The Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act absorbs every condominium in the state on January 1, 2028 — including this one, automatically, with no vote. Part of it already applies. This page is what that means, what it costs, and who does what.
The whole thing in six questions.
The Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, chapter 64.90 RCW. It is Washington's single, consolidated rulebook for condominiums and homeowner associations — Washington's version of a national model law, enacted in 2018 to replace four older statutes that had been layered on top of each other since 1963.
Because an owner's rights used to depend on the accident of when their building was recorded. A 1988 condo, a 1992 condo, and a 2005 townhome three blocks apart in Seattle each operated under a different statute with different reserve rules, different records rights, and different collection procedures. WUCIOA collapses all four into one. Three problems drove it: chronic reserve underfunding in an aging condo stock, board opacity, and abusive collection practices. Nearly every specific requirement traces back to one of those three.
Today: every community created on or after July 1, 2018, plus ten specific sections that reach back and bind every older community — Harbor Lights West included. On January 1, 2028, it applies to everyone, full stop.
Your Declaration was recorded June 21, 1990 — ten days before the July 1, 1990 cutoff in RCW 64.34.010. That makes your base statute the Horizontal Property Regimes Act, ch. 64.32 RCW, not the Condominium Act. It matters less than it sounds: both are repealed on the same date, and the WUCIOA sections that already bind you are identical either way.
Already partly. January 1, 2026 — eight months ago — five new sections began applying to older communities, including the meeting rules. January 1, 2028 is the full conversion.
Two tracks, run in parallel. Track A is the eight things that already bind you — do these regardless. Track B is the optional early opt-in, which changes the date you convert but not the outcome.
If you read nothing else, read this. Ten sentences.
1 · No reserve study site visit in at least three cycles. The 2021, 2024, and 2026 studies are all explicitly "No-Site-Visit" updates. RCW 64.90.545 has required a professional site-inspection update at least every third year since July 1, 2018. This is the association's clearest documented non-compliance, and the only one that carries fee-shifting exposure.
2 · The 2026 study recommends a $766,200 special assessment for 2027. That is roughly $26,421 per unit. It covers exterior painting and elevator modernization — components #525, #960, #961. The board currently has the elevator project on hold. Those two facts need to be reconciled in front of the owners, and the budget disclosure rules in RCW 64.90.525(2) will force the conversation whether or not the board starts it.
3 · Owner comment is in the wrong place. The board meeting console puts Owner Forum at item 9, 4 minutes, at the end. The statute requires 15 minutes at the beginning, before any vote. This is the cheapest fix on the entire list and it has been out of compliance since January.
Association Reserves report #7026-9, dated April 16, 2026, covering FY2027. Open the study →
| 2027 funding scenario | Monthly transfer | vs. current |
|---|---|---|
| Most recent budgeted rate — what you do now | $5,920 | — |
| Baseline — bare minimum to stay above $0 | $5,400 | −$520 |
| 70% "Threshold" funding | $10,740 | +$4,820 |
| 100% "Full" funding — study recommendation | $13,530 | +$7,610 |
| Recommended 2027 special assessment (preliminary) | $766,200 | ≈$26,421/unit |
Annual deterioration of reserve components: $123,403. Interest 1.40%, inflation 3.00%. The study states plainly that "Baseline funding cannot be achieved without a special assessment within the 30-year scope of this Report." The special assessment figure is a placeholder pending vendor estimates.
On the study's own compliance language. Report #7026-9 states it is "a Update 'No-Site-Visit', meeting all requirements of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW)." That is accurate as to the annual update duty in RCW 64.90.545(1). It does not discharge the separate third-year site-inspection duty in the same subsection — that is a second clock, and it is the one that has run out.
| Layer | Source | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ten WUCIOA sections listed in RCW 64.90.365(1) | Binding now Overrides inconsistent governing documents and inconsistent ch. 64.32/64.34 provisions |
| 2 | RCW 64.34.380–.392 — reserve accounts & withdrawals | Applied retroactively to pre-1990 condos by RCW 64.34.010(1) and .380(4). Still live until 2028. |
| 3 | Other RCW 64.34 sections listed in 64.34.010(1) | Records, liens, resales, voting, tort liability — reach back to pre-1990 condos. |
| 4 | Ch. 64.32 RCW — Horizontal Property Regimes Act | Repealed 1/1/2028 Your base statute. Imposes no reserve duty of its own. |
| 5 | Declaration (1990, am. 1991 & 1998), Bylaws (am. 1998), House Rules (Aug 2026) | Valid except where inconsistent with layers 1–4. |
Because ch. 64.32 contains no reserve requirement at all, RCW 64.90.545 is the only reserve-study authority binding this association — which is why finding #1 above is not a technicality.
| Chapter | Enacted | Covers | Fate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 64.32 Horizontal Property Regimes | 1963 | Condos created before 7/1/1990 — including this one | Repealed 1/1/2028 |
| 64.34 Washington Condominium Act | 1989 | Condos created after 7/1/1990 | Repealed 1/1/2028 |
| 64.38 Homeowners' Associations Act | 1995 | Non-condo HOAs, plats, PUDs | Repealed 1/1/2028 |
| 58.19 Land Development Act | 1973 | Land development sales | Repealed 1/1/2028 |
| 64.90 WUCIOA | 2018 | Everyone, from 1/1/2028 | Absorbs all four |
Every step carries an owner. Nothing on this page is assigned to "the association" — that is how items go unexecuted.
| Owner | Responsible for | Why them |
|---|---|---|
| HOA Board | Adopting the budget and the agenda structure; voting to commission work; approving the opt-in question; the executive-session discipline; final decisions | These are non-delegable statutory duties. RCW 64.90.405(1) says "An association must." |
| 3Stripe Mgmt | Distributing notices and budgets on the statutory clock; maintaining the records; running the payment channels; the delinquency notice sequence; producing records on request | Operational execution against deadlines is what a management agreement is for. Most Track A failures are calendar failures. |
| Legal Counsel | Base-statute confirmation; the governing-document conformance memo; the .509 drafting gap; opt-in thresholds; drafting the amendment | Document interpretation and the amendment instrument. Scoped tightly in "What to Do." |
| Reserve Analyst | The Level II site-visit study; the per-unit deficiency schedule formatted for the budget | RCW 64.90.545 requires a "reserve study professional." Association Reserves already holds your component list. |
| Other / Vendor | Elevator bids; painting bids; King County recording; WSCAI membership and training | Discrete external transactions. |
Ten sections reach back to pre-2018 communities under RCW 64.90.365(1). They override your governing documents and the old chapters alike. Five of them arrived on January 1, 2026.
"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…"RCW 64.90.365(1) — mirrored from the HPRA side by RCW 64.32.260(2)
"An updated reserve study must be prepared annually. An updated reserve study must be prepared at least every third year by a reserve study professional and based upon a visual site inspection conducted by the reserve study professional."RCW 64.90.545(1)
| Study | Report # | Level of service | Site visit? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 7026-3 | Update "No-Site-Visit" | No |
| 2024 | 7026-6 | Update "No-Site-Visit" | No |
| 2026 (Apr 16) | 7026-9 | Update "No-Site-Visit" | No |
The annual-update duty is being met. The three-year site-visit duty is not, and has not been for at least five years. The obligation has bound Harbor Lights West since July 1, 2018, because RCW 64.90.545 was on the original pre-2018 list.
No exemption applies. Not non-residential; not "only nominal reserve costs" ($528K reserve, $1.73M fully funded balance); not middle housing; and a site-visit update does not cost 10% of the annual budget. Note also that the two-thirds opt-out in RCW 64.34.392(1) is available only to associations with ten or fewer units — at 29 units you cannot use it.
"monetary damages or other liability may not be awarded against or imposed upon the association or its officers or board members … for failure to: Establish or replenish a reserve account, have a current reserve study prepared or updated …, or make reserve disclosures …"RCW 64.90.560
The only carve-out is attorney fees and costs under RCW 64.90.555(2), where a court may also order specific performance. Practically: being 30.5% funded is a governance and marketability problem, not a personal liability problem. Being out of compliance on the study is the thing that carries a fee-shifting lawsuit.
Owner trigger → Once three years pass since the last professional study, owners holding 20% of votes (6 of 29 units) may demand in a record that the study cost be added to the next budget, and the board must include it. RCW 64.90.555(1)
"Within thirty days after adoption of any proposed budget …, the board must provide a copy of the budget to all the unit owners and set a date for a meeting … 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 … reject the budget, the budget and the assessments … are ratified, whether or not a quorum is present."RCW 64.90.525(1)(a)
A negative ratification — the budget passes by default. Rejection needs owners holding a majority of all votes, i.e. 15 of 29 units, to attend and vote no. That rarely happens, so the mechanism matters less for outcomes than for procedure.
Failure mode: "If the proposed budget is rejected or the required notice is not given, the periodic budget last ratified by the unit owners continues." Miss the window and you are legally collecting on last year's assessment levels. RCW 64.90.525(1)(b)
| § | Required element | HLW note |
|---|---|---|
| (a) | Projected income by category | |
| (b) | Projected common expenses by category | |
| (c) | Assessment per unit and the date due | |
| (d) | Regular assessments budgeted for reserve contribution | Currently $5,920/mo |
| (e) | Whether a compliant reserve study exists, and the extent to which the budget deviates from its recommendations | Hard You are $7,610/mo below the study's full-funding rate |
| (f) | Reserve deficiency or surplus per unit | Hard ($41,419) per unit |
Items (e) and (f) are the teeth — the legislature deliberately making underfunding visible. Those two numbers must be printed in the budget every owner receives.
Special assessments follow the identical process. RCW 64.90.525(3) — which is how the study's recommended $766,200 would have to be adopted if the board pursues it.
| Meeting type | Notice | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Annual owner meeting | 14–50 days | .445(1)(c) |
| Special owner meeting | 14–50 days | .445(1)(c) |
| Board meeting | ≥14 days, with agenda | .445(2)(f) |
| Emergency board meeting | ≥7 days + electronic delivery | .445(2)(f) |
Use the schedule exemption. Notice is required "unless the meeting is included in a schedule given to the unit owners." Your 3rd-Tuesday cadence is exactly what that contemplates — but only if the schedule is actually distributed. Publish the 2027 dates and the 14-day clock stops being a monthly exposure.
"The board must provide at least 15 minutes at the beginning of each meeting for unit owners to comment about agenda items before the board votes. The board may place reasonable time restrictions of not less than 90 seconds per owner per unit, except that the time per owner per unit may be reduced and allocated equally if more than 10 unit owners wish to comment."RCW 64.90.445(2)(e)
Current console: Owner Forum at item 9, 4 minutes, at the end. Non-compliant on placement and duration. Corrected agenda is on the Gap Analysis tab.
| § | Ground | HLW use |
|---|---|---|
| (i) | Consult the association's attorney on legal matters | WUCIOA conversion counsel |
| (ii) | Existing or potential litigation, mediation, arbitration, administrative proceedings | TK Elevator breach / exit |
| (iii) | Labor or personnel matters | Management or staff |
| (iv) | Contracts and commercial transactions being negotiated, incl. bid review, where premature knowledge would disadvantage the association | Washington Elevator; modernization and painting bids |
| (v) | Prevent public knowledge that would violate a person's privacy | Individual delinquent accounts |
(a) notice states the process and how to join; (b) all participants can hear and comment; (c) board votes by roll call or other verbal vote; (d) a telephone option is offered. RCW 64.90.445(3) — (c) and (d) were added by 2025 c 119. Video-only with a show of hands fails both.
.445(2)(g).445(1)(b).445(2)(k).445(2)(l).445(4).445(2)(c) — email threads that reach a decision are the modern version."(b) Adopt budgets as provided in RCW 64.90.525;
(c) Impose assessments for common expenses on the unit owners as provided in RCW 64.90.480(1) and 64.90.525;"
The lead-in reads "An association must." Not discretionary — a board cannot skip a year or hold assessments flat by inaction.
"An association must provide at least one method of accepting payment of assessments from unit owners at no charge or as a common expense."
Easy to miss, easy to violate. If every Buildium channel passes a convenience fee to the owner, you are out of compliance. Ask 3Stripe in writing.
| Section | Subject | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
64.90.502 | Board powers during a declared emergency | Dormant until invoked. Know it exists. |
64.90.513 | Siting of EV charging stations | Live You have an EV Charging Feasibility study and a post-tensioned garage podium. |
64.90.580 | Approval of heat pumps | Live You have an AC Feasibility Letter and an AC revision to House Rules. |
2026 c 96 hardened this: governing documents "may not vary from the WUCIOA on the subject of financial responsibility for electric vehicle charging stations and heat pumps. Only the owner … bears that financial responsibility."
Action → Audit AC revision to House Rules.pdf and HL Updated House Rules 260824.pdf against .513 and .580. Pre-2026 rules restricting or allocating cost for EV charging or heat pumps are the likeliest place your House Rules are already unenforceable.
Optional. Changes the date you convert, not the outcome.
| Option | Effect | Worth it? |
|---|---|---|
.370(1)(a) | Adopt the ten sections in 64.90.365(1) | Redundant They already apply by force of law |
.370(1)(b) | "Provide that this chapter will apply … regardless of what applicable law provided before chapter 277, Laws of 2018 was adopted" | The real opt-in |
"Notwithstanding any provision in the governing documents … (a) The board shall propose such amendment … if the board deems it appropriate or if owners holding 20 percent or more of the votes … request such an amendment in writing; (b) … at least 30 days' advance notice of a meeting to discuss the proposed amendment; (c) Following such meeting, the board shall provide the owners with … a ballot; (d) The amendment shall be deemed approved if owners holding at least 30 percent of the votes … participate, and at least 67 percent of the votes cast by participating owners are in favor."RCW 64.90.370(3)
| Requirement | Threshold | Of 29 units |
|---|---|---|
| Participation quorum | 30% of votes | 9 ballots returned |
| Approval | 67% of votes cast | 6 of 9 if exactly 9 participate |
Compare your Declaration's own amendment threshold — 75% = 22 of 29 units for the matters it caps. The statutory path needs 6 yes votes. That gap is the legislature deliberately clearing a road.
Assumes one vote per unit. Confirm the Declaration's vote allocation before relying on the arithmetic — this is question Q4 for counsel.
The substantive case is weak; the timing case is strong. You arrive at the same place on 1/1/2028 either way. Opting in early buys sequencing control.
.375(1) invalidate conflicts silently and discovering which ones mid-dispute.RCW 64.90.375(1)(a) preserves provisions "expressly permitted under RCW 64.90.509" — but .509 was repealed outright by 2025 c 119 s 33. The exception points at nothing. A 2027 legislative fix is plausible.Treat the opt-in as a 2027 agenda item contingent on Track A being clean first. The reserve study and the meeting mechanics are required regardless, cost little, and produce exactly the document review a competent opt-in needs. Revisit at the 2027 annual meeting once the legislative session has closed and you know whether the .509 gap got patched.
"if a common interest community created before July 1, 2018, becomes subject to this chapter on January 1, 2028, or earlier, a provision of its governing documents inconsistent with this chapter is invalid…"RCW 64.90.375(1)
The condominium itself, the survey map, unit boundaries, allocated interests, and every action validly taken before conversion. No re-creation, no map amendment. RCW 64.90.375(2)–(3)
Any governance provision inconsistent with WUCIOA. For a 1990 declaration the usual casualties are notice periods, quorum rules, executive-session practice, records limits, rule-adoption procedure, collection and late-fee provisions, and leasing restrictions.
Not binding today. Budget the work now — they land together.
| Section | Duty | Key numbers | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
64.90.495 | Association records | Production on 10 days' notice, hard cap 21 days. 7-year retention. 12 mandatory redaction categories. One free annual owner-list copy. | 3Stripe |
64.90.485 | Liens and collections | 6-month super lien plus up to $2,000 in fees after 60 days' lender notice. 6-year limitations. Nonjudicial foreclosure forfeits priority. | 3Stripe Counsel |
64.90.485(21) | Delinquency notice | Notice within 30 days; no collection action or fees for 15 days; late fee capped at $50 or 5%; admin fee $10. | 3Stripe |
64.90.485(22) | Foreclosure preconditions | Greater of 3 months' assessments or $2,000; two notices 60 days apart; 90 days' aging; mediation if referred; unit-specific board vote. | Board Counsel |
64.90.550 | Reserve study contents | 30-year projection; components >1% of budget; three funding scenarios; per-unit deficit; statutory warning paragraph. | Analyst |
64.90.535/.540 | Reserve custody & withdrawals | Two-signature rule with invoices; investment limits at $250,000 / 50% / 75%; withdrawal repayment ≤24 months. | Board 3Stripe |
64.90.510 | Limits on rules | Cannot ban US/WA flags or flagpoles, political and ballot signs, compliant solar, refuse containers in private garages or yards, or peaceful owner assembly. | Board |
64.90.470 | Insurance | Statutory minimum coverages and deductible allocation. | 3Stripe |
64.90.640 | Resale certificates | Buyer may waive if not delivered within 10 days; may cancel or extend if delivered ≤5 days before closing. | 3Stripe |
64.90.530 | Audit | Threshold raised $50,000 → $100,000 by 2026 c 96; waivable by owners. | Board |
Note the asymmetry today: RCW 64.90.365(1) pulls in .545 (the study) but not .535/.540 (accounts and withdrawals). Until 1/1/2028, RCW 64.34.384 remains your operative reserve-withdrawal rule — applied to this pre-1990 condominium by RCW 64.34.010(1) and RCW 64.34.380(4).
Three units 90+ days past due, none paying on #205 since October 2024. The 2028 rules impose a specific notice sequence with specific content and timing before any collection step. Building that with 3Stripe in 2027 rather than January 2028 is the difference between a process and a scramble.
| Unit | Balance | Aging | Meets the .485(22) threshold? |
|---|---|---|---|
| #306 | $3,913 | 90+ days | Likely exceeds $2,000 |
| #404 | $2,845 | 90+ days | Likely exceeds $2,000 |
| #205 | $653 | No pmt since Oct 2024 | Turns on the 3-month test below $2,000 |
Thresholds count assessments only — excluding fines, late charges, interest, attorneys' fees, and collection costs.
Nineteen items, each with an owner. Check them off as they resolve — progress is tracked in this browser.
0 of 19 resolved
The cheapest fix on the list. Ten items, still 60 minutes.
| # | Item | Now | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Call to Order & Roll Call | 3 | 3 |
| 2 | ⭐ Owner Comment Period — statutory, before any vote | — | 15 |
| 3 | Prior Minutes | 4 | 3 |
| 4 | Treasurer's Report | 12 | 9 |
| 5 | Delinquency | 8 | 6 |
| 6 | Reserves & Capital | 15 | 11 |
| 7 | Maintenance | 8 | 6 |
| 8 | Old Business | 4 | 3 |
| 9 | New Business | 4 | 3 |
| 10 | Adjournment | 2 | 1 |
| Total | 60 | 60 |
15 minutes is a floor the board must provide, not time it must consume — if nobody speaks, move on and bank it. Roll call may precede it; the statute requires comment "at the beginning" and "before the board votes," and roll call is not a vote. With ≤10 speakers each gets ≥90 seconds; above 10, time is reduced and allocated equally.
Implementation: one edit to the agenda array and the per-item allocations in the board meeting console's generator. Owner: HOA Board to adopt, then the console rebuild.
Scope, budget, vendors, and the sequence to buy them in.
Figures below separate verified/published from estimated. No Washington community-association firm publishes hourly rates; every rate shown for those firms is an estimate anchored on published Washington benchmarks.
Do this first. It is the only current, documentable, fee-shifting exposure, and it is cheap.
| Scenario | Estimate | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Update with site visit, booked Jan–May (off-season) | $1,400 – $2,000 | Association Reserves discounts off-season |
| Likely case | ≈$2,000 | Existing client; component list already built |
| Busy season / rush | $2,300 – $3,000 | |
| If they insist on a new Full study | $2,800 – $4,000 | Push back — you want an update, not a Full |
Basis: Association Reserves' own published pricing guidance — a Full study costs "less than 1% of the Association's annual budget," and an Update With Site Visit runs 50–80% of a Full. Off-season (January–May) is cheaper. Source (PDF)
Do → Request a written proposal for an Update With Site Visit against report #7026-9, booked January–February 2027. Confirm in writing it is a WSV update, not a new Full study. Proposals are free. Template 1 is the engagement letter.
Four questions. Hand counsel the scope below verbatim — the statutory research is already done, and the single largest driver of HOA legal cost is paying a lawyer to redo work the board could have supplied.
Background. Harbor Lights West Condominiums, 29 units, two buildings, Seattle (King County). Declaration recorded 6/21/1990, King County No. 9006210697, amended 1991 and 1998. Bylaws amended 1998. House Rules revised August 2026. The board has completed a self-directed WUCIOA applicability analysis and gap assessment (attached). We are engaging counsel for the four questions below only.
Q1 — Base statute confirmation. Confirm that the association is governed by ch. 64.32 RCW rather than ch. 64.34 RCW, given a Declaration recorded 6/21/1990 and the "after July 1, 1990" cutoff in RCW 64.34.010(1). Identify which ch. 64.34 sections reach back under RCW 64.34.010(1), and confirm our reading that RCW 64.34.380–.392 (reserve accounts and withdrawals) apply here via RCW 64.34.010(1) and RCW 64.34.380(4).
Q2 — Governing document conformance memo. Review the recorded Declaration with the 1991 and 1998 amendments, the Bylaws as amended 1998, and the current House Rules against ch. 64.90 RCW. Identify: (a) provisions already superseded by RCW 64.90.365(1); (b) provisions that will be invalid under RCW 64.90.375(1) on January 1, 2028; (c) provisions we should affirmatively amend rather than allow to lapse. Prioritize by practical consequence. Deliver as an annotated conflict table with a one-page prioritization — a formal memo is not required.
Q3 — The RCW 64.90.375(1)(a) drafting gap. Hard cap: 3 hours. RCW 64.90.375(1)(a) preserves governing-document provisions "expressly permitted under RCW 64.90.509," but RCW 64.90.509 was repealed by 2025 c 119 s 33 with no delayed effective date and no reviser's redirect. Advise whether RCW 64.90.015 is the operative successor, and whether this changes the risk calculus of electing early under RCW 64.90.370(1)(b). If unresolved at 3 hours, say so and stop — "no authority, here are two defensible readings" is an acceptable deliverable.
Q4 — Opt-in procedure and thresholds. Confirm (a) that RCW 64.90.370(3) overrides the amendment threshold in our Declaration; (b) how votes are allocated under our Declaration for the 30% participation and 67% approval tests; (c) whether RCW 64.90.285(4) (90% consent for changes to allocated interests) is implicated by a pure RCW 64.90.370(1)(b) election — our reading is that it is not, since no allocated interests change, but we found no case law on point; (d) the form of recorded amendment and officer certification required by RCW 64.90.285(3) and (5). May be folded into Q2 as a section.
Fee structure requested: a fixed fee for Q1 + Q2 + Q4 bundled, and hourly with a not-to-exceed for Q3. Please identify the specific attorney and rate, the paralegal rate, and what work gets delegated. Please bill in 0.1-hour increments.
Assumes a community-association boutique staffing this with one senior attorney. Blended $375 low / $450 likely / $525 high.
| Task | Hours L/Likely/H | Low | Likely | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q0 · Intake, engagement letter, scoping call | 0.75 / 1.5 / 3 | $280 | $675 | $1,575 |
| Q1 · Base statute confirmation | 0.5 / 1 / 2 | $190 | $450 | $1,050 |
| Q2 · Conformance memo — the bulk | 8 / 14 / 22 | $3,000 | $6,300 | $11,550 |
| Q3 · The .509 drafting gap (cap it) | 1 / 2.5 / 5 | $375 | $1,125 | $2,625 |
| Q4 · Opt-in thresholds | 1.5 / 2.5 / 4 | $565 | $1,125 | $2,100 |
| Phase 1 total | 11.75 / 21.5 / 36 | $4,400 | $9,700 | $18,900 |
Authorize $10,000 with a $12,500 not-to-exceed.
| Item | Low | Likely | High |
|---|---|---|---|
| Draft conforming declaration amendment (one revision round) | $2,250 | $4,500 | $8,400 |
| Ballot package — notice, ballot, owner explanation memo | $1,125 | $2,250 | $4,200 |
| Vote certification, execution, recording instructions | $565 | $1,350 | $2,625 |
| King County recording — verified $303.50 first page + $1/page | $317 | $325 | $383 |
| Mailing 29 ballot packages | $75 | $140 | $200 |
| Follow-on total | $4,300 | $8,600 | $15,800 |
Recording fee verified at kingcounty.gov — "all other documents" $303.50 first page, $1 each additional, +$50 if non-standard format, +2.35% if paid by card. Combined likely case ≈ $18,300 legal + ~$2,000 reserve study ≈ $20,300. Authorize Phase 1 now and the amendment phase separately, after the Q2 memo lands.
Send the scope to three. Ask each for a fixed fee on Q1+Q2+Q4 and hourly-with-cap on Q3.
| Firm | City | Focus | Est. partner rate | Why them |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community Association Law Group | Shoreline | Exclusive CA law; spun out of Barker Martin 2023 for general-counsel work | Flat fee available | Best flat-fee candidate. Markets a flat-fee model; services page names "governing document reviews and audits," "conflicts with statutes," "line-item declaration amendments" — a near-verbatim match to Q2/Q4 |
| Condominium Law Group, PLLC | Seattle (N 105th St) | Exclusive condo practice since 2001, ~8 attorneys | est. $350–450 | Likely cheapest, and 1.5 miles away. Markets "cost-saving legal services"; small-association orientation |
| Pody & McDonald, PLLC | Seattle (2nd Ave) | Exclusive HOA/COA boutique, est. 2011 | est. $400–500 | Governance depth; lists "drafting and interpreting governing documents" as core |
| VF Law (absorbed Rafel Law Group 2024) | Seattle + 4 states | Exclusive CA; Tony Rafel is a CCAL Fellow and past WSCAI president | est. $450–600 | Deepest WUCIOA authority in the state — and likely the priciest boutique |
| Barker Martin, P.S. | Seattle | Entire practice is CA law, 30+ yrs | est. $400–525 | Strong firm, but center of gravity is construction defect and insurance recovery |
| Peryea Silver Taylor, P.S. | Seattle | HOA/CA focus since 1998 (formerly Leahy McLean Fjelstad) | est. $375–475 | Reasonable fourth option |
| Ryan, Swanson & Cleveland | Seattle | Dedicated CA group inside a 40+ lawyer full-service firm | est. $450–650 | Overkill for a 29-unit document memo; skews to litigation |
Highlighted rows are the recommended three. No Washington community-association firm publishes hourly rates — every rate above is an estimate. Checked and rejected: Inslee Best (no CA practice found), Foster Garvey (no distinct CA practice; large-firm rates inappropriate here).
| Benchmark | Rate | Source |
|---|---|---|
| WA lawyer, all practice areas (2025 actual) | $346 avg $196–$492 | Published Clio Legal Trends, WA |
| WA lawyer, Real Estate practice | $395 | Published Clio, same |
| WA non-lawyer / paralegal | $187 avg | Published Clio, same |
| Seattle firm posted card (de Vrieze | Carney) | $440 atty $280 paralegal | Published westseattlelaw.com |
| Seattle solo real estate attorney (rate card 9/2025) | $400 | Published seattlepropertylawyer.com |
| CA boutique partner, Seattle | $375 / $450 / $575 | Estimate Clio RE benchmark + Seattle uplift |
| CA boutique associate, Seattle | $260 / $325 / $400 | Estimate |
| Paralegal, CA boutique | $150 / $195 / $260 | Estimate |
WA lawyer rates rose 7.5% in 2025 ($322 → $346). Add ~5–8% if budgeting a 2027 engagement. Seattle runs above the state average — the two verifiable Seattle cards sit 16–27% above it, which is the adjustment applied.
Community Associations Institute, Washington State Chapter — wscai.org/wucioa. Shoreline, 425.778.6378.
Do → Email info@wscai.org for a free webinar pass and homeowner membership pricing. Dues are not posted; almost certainly $150–$400/yr, and it pays for itself if it saves one hour of attorney time.
Drafted to the current statutory text. [BRACKETED] fields to fill. These are drafts for counsel to review, not to write — that is where the savings are.
Statutory text verified against app.leg.wa.gov/RCW on August 7–8, 2026.
| Cite | Title | Note |
|---|---|---|
64.90.360 | Common interest communities | Formerly .075. The 1/1/2028 gate. |
64.90.365 | Common interest communities — Exceptions | Formerly .080. The ten-section list. Amended 2025 c 119 s 11, eff. 1/1/2026. |
64.90.370 | Election of preexisting communities | Formerly .095. The opt-in and the (3) override. |
64.90.375 | Governing documents — Inconsistency | The 2028 invalidation rule. Contains the broken .509 reference. |
64.32.260(2) | HPRA — mirror provision | Recites the same WUCIOA section list from the 64.32 side. |
64.34.010(1) | WCA applicability | "after July 1, 1990" cutoff; enumerates sections reaching back to pre-1990 condos, including 64.34.380–.392. |
64.34.380(4) | Reserve sections extended to ch. 64.32 condos | Independent basis for the reserve regime applying here. |
64.90.285 | Amendment of declaration | 67% baseline; recording; 1-year challenge window. |
64.90.405(1)(b)–(c) | Powers and duties — budget and assessment |
64.90.445 | Meetings — amended 2019, 2021, 2024, 2025 c 119 s 16 |
64.90.480(10) | Assessments — free payment method |
64.90.502 | Emergency |
64.90.513 | Electric vehicle charging stations |
64.90.525 | Budgets — Assessments — Special assessments — amended 2025 c 119 s 22 |
64.90.545 | Reserve study — amended 2026 c 96 s 5 |
64.90.580 | Heat pumps |
| Act | Bill | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| 2018 c 277 | SB 6175 | Enacted WUCIOA, eff. 7/1/2018 |
| 2024 c 321 | ESSB 5796 | Recodified .075/.080/.095 → .360/.365/.370. Repealed ch. 64.32, 64.34, 64.38, 58.19 eff. 1/1/2028. |
| 2025 c 119 | ESSB 5129 | Amended 30 sections. Added .445, .480(10), .502, .513, .580 to the pre-2018 list eff. 1/1/2026. Repealed 64.90.509. |
| 2025 c 393 | — | Amended .485 and .495 (collections, records) |
| 2026 c 96 | SHB 2354 | Eff. 6/11/2026. Audit threshold $50K → $100K. EV/heat-pump cost responsibility not variable. |
RCW 64.90.375(1)(a) cross-references a repealed section. Unresolved. This is Q3 for counsel..370(3) vs .285(4) interaction is inference, not text. No case law or AG opinion located. Q4 for counsel.This is not legal advice. It is a board-prepared compliance workup built to narrow what the association pays an attorney to do. Chapter 64.90 RCW has been amended in 2019, 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025 (twice), and 2026. Re-verify before relying on any citation.