.90.580; and
(j) RCW 64.90.010, to the extent necessary to construe this subsection.
(2) Except to the extent provided in this subsection, the sections listed in subsection (1) of this section apply only to events and circumstances occurring on or after July 1, 2018, and do not invalidate existing provisions of the governing documents of those common interest communities existing on July 1, 2018. To protect the public interest, RCW ** 64.90.370 and 64.90.525 supersede existing provisions of the governing documents of all plat communities and miscellaneous communities previously subject to *chapter 64.38 RCW.
RCW 64.90.525
Budgets—Assessments—Special assessments.
(1)(a) Within thirty days after adoption of any proposed budget for the common interest community, the board must provide a copy of the budget to all the unit owners and set a date for a meeting of the unit owners to consider ratification of the budget not less than fourteen nor more than fifty days after providing the budget. Unless at that meeting the unit owners of units to which a majority of the votes in the association are allocated or any larger percentage specified in the declaration reject the budget, the budget and the assessments against the units included in the budget are ratified, whether or not a quorum is present.
(b) If the proposed budget is rejected or the required notice is not given, the periodic budget last ratified by the unit owners continues until the unit owners ratify a subsequent budget proposed by the board.
Provision 7.1 of your existing CC&Rs is not enforceable, and if it were included in your revised CC&Rs would also not be enforceable.
Please contact your Board with any questions. While my client is the Association, I take direction from, and give advice to the Board.
Sincerely,
Ken Harer
Managing Attorney
Date Approved: 2025-12-21 13:59:50
Section: Section 3 Withdrawal of property from the provisions of this declaration - approval required
Line Number:
Homeowner Comment: The requirement for 100% agreement should be lowered to a supermajority. Even say 80-90 would be good but one property owner should not be able to prevent everyone else from leaving the association if that is what most people want.
Suggested Revision: The requirement for 100% agreement should be lowered to a supermajority. Even say 80-90 would be good but one property owner should not be able to prevent everyone else from leaving the association if that is what most people want.
Reason/Explanation:
Submitted by: Bryan Trimberger
Administrator Response: Pending
Date Approved: 2025-12-07 17:29:48
Section: Section 1 Definitions
Line Number: 175
Homeowner Comment: The requirement for a quorum should remain at 25% and not be reduced to 20%.
Suggested Revision: The requirement for a quorum should remain at 25% and not be reduced to 20%.
Reason/Explanation: Reducing the quorum to 20% doesn't protect the interests of the association to allow a small group to make major changes.
Submitted by: Bryan Trimberger
Administrator Response: Pending
Date Approved: 2025-12-07 17:29:18
Section: 7.1/7.3
Line Number:
Homeowner Comment: Currently, regular assessments may not be increased more than 10% in a year without owner approval. The revisions to section 7.1 and 7.3 remove that limitation on the board's power. I do not agree that such limitation should be approved. The board should have to justify and get owner approval of any increase in dues of more than 10%, as has been the case for decades.
Suggested Revision: Currently, regular assessments may not be increased more than 10% in a year without owner approval. The revisions to section 7.1 and 7.3 remove that limitation on the board's power. I do not agree that such limitation should be approved. The board should have to justify and get owner approval of any increase in dues of more than 10%, as has been the case for decades.
Reason/Explanation:
Submitted by: Ryan Brown
Administrator Response: According to our legal review, the owner-vote requirement in Section 7.1 for annual assessment increases above 10% directly conflicts with WUCIOA (RCW 64.90.525), effective July 1, 2018 (SB 6175). A 10% cap is not legally valid and cannot be enforced. See the letter below from our attorney.
Condominium Law Group
www.condolaw.net
1833 N. 105th St, Suite 201,
Seattle, WA 98133
Phone 206-633-1520 Fax 206-633-1521
December 20, 2025
To: The Board and Owners at Canyon Lakes
From: Ken Harer, Condominium Law Group, PLLC
Re: Why Owner votes to increase annual dues are not required or allowed
I have been asked to give a legal opinion regarding the deletion of the requirement to obtain owner approval for increases in dues larger than 10% per year as provided for in Section 7.1 of the 2009 Restated CC&Rs.
In 2018, the State Legislature adopted a new law, called the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. At the time, few provisions applied to existing communities like yours. But a couple of provisions did apply to your community, including the one about budgets and assessments, RCW 64.90.525.
In addition, the legislature specifically declared that for all existing communities (like yours) that any restriction in the CC&Rs that required a vote to increase dues was void, and was replaced with the provisions for adoption and ratification of budgets (and assessments with them) as provided for in RCW 64.90.525.
Your existing section 7.1 of the CC&Rs is (and has been since 2018) superseded (completely replaced by) the budget and assessment process that provides the Board creates a budget and presents it at a meeting for ratification by the owners (as provided in RCW 64.90.525). Unless rejected by a majority of the owners in the community (not just those attending) it is ratified and legally enforceable. Statutes are copied below.
RCW 64.90.365
Common interest communities—Exceptions.
(1) Except for a plat community or miscellaneous community described in RCW 64.90.360(4) and a nonresidential or mixed-use common interest community described in RCW 64.90.100, the following sections apply to a common interest community created before July 1, 2018, and any inconsistent provisions of *chapter 58.19, 64.32, 64.34, or 64.38 RCW do not apply:
(a) RCW 64.90.370;
(b) RCW 64.90.405(1) (b) and (c);
(c) RCW 64.90.445;
(d) RCW 64.90.480(10);
(e) RCW 64.90.502;
(f) RCW 64.90.513;
(g) RCW 64.90.525;
(h) RCW 64.90.545;
(i) RCW 64.90.580; and
(j) RCW 64.90.010, to the extent necessary to construe this subsection.
(2) Except to the extent provided in this subsection, the sections listed in subsection (1) of this section apply only to events and circumstances occurring on or after July 1, 2018, and do not invalidate existing provisions of the governing documents of those common interest communities existing on July 1, 2018. To protect the public interest, RCW ** 64.90.370 and 64.90.525 supersede existing provisions of the governing documents of all plat communities and miscellaneous communities previously subject to *chapter 64.38 RCW.
RCW 64.90.525
Budgets—Assessments—Special assessments.
(1)(a) Within thirty days after adoption of any proposed budget for the common interest community, the board must provide a copy of the budget to all the unit owners and set a date for a meeting of the unit owners to consider ratification of the budget not less than fourteen nor more than fifty days after providing the budget. Unless at that meeting the unit owners of units to which a majority of the votes in the association are allocated or any larger percentage specified in the declaration reject the budget, the budget and the assessments against the units included in the budget are ratified, whether or not a quorum is present.
(b) If the proposed budget is rejected or the required notice is not given, the periodic budget last ratified by the unit owners continues until the unit owners ratify a subsequent budget proposed by the board.
Provision 7.1 of your existing CC&Rs is not enforceable, and if it were included in your revised CC&Rs would also not be enforceable.
Please contact your Board with any questions. While my client is the Association, I take direction from, and give advice to the Board.
Sincerely,
Ken Harer
Managing Attorney
Date Approved: 2025-12-21 13:58:57
Section: 7.3. 7.4 Special Assessments
Line Number:
Homeowner Comment: A limit should be set on the amount of increase allowed when setting the yearly unit Assessment amount. for example, a maximum increase of 10%.
All Special Assessments of any kind should follow the procedure in section 7.4.2
Suggested Revision: A limit should be set on the amount of increase allowed when setting the yearly unit Assessment amount. for example, a maximum increase of 10%.
All Special Assessments of any kind should follow the procedure in section 7.4.2
Reason/Explanation:
Submitted by: Kathryn Schroeder
Administrator Response: According to our legal review, the owner-vote requirement in Section 7 for annual or special assessment increases above 10% directly conflicts with WUCIOA (RCW 64.90.525), effective July 1, 2018 (SB 6175). A 10% cap is not legally valid and cannot be enforced. See the letter below from our attorney.
Condominium Law Group
www.condolaw.net
1833 N. 105th St, Suite 201,
Seattle, WA 98133
Phone 206-633-1520 Fax 206-633-1521
December 20, 2025
To: The Board and Owners at Canyon Lakes
From: Ken Harer, Condominium Law Group, PLLC
Re: Why Owner votes to increase annual dues are not required or allowed
I have been asked to give a legal opinion regarding the deletion of the requirement to obtain owner approval for increases in dues larger than 10% per year as provided for in Section 7.1 of the 2009 Restated CC&Rs.
In 2018, the State Legislature adopted a new law, called the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. At the time, few provisions applied to existing communities like yours. But a couple of provisions did apply to your community, including the one about budgets and assessments, RCW 64.90.525.
In addition, the legislature specifically declared that for all existing communities (like yours) that any restriction in the CC&Rs that required a vote to increase dues was void, and was replaced with the provisions for adoption and ratification of budgets (and assessments with them) as provided for in RCW 64.90.525.
Your existing section 7.1 of the CC&Rs is (and has been since 2018) superseded (completely replaced by) the budget and assessment process that provides the Board creates a budget and presents it at a meeting for ratification by the owners (as provided in RCW 64.90.525). Unless rejected by a majority of the owners in the community (not just those attending) it is ratified and legally enforceable. Statutes are copied below.
RCW 64.90.365
Common interest communities—Exceptions.
(1) Except for a plat community or miscellaneous community described in RCW 64.90.360(4) and a nonresidential or mixed-use common interest community described in RCW 64.90.100, the following sections apply to a common interest community created before July 1, 2018, and any inconsistent provisions of *chapter 58.19, 64.32, 64.34, or 64.38 RCW do not apply:
(a) RCW 64.90.370;
(b) RCW 64.90.405(1) (b) and (c);
(c) RCW 64.90.445;
(d) RCW 64.90.480(10);
(e) RCW 64.90.502;
(f) RCW 64.90.513;
(g) RCW 64.90.525;
(h) RCW 64.90.545;
(i) RCW 64.90.580; and
(j) RCW 64.90.010, to the extent necessary to construe this subsection.
(2) Except to the extent provided in this subsection, the sections listed in subsection (1) of this section apply only to events and circumstances occurring on or after July 1, 2018, and do not invalidate existing provisions of the governing documents of those common interest communities existing on July 1, 2018. To protect the public interest, RCW ** 64.90.370 and 64.90.525 supersede existing provisions of the governing documents of all plat communities and miscellaneous communities previously subject to *chapter 64.38 RCW.
RCW 64.90.525
Budgets—Assessments—Special assessments.
(1)(a) Within thirty days after adoption of any proposed budget for the common interest community, the board must provide a copy of the budget to all the unit owners and set a date for a meeting of the unit owners to consider ratification of the budget not less than fourteen nor more than fifty days after providing the budget. Unless at that meeting the unit owners of units to which a majority of the votes in the association are allocated or any larger percentage specified in the declaration reject the budget, the budget and the assessments against the units included in the budget are ratified, whether or not a quorum is present.
(b) If the proposed budget is rejected or the required notice is not given, the periodic budget last ratified by the unit owners continues until the unit owners ratify a subsequent budget proposed by the board.
Provision 7.1 of your existing CC&Rs is not enforceable, and if it were included in your revised CC&Rs would also not be enforceable.
Please contact your Board with any questions. While my client is the Association, I take direction from, and give advice to the Board.
Sincerely,
Ken Harer
Managing Attorney
Date Approved: 2025-12-21 14:04:30
Section: 7.5
Line Number: 511
Homeowner Comment: Change wording to "those expenses provided in the budget accepted at the annual meeting."
Suggested Revision: Change wording to "those expenses provided in the budget accepted at the annual meeting."
Reason/Explanation: How was it determined that $15,000 was the limiting dollar value used for the board to pay for Goods or Services which the Board deems to be of general benefit. This wording is very vague and leads me to believe that the Board could determine this on their own and without notification to Unit owners on any dollar value under $15,000. If a budget was passed, I agree that expenses need to be paid but this section appears to give the board at will, the right to pay for items they deem could generally benefit unit owners.
Submitted by: Robert Voeks
Administrator Response: Section 7.5(g) has been revised as follows:
Payment for other goods or services that the Board determines provide a general benefit to Residents and are included in the ratified annual budget.
Date Approved: 2025-12-21 15:26:28
Section: 12.2
Line Number: 902
Homeowner Comment: Should “several responsibility” be “severable responsibility”?
Suggested Revision: Should “several responsibility” be “severable responsibility”?
Reason/Explanation:
Submitted by: Jeff Vanderpol
Administrator Response: "Severable" is a legal term that means that something, such as a contract or a law, is capable of being divided into separate, independent parts. If one part is found to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the other parts remain legally valid and effective. For example, in a severable contract, the breach of one provision does not nullify the entire agreement.
Date Approved: 2025-12-03 14:24:41
Section: 11.3
Line Number: 848
Homeowner Comment: Clarify what the notification requirements are.
Suggested Revision: Clarify what the notification requirements are.
Reason/Explanation: What are the requirements for notification of intended entry to Unit Owner? I can’t imagine sending an email 5 minutes prior meets the intent of this.
Submitted by: Jeff Vanderpol
Administrator Response: A 24-hr notification has been added.
Date Approved: 2025-12-08 20:59:36
Section: 11.3
Line Number: 843
Homeowner Comment: Clarify what is meant by a “major alteration”.
Suggested Revision: Clarify what is meant by a “major alteration”.
Reason/Explanation: Does this mean the Board can enter someone’s house if they are remodeling the kitchen e.g. flooring, cabinets, appliances, or paint?
Submitted by: Jeff Vanderpol
Administrator Response: The possible following CHANGE to section 11.3 is being reviewed by our attorney.
"A representative of the Board or any member of the Architectural Review Committee authorized by the Board may at any reasonable time, and from time to time at reasonable intervals, enter the exterior grounds of a Unit during new construction, structural additions, or reconstruction for the purpose of determining whether or not such Unit is in compliance with the provisions of this Declaration, any Community and Architectural Rules and Regulations pursuant thereto or any applicable Supplemental Declaration. Any entry into a Unit shall only be made prior to occupancy and after at least 24-hr notification of the Unit owner or Owner’s contractor. Any entry into a building within the Unit that is occupied by Residents, whether or not the Residents are present, is prohibited."
Date Approved: 2025-12-08 20:44:09
Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
