The bill they announced is not the bill they introduced

This is the detail that has gone unreported. On June 6, 2026, Polistina and Guardian announced legislation to curb HOA fee increases, circulating an Office of Legislative Services draft stamped May 26, 2026, reference 26-5362, with the bill number and date of introduction left blank.²

That draft used a completely different mechanism. Where an association existing as of the 2023 law's effective date lacked an adequate reserve, and closing the gap "would require an increase of more than 10 percent of the previous year's common expense assessment, the deficiency is to be made adequate within the earlier of: (1) five fiscal years; or (2) the projected date predicted by the reserve study by which absent increased funding, the balance in the association's reserve account would fall below zero," with "an equal annual line item increase… notwithstanding causing an increase of more than 10 percent."

That is a ten-percent trigger and a five-year catch-up. The introduced bills use 35-year plans. Nothing published explains why the approach changed between May 26 and June 23, and the ten-percent approach is not currently pending in any form.

What prompted it

The bills are downstream of a specific piece of reporting. On May 30, 2026, NJ.com described condominium owners at a Mays Landing community facing a monthly fee rise from $350 to $624.77 — 78 percent — attributed by the property manager to the state's reserve statutes. Polistina told the paper his office was "working with the Office of Legislative Services to draft legislation that would help ease some of the financial burden."

A week later he said his office had been "inundated with calls and emails from residents who fear they may lose their homes because of staggering increases in homeowners' association fees." Guardian: "This legislation was never meant to force seniors on fixed incomes to lose their homes."

What 35 years actually buys

Lengthening the projection period lowers the annual contribution, because the same replacement costs are spread across more years. It does not reduce the costs. A component with a 25-year remaining life is funded over 35 years the same way it is funded over 30 — the difference is how much cushion the plan carries when the component actually fails.

It is also worth noting what a 35-year plan does not fix: the deleted catch-up subsections. P.L.2025, c.132 removed the ten-year and two-year deficiency cure paths from the statute, and these bills do not restore them.

The 85% re-anchoring is the sleeper provision

Re-dating the 85% sunset from "the effective date of the statute" to "adoption of the funding plan" is drafted as a clarification and functions as an extension. An association that adopts a plan in 2027 would get five fiscal years from 2027 rather than five from August 2025 — potentially doubling the usable window for the lowest-cost budgeting option in the statute.

Status

A5306 was referred to the Assembly Housing Committee, S4508 to Senate Community and Urban Affairs. Neither has a committee statement, a reprint, a hearing, a vote or a fiscal note. Neither is a reintroduction; both are new in the 222nd.