Leaders of the Florida Community Association Journal have already shared excellent coverage of Florida’s legislative journey since the Surfside tragedy. Prior articles in FLCAJ have explained the broad strokes of Senate Bill 4-D, SB 154, and most recently House Bill 913, which was signed into law on July 1, 2025. Those pieces have done a great job summarizing the provisions, deadlines, and governance reforms that boards and managers need to know. My focus is to add a perspective not from legislative text, but from the ground: data and lessons learned from more than 1,000 real-world SIRS reports completed across the state. That dataset provides a reality check—and, I hope, some reassurance—as communities wrestle with the changes now required of them.
How We Got Here
Florida’s condominium reserve laws didn’t change overnight. After Surfside the legislature passed SB 4-D in 2022, which created the requirement for milestone inspections and the very first definition of a “structural integrity reserve study” or “SIRS.” It was a landmark shift, eliminating the ability of association memberships to waive reserves for certain structural items. The next year, SB 154 clarified those initial requirements. It adjusted definitions and timelines and clarified who could perform inspections and SIRS reports. While still sweeping in scope, SB 154 made the process more practical for associations trying to comply. HB 913 is simply the next step in that evolution. Rather than completely replacing the earlier laws, it fine-tunes them, making compliance more flexible while still holding boards accountable.
Why Reserves Exist In The First Place
One of the most common misconceptions about reserves is that they’re simply a way to “save up” for some big project in the future, like a roof or painting job. But that misses the point. The real purpose of funding reserves is to fairly charge current owners for the portion of deterioration that happens while they live in their building. Every day components get older, wearing down and deteriorating due to a combination of exposure, use, and a constant drift toward obsolescence. Funding reserves is really about paying today’s bill for ongoing deterioration—it should be treated as a current expense. If today’s owners don’t contribute their fair share, representing the time they lived in a property enjoying the use and value of its various elements, then tomorrow’s owners will bear more than theirs; and that’s not equitable. This is why healthy reserve funding isn’t optional. It’s part of the true cost of ownership in a condominium, just like insurance, utilities, or management fees. For many Florida communities, this has been a disruptive shift in thinking. The hope is that disruption now will give way to normalization as the market adapts. Soon, adequate reserves will be understood as simply part of responsible governance and property ownership—just as they are in comparable communities in other states.
What The Numbers Say
Here’s where our experience comes in. From over 1,000 SIRS reports completed between 2023 and 2025, several clear patterns emerge. (All data points listed here reflect funding recommendations for both structural [SIRS-mandated] and non-structural components combined.)
Average increases are manageable. While assessments did rise dramatically in some cases, most increases were far lower than feared. In many cases, communities were able to absorb the changes with incremental adjustments instead of drastic hikes. Our data shows that for those associations that were already contributing to reserves (referred to hereafter as Group A), the average monthly increase per owner amounted to just under $97.
For buildings that were not already funding reserves (we’ll call them Group B, representing approximately 12 percent of the properties in our analysis), the required reserve funding was higher—we recommended a net monthly increase to owners of $331, on average. Of course, this is unwelcome news for any owner, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise. Most of the communities in this group have experienced repeated special assessments and loans for projects over their history. The tradeoff in these cases should be that increasing the annual budget to an appropriate number would minimize or eliminate those alternative requirements over time.
Special assessments and loans were an additional factor for both groups of properties, but much less so for Group A. For those buildings already funding reserves, special assessments or loans were required 34 percent of the time. For Group B, the frequency was nearly double that at 62 percent. In both groups, when additional immediate funds were necessary, these were typically older buildings with years of deferred maintenance and limited reserves. Even without the legislative changes, many of these assessments would likely have happened anyway, given the timing of major upcoming expenses—the sand in the hourglass was already running out well before the SIRS legislation came to pass.
It’s about rebalancing, not exploding budgets. Most associations already had some reserves in place; the SIRS primarily redirected dollars to underfunded structural elements like concrete restoration and waterproofing. (Keep in mind that for other “nonstructural” components, association members still have the option to vote to waive or partially fund reserves.) For boards and managers, this means the SIRS is less a “bombshell” than a budgeting reset. Owners often find that while contributions may rise, they’re rising to reflect the true, ongoing costs of ownership—not arbitrary new burdens.
HB 913: More Carrots…And More Sticks
House Bill 913 introduced meaningful refinements that boards should both welcome and respect. This legislation is designed to help associations by providing more time, flexibility, and financial options. On the bright side, associations can temporarily pause reserve contributions for up to two years after a milestone inspection, if owners approve, to focus on any immediate repair needs discovered by the milestone. In addition, reserves may now be invested in a broader range of vehicles,
potentially improving long-term returns. There are also more avenues provided for how to actually fund for major projects: SIRS professionals may now incorporate loans, lines of credit, and special assessments into funding plans, offering communities more realistic options that should allow them to spread larger dollar amounts over longer periods of time in some cases. With those new benefits, though, comes a stricter focus on compliance and accountability. HB 913 comes with expanded reporting, disclosure, and enforcement requirements. Officers must sign affidavits acknowledging receipt of SIRS reports, and the DBPR is tasked with heightened oversight. Penalties for noncompliance have been expanded as well—possibly resulting in individual fines for board members of up to $5,000 plus removal from their position for a period of time. Bottom line: the additional flexibility is useful and should help ease the financial burden—but only if boards use it wisely and document their decisions carefully.
Compliance Deadlines and What’s Next
HB 913 also extended the SIRS compliance deadline to December 31, 2025. That gives associations breathing room but not an excuse to procrastinate. As of now, fewer than half of Florida condominium and cooperative associations appear on track to meet the deadline. That means a surge of activity—and likely a shortage of qualified providers—as the new date approaches. And this isn’t the end of the story. The Florida DBPR will review data submitted by associations through 2025 and is expected to recommend legislative adjustments in early 2026. Boards should prepare for further refinements in the law as the state digests what SIRS compliance looks like in practice. In the meantime, there’s also growing “indirect enforcement.” Insurers and lenders are tightening their standards, increasingly requiring a current, credible SIRS as a condition for underwriting coverage or approving loans. In many cases, even if a community wanted to delay, the financial marketplace won’t allow it. Compliance isn’t just about statutes—it’s becoming a practical necessity for doing business.
The Bigger Picture
There’s no denying the transition is disruptive, but the disruption is also clarifying. Owners are beginning to understand that reserves aren’t optional “extras”—they’re a fundamental part of the cost of safe, sustainable ownership. Boards are realizing that clear, current data empowers better decisions, and that transparency about costs builds trust—even when the numbers are uncomfortable. Buyers and lenders, too, are learning to value healthy reserves as a sign of stability rather than seeing them as an added expense. Over time, this will shift the condominium market in a healthier direction, rewarding well-prepared communities and penalizing those who resist. The cultural shift is underway, and it’s here to stay. HB 913, like the laws before it, has forced associations to face the reality of deterioration costs. While it has introduced new flexibilities, it has also raised expectations for accountability and transparency. The lesson from the data thus far is clear: most associations can comply, most will find the numbers less frightening than feared, and all will benefit from a more honest accounting of what it really costs to live in a condominium or co-op.
Written by Will Simons, RS, EBP, President of the Florida Regional Office of Association Reserves
This article was originally published in the November 2025 edition of the Florida Community Association Journal.