Senator Pedersen,
Whenever I make an error I try to admit it and correct it as soon as possible. Please accept this email as a replacement of my previous email which corrects the error. I am working with many states and was given a list indicating Florida had adopted UCIOA. I apologize for the error.
Thank you for writing bill SB 5796 to combine and consolidate the HOA laws to provide one set of laws to govern all CICs. This will make it much easier for HOA members, Board Members, Property Managers and even attorneys to understand what laws apply to HOAs. But HOW you combine the laws, will make a big difference in whether the HOA Homeowners are better off or worse off.
RiseUpWA is a Washington based group whose members are citizens of Washington, I am the Chairman of Housing Justice Committee of RiseUpWA. I am also the founder of HOA Reform Leaders National Group (HRLNG) which is a national group with members from 42 states and DC, so far.
We use the term HOA in this document as an umbrella term to cover all forms of HOAs, including COAs, POAs, CICs, etc.
As you state in your email Senator Pedersen, this bill as it is written will not solve any of the problems with the Washington State HOA Laws, but the way some is written may cause a lot more. I hope you will consider the adjustments we suggest.
Across the United States, the UCIOA laws have been found to be extremely damaging to HOA homeowners as well as very confusing. Many homeowners have unfairly, illegally and unethically lost their life savings and even their homes due to these bad laws. But these are not the only laws that fail to protect the homeowner. Currently HRLNG has members in 44 states, and although the laws are somewhat different in each, we find that all of the members indicate that they have similar problems. HOA laws are horrific for homeowners all over the country.
There are many sources available to testify to this, one of the most convincing I believe is the Miami Dade Florida, State Attorney General, Katherine Fernandez Rundle. Please view this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIwQnEzvnkY and listen to the recent CBS News video of the current State Attorney for Miami-Dade County in Florida, Katherine Fernandez Rundle. After four years of digging through the laws her investigation of the Hammocks case, she describes living in an HOA as “living in a dictatorial state”. Please start listening at the 8:50 minute mark that ends 8 minutes later to hear her comments. PLEASE ALL LISTEN TO THIS AND SERIOUSLY CONSIDER WHAT SHE IS SAYING.
AG Rundle brings out many points but the main one is the same we have been telling you for the last 6 years. The reporter asks what happens when Board Members or Property Managers of HOAs simply refuse to follow the law? Her answer is “nothing happens”. She points out that there must be penalties in the law for Board Members and Property Managers that violate the laws. Without this, none of the other laws you make will help the homeowners.
With no enforcement of even the laws that exist to protect the homeowner, the word Dictatorship is used constantly by homeowners across the state and the country to describe their HOA situation, and clearly after 4 years of involvement in the Hammocks HOA case, State Attorney General Rundle agrees. Please see this summary to learn more about why homeowners consider HOAs to be Dictatorships https://dev.homeownersfightback.com/learning/how-is-an-hoa-a-dictatorship/
In the report last year from the Condo Conversion Committee of AHAB (Affordable Housing Advisory Board), they recommended that HOAs NEED REGULATION. The law that created this committee required that the committee examine the balance of power between the HOA Board and the members. A great deal of information was presented demonstrating that imbalance of power created by 64.90.
There is good law in 64.90 but as a whole, it is very bad law for the homeowners of a HOA. This can be fixed, please see our Proposed Legislation at https://riseupwa.org/hoa-reform/
We are asking that you combine the laws to benefit the homeowners in general, and specifically as described below:
Put Penalties in the law for Board Member and Property Managers who Violate the Laws or Governing Documents. Please see our Proposed Legislation #2 at https://riseupwa.org/hoa-reform/
We need user friendly laws. Simplify the law while combining.
We would like the laws to be simplified not made more complex. This is a special set of laws that are expected to be obeyed and enforced by volunteer Board Members. 64.90 is poorly written, confusing and complicated. It doesn’t need to be complicated. I personally would like to volunteer to work with your team or any legislator’s team to simplify and improve the Washington State HOA laws. I have offered this many times over the years but was only told about your current effort months after it apparently had been completed.
Why are the homeowners ignored in the efforts to write laws about Homeowners Associations?
Do no harm.
We ask that as legislators you consider writing laws, one of your major goals in considering what to include in the combined laws and what to omit, is the concept of “Do No Harm” to the homeowners. With each bill you write, consider or vote upon, please think about how that bill would further hurt the homeowner, diminish their freedom, strip them of rights, and remove those parts of the bill. Please pass the parts of the bills that increase the freedom of the homeowners, protect and benefit them.
AG Rundle discusses lack of enforcement, lack of transparency, and illegal voting practices. AG Rundle states that the problems with the law, is multifaceted and the above are only a few of the many problems with the laws. There are some good laws in but as a whole they are very bad laws for the homeowner.
Our Proposed Legislation provides solutions for these and multiple other problems with UCIOA and 64.90 at https://riseupwa.org/hoa-reform
Leave out the Parts of 64.90 and the new sections that give Unreasonable Developer Control
Please look at the power given to the Developer and later to the Board, under 64.90 that does not exist under 64.38. Under 64.90 the Developer becomes a virtual Dictator and passes the situation they create down to the Board. We recognize that the Developer’s investment also needs to be protected but let’s put laws in place that protect both the Homeowner and the Developer. The Homeowners will have to live with the decisions of the Developer after the Developer sells the homes and leaves.
In reality the Homeowners are the only real stakeholders and the only long-term stakeholders in an HOA, the others involved, like the attorneys, Property Managers and other businesses involved are just vendors. They have no equity stake in the HOA.
The Developer, before he sells the homes, is a homeowner, but is a short-term stakeholder until he sells his last property. The laws should be set first to protect the homeowners and then with consideration to the Developers. We want the developers to build homes and to encourage them to do that, the laws need to allow them to make a reasonable profit, but not to the demise of the homeowner.
203 (3) Is an example of unreasonable power. A vote of the members should be required for ANY changes to the governance of the HOA, including but not limited to the any change of the declaration, governing documents, rules and fines, and certainly such a large decision as to joining with another association or a master association.
“203 (3) A unit owners association may delegate a power under36
RCW 64.90.405(1) to a master association without amending the 37
declaration. The board of the unit owner’s association shall give1
notice to the unit owners of a proposed delegation and include a2
statement that unit owners may object in a record to the delegation3
not later than 30 days after delivery of the notice. The delegation4
becomes effective if the board does not receive a timely objection5
from unit owners of units to which at least 10 percent of the votes6
in the association are allocated. If the board receives a timely7
objection by at least 10 percent of the votes, the delegation becomes8
effective only if the unit owners vote under RCW 64.90.455 to approve9
the delegation by a majority vote. The delegation is not effective10
until the master association accepts the delegation.”
The above means that the developer while they have control or later the Board Members alone can make this dramatic decision for their homeowners without a vote and then the members have to go through a significant effort and cost to block it and even more to reverse it.
There Needs to be a Less Dictatorial Law for Declarant Control than:
RCW 64.90.415
Period of declarant control—Transition.
(1)(a) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, the declaration may provide for a period of declarant control of the association, during which period a declarant, or persons designated by the declarant, may:
(i) Appoint and remove the officers and board members; or
(ii) Veto or approve a proposed action of the board or association.
(b) A declarant may voluntarily surrender the right to appoint and remove officers and board members before the period ends. In that event, the declarant may require that during the remainder of the period, specified actions of the association or board, as described in a recorded amendment to the declaration executed by the declarant, be approved by the declarant before they become effective. A declarant’s failure to veto or approve such proposed action in writing within thirty days after receipt of written notice of the proposed action is deemed approval by the declarant.
(2) Regardless of the period provided in the declaration, and except as provided in RCW 64.90.320(7), a period of declarant control terminates no later than the earliest of:
(a) Sixty days after conveyance of seventy-five percent of the units that may be created to unit owners other than a declarant;
(b) Two years after the last conveyance of a unit, except to a dealer;
(c) Two years after any right to add new units was last exercised; or
(d) The day the declarant, after giving notice in a record to unit owners, records an amendment to the declaration voluntarily surrendering all rights to appoint and remove officers and board members.
(3) Not later than sixty days after conveyance of twenty-five percent of the units that may be created to unit owners other than a declarant, at least one member and not less than twenty-five percent of the members of the board must be elected by unit owners other than the declarant. Not later than sixty days after conveyance of fifty percent of the units that may be created to unit owners other than a declarant, not less than thirty-three and one-third percent of the members of the board must be elected by unit owners other than the declarant. Until such members are elected and take office, the existing board may continue to act on behalf of the association.
(4) Within thirty days after the termination of any period of declarant control or, in the absence of such period, not later than a date that is sixty days after the conveyance of seventy-five percent of the units that may be created to unit owners other than a declarant, the board must schedule a transition meeting and provide notice to the unit owners in accordance with RCW 64.90.445(1)(c). At the transition meeting, the board elected by the unit owners must be elected in accordance with RCW 64.90.410(2).
Development Rights, there needs to be reasonable limits set in the law on Development Rights.
“Development rights” means any right or combination of rights reserved by a declarant in the declaration to:
(a) Add real estate or improvements to a common interest community;
(b) Create units, common elements, or limited common elements within a common interest community;
(c) Subdivide or combine units or convert units into common elements;
(d) Withdraw real estate from a common interest community; or
(e) Reallocate limited common elements with respect to units that have not been conveyed by the declarant.
and Special Declarant Rights should be limited by law, and should not be allowed if they effect the control of the community, eliminate the right for members to vote on all changes or in any way take control away from the members. We object intensely to Sec204(1)
“Sec 204(1) Any two or more common interest communities ((of the same1
form of ownership, by agreement of the unit owners as provided in2
subsection (2) of this section,)) may be merged or consolidated under3
subsection (2) of this section into a single common interest4
community by agreement of the unit owners or exercise of a special5
declarant right
We also object to the change of Sec 204(2) which states:
(2) An agreement of two or more common interest communities to14
merge or consolidate pursuant to subsection (1) of this section must15
be evidenced by an agreement prepared, executed, recorded, and16
certified by the president of the association of each of the17
preexisting common interest communities following approval by unit18
owners of units to which are allocated the percentage of votes in19
each common interest community required to terminate that common20
interest community. If a special declarant right is exercised in a21
common interest community, approval by the unit owners is not22
required and the declarant may execute the agreement on behalf of the23
common interest community.
207 (10) unfairly benefits certain segments of the HOA while damaging others.
We object to “207 (10) The association may adopt a rule that allows unit owners to
prepay assessments at a reasonable discount.”
This change to 64.90 benefits the wealthier members who would have the cash to take advantage of this option, and throw additional financial burden on the poorer people.
208 (4) Should only apply to UNCONTESTED delinquencies or delinquencies proved in a court, or better, through the HOA Dept as described in our Proposed Legislation #2 at https://riseupwa.org/hoa-reform/. Often corrupt groups on the Board, will claim false delinquencies against a Board Member they disagree with. The way the bill is written now gives a corrupt Board the ability to remove an honest and duly elected Board Member on false claims, without proving the claim.
“(4) The board may, without a unit owner vote, remove from the38
board a board member or officer elected by the unit owners if (a) the39
board member or officer is delinquent in the payment of assessments1
more than ((sixty)) 60 days and (b) the board member or officer has2
not cured the delinquency within ((thirty)) 30 days after receiving3
notice of the board’s intent to remove the board member or officer.4
Unless provided otherwise by the governing documents, the board may5
remove an officer elected by the board at any time, with or without6
cause. The removal must be recorded in the minutes of the next board7
meeting.”
The other documents creating binding legal agreements in 209 (3) (b) should be required to be listed and links to those documents or copies of them should be included in the public offering.
209 (3) (b) “OTHER DOCUMENTS CREATING BINDING LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. This17
public offering statement is a summary of some of the significant18
aspects of purchasing a unit in this common interest community. The19
governing documents and the purchase agreement are complex, contain20
other important information, and create binding legal obligations.21
You should consider seeking the assistance of legal counsel.”
PART III
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 64.90 RCW
We believe these special declarant rights are unreasonable and should be removed:
(52) “Special declarant rights”
(e) Make the common interest community subject to a master31
association, pursuant to RCW 64.90.300;32
(f) Merge or consolidate a common interest community with another33
common interest community of the same form of ownership, pursuant to34
RCW 64.90.310;35
(g) Appoint or remove any officer or board member of the36
association or any master association or to veto or approve a37
proposed action of any board or association, pursuant to RCW38
64.90.415(1);
We believe 303 (2) (z) should not be included. The budget is already virtually impossible to vote down in the real world. The Developer should not be able to set the bar even higher.
64.90.525 is already a problem. The budget should be voted upon by the members who are interested in voting on the budget, and not require a percentage of the entire membership. The budget should also allow voting out of specific budget items.
303 (2)(z) as written gives too much power to the Developer , it is almost impossible to vote down a budget.
“303 (z) RCW 64.90.525(1), concerning the percentage of votes required to reject a budget.”
Problems with Definitions Senator Pedersen I would like to talk to you about the Definitions.
The DEFINITIONS of 64.90 seem to be lacking and contradict some of the common definitions written in most of the legal websites. In order for Homeowners, Board Members, Attorneys and Property Managers to understand the law, the terms used in the laws should be clearly defined.
All definitions in 64.90 should be listed in the Definitions section of 64.90.10. They may also be listed again in specific applicable sections but should all be in 64.90.10.
64.90 Has no definition of Covenants, one of the most common terms used in HOAs.
We believe the definition of Covenants (CC&Rs) should be: A set of restrictions, legally-binding written agreements and fines which govern the privately owned properties of an HOA and are usually attached to the deed, meaning that when the property is sold, the new owner must also abide by the agreements.
There is no definition in 64.90.10 as to what is included in the Declaration.
64.90.10 Defines “Declaration” as “the instrument, however denominated, that creates a common interest community, including any amendments to the instrument”, which is a sentence that means pretty much nothing.
RCW 64.90.285 says the declaration can’t be changed without a vote of the members, but does not define what is in the Declaration.
“RCW 64.90.285 Amendment of declaration. (1)(a) Except in cases of amendments that may be executed by: A declarant under subsection (10) of this section, RCW 64.90.240(2), 64.90.245(12), 64.90.250, or 64.90.415(2)(d); the association under RCW 64.90.030, 64.90.230(5), 64.90.240(3), 64.90.260(1), or 64.90.265 or subsection (11) of this section; or certain unit owners under RCW 64.90.240(2), 64.90.260(1), 64.90.265(2), or 64.90.290(2), and except as limited by subsections (4), (6), (7), (8), and (12) of this section, the declaration may be amended only by vote or agreement of unit owners of units to which at least sixty-seven percent of the votes in the association are allocated, unless the declaration specifies a different percentage not to exceed ninety percent for all amendments or for specific subjects of amendment. For purposes of this section, “amendment” means any change to the declaration, including adding, removing, or modifying restrictions contained in a declaration.”
64.90.235 is titled Allocated Interests. But does have some requirements for items that must be in the Declaration and others that may be in the Declaration, but does not match what is published on the internet legal sites and still leaves the same confusion.
64.32 has a definition of a Declaration that includes “description of the land, lots and buildings as well as provisions of voting on certain actions, the requirement for bylaws, and a requirement for the method by which the declaration can be amended.”
“64.32.140 Recording.
The DECLARATION, any amendment thereto, any instrument by which the property may be removed from this chapter and every instrument affecting the property or any apartment shall be entitled to be recorded in the office of the auditor of the county in which the property is located. Neither the DECLARATION nor any amendment thereof shall be valid unless duly recorded.”
But no definition of what is in the Declaration.
64.38.10 has no definition of Covenants, Rules, Declaration
It does have a definition of Governing Docs.
(11) “Governing documents” means the articles of incorporation, bylaws, plat, declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, rules and regulations of the association, or other written instrument by which the association has the authority to exercise any of the powers provided for in this chapter or to manage, maintain, or otherwise affect the property under its jurisdiction.
Please see this post that quotes the various definitions offered with sources, on legal sites for an HOA Declaration. https://dev.homeownersfightback.com/learning/list-of-definitions-of-declaration-covenants-and-rules/
These are a few shown:
“list of rules, procedures and policies that are meant to keep the peace in the community.”
“legal and physical description of the community as a whole”
The Declaration is often also called the “Declaration of Covenants”
So from all of the above one would think that a good definition of the Declaration would be:
Declaration: The instrument, however denominated, that creates a common interest community, including any amendments to the instrument. It is to define the land included in the HOA, plat maps defining the private and common interest parcels and allocated interests, amenities, Organizational Documents, Governing Documents, the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), the rules and fines. Neither the DECLARATION nor any amendment thereof shall be valid unless duly recorded and all listed in RCW 64.90.225. Except for the limited common elements described in RCW 64.90.210 (1)(b) and (3), the declaration must specify to which unit or units each limited common element is allocated. Neither the DECLARATION nor any amendment thereof shall be valid unless duly recorded.”
It would seem that all of this information should be defined and registered together in one place, which we believe would need to be in the Declaration.
There still are more definition problems though. 64.90.010 (27) “Governing documents” means the organizational documents, map, declaration, rules, or other written instrument by which the association has the authority to exercise any of the powers provided for in this chapter or to manage, maintain, or otherwise affect the property under its jurisdiction.
So Governing Document in 64.90 seems to be what most of the legal sources seem to believe is the Declaration. The Declaration defined by 64.90 seems to have no clear meaning.
If you look at the definitions in 64.90, the definition of RULES is (49) “Rule” means a policy, guideline, restriction, procedure, or regulation of an association, however denominated, that is not set forth in the declaration or organizational documents and governs the conduct of persons or the use or appearance of property.
So Rules seem to be covenants that aren’t in the covenants, because the covenants are in the Declaration, and rules are not in the Declaration. Covenants are the most common term used to describe the CC&Rs that are connected to the deed. There is no definition of Covenants in the 64.90 definitions.
We noted that in this bill you modify the term “Rule” to:
“(((49))) (50) “Rule” means a policy, guideline, restriction,6
procedure, or regulation of an association, however denominated, that7
is not set forth in the declaration or organizational documents ((and8
governs the conduct of persons or the use or appearance of9
property)).”
We appreciate that you recognize the problem with the original definition and the attempt to fix it. However this still does not clarify the difference between a Covenant and a Rule other than a Rule seems to be a Covenant that is not in the Covenants thus does not need to follow the laws or bylaws required to change the covenants, nor does assure that neither can be changed without the vote of the members.
We believe the Definition of “Rule” should be: A policy or procedure, of an association, however denominated, that is not set forth in the declaration, (or better is set forth in the declaration), covenants or organizational documents and governs the use or appearance of common property or conduct of persons while using common property but not including the private property. Rules might include requirements such as procedures for submitting and handling complaints or maintenance requests, quiet hours or swimming pool policies. Nothing in the rules shall contradict, impose on, or supersede anything in the Declaration or Governing Documents. Nothing in the rules shall impose on or supersede the member’s right to free speech or other constitutional rights or rights granted in state or federal law. All changes to the Rules must be voted on by the Members and determined by the majority of the votes cast.
We need clear definitions so that we can all understand the laws.
There are too many places in the law where the phrase, unless otherwise stated in the Declaration, or other similar phrases. We need fair a reason able laws put in place for the homeowners that cannot be changed by the whim of the Developer or Board.
Binding or Non-Binding Arbitration – Proposed Legislation #2 (https://riseupwa.org/hoa-reform) is a much better solution than 311 (2) (w) and (3) (B)
Non-binding mediation a way for corrupt Boards to use up the money of Homeowners without going to court. Anything can be said in mediation, including threats and intimidation and can not revealed in court.
Attorney fees and other costs for mediation are not recoverable even if the Homeowner goes to court and wins the case.
Even if the HOA pays for the total cost of the mediation, mediation is not fair in this situation because the mediator cannot be neutral. If the mediator favors the Board, then the Board is likely to use them again, so the mediator has by definition a conflict of interest and cannot be neutral.
With a corrupt Board, they are unlikely to make any real attempt at mediation, so this process mostly turns out to be stressful, time consuming and costly for the homeowner.
“311 (2) (w) Require that disputes between the association and unit owners
or between two or more unit owners regarding the common interest2
community, other than those governed by chapter 64.50 RCW, be3
submitted to nonbinding alternative dispute resolution as a4
prerequisite to commencement of a judicial proceeding”
311 (3) (b) (ii) The board must promptly provide notice to the unit owners of29
any legal proceeding in which the association is a party other than30
proceedings involving enforcement of rules or to recover unpaid31
assessments or other sums due the association.
A better solution for this is our Proposed Legislation #2 at https://riseupwa.org/hoa-reform
We feel all members of the Board must be members.
(2)(a) Except as provided otherwise in RCW 64.90.300(((5))) (9),29
effective as of the transition meeting held in accordance with RCW30
64.90.415(4), the board must be comprised of at least three members,31
at least a majority of whom must be unit owners. However, the number32
of board members need not exceed the number of units then in the33
common interest community.
No committees should be given the power of the Board.
312 6) Except for committees appointed by the declarant pursuant to32
special declarant rights, all committees of the association must be33
appointed by the board. Committees authorized to exercise any power34
reserved to the board must include at least two board members who35
have exclusive voting power for that committee. Committees that are36
not so composed may not exercise the authority of the board and are37
advisory only.
To protect the members we oppose:
(7) A declaration may provide for the appointment of specified39
positions on the board by persons other than the declarant or an40
affiliate of the declarant during or after the period of declarant1
control. It also may provide a method for filling vacancies in those2
positions, other than by election by the unit owners. However, after3
the period of declarant control, appointed members:4
(a) May not comprise more than one-third of the board; and5
(b) Have no greater authority than any other board member
The only qualification for the Board should be that the person is a member of the HOA.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 313. A new section is added to chapter 64.907
RCW to read as follows:8
(1) Notwithstanding any contrary provision in the declaration or9
organizational documents, prior to an election of board members, the10
association must provide notice to all unit owners of the following:11
(a) The number of board positions that may be filled;12
(b) The qualifications to be a board candidate, if any; and13
(c) The process, manner, and deadline for submitting nominations.14
(2) If the board determines that any nominee is not a qualified15
candidate, the board shall notify the nominee of the basis for the16
disqualification, and the procedure for appealing the17
disqualification.
Question, what happens if the Board refuses to hold meetings and/or elections? Why create laws where violating the law has no effect on anything?
“316 (1) The following requirements apply to unit owner meetings:24
(a) A meeting of the association must be held at least once each25
year. Failure to hold an annual meeting does not cause a forfeiture26
or give cause for dissolution of the association and does not affect27
otherwise valid association acts. “
We suggest our Proposed Legislation #2 at https://riseupwa.org/hoa-reform/
There seems to be no process for getting items on the agenda for a meeting.
We suggest that law be added that requires the Board to place all motions submitted to the HOA in writing or electronically more than 60 days before the meeting or not less than 1 week after the previous meeting, whichever is less, to be placed on the agenda.
Unit owners time to speak at meetings. We believe the law should state that each member at a meeting shall receive a minimum of 1 to 3 minutes to speak on each topic on the agenda based on the available time and the number of people at the meeting. All members who wish to speak must be given equal time.
316 (1) (d) The Unit owners must be given a reasonable opportunity at any19
meeting to comment regarding any matter affecting the common interest20
community or the association.
We suggest adding to (316) (1) (b) (ii), “and be immediately reimbursed by the HOA for all actual notification expenses” as these expenses can be in the thousands when member email addresses are not available to the members and the notices must be printed and use USPS mailing.
(316) (1) (b) (ii) If the association does not provide notice to unit owners of35
a special meeting within ((thirty)) 30 days after the requisite36
number or percentage of unit owners request the secretary to do so,37
the requesting members may directly provide notice to all the unit38
owners of the meeting.
Calling a special meeting. Requiring 20% of the membership to call a special meeting seems too high. It might be fine for a 100 member HOA but for a 3000 member HOA this would require an unreasonable amount of time and cost. We suggest you change that to 20% or 50 members whichever is less.
316 (b)(i) An association must hold a special meeting of unit owners29
to address any matter affecting the common interest community or the30
association if its president, a majority of the board, or unit owners31
having at least ((twenty)) 20 percent, or any lower percentage32
specified in the organizational documents, of the votes in the33
association request that the secretary call the meeting.
Voting requirements in your amended sections seem often too high to be practical.
Requirement of notice of lien. Often homeowners are not aware of liens place on their property. No action should be allowed to take place on a lien until 30 days’ notice of the filing of a lien has been sent by certified mail to the member.
319 (8) Recording of the declaration constitutes record notice and28
perfection of the statutory lien created under this section. Further29
notice or recordation of any claim of lien for assessment under this30
section is not required, but is not prohibited.
319 (13) (b) We feel that there should be no-nonjudicial foreclosures in HOAs unless agreed to by the unit owner.
319 (13) (e) The association itself should also be prohibited from purchasing a unit in foreclosures. Firsts because this is a conflict of interest and secondly due to the risk level of the investment.
Properties sold in foreclosure to be sold through a realtor chosen by the seller at market value in the current real estate market, not at Sheriff’s sales. See our Proposed Legislation #4 at https://riseupwa.org/hoa-reform/
In leu of Sec 320, (2) (ii) Contain the electronic addresses of unit owners who have27
elected to keep such addresses confidential pursuant to RCW28
64.90.515(3)(a) and;
(3) (i) Unlisted telephone number or electronic address of any unit10
owner or resident;
We request a mandatory membership list as described in our Proposed Legislation #3 at https://riseupwa.org/hoa-reform/ that requires all members to submit an email address, not necessarily their personal email address, but an address to be specifically used for HOA communications and shared with the other unit owners. This is safe and necessary to allow free communications among the members so that they can efficiently carry out their duties as a member, related to calling special meetings and other issues where they need to communicate with the total membership.
There is no privacy issue here! All the legislators of all the states provide their name and an email address to reach them. Every company I have worked for in the last 20 years required me to connect my name to some email address and share that with the other employees and customers for easy communication. Virtually all business people share their name and email address. Many clubs across the USA share their members names and email address. There is no privacy issue here and certainly nothing specific about an HOA that would make this a privacy issue. HOAs are a corporation and unit members are members of that corporation.
Until recently change by HB 1043, the earlier laws stated that the HOA must share all the addresses of all the members. 1043 took that away from the members. Let’s go back to making it easy for members to communicate with each other.
1043 also reduce the transparency requirements, please give them back. The laws used to require that all information of the HOA must be shared with the members of the HOA. 1043 reduced this to only specific financial information. Please give us back the original transparency.
324 (2) (b) As written below would mean that the daycare children could not travel over any common property including roads owned by the HOA to get to the daycare facility. The original version is better ((Direct access must be either from the outside of the building if the common interest community is in a building, or through publicly accessible common elements.)) This would not allow daycare or adult care traffic through a secure common area.
“324 (2) (b) An association may require that only a unit with direct35
access to public property may be used as a family home child care or36
child day care center.”
We are concerned with this verbiage and similar in 324 (2) 9a) as it would allow discrimination against childcare and adult care facilities as it could put more restrictions on them than other units.
325 (2)(a) Nothing in this section prohibits a unit owners1
association from imposing reasonable rules on an adult family home2
including, but not limited to, architectural standards, as long as3
those rules are identical to those applied to all other units4
restricted to similar uses within the same common interest community5
as an adult family home
328 Disclosure. The unit owner should be responsible for disclosure of any property that the unit owner owns, and the HOA should be REQUIRED to provide the disclosure on the common properties including the reserve study, financials, minutes of the meetings, Governing Documents, Declarations, etc. to the unit owner. The HOA should be held responsible for missing or inaccurate information about the common properties and related information.
409 (3) Here also we suggest 20% or more of the votes in the association or 50 votes, whichever is less.
409 (3) Notwithstanding any provision in the governing documents of a16
common interest community that govern the procedures and requirements17
for amending the governing documents, an amendment under subsection18
(1) of this section may be made as follows:19
(a) The board shall propose such amendment to the owners if the20
board deems it appropriate or if owners holding ((twenty)) 20 percent21
or more of the votes in the association request such an amendment in22
writing to the board;
Terminating a bad HOA needs to be made easier. Getting 80% of the entire membership to agree on anything seems unreasonable. Many HOAs have difficulty just getting a quorum for meetings. It is not right that 20% of the members can hold the others captive. It should be a majority vote. This should not be able to be modified in the Declaration.
We also suggest that there should be a law that no municipalities, towns, cities, counties, or other governments can require developers to create HOAs. There should also be a limit to the percentage of homes that can fall under and form of HOAs in any town, city, county or the State. This limit should be 33%. People should not be forced to live in an HOA because there are no other choices.
Patrick Johansen
Chairman of Housing Justice Committee
RiseUpWA LLC https://riseupwa.org/hoa-reform/
HOA Reform Leaders National Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/hrlng
503-781-4492
We are not attorneys. All communications are opinions and beliefs.
Nothing in our communications should be considered to be legal advice.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
From: Pedersen, Sen. Jamie <Jamie.Pedersen@leg.wa.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 4:45 PM
To: ‘Condo Connection’ <condoconnectpnw@gmail.com>; ‘Raelene Schifano’ <raelene@hoaunited.org>; ‘Patrick@PK80.com’ <Patrick@pk80.com>; ‘McCarthy, Joseph P.’ <joseph.mccarthy@stoel.com>; ‘Luce, Nathan A.’ <nathan.luce@stoel.com>; ‘krystellepurkey@icloud.com’ <krystellepurkey@icloud.com>; ‘Theresa Torgesen’ <theresa@sagelawwa.com>; Rivers, Sen. Ann <Ann.Rivers@leg.wa.gov>; Trudeau, Sen. Yasmin <Yasmin.Trudeau@leg.wa.gov>; Dhingra, Sen. Manka <Manka.Dhingra@leg.wa.gov>; Orwall, Rep. Tina <Tina.Orwall@leg.wa.gov>; Leavitt, Rep. Mari <Mari.Leavitt@leg.wa.gov>; Peterson, Rep. Strom <Strom.Peterson@leg.wa.gov>; McEntire, Rep. Joel <Joel.McEntire@leg.wa.gov>; Walsh, Rep. Jim <Jim.Walsh@leg.wa.gov>
Cc: Hall, Adam <Adam.Hall@leg.wa.gov>; Giannini, Ryan <Ryan.Giannini@leg.wa.gov>
Subject: RE: common interest communities draft bill
Greetings, everyone. SB 5796 is our bill. (The text online is still processing and should be available in the next few hours; in the meantime, I have attached a pdf version).
In addition to making the changes requested by Homeowners United, this bill corrects cross-references that will be broken by the repeal of the three legacy statutes (adding about 75 pages to the bill in a new Part 4; the repealers follow in Part 5).
I welcome any additional comments, questions, or proposed changes; Ryan will begin collecting those for the sub.
Thanks, Jamie
Senator Jamie Pedersen
Majority Floor Leader
43rd Legislative District
pronouns: he/him
Olympia Office
LEG 309
P.O. Box 40443
Olympia, WA 98504-0443
(360) 786-7628
District Office
1200 12th Ave. S., Ste. 801
Seattle, WA 98144
(206) 729-3206
Executive Legislative Assistant
Sam Hendrickson
Legislative Assistant
Mandy Apa
To subscribe to my online newsletter, please sign up here. To send any comments, or to learn more please visit my website.
From: Pedersen, Sen. Jamie
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 4:24 PM
To: Condo Connection <condoconnectpnw@gmail.com>
Cc: Raelene Schifano <raelene@hoaunited.org>; Patrick@PK80.com; McCarthy, Joseph P. <joseph.mccarthy@stoel.com>; Luce, Nathan A. <nathan.luce@stoel.com>; krystellepurkey@icloud.com; Theresa Torgesen <theresa@sagelawwa.com>; Rivers, Sen. Ann <Ann.Rivers@leg.wa.gov>; Trudeau, Sen. Yasmin <Yasmin.Trudeau@leg.wa.gov>; Dhingra, Sen. Manka <Manka.Dhingra@leg.wa.gov>; Orwall, Rep. Tina <Tina.Orwall@leg.wa.gov>; Leavitt, Rep. Mari <Mari.Leavitt@leg.wa.gov>; Peterson, Rep. Strom <Strom.Peterson@leg.wa.gov>; McEntire, Rep. Joel <Joel.McEntire@leg.wa.gov>; Walsh, Rep. Jim <Jim.Walsh@leg.wa.gov>; Hall, Adam <Adam.Hall@leg.wa.gov>; Giannini, Ryan <Ryan.Giannini@leg.wa.gov>
Subject: RE: common interest communities draft bill
Dear Mr. Horvath –
Thank you very much for the prompt review and thoughtful comments. Next week I will circulate a new draft (which will be the version of the bill that I introduce) that will include nearly all of the changes that you requested (including, in particular, the restoration of the language around voting by absentee ballot).
The only change you proposed on which there is not agreement is the language allowing a small minority to veto a sale to a bulk investor. So following the general principle for the bill, we will not add language that is contested.
Thanks again, and please stand by for the new draft. Further comments are of course welcome at that point – but they will be addressed in the substitute bill that comes before Senate Law & Justice.
Have a great weekend –
Jamie
Senator Jamie Pedersen
Majority Floor Leader
43rd Legislative District
pronouns: he/him
Olympia Office
LEG 309
P.O. Box 40443
Olympia, WA 98504-0443
(360) 786-7628
District Office
1200 12th Ave. S., Ste. 801
Seattle, WA 98144
(206) 729-3206
Executive Legislative Assistant
Sam Hendrickson
Legislative Assistant
Mandy Apa
To subscribe to my online newsletter, please sign up here. To send any comments, or to learn more please visit my website.
From: Condo Connection <condoconnectpnw@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 11:08 PM
To: Pedersen, Sen. Jamie <Jamie.Pedersen@leg.wa.gov>
Cc: Raelene Schifano <raelene@hoaunited.org>; Patrick@PK80.com; McCarthy, Joseph P. <joseph.mccarthy@stoel.com>; Luce, Nathan A. <nathan.luce@stoel.com>; krystellepurkey@icloud.com; Theresa Torgesen <theresa@sagelawwa.com>; Rivers, Sen. Ann <Ann.Rivers@leg.wa.gov>; Trudeau, Sen. Yasmin <Yasmin.Trudeau@leg.wa.gov>; Dhingra, Sen. Manka <Manka.Dhingra@leg.wa.gov>; Orwall, Rep. Tina <Tina.Orwall@leg.wa.gov>; Leavitt, Rep. Mari <Mari.Leavitt@leg.wa.gov>; Peterson, Rep. Strom <Strom.Peterson@leg.wa.gov>; McEntire, Rep. Joel <Joel.McEntire@leg.wa.gov>; Walsh, Rep. Jim <Jim.Walsh@leg.wa.gov>; Hall, Adam <Adam.Hall@leg.wa.gov>; Giannini, Ryan <Ryan.Giannini@leg.wa.gov>
Subject: Re: common interest communities draft bill
CAUTION:External email.
Hello Senator Pedersen,
Thanks for your efforts (and to all those involved) related to this compound-complex legislation. Please find below bullet-point feedback to accompany an online document with comments. It’s challenging to accurately and adequately convey all of this in writing. We’re pleased to meet collaboratively in a web meeting format if possible.
- Agreed: a single statutory standard for all Washington community associations is the most important objective. Including “contested” proposals as separate pieces of legislation makes sense.
- We urge caution about adopting UCIOA standard language that steps backwards compared to language already enacted as law. Some argue that aspects of UCIOA adopted as recently as this year with HB1043 were a step backwards: “books and records” in legacy RCWs (64.34, 64.38, etc.) was reduced to specific records categories and new language empowered Boards to use discretion about what to disclose.
- We can be careful, intentional and surgical while still seeing the forest through the trees. We should not sacrifice what’s already good for the sake of passing a single standard.
- PART II
- Certain language in Part II would undo the legislature’s successes with SB5011 in 2021. Specifically, changes would eliminate absentee ballots counting toward quorum and re-complicate the meeting process.
- There is MUCH to be said for streamlining meeting requirements and it seems unreasonable to go backwards and require persons voting by absentee ballot to assign a directed proxy. This is so concerning that HOA United would voice dissent against adopting the entire package.
- Certain language in Part II would undo the legislature’s successes with SB5011 in 2021. Specifically, changes would eliminate absentee ballots counting toward quorum and re-complicate the meeting process.
- Sec. 207 – There’s improved language available — that does not strike us as a contested item — about “services and utilities”
- Sec. 207 – As previously identified, discounting prepaid assessments favors those with greater means to the potential detriment of those with lesser means.
- Perhaps interesting arguments to be made, but housing affordability and stability should require that everyone pays their assessments in full. Discounting or eliminating a finance charge is different from discounting as assessment.
- PART III
- Speaking in relative terms, many of the PART III additions are “neutral” technical updates
- We’re pleased to see the following:
- Sec. 328: a more robust seller disclosure statement
- a requirement that a schedule of fines must be provided with formal notice
- more precise language related to suspending privileges
- reasonable restrictions on Board vacancy appointments
- Sec. 313 for elections
- Sec. 322 for garbage and recycling receptacles
- This is less than 10% of the Regulatory Authority recommendations
- Sec. 323 for email disclosure
- We’re pleased to see the following:
- CONTESTED: Sections 306 and 307 re: reallocating CEs as exclusive use LCEs
- Comment about Section 310 related to termination
- CONTESTED: Section 316 providing only “a statement of a general nature” instead of the text of amendments
- CONTESTED: Section 316 options to meet other than in person when the governing documents require in person meetings of members.
- Section 317: general concerns about changing language related to absentee ballots.
- CONTESTED: “shall verify” language for voting. Reasonable measures are enough.
- CONCERN: Sec. 324 change to include “public property”
To reiterate, we concur that the greater good is served, so far as this bill is concerned, by enacting a single standard for all community associations in Washington State even if contested elements are not present, BUT we are concerned that 95% of the recommendations (top 10 and ~40 total) are contested. Many of these are conceptually and even linguistically identical to passed law in other states (including UCIOA states). The need for separate legislative initiatives cannot be understated.
We are pleased to continue this dialogue in writing, via phone and/or in a web meeting.
Regards,
Steve Horvath
802-444-1347
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 4:30 PM Pedersen, Sen. Jamie <Jamie.Pedersen@leg.wa.gov> wrote:
Hello, everyone –
I hope that you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving! With my apologies for the delay, attached please find a draft bill that does the following:
- Part I would allow the boards of common interest communities to remove unlawful restrictions (such as racial or religious restrictive covenants) from their land records, using the process from the new Uniform Unlawful Restrictions in Land Records Act.
- Part II would adopt the 2021 amendments to the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act.
- Part III would adopt those recommendations from reform advocates (including Condo Connection, HOA United, and RiseUpWA) on which I was able to secure agreement from CAI and folks from the original UCIOA drafting committee. (Please note that some of the sections amended in UCIOA 2021 are included in this part as well; if a section of 64.90 had amendments from both the ULC and the reform advocates, it is included in Part III and NOT in Part II).
- Part IV would repeal the three legacy statutes (64.32, 64.34, and 64.38) effective January 1, 2025 and bring all associations under 64.90.
I am expecting to add a Part V that will fix cross-references to the three legacy statutes in the bill as it will be introduced.
The most important objective of this bill is to repeal the legacy statutes and to have RCW 64.90 govern all common interest communities in Washington with a single set of rules. I think that is an objective that we all share. In the interest of not impeding that objective, my decision rule for changes in Part III is that they need to be agreed to by everyone. If there is disagreement that I cannot talk folks out of, then we will just remove the change from the bill. I will similarly oppose amendments that have not been agreed to. I think it goes without saying that other members are welcome to bring other bills in this area, both this year and in future years.
So in that spirit, I welcome your questions and comments on the draft. Senator Rivers has kindly agreed to be the second sponsor on the bill, and I am hoping to get an initial draft finalized in the next week or so that we can get it prefiled and scheduled for a public hearing. Of course, once it is introduced, we will immediately begin collecting comments for the substitute that the Law & Justice Committee will consider in mid-January – so if you see something that should be changed or deleted after the bill is introduced, it is not too late to let me know.
Thank you for your engagement on these issues. This bill will not resolve everyone’s concerns about common interest community governance in Washington, but should represent a solid step forward.
Best wishes, Jamie
Senator Jamie Pedersen
Majority Floor Leader
43rd Legislative District
pronouns: he, him, his
Olympia Office
LEG 309
P.O. Box 40443
Olympia, WA 98504-0443
(360) 786-7628
District Office
1200 12th Ave. S., Ste. 801
Seattle, WA 98144
(206) 729-3206
Executive Legislative Assistant
Sam Hendrickson
Legislative Assistant
Mandy Apa
To subscribe to my online newsletter, please sign up here. To send any comments, or to learn more please visit my website.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Legislature. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Legislature. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.