Decision and deadline
Write the exact action requested and the latest responsible decision date. Explain what changes if approval is deferred.
Board preparation guide
Condo Board Packet Template and Decision Brief
Give directors the facts, choices, and authority they need before the meeting. Keep the record useful after the vote.
Packet structure
Put the decision first.
A long attachment list can obscure the question the board must answer. Start every substantial agenda item with a one-page brief, then link the supporting records.
The brief should distinguish verified facts, estimates, open questions, and recommendations. It should also state whether the item is for information, discussion, direction, or formal approval. A member reading it should understand the consequence of waiting.
- State the requested decision in one sentence.
- Identify the person responsible for the evidence and recommendation.
- Show the options, cost range, timing, and material risks.
- Confirm the approval authority and any required specialist review.
- Specify who will act, by when, and what proves completion.
Six-part template01 02 03 04 05 06
The minimum useful decision brief.
Verified background
Record dates, conditions, prior decisions, contract terms, and source documents. Mark assumptions and missing evidence plainly.
Comparable options
Present a realistic baseline and alternatives using the same scope, timing, pricing basis, dependencies, and service criteria.
Financial effect
Show approved budget, expected total cost, cash timing, reserve implications, and any funding decision that follows.
Risk and authority
Identify safety, insurance, legal, operational, and resident effects. Cite governing documents or professional advice where required.
Execution and proof
Name the owner, first milestone, reporting date, and evidence needed to close the item in the action register.
Board packet evidence library
Check the supporting record before a vote.
Use these 24 checks as a prompt, then select the items proportionate to the decision. The can be opened in a spreadsheet.
24 checks shown
| Check | Evidence to include | Board question |
|---|---|---|
| GovernanceDecision requested | One-sentence motion or direction | Is the requested action unambiguous? |
| GovernanceDecision deadline | Contract date, meeting date, or risk trigger | What happens if the board waits? |
| GovernanceApproval authority | Governing provision, policy, or delegated limit | Who can approve and sign? |
| GovernancePrior decisions | Relevant minutes and open action log | Does this supersede earlier direction? |
| GovernanceConflict disclosure | Documented interest disclosures | Does anyone need to recuse or seek advice? |
| FinanceApproved budget | Adopted budget line and current forecast | Is the item already funded? |
| FinanceTotal cost | Base scope, allowances, taxes, and fees | What is the plausible total commitment? |
| FinanceCash timing | Milestone schedule and cash projection | When will payments be due? |
| FinanceReserve effect | Current study and funding schedule | Does the choice change reserve assumptions? |
| FinanceCost of delay | Expiry dates, escalation terms, and condition record | Is postponement likely to increase cost? |
| VendorsComparable scope | Proposal scope and exclusions | Are vendors pricing the same work? |
| VendorsQualifications | Licenses, references, insurance evidence | What capability has been verified? |
| VendorsService standard | Response times and measurable deliverables | How will performance be judged? |
| VendorsContract terms | Term, renewal, termination, and warranty clauses | What future commitment follows approval? |
| ProjectsExisting condition | Inspection, photos, and engineer findings | Which facts support the proposed work? |
| ProjectsAlternatives | Repair, replacement, phased, and deferral options | Were viable options compared fairly? |
| ProjectsSchedule | Critical path and access constraints | What could delay completion? |
| ProjectsChange control | Written approval and documentation process | Who may authorize a change? |
| RiskSafety impact | Incident record and qualified assessment | Is interim protection needed? |
| RiskInsurance impact | Policy terms and broker correspondence | Does the decision affect coverage or claims? |
| RiskResident impact | Access, noise, service, and notice plan | Who needs to know and when? |
| RiskContingency | Fallback vendor, emergency steps, and escalation owner | What happens if the preferred option fails? |
| RecordsSource index | Stable links and dated document versions | Can a director verify each material claim? |
| RecordsAction closure | Owner, due date, status, and proof | How will the board know the decision was carried out? |
Quality gate
Run five checks before distribution.
- Can a director name the decision?If the request is hidden in a report, rewrite the first paragraph.
- Do the numbers reconcile?Compare proposal totals with allowances, change exposure, taxes, funding, and the current forecast.
- Are options comparable?Separate scope differences from price differences before presenting a ranking.
- Is the authority clear?Confirm who may approve, sign, direct work, and communicate the result.
- Is the record complete?Attach the final brief, supporting evidence, meeting decision, and action owner in the controlled records index.
Use it with existing tools
From packet to follow-through.
The meeting checklist helps place the brief on an agenda. The decision and action register carries its commitments forward. For a vendor choice, use the bid comparison matrix; for a project change, use the change order register.
How much detail belongs in the packet?
Keep the decision brief short enough to scan. Attach the complete evidence separately with descriptive filenames and a stable version. The right length depends on the risk and cost of the decision.
What if the board does not have enough evidence?
Record the missing information, the person who will obtain it, and the date it will return. An explicit deferral is more useful than a vague discussion with no next step.
Should the board packet include confidential material?
Use the association’s access and records rules. Distribute sensitive material only through the appropriate channel and obtain qualified advice when legal privilege, personnel information, or statutory records duties are involved.
Working method
Control versions and decision outcomes
The packet must identify the version the board actually considered.
Give each decision brief a date, preparer, source links, and a clear version label. When estimates or recommendations change after circulation, show the changed assumption and its effect on cost, schedule, or risk. Keep superseded versions in the record but mark them as superseded so members do not vote from different facts.
After the meeting, add the approved motion, conditions, delegated signer, next milestone, and unresolved questions to the same record. A one-page cover sheet can distinguish items that need a vote from items provided for information. The related board meeting checklist explains how to carry the result into the next agenda.
Need a clear packet for a complex property decision?
Request a focused review
Hypothetical worked example
A choice buried in three proposals
Three fictional proposals are attached to an agenda without a common scope or the approval requested. Directors cannot tell which differences affect the decision.
Original fictional example · no completed client assignment or property inspection is represented.
| Record to obtain | Review question or calculation |
|---|---|
| Proposed motion | Separate the requested vote from background material |
| Comparable scope and exclusions | List choices and the consequence of deferral |
| Costs and funding assumptions | Flag costs that have not been confirmed |
Useful working output: A concise decision brief linked to the original proposals and material gaps.
What would change the decision?
Open each challenge to test the reasoning against a different finding.
The recommendation refers to a superseded proposal
Check: Match the proposal date, revision, price, exclusions and expiration to the version described in the decision paper.
Decision effect: Refresh the decision paper and supporting comparison before the board relies on outdated terms.
The attachment is complete but the requested approval is unclear
Check: Identify the exact commitment, funding source, authorized role, conditions and delegated follow-up.
Decision effect: Replace a general discussion item with a bounded decision request and a record of unresolved conditions.
Adapt the record request to authorized access, governing documents and the actual property. The example does not verify any unknown input or replace a professional conclusion.
Property Vendor Bid Comparison Matrix · More governance and records examples
Before acting on this guide
Set the review boundary and the acceptance test.
When to use it
Directors must choose between materially different options.
What the evidence does not prove
Do not treat attached proposals as a comparable decision package.
What to verify before acceptance
Have a reader identify the requested vote, funding assumption and unresolved exclusion without reconstructing the attachments.
Original proposed coordination checks · adapt to authorized access, the actual obligation and the appropriate professional review. These are not findings about your property.
Follow the related handoff workflow · Read the review definitions
A number, its evidence and the decision
An action count needs an acceptance test
A meeting can approve a task without demonstrating that it was implemented. Count completion only when the agreed acceptance record exists, and keep overdue decisions separate from overdue delivery.
Decision
Name the approval and its governing authority.
Assignment
Confirm the responsible role and due date.
Verification
Examine the evidence against the acceptance test.
Closure
Record acceptance and the next review trigger.
A worked example with visible assumptions
In a fictional monthly review, 20 actions are due and 14 have accepted completion evidence. Closure is 14 ÷ 20 × 100 = 70%. The six unresolved actions need an owner and next check; the percentage does not measure board competence or legal compliance.
Original hypothetical arithmetic example. The amounts describe a fictional scenario, not observed property performance or a recommended target.
Continue with Board Decision & Action Register TemplateExplore the calculation
Enter non-negative values using the same scope and period. This calculation stays in your browser tab.
Attendance is not acceptance
Meeting attendance, an email acknowledgment and a closed ticket each establish different facts. State which one is required for this decision.
Use the right population
Count actions due in the same review period. Do not mix new tasks with old closures unless the definition explicitly requires it.
Separate the dependency
If a task awaits a board decision, distinguish the approval delay from a service execution delay.
Put the guidance to work
Present options using the same assumptions
For a repair vote, show the same scope, access requirements, tax treatment, contingencies, and exclusions for every proposal. An apparently cheaper option may leave a necessary component outside its price.
Put the decision requested and the consequence of deferral on the first page. Label estimates, professional conclusions, unresolved facts, and supporting attachments so directors can see what is established.
Archive the version actually circulated, later corrections, and the approved option. Keep confidential attachments in an access-controlled location rather than embedding them in every distribution.
Apply the next operating control
Find checklists and data definitions · Explore governance and records