Legislative Highlights (CA, OH, FL – Jan 2018)

 By Deborah Goonan, Independent American Communities

 

Some highlights from across the U.S.

California

Affordable housing, reporting requirements

Marjorie Murray, Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL) has informed me that SB35 was recently enacted into law. It requires the California Department of Housing and Community Development to collect data from local governments as part of the “housing element” process, a component of land use and community planning.

The purpose of this legislation is to track local government’s progress in meeting housing goals related to affordability for low and middle income housing consumers, and includes provisions that apply to both rental and for sale housing.

In general, the amended law also streamlines the approval and permitting process for multifamily affordable housing.

Here’s the link to the legislation: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB35

As amended:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB35

According to Murray:

Unfortunately, no new money was appropriated for the bill, so we’ll have to see to what extent the legislation gets implemented.

 

DISCLOSURE OF MANAGEMENT COMPANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND REFERRAL FEES

AB-690, which requires community managers to disclose affiliated relationships with vendors and any monetary compensation to the manager or management company from service suppliers, has been signed by the Governor Jerry Brown as of July 2017, and incorporated into Chapter 127 as of January 1, 2018.

Specifically, the amended new law states:

5375.5. A common interest development manager or common interest development management firm shall disclose, in writing, any potential conflict of interest when presenting a bid for service to an association’s board of directors. “Conflict of interest,” for purposes of this section, means:
(a) Any referral fee or other monetary benefit that could be derived from a business or company providing products or services to the association.
(b) Any ownership interests or profit-sharing arrangements with service providers recommended to, or used by, the association.

Source:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB690

As amended :

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB690

Solar panels permitted on multifamily common area roofs

AB 634, has been signed by the Governor Jerry Brown as of July 2017, and incorporated into Chapter 818 as of January 1, 2018.

An owner of a unit in a multifamily project must notify other unit owners sharing the same roof, before making application to install solar energy systems. Once approved by the association, the owner is responsible for proper installation by qualified professionals, insurance, and future maintenance and repair of solar energy system.

Excerpt:

SEC. 3. Section 4746 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

4746. (a) When reviewing a request to install a solar energy system on a multifamily common area roof shared by more than one homeowner pursuant to Sections 714 and 714.1, an association shall require both of the following:
(1) An applicant to notify each owner of a unit in the building on which the installation will be located of the application to install a solar energy system.
(2) The owner and each successive owner to maintain a homeowner liability coverage policy at all times and provide the association with the corresponding certificate of insurance within 14 days of approval of the application and annually thereafter.

Source:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB634

As amended:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB634

According to Marjorie Murray, Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL) vehemently opposed HB634 for the following reasons:

 

Nevertheless, the bill was passed in the legislature and enacted by Governor Jerry Brown.

Limited liability for volunteer directors and officers of mixed used, as well as residential HOAs

Effective as of January 1, 2018, the amended law has been incorporated into Chapter 278. It extends limited liability for certain acts to officers and directors of mixed use associations, to include business owners who lease property in the association. This limited liability protection was previously available to residential-only associations.

Source:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1412

As amended:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1412

 

Ohio

Proposal to prevent bans on Thin Blue Line flag

HB230 is a very narrow bill that, if enacted, would prevent association-governed communities, mobile home communities, and landlords from prohibiting display of the Thin Blue Line flag meant to honor law enforcement officers.

Read and track the bill here:

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA132-HB-230

Source:

State moving to ban bans on Thin Blue Line flag

Megan Henry

Posted Dec 10, 2017 at 11:45 PM
Updated at 5:48 AM

As a way to pay tribute to his fellow officers, retired Columbus Police Sgt. Daniel Guthrie flew the Thin Blue Line flag at his New Albany condominium.

The flag, however, violated the rules of his condo association, Rocky Ridge Condominium Complex, so he was forced to take it down.

In an effort to ensure that won’t happen again, Reps. Anne Gonzales, R-Westerville, and Tim Ginter, R-Salem, came up with a bill that would prevent landlords, mobile-home parks, condo associations and the like from restricting the display of Thin Blue Line flags.

Read more:

http://www.dispatch.com/news/20171210/state-moving-to-ban-bans-on-thin-blue-line-flag

Florida

The good and the bad news on condo, co-op, HOA reform

Cyber Citizens for Justice (CCFJ) announces several new bills filed for 2018 — some good, some meant to undo condo consumer friendly bills enacted in 2017.

First, the bad news.

HOA industry attorneys have already embarked on their mission to undo the “condo crime” legislation (HB1237) that was enacted last year. The “glitch bills” to be presented to the Florida Bar include watering down criminal charges for denying access to records or tampering with election processes; creating a gaping loophole that would allow the management company’s attorney to simultaneously represent the association (reversing the intent of recently amended law); and putting the burden on owners initiating a board recall to file for arbitration in the event the board rejects the recall (this almost always happens).

Jan Bergemann provides details, and links to proposed amendments at ccfj.net.

GLITCH BILLS – OR THE WORK OF GREEDY ATTORNEYS?

An Opinion By Jan Bergemann
President, Cyber Citizens For Justice, Inc.
Published November 18, 2017

Remember how many condo owners celebrated on July 1 of this year? The so-called “CONDO CRIME BILL” enacted by the legislature took effect on this day. It contained many owner-friendly provisions intended on reducing the crime and financial misconduct in many of Florida’s condo associations.

We knew that the wording of the bill (HB1237) wasn’t all perfect – and every knowledgeable person had to admit that the bill was written more with the heart than with legal expertise. Everybody went home knowing that some changes to the wording – especially regarding the recall language — had to be made during the next legislative session.

We all knew that the so-called specialized attorneys didn’t like the bill at all because many of them make their money by protecting the “bad” guys instead of working for the benefit of all owners of the community.

But when I saw the “GLITCH BILLS” presented to members of the Florida Bar Condominium & Planned Development Committee on November 3, 2017 at the Boca Raton Resort by William Sklar, the former co-chair of the HOA Task Force, and Steve Mezer, now Becker & Poliakoff. I could only shake my head in disbelief. The presented “glitch bills” are in my opinion a brazen attempt to completely destroy the intent of the Condo Reform Bill (HB 1237).

The proposed “glitch bills” are a lot more than just glitch bills. It more or less completely changes the provisions of the enacted bill and puts provisions in place that are even worse than the provisions in place before HB 1237 took effect.

Read more:

http://www.ccfj.net/CCFJOpGlitchBills.htm

See also:

Attempts by interest groups to undo condo crime bill (glitch bills)

http://www.ccfj.net/CCFJOpGlichBillRecall.pdf

http://www.ccfj.net/CCFJOpGlitchBillsConflict.pdf

 

Now the good news. According to Jan Bergemann, CCFJ”

Another great HOA Reform Bill was filed by State Representative Manny Diaz, Jr.

HB 873 (See: http://www.hoareformbill.net/HOUSE18.html ) mirrors the Condo Reform Bill that was enacted on July 1, 2017 — with some of the wording corrected. It’s a very good bill worth fighting for. The filing for a companion bill for the Senate is in the works. HOA owners have a lot worth fighting for in the 2018 legislative session. Remember: The session starts at the beginning of January and ends already on March 9, 2018. Let’s make sure that we all pull on the same string in order to avoid confusing our legislators. The so-called special interest attorneys like Becker & Poliakoff will fight these two bills all the way to the end! They hate any bill that will protect the owners of property in community associations. Less lawsuits — less income!

Read the bill here:

http://www.hoareformbill.net/HOUSE18.html

 

 

Advertisements

Have something to say? Share with other readers!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.