On September 29, 2026, Senator Brenner introduced Senate Bill 476, which proposes significant changes to the Ohio Condominium Act and Ohio Planned Community Law that should be concerning to association board members, managers, and property owners alike.
The bill can be found at:
https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_136/legislation/sb476/00_IN/pdf/
One of the most concerning aspects of the proposed legislation is the amount of additional administrative complexity it would impose on volunteer boards and association managers. Community associations rely heavily on volunteer directors to make decisions, respond to maintenance issues, enforce governing documents, and manage association finances. The bill adds substantial procedural requirements that could increase operational costs while slowing an association’s ability to respond to issues affecting the community.
SB 476 also contains several provisions that appear to blur the distinction between membership meetings and board meetings, showing the drafters’ inexperience with corporate law. When legislation fails to clearly distinguish between these separate corporate functions, uncertainty often follows. Ambiguous statutory language can lead to disputes over compliance obligations and create unnecessary opportunities for litigation.
Several provisions could substantially affect board operations. The legislation may require boards to permit owner participation during board meetings, but it provides limited guidance regarding the extent of that participation. As you can imagine, owner participation, interruption, and disruption will inhibit the board’s ability to conduct business efficiently, causing board meetings to last significantly longer. Without clear standards, associations may face disagreements regarding how much participation must be permitted and whether the board has adequately accommodated owner input. Such uncertainty could generate additional litigation.
SB 476 also restricts a board’s ability to act through written consent outside of a formal meeting. Many associations rely heavily on unanimous written board votes through e-mail to make prompt decisions. Limiting this tool could slow an association’s response time and make it more difficult for boards to address time-sensitive operational issues. For volunteer directors already balancing service to the association with personal and professional obligations, additional procedural hurdles could make board service even more challenging and time consuming.
Perhaps the most impactful financial change would require membership approval of annual budgets. While owner involvement in financial planning may sound appealing in principle, association budgets fund essential operations such as maintenance, repairs, insurance, utilities, reserve contributions, and professional services. If owners decline to approve necessary budget increases, associations may struggle to remain financially solvent and fulfill their obligations. Deferred maintenance, underfunded reserves, and inadequate operating budgets can create long-term problems that ultimately affect the safety of the property. More importantly, owners already have all the control needed, since they decide who is on the board and can vote directors off of the board if they are not doing what the owners desire.
These financial concerns extend beyond day-to-day operations. Condominium associations must comply with lending-related requirements that affect mortgage availability within the community. If funding limitations prevent associations from adequately maintaining reserves, obtaining the correct insurance, or performing necessary repairs, condominiums will not be capable of meeting lender requirements. Reduced financing opportunities negatively affect marketability and will plummet property values throughout the association.
The proposed legislation also raises questions regarding the regulation of short-term rentals, the use of proxy voting by board members, and expanded procedures allowing owners to challenge an association’s compliance with records retention and inspection requirements. In each instance, the legislation appears to create additional complexity while leaving important practical questions unanswered. When statutory provisions lack clarity, the result is frequently increased legal disputes as courts are asked to determine legislative intent. Associations will also struggle to be capable of paying for the professional assistance needed to comply with these hurdles if the membership refuses to approve the budget.
Taken together, the proposed amendments could have far-reaching effects on community associations across Ohio. The legislation increases administrative burdens, slows decision-making, delays responses to community issues, complicates corporate governance, and creates new opportunities for disputes and litigation. At a time when many associations already struggle to recruit volunteer directors, additional obligations and potential liability may further discourage owners from serving on boards. Meanwhile, associations could face increasing operational costs while simultaneously encountering greater obstacles to generating the revenue necessary to fund those additional responsibilities.
Kaman & Cusimano will continue to monitor this legislation through our participation on Community Association Institute’s Legislative Action Committee and provide updates if the legislation progresses through congress.
