Member budget approval where required

The default: boards adopt, members don't vote

State statute sets the outer limits. Your association's declaration and bylaws set the process inside those limits. The designated parliamentary authority, usually a form of Robert's Rules of Order, governs how the vote at the board meeting itself happens. None of those three layers, by default, gives members a vote on the operating budget. The board moves the budget, debates it if anyone wants to, and adopts it by majority.

"The word 'majority' in this context means, simply, more than half."

Source: Frequently Asked Questions, The Robert's Rules Association

That majority is more than half of the votes cast by directors at a meeting where a quorum is present, not more than half of the board's total seats and not more than half of the membership. This is the board's vote, not the members'.

Two ways members can still get pulled in

Two verified mechanisms give members an actual role, and they work differently from each other. Neither is universal. Treat both as examples of what a state or a set of governing documents can require, not as the rule everywhere.

Ratification: a veto, not an approval

Colorado's Common Interest Ownership Act lets a board-adopted budget take effect automatically. Owners get a chance to kill it at a ratification meeting, but only if enough of them show up and vote no.

"The owners can reject the proposed budget only if a majority of all of the owners veto the proposed budget. There is no requirement that a quorum of owners be present for it to be a valid meeting."

Source: How the CCIOA Budget Process Works, Altitude Community Law

Notice the bar: a majority of every owner in the association, not a majority of whoever bothers to attend. A thin, angry turnout at the ratification meeting can vote unanimously against the budget and still lose, because the no votes have to add up to more than half of all owners, present or not. If the veto does succeed, the prior year's budget stays in force until the board proposes one that survives.

Assessment caps: a vote triggered by the number, not the budget

California takes a different approach. The board still adopts the assessment budget itself. But if the regular assessment increase or the aggregate special assessments cross a statutory line, members get a vote on the increase, separate from and regardless of who approved the budget that produced it.

"the board may not impose a regular assessment that is more than 20 percent greater than the regular assessment for the association's preceding fiscal year or impose special assessments which in the aggregate exceed 5 percent of the budgeted gross expenses"

Source: Civil Code Section 5605, Assessment Increases, State of California

unless members separately approve the increase by majority vote of a quorum. This 20 percent and 5 percent structure is California's rule specifically. Other states set different thresholds or none at all, and your own declaration can set something tighter.

Check three things before you assume either way

1. Does your state's common-interest-community statute impose a ratification or veto step on board-adopted budgets, the way Colorado's does? This evidence base only confirmed the mechanism for Colorado; verify it against your own state's statute.
2. Does your state cap how far a regular or special assessment can rise before it needs a member vote, the way California's 20 percent and 5 percent thresholds do? Confirm your state's specific cap, if any exists.
3. Do your own declaration and bylaws add a stricter requirement than either statute does? Governing documents can require more member involvement than the state floor sets; they cannot lawfully require less.