Is GCA under CCIOA?
While seemingly a simple question, the precise situation of the GCA relative to CCIOA appears to be a great source of confusion and debate within the community. Unfortunately, the HOA has been rather inconsistent in its references to CCIOA in its own documents. A comparative analysis of the law and the GCA’s documents helps shed a little light.
Why does this matter?
Because the HOA’s covenants are constrained differently based on the GCA’s level of coverage by CCIOA. Some coverage is mandatory as several CCIOA clauses apply to all HOA’s. In some cases, a clause requires an HOA under full CCIOA to follow a specific rule, but in other cases, CCIOA specifically forbids an HOA under partial CCIOA coverage from including a rule. So the covenants must conform based on how our HOA is positioned relative to CCIOA.
So are we under CCIOA or not?
Well, the answer is “yes” - but in a bounded way and not under the entire Act. Simply put:
- GCA’s community is preexisting (pre-1992). Although the corporation was incorporated January 20, 1995, the common interest community was created by declarations recorded in 1973/1983 (and amendments through 1986) — all before July 1, 1992. CCIOA applicability turns on when the community was created, not when the managing nonprofit was formed. GCA’s baseline coverage is therefore § 38-33.3-117 (the preexisting-community list), or the § 119 limited-expense exception (as proposed in the 2025 revisions) — never § 115 (full CCIOA for new communities).
- The only way a pre-1992 community becomes subject to all of CCIOA is a recorded § 118 election. Reciting “unit owners’ association under CCIOA” in the Articles or the Declaration does not accomplish this. Section 118 requires a 67% owner vote and a statement of election recorded with the county clerk and recorder, effective only “upon the recording.”
- El Paso County has no record of a § 118 election by GCA, nor has GCA itself posted any record of the required election or application. Accordingly, GCA never brought itself fully under CCIOA. The CCIOA language in the 1995 Articles and the 2017 Amendment Four is descriptive/aspirational — strong evidence of how GCA held itself out, but not the self-executing statutory election.
- The realistic range of coverage is therefore narrow — and bounded below the full Act:
- Minimum: §§ 105–107 (including the mandatory public-policy sections 106.5/106.7/106.8), if the 2025 proposed limited-expense exemption (§ 119 via the $200 cap) is valid.
- Maximum: the § 117 enumerated list (e.g., §§ 209.5, 308, 315, 316, 317, etc.), if it is not.
- Not the entire CCIOA, in either case, because no § 118 election was recorded.
The Colorado HOA Information & Resource Center has previously hosted a Colorado community association attorney to discuss the issue of applicability of CCIOA to pre-CCIOA communities. You may find a recording of some of the Division's related presentations on their YouTube channel (click here for an example). The slides from one such presentation are provided here. In addition to explaining the three categories of CCIOA coverage, it attempts to provide a comprehensive accounting of what constraints/benefits each category confers.
Something worth noting in the presentation: while the GCA could qualify for the Limited Expense class of coverage, the HOA would surrender its ability to do so if it uses a CCIOA provision (e.g., the 217 clause exercised by GCA in early 2026) to amend the HOA’s declarations. In such a case, the HOA would be brought fully under CCIOA’s coverage at that time.
The Resource Center has also provided a list of all CCIOA provisions broken down by which are applicable and not-applicable to pre-CCIOA communities such as the GCA.
Sincerely, U.N.I.T.E. Gleneagle