Why they failed, in the state's own words

There was no vote to lose. Both measures died of a drafting defect, and the review-and-comment memo for #4 states it in its first substantive comment:

“Article V, section 1 (5) of the Colorado constitution and section 1-40-102 of the Colorado Revised Statutes require the proponents to submit for review and comment the full text of the measure being proposed, which, if passed, becomes the actual language of the constitution or statutes. The proponents have submitted an idea, rather than the actual language that would be added to the Colorado constitution or Colorado Revised Statutes.”

The memos also flagged that the proponents had not said whether they meant to amend the constitution or the statutes, had omitted the required enacting clause, and had supplied no amending clause showing where the provision would sit. For #3, the memo asked the single-subject question required by Article V, section 1 (5.5), and raised a definitional problem the proponents never resolved — “There are several types of HOA fees including, by way of example: service fees…” — which is to say, which fees? Regular assessments, special assessments, transfer fees, fines?

Neither measure advanced to the Title Board. Neither appears in the Secretary of State's 2025-2026 Title Board filings list, and the filing deadline for title setting for the 2026 election has passed.

One sourcing caution. The “Fiscal Impact Statement” and “Fiscal Summary” links on initiative #4's own state page resolve to documents for unrelated initiatives — a just-cause-for-discharge measure and a fentanyl-penalties measure. There is no HOA fiscal note behind them. Anyone citing a fiscal analysis of an HOA fee cap should check what they have actually opened.

Why a cap of this kind would have collided with the rest of Colorado law

The measure's difficulty was not only drafting. A flat dollar cap on assessments runs directly into the machinery CCIOA already builds.

C.R.S. 38-33.3-315 requires the declaration to state the formula by which common expense assessments are allocated, and C.R.S. 38-33.3-303 puts the budget before the owners. Assessments in Colorado are a function of what the community must spend, allocated by a recorded formula — not a price the board sets at will.

And the direction of travel is up, for reasons no cap addresses. The Colorado Division of Insurance's own market study found HOA property insurance written premium in the state rose 115% between 2020 and 2024, with average premium per $1,000 of insured value up 44%. HB26-1099 now requires a declarant to commission a thirty-year reserve study before turnover. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac raise the minimum replacement-reserve allocation for condominium project eligibility from 10% to 15% of annual budgeted assessment income for loan applications dated on or after January 4, 2027.

A community capped at $300 a month while its master policy doubles and its financing eligibility requires a 15% reserve allocation would be a community that cannot buy insurance, cannot fund reserves, and cannot be financed. That tension is the real story of the fee-cap idea, and it is why the version that eventually gets drafted properly will be harder to write than its proponents expected.

What to watch next

Nothing bars a refile for the 2027-2028 cycle with actual statutory text. As of today the 2027-2028 initiative filings on record run to #1 through #6 and concern elections, proportional representation and clemency — none HOA-related. A search of the state's initiatives database for “homeowners” across all cycles returns exactly these two measures and nothing else.

For anyone asking the question these measures were trying to answer — can a Colorado HOA fee be capped, and are HOA fees deductible — the honest answer today is no to both, and the attempts to change it were dismissed before any voter saw them.