TD Canada Trust Condo Poll Results – Owners Confuse Fees with Rent

TD Canada Trust’s annual Condo Poll results have been released for 2012, and there are some interesting findings in the four releases they have published:

• Canadians don’t mind paying for the perks of condo living (link)
• Maintenance-free living but can Calgarians really relax in their condos? (link)
• Torontonians worry about affording their mortgage – but many don’t mind paying for the perks of condo living (link)
• More affordable than a house: Condos seen as an attractive option in Vancouver’s expensive real estate market (link)

The interesting point for me

More than one-quarter (28%) of Vancouver condo dwellers say that their monthly strata fees make it feel like they are still paying rent, so they are saving up to buy a home without set monthly maintenance fees.

Condo, Strata, and HOA fees are not rent, but the monthly payments required to maintain the property that you have purchased. There is no concept of profit with monthly condominium fees unlike rent. The collection of monthly condominium fees is based off of a budget that is designed to be as close to actual cost as can be forecasted.

There is another focus about paying maintenance vs. paying rent. With rent – you have an owner that looks to maximize revenue and that usually includes significant controls on expenditure. Every penny provided to update or maintain the property is an out of pocket cost for a landlord.

With condominiums, you are paying (usually, unless the board is unusual) for proactive and ongoing maintenance and work designed to maintain the common property and the corporation. While owners may not like paying fees (35% of poll respondents want fees $200/month or less, 44% are ok with fees up to $400/month, and 17% with fees up to $800/month), they should realize that instead of lining the pockets of a landlord they are lining their own pockets by maintaining the condominium corporation.

I hope that helps understanding the difference between rent and condominium fees.

City of Cambridge Punishes Condominiums with Fire Hydrants for $9000/Year

Cambridge, Ontario, has placed a $9000/year charge on condominiums with a fire hydrant or other “big pipe”, a cost which is charged on top of the water and sewage costs each owner individually bears. The water and sewage, up 10% in January, are scheduled to almost double by 2019.

Condominiums offer great boons to a municipality – they create a high density residential area, forming an environmentally responsible, affordable and sustainable municipality. Edward Glaeser sets out this argument in his February 2011 The Atlantic article “How Skyscrapers Can Save the City”

Eric Jaffe points out in his article “The Case for a D.C.-Baltimore Mega-Region” that higher density will save about $1.5 billion a year in spending on roads, schools, and other infrastructure. Residents would also save about $400/year if only 1/4 of the region’s planned low density becomes high-density.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada has recently completed a study that shows dense city development moving forward will save 33% in total capital costs, and 14% less in operating costs, then current density levels.

It is without argument that condominiums contribute significantly to the fiscal wellbeing of municipalities. But instead of rewarding owners in such developments, municipalities punish them with additional costs – often to the benefit of unsustainable low-density zoning and development.

Regarding water, sewage, and condominiums – the municipal cost for supplying and maintaining kilometres and kilometers of piping are saved with high density living. That should be recognized by the municipality, not punished.

Florida Looks to Ban Condominium Raising Fees to Cover Delinquent Owner Shortfall

Senator Chris Smith for Fort Lauderdale has proposed a Florida senate bill that would make it illegal for condominium associations to cover delinquent owner payment by raising assessments on owners who pay their fees regularly.

To start with, it’s very important that a condominium raises the funds required to maintain the property, utilities, and safety of the building. That’s the primary purpose of the board, and performing proper maintenance and paying bills ensures that owners retain property that has (within the market) maximum resale value and opportunity.

When a large amount of delinquent owners exist in a condominium, the board fails to collect the revenue required to meet their duties to maintain the building and pay the bills. As corporations have limited powers to generate funds, they raise the contributions until the responsible, paying, owners meet the financial needs of the condominium corporation.

This can mean, where we see some condominium with 2/3 delinquency – that the responsible owners are paying 3x the condo contributions they should be. This is a great hardship.

Historically, this issue of non-payment hasn’t been an issue. But the combination of the housing crash, high unemployment levels, and most importantly – a foreclosure process in Florida that is now taking 12-24 months (gaaahhh!), is leaving a significant number of condominium raising fees on owners to cover costs.

Traditionally, non-payers would be foreclosed on, and the corporation would get the outstanding sums in 30 to 90 days from filing. That, with only a few delinquent at any one time was fiscally manageable. Now, with the lack of ability to collect in a timely manner, corporations are facing massive debts, shut off of services, and dangerous buildings.

At some point, even if it is two years, the corporation will get paid. The question is what to do in the meantime. If the Florida legislation moves forward – preventing responsible owners from paying for non-payers – the question still arises: where does the corporation get the money it needs now.

Corporations taking out loans works well in great economies because the corporation can back the loan with their ability to levy condo contributions. But when the debt issue arises from the very issue of being unable to collect contributions, there is no ability for a corporation to find money.

The legislation sounds all good and dandy to protect the responsible owners from directly paying more while the state courts take so long with the foreclosure, but that just puts the costs onto the building and services. Non-existent or reduced maintenance can have as great or greater cost on residents trying to resell as an increase in their condo contributions.

It’s a tough position, but the answer is not to limit the hands of the condominium corporation is sourcing the funds needed to maintain and operate the condominium corporation.

The real answer is for the Florida legislature to properly fund a court process that addresses the insane time it takes to foreclosure. Instead of responding to the substantial increase in foreclosures they have let the current system drown. It’s bad form to write more laws when the problem lies with the underfunded court system.

Condominium and HOA Fees vs. Fines

It should always be clarified that there is a very distinct difference between fees and fines for condominiums and HOAs.

Fees are a monthly or yearly amount that are levied to cover the maintenance of the common property – the building, hallways, plumbing, heating, roof and other building envelope issues. For HOAs it may be to maintain the streets, signage, and landscaping. In both cases the levy is set out years in a budget, it is approved by the board, and the costs are shared between owners based on a formula (usually equally or based on a unit’s percentage of the square footage).

Fines are the option of the board to impose on owners that violate any of the bylaws or quasi-official rules.  They are intended as a means to encourage compliance of the owners with the corporation or HOA rules.

When I talk about how important it is for Condominiums and HOAs to collect the money owe to them, and I support all legislative rules to ensure the organizations are paid what they are owed – I’m talking about the fees. It’s important that the condominium or HOA always be correctly funded as to their budget for the maintenance of the common property.

When it comes to collecting fines for by-law infractions, well, I think they can be collect at the bottom of the barrel. There are a bunch of reasons. The easiest arises from the ease that board use in levying them and the lack of any appeal or challenge to them. The board is judge, jury and executioner when it comes to applying fees. It’s a condo Star Chamber.

It’s truly sad that there are so many boards that use fines as cudgels on their neighbours, and more importantly, to make life unbearable in condominiums and HOAs. It’s especially noticeable that more and more HOAs have rules “for the board and loyal owners” and ones for “new and disliked owners”.

It’s scary – Stepford HOA scary.

Bankruptcy Doesn’t Dismiss Outstanding HOA Fees

Housing represents the largest equity holding for most people in the world. Housing represents the majority of people’s working lives, and often is their security for retirement.

With that in mind, that’s why I fully support all legislation that prioritizes and guarantees that condominium corporations and HOAs have first standing to any monies recovered in foreclosure, bankruptcy or other sale. See, it’s important for government to protect people’s housing because it represents such a vast amount of equity. Government takes steps to protect people’s equity when it’s in a bank, and it does that when your money is “banked” in your house as well.

An owner failing to pay their fees harms not only their own property, but jeopardizes the housing of other, responsible, owners. Simply put, there’s no right for an owner to take a free ride on his neighbours shoulders by failing to pay their contribution, and having it shouldered by others.

Many states and provinces have very proactive laws that ensure HOAs and Condominiums have first standing in foreclosure. In Alberta, Canada, the condominium corporation – on the sale of a property – gets paid any outstanding fees before mortgages and even government taxes. Law makers realized that by ensuring that condominiums receive any money it is owed, it protects the other owners and has the highest return on economic stability.

In a similar vein, an owner in Odenton, Maryland, has found that bankruptcy doesn’t remover the requirement to pay their HOA fees. Indeed, and I congratulate the law makers, they have made those fees “nondischargeable” (a judge cannot dismiss the fees). By doing so, they have ensured the fiscal health of all the other owners. Even though Joan Sullivan no longer lives in the HOA, she is paying installments on the debt she owes.

And that’s a good thing.

When Investors Abandon Units Owners Suffer Greatly

Ten weeks ago, Bank of Canada Governor Pat Carney warned that housing prices are now 4.5 times average household disposable income, or 30% higher than the 3.5 average of the last quarter century (In Vancouver they are 9.6). Further, he indicated that this is being driven by greed among speculators and investors. In Toronto, 60% of construction sales are by investors.

If the market value of condominiums comes down and as such triggers lower rental rates, investors will abandon under-water mortgages and incomes that don’t meet their bills. It’s hard to see this in the active market we have now, but all overly inflated values must mute, or drop, in value at some time.

Legislation in many regions of North America fail to do a very good job protecting owners in multi-residential dwellings when other owners stop paying their condominium fees, triggering a foreclosure on the deliquent units in order to recover the owed money to the corporation. For palces with poor legislation, when a unit is foreclosed on, the proceeds of the sale first go to the mortgagee, and not the condominium. The causes a chain of events that only further depress the value of the units, and jeopardize a large number of other owner’s homes.

For West Meade Condominium complex in West Nashville Tennessee, the chain of events has happened – 57 investor owned units in a 112 unit complex stopped paying their contributions, leaving the condominium $355,000 short on budget and repairs. Because there isn’t the money for maintenance, the building (and the value of all the units) is suffering. Because of decreased property value, the 57 units which have been court ordered to sell will likely garner less than the mortgage values. This leaves 55 upstanding owners in the hole for that sum on top of their own commitments to the corporation.

West Meade Condominium, without the owed amount, will be unable to meet ongoing insurance and utility bills, forcing the condominium into bankruptcy. Imagine as an upstanding owner having to move out of your home because of another owner’s fiscal imprudence.

In better jurisdictions, the condominium has first standing to collect fees owned. That means before the banks, and even before back taxes, the condominium gets paid out of the proceeds first. This is a fantastic situation. By giving the corporation first standing in a foreclosure (and also creating generous legislation allowing condominiums to bring their units to foreclosure on non-payment of contributions), the government protects the other owners from fiscal ruin, from non-maintained buildings, and from spiraling downward housing prices.

Good legislation for condominiums is important – especially given the fact that some owners can cause unchecked misfortune to others due to the nature of shared housing. With housing being a primary equity and destination of most people’s productive lives, housing requires more thorough consumer protections.

Banks are a form of commercialized savings. Housing is a form of self-directed savings which has significantly more public equity than all the banks combined. We’re willing to create massive legislation to protect bank based savings, we need the same friendly legislation for the most common and accessible public form of savings as well – people’s houses.

How Much Can I Rent My Condo For

The easy answer is “whatever a tenant is willing to pay.” That answer though makes it difficult as an owner to predict the average rent that can be charged over a period of 5 or 10 years, and thereby determine if it is economically feasible to rent their unit, or if they should simply sell.

It’s an important decision – because margins on rentals can be very thin if the unit is highly mortgaged.

Certainly part of the process is to check what similar units are renting for, near where your unit exists. Maybe it also includes looking at some historical rental data. But good planning usually involves a bit of a formula.

There are two formulas – one on average income, and one on the unit price.

Average Income

As an owner, look at the average income your tenant may have. When we rented our unit – a two bedroom – we assumed a young single male with either a female or male roommate. In Canada for 2009 A non-elderly male (average) and a non-elderly female (average) make 40,600 and 35,800 respectively. Combined they would have 76,400 in income (both before tax).

The maximum a person should effectively pay in rent (including utilities) is 30% pre-tax. Because our condominium includes water, waste and electricity in the condominium fee, we don’t have to factor those into the 30%. So from an average income perspective, we should be able to charge about 1910/month. This turned out to be well over what the local market turned out to be – probably because other units don’t include electric, and maybe we are thinking that one or both might be students, which might reduce the (average to non-earner) income. If we change the female to non-earner, her income goes to 18,100 – or now a total income of 58700. 30% of that number is $1467.50/month, and if you subtract utilities (to be competitive with the market) then you get about $1387.50/month expected rent.

Unit Price

There is a rule of thumb that indicates if the cost of the unit is 15x or less the rental cost (yearly basis), then people will migrate from renting to buying. If the unit is 16x or more the rental cost people will continue renting. The smaller the percentage of the unit they pay per year, the better the odds of renting the unit. The sweet spot seems to be 16x or higher cost:rental makes better economic sense.

Assuming that we want to charge the highest rent, but still have it make worthwhile sense to a renter, we want to charge a rent that is 1/16 the cost of the unit. If we were desperate to rent the unit, we might charge 1/17 or even 1/21 of the cost – both being much more attractive to a renter. The city of Calgary places our Fair Market Value at $248,000. So our maximized rent would be 248,000 / 12 (months) / 16 (our ratio) = $1291. If we subtract utilities, we would be renting at $1211/month.

Which Formula Works

We are successfully renting our unit at $1200/month. It’s in line with the other local rents, and is competitive for both the city and the rental market (which changes as rental occupancy goes up and down). From a personal perspective, the Unit Price approach seems to be easy and very close to the actual rental amount. We should be aware though that if the rental market softens, we could expect to see rental rates at lower then 1/16 – if it was at 1/19, then the market would likely only support $1007 rent (or 17% cheaper), something we should be aware of.

The income ratio tells us the type of people we are likely going to be interviewing – with a pre-tax income of rent X 12 / .3 or in our case (at $1200) about $48,000 before tax.

City Looks to Convert Municipal Space into Business Condominiums to Address Debt and Ongoing Costs

It’s amazing how many situations exist that the condominium structure can be used to successfully rehabilitate developments.

The city of Lorain, Ohio, is looking to convert some of its municipal space into business condominiums and then sell them. They space, the St. Joseph Community Center is woefully underutilized – with almost 2/3 of the building vacant. By converting municipal space into business condos, they can sell part of the building (reducing outstanding loans to the state level) and generate condominium contributions to the maintenance.

Maryland Condominiums Have Right To Force Homeowners to Carry Insurance

I am humbled that there is a US state that has given the power to condominium boards to make carrying a homeowner insurance policy mandatory. For a country that often talks about the absolute right of the individual to make their own decisions (any anything, forbid, otherwise is some strange form of socialism, communism, or other ism), a collective has been given the power to require an owner to purchase specific insurance.

With condominiums, may people think that the insurance policy purchased by the condominium covers their units, when in fact this is normally not the case (there are exceptions).  Normally the insurance policy held by the condominium only covers damages and repairs to the common elements – the building envelope and grounds. It does not cover inside the owner’s unit.

For example, if you owned a unit in a condo that burnt down, and the condo is repaired, the corporation policy would rebuild the structure, but not the interior of your unit – the “betterments and improvements.” What’s a betterment or improvement – anything inside your unit. That would include the toilet (yup – the piping would come in, but the actual porcelain toilet is a betterment). It likely wouldn’t include your cabinets, your flooring, your paint, your sinks, and all sorts of stuff. You would have a shell, to fill as you would.

Additional insurance, bought properly, would cover those betterments and improvements (seriously, we don’t see the toilet as an improvement – we think it’s part of the unit, but it is). And because of the danger of fire or water or other loss, I always encourage people to buy the additional insurance.

It’s nice then, having been in the industry long enough to see several major losses, that Maryland will allow the boards to make this additional insurance required to be purchased by their owners. I’m not sure how they will enforce it (it seems a little toothless – what are you going to do, evict the owner?) – but it is good intention.

Some may wonder how few people actually pass on buying insurance – I have a great example. In Calgary, March of 2010, a massive condominium fire in the Millrise left hundreds homeless. Less than half, half, of the owners had additional insurance. That meant more than 100 people would have been left with just a shell of a unit when they were rebuilt, and would have had to pay the additional living expenses of shelter during the months and months to rebuild. Fortunately, the board had made a decision to carry the additional insurance for everyone – which allowed all the units to be rebuilt completely, and the homeless have their expenses covered during the rebuild.

Maryland’s insurance requirement is slightly different than what I described, as it’s a requirement to carry insurance against a deductible (of the common property insurance) for damages originating from their unit. But in general it is the same idea – forcing insurance and reducing the risk of catastrophic loss.

In Canada Many Corporations Get Paid Before Banks and Taxes

Reading up on Condominium news from all over, this article in the New York Times talking about condominium corporations that vet purchasers caught my attention for numerous reasons.

Near the end of the first page is the comment:

In case of a default, the city is first in line to recover outstanding real estate taxes or other charges, followed by the mortgage lender. The condominium is third in line, and usually all it can do is file a lien against the property and hope that it will be repaid when the apartment is sold.

In Alberta, liens by the condominium corporation against a unit have first standing – that is above banks and taxes. There has been a very strong focus in Canada that the corporation should be given the powers to ensure the viability and upkeep of the common property. We have relatively lenient lien laws and the ability to foreclose and collect (it’s not simple, there is still a process, but it is a proven and supported process with case law). That has made the survivability of corporations much higher than in the US when owners default on paying contributions and special assessments.

This inability of the corporation to have the required standing and power to recoup outstanding HOA fees (in the US) seems to have triggered a very aggressive position by boards to keep out “possible deadbeats. “

… increasing number of condominium boards are hoping to weed out financially questionable buyers by requiring extensive application packages. Demands can include years’ worth of federal tax returns, detailed lists of all assets and liabilities, several letters of references, and even board interviews.

It’s not clear from the article if the corporations actually have the power to even ask for these documents or this process. They do have the power (which is not available in Canada as far as I know) to reject a purchaser if they (1) the corporation purchases the unit or (2) designate a different buyer at the same price. I get the feeling that it is from this right of changing the purchaser that they generate belief (which may be allowed legislatively) to challenge a person’s right to purchase in the corporation.

This ability to deny rights of purchase is highly concerning to me – and part of my concern is, I admit, not knowing the legislation. But what are the grounds that a corporation in NYC deny an owner – and do they even have to give a reason? Could we face a board that wants to keep a development all racially pure (whatever strain of race that is) and just buy the unit or appoint a new purchaser without reason? It is a concern that a condominium has the right to choose who can, and cannot, live in their building. In Canada, if you have the cash, and can abide by the by-laws (which can not filter on race, creed, or other human right) you can have the unit.

I once said that condominium are very very localized government. Could you imagine say a city that had the same right to deny purchasers to live in their city? That every resident had to provide financial stability documents before living there even if they can pay the price of the unit. How very unsettling.