Proposed Colorado HOA Legislation to have Immediate Benefits to Home Owners and Small Business

The Colorado legislature will consider three home owner's association (HOA) Bills this session.  Two will be mostly administrative and one could serve to be the most impacting HOA legislation of the past 20 years improving upon responsibilities and accountability in the HOA property manager industry and the potential to save HOA home owners millions of dollars annually.

SB 16-082, HOA Whistleblower (intimidation) Protection, and HB 16-1149, Remove Budget Reporting Exemption HOAs Predate Act (CCIOA), have admirable goals and provide great expectations but will accomplish neither (for now).  These Bills have the same ole' problem that characterizes HOA legislation over the past decades: they lack enforcement from the home owner's perspective except through our costly, litigious, time consuming court system matching HOA funds and lawyers against the very limited resources of the home owner.  Lacking an accessible and affordable venue to enforce these Bills home owners will more feel good about the Bills than experience any change.

HB 16-1133, HOA Manager Professional Responsibility and Disclosure, can positively affect home owner's rights and their wallets and provide financial relief to small businesses serving HOAs. This Bill modifies the HOA property manager (PM) licensing law.  The Bill addresses the abusive and costly property manager HOA Transfer Fee that involves duplicate and triplicate billing of home owners for services already paid for with HOA dues, requires home owners to be provided a detailed receipt of charges for Transfer Fees, and requires that all Transfer Fees be in compliance with authority to charge as stated in State and Federal laws.  This fee costs home owners upwards of $10 million a year.  The Bill provides the smallest of HOA property managers financial relief from requirements to obtain a license that can cost them more than a year's income.  Also, the Bill improves upon requirements for property managers to comply with State laws and HOA governing documents.  The reason this Bill will immediately impact home owners is that when non-compliance with this Bill occurs  a home owner can file a complaint with DORA (Dept of Regulatory Agencies) free of charge, have the complaint investigated, violators (HOA property managers in this case) can be fined and/or have their license revoked. and it will directly affect abusive PM Transfer Fee practices by requiring justification and documentation of to payees.

Community Association Institute (CAI) Will Play Whack a Mole in Opposing HOA CAM Accountability in HB 16-1133

HB 16-1133, HOA Manager Professional Responsibility and Disclosure, will be considered in the 2016 legislative session.  It will propose modifications to the HOA Property Manager Licensing Bill and will again surface the obstructive efforts by the Community Association Institute (CAI) in HOA and HOA Community Association Manager (CAMs) Licensing reform: but we hope not.  The Bill will also address problems with DORA administering the law and developing effective CAM operating rules.

Up front in this Bill:  Adds no additional regulation or government reporting requirements,  no new taxpayer contributions, no new fees or burdens to business, does not preclude CAMs from charging any justified fee, and doesn’t interfere with CAM or HOA operations.

In this Bill:  1) direct and definitive statements addressing requirements that CAMs comply with State HOA law and HOA governing documents  2) defines requirements for full disclosure of CAM fees and in particular for HOA Transfer Fees and addresses the problems of excessive fees and duplicate (and triplicate) charging for services already paid for with HOA dues  3) requires CAMs to provide a specifically detailed hardcopy receipt to all payees  4) provides financial relief for the smallest HOA CAMs in reduced fees and educational requirements but still requires they be licensed  6) requires DORA to provide improved transparency and functionality on their web site concerning CAM information and violations.

Opposition from the CAI is expected, again, in the form of empty and non-substantive arguments (just statements and declarations) that contend no changes are needed and all the issues in this proposal are already in the Bill (for whom?).

The CAI will oppose requirements to justify the CAM HOA Transfer Fee and other CAM billings.  This Bill doesn’t limit the amount of any fee or preclude charging any fee but requires meaningfully explaining, justifying, and receipting any fee.  It does begin to rein in the abusive Transfer Fee charged to sellers upon the sale of a home.  Specifically, what other business can bill a home owner and not provide justification based on work performed, not provide a detailed receipt, bill any amount with no questions asked, leave the consumer with no means to contest the bill or its’ amount, no requirement to comply with State restrictions of billing under the law, duplicate bill the home owner (and even triplicate) for services already paid for with HOA dues, and if the home owner doesn’t pay can’t close on their home?   The answer is easy: NONE.  The CAM licensing Bill was supposed to specifically define requirements on justification, legality, and documentation and it did a lame job at it ensuring this questionable CAM billing practices would continue.   The transparency and real disclosure in this Bill will not interfere with any collection of a CAM fee as long as justified and legal.

The fight for financial relief for small CAMs in this Bill was not supported by the CAI in the last legislative session. The cost of a license for small CAMs can equal a year’s income: it’s abusive and burdensome.  Previous misinformation spread was that the goal was to exempt small CAMs from being licensed: not true, never in any proposal but believed by too many.  This Bill provides fairness and relief to small business with reduced fees and educational requirements commensurate with knowledge to legally and competently service small HOAs of 30 or less units.  Educational providers are able to offer small HOA CAM courses at a reduced cost.  Costs for DORA to implement should be covered in the same manner as completed when the total licensing law was implemented.

This Bill also contains specifics on actions and requirements to comply with State law and HOA governing documents that are now ambiguous in the law.  Of importance is the requirement for a CAM to notify the HOA Board if they are in non-compliance with the law, suggest a corrective action, and if the Board continues their actions report the event to DORA.  This documents the event for potential home owner action and also protects the CAM from a complaint that they were complicit.  Will the CAI object to clarification on this issue to make accountability better defined?

HB 16-1133 simply makes the licensing law effective for home owners with no new burdens on business.  It defines accountability, transparency, and fairness that are lacking in the law and required for enforcement.  The objections to improvements in CAM licensing through this Bill will become the CAI’s latest whack-a-mole game in which they float  empty and deflective arguments to slam down any initiative that pops up for real HOA reform and CAM accountability.

Note: the CAI is an organization representing CAMs and HOA legal interests which comprise their membership.

State HOA Office Requires Exposure and Enforcement Authority

Colorado has a State HOA Office but you would never know it.  The Office was created over two years ago with little fanfare and notice to the public.  The original efforts in creating the Office were to provide oversight of HOA communities, some enforcement of HOA laws, and to provide a comprehensive repository of State HOA information.  Unfortunately, the Office was never granted any oversight or enforcement authority thus only serving as an administrative entity.  To date the Office has provided a valuable service to home owners (those who know about it) by posting on its' web site a very comprehensive library of HOA laws and guidelines and educational sources;  conducting community HOA informational meetings; collecting, compiling, and reporting on the status of HOA housing in the State; administering an HOA registration program; and developing an HOA complaint filing system that has catalogued thousands of complaints/inquiries and surfaced major problems in HOA governance and in enforcement of HOA home owner's rights.  Note, the Office can't advise home owners on legal rights, provide legal opinions on the validity of any complaint, get involved in problem resolution, or provide any referrals to legal counsel.

The importance of this Office can be greatly enhanced and justified by granting it enforcement authority through implementing an out of court binding dispute resolution process.  This would allow home owner's complaints currently filed with the Office to be acted upon: vetted for referral to an out of court entity that would hear disputes and render an enforceable decision.  This process would be accessible to all home owners, affordable, efficient, and not require a lawyer on the most simple HOA issues related to non-compliance with the law.  Home owners could still choose to go to court vs using this process.  Currently, HOA laws and HOA governing documents lack enforcement provisions from the home owner's perspective other than our costly, time consuming, and litigious court system.  This process could be managed by the State HOA Office with no cost to taxpayers: paid for with HOA registration fees and/or complaint filing fees.  Note, much of the infrastructure such as staffing, a web site, complaint filing and review are already in place and paid for via HOA registration fees.  DORA, the State Agency that would implement this system,  already has similar systems in place for HOA  property manager complaints and other regulated professions making implementation familiar territory for DORA.  A State Study has been completed and supports the implementation of an out of court binding dispute resolution process and only awaits legislative sponsorship of a Bill to implement.  Empowering the Office with enforcement authority would immediately make our current HOA laws and HOA governing documents that are ineffective from the home owner's perspective highly effective.

HOA Property Manager Implementation: Problematic

Colorado fully implemented its' Community Association Manager (CAM) Licensing Program (aka HOA Property Manager) July 1, 2015.   DORA, the state Agency responsible for implementation and management of the program, had over one year to analyze, plan, design, develop, test, and implement the program.  The scope and complexity of the program are very similar to other regulated professions in the State thus making implementation neither new territory or requiring a host of new on-line applications.  Our organization, Colorado HOA Forum, offers the following status report on this program and it is not good:

1.  The rules developed by DORA to ensure CAM compliance with the law and bring accountability to the profession are ambiguous and require change.  Specifically, (1) rules need to definitively and comprehensively state CAMs must comply with all State HOA laws and HOAs governing documents; (2) require CAMs to notify HOA Boards if any of their activities are in non-compliance with State HOA laws and/or HOA governing documents and recommend corrective action and if violations continue the CAM must report the event to DORA and the State's HOA Office;
2. DORA requirements for full disclosure of CAM fees assessed HOAs and home owners are severely lacking and avoid accountability.  In particular, DORA requires nothing more than a one liner in an HOA contract or on home closing documents to represent full disclosure which is simply conceding to CAM industry demands to allow things to remain as is.  DORA full-disclosure requires no detailed explanation of a fee or why it is charged, who determines the amount of the fee and retains it, confirming and explaining that any fee doesn't overlap or duplicate any charge already paid for through HOA dues or by a Title Company ( (such as the HOA Transfer Fee), requires no receipt to the payee identifying charges by line item, and no requirement to justify the authority to charge the fee and a statement how any Transfer Fee is in compliance with State law HB 11-234 that defines and restricts this fee.
3. The DORA web site complaint application requires changes to make it easier to use:  develop an on-line complaint status process;  assign a tracking number upon completion of complaint for users to inquire/determine the status of their complaint; allow users to mail in documentation that is not conducive to e-mailing; immediate on-screen confirmation when completed with complaint that indicates a successful filing;  the license lookup system doesn't list provisional/temporary licenses and only lists one licensed CAM for the largest of property management companies;  one can't enter an HOA and find the CAM; search results for a CAM license lookup results in display of information from all DORA programs (clutter!); allow for display all HOAs serviced by a licensed CAM; and provide options to classify the type of CAM complaint to make review and justification of complaints easier to complete and review.
4. The time frame in which CAM complaints are resolved is extremely slow to non-responsive.  There are cases where DORA knows for months a CAM is not licensed and refuses to take action such as a cease and desist order and/or fine.  Closing out/decisions on complaints is very slow and too often complaints seem lost in a bureaucratic maze.
5. DORA licensing, fees, and educational structure is burdensome to the smallest of CAMs and relief to these small businesses should be implemented similar to relief given small HOAs in registration fees.
6. The licensing program to date is more of a fees imposition and collection system and sales promotion tool for educational courses for a private firm (Community Association Institute (CAI) than a program for bringing integrity and accountability to profession.

CAM licensing program deficiencies need to be addressed to serve the needs of the public vs catering to the interests of the very industry it is supposed to regulate.

HOA Group Continues to Block HOA Legislative Reform

The name sounds HOA home owner friendly but the organization has nothing to do with representing home owner interests:  just the opposite.  The Community Association Institute (CAI), the trade group for property managers and HOA legal interests, has thwarted HOA legislative reform for decades.  They have obstructed legislative efforts to promote enforcement of HOA home owner’s rights as stated in State law and HOA governing documents while getting legislation passed to promote their financial interests and ensure continuation of abusive, unjustified, and illegal fees on HOA home owners.  To say this another way, our legislators have allowed this group to write, modify, and suggest HOA legislation that has been detrimental to home owners.
 
Recently the CAI led efforts to kill legislation that would have saved home owners nearly $10 million in abusive and unjustified HOA Transfer Fees; this legislative session successfully blocked legislation that would require home owner approval on the use of HOA funds in litigation;  don’t support an out of court, affordable and accessible binding dispute resolution process for most HOA complaints;  got legislation passed to promote the sale of their costly educational courses and gained exemptions from State testing mandates for those that purchased and completed their courses; didn’t support reduced financial and educational requirements for the smallest of HOAs (20 or less units) to relieve them of costly licensing requirements; and opposed requiring full disclosure and justification of fees assessed home owners by property managers in the licensing rules.
 
Until our legislators place a priority on and listen to HOA home owners who make up over half of Colorado’s population vs the CAI financial interests the complaints to the State’s HOA Office will continue and home owners will be vulnerable to abusive and costly practices.  

HOA Bill Should be Downright Embarrassing to Colorado Legislators

HB 15-1343 was crafted to "fix and streamline" the HOA property manager licensing law" that will begin full implementation July 1, 2015.  To date, the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) that is responsible for implementing the law has reported no problems to be fixed, no problems with available financial resources to support the program, no lack educational course providers, no problems with their ability to develop exams and conduct testing and grading, nor has DORA reported that the program is too burdensome on business.  DORA has not completed one status report on the results of implementing the licensing law.  DORA's responsibility is to get the program up and running and comply with the law (not  make the law). 
Arrive the special interests.  The same special interests (Community Association Institute (CAI)) that represent the industry to be regulated.  This interest group basically wrote the licensing law and rules and even got legislators to insert verbiage into the law to promote their lucrative business of selling property manager classes.  It appears they have even influenced DORA to avoid a legislative directive to make licensing rules that include full disclosure of all property manager fees and assessments levied against home owners. 
Now the CAI working with legislators and DORA manages to get this Bill proposed as a "streamline and fix" to the licensing law based upon no experience with the program and no reported problems and even before the program is fully implemented.  They further convinced legislators and DORA to again promote the selling of specific CAI courses in this Bill and to allow anyone who pays for and takes CAI courses to avoid State testing mandates. 
This Bill should be downright embarrassing to the sponsors of the Bill and any legislator who votes for it.  To date the licensing program is heavy on fees and mandates on businesses and lite on the intended purpose of the law which is to address abusive industry practices and consumer protections.  Is it any wonder why citizens don't trust or participate in government. 

Colorado Construction Defects, SB 15-177: "protect the home owner" opposition in question

Let's be honest by acknowledging that any proposal on Construction Defects legal reform will not be ideal for either home owner or developer.  The high costs of unrestrained litigation, all fully funded on the backs of home owners without their knowledge or approval, simply needs change. Too often HOAs have their reserve funds depleted for legal costs and too often home owners are left with costly special assessments to pay for legal fees.  Then there is the argument by contractors that the proliferation and high cost of litigation associated with and instigated by HOA's thwarts the building of affordable housing. The system is broken, let's progress towards fixing it.

 

The predictable opposition to the Bill is from the Community Association Institute (CAI) and HOA trial lawyers.  They enjoy the current legal environment that results in a plethora of HOA court cases and unlimited funding of these cases through HOA bank accounts (and all without any involvement, knowledge, or approval of home owners).  The other opposition also comes from legislators on the "protect the home owner" band wagon. Their arguments are simply not consistent with their legislative actions.  Those legislators opposing SB 15-177 under the guise they want to "protect HOA home owners" have continually refused to support or sponsor Bills that would save home owners money, make current ineffective HOA laws effective, and improve HOA governance.  This legislative session they were asked to sponsor legislation to allow for an out of court binding dispute resolution process that would empower home owners in enforcing HOA laws with an affordable, expeditious, and accessible venue to resolve disputes (a process recommended in a State HOA Study);  end the abusive, excessive, and illegal HOA Transfer fee on home sales that costs home owners millions of dollars each year; to limit the excessive collection of fees and lawyer assessments on HOA debt; and most recently provide financial relief to small HOAs in the property manager licensing program.  It is difficult to understand and accept the "protect the home owner" argument when they have avoided every opportunity to do so in the past.  This is called being inconsistent.

 

The latest legislative contention is that this Bill would require a home owner to "seek a majority vote from all other home owners in the HOA to acknowledge their construction defect claim".  This is at best a half truth.  SB 15-177 does not to require home owners to acknowledge the validity of the construction defects claim but requires a Board to inform home owners of their intent on litigation (for any one or all home owners) and gain a majority of home owner approval to use HOA funds for litigation.  Thus, a vote is required if the individual home owner wants the HOA to use HOA funds to sue in their behalf.  This will mitigate the practice of HOA Boards and their lawyers taking on narrow and special interest litigation that is funded by home owners without community approval or benefit.  This is called open governance and protecting home owner interests.

 

Legislators on the "protect the HOA home owner" bandwagon must be challenged as to the validity of their opposition to SB 15-177 and also why, if they are so concerned about helping HOA home owners, they have failed to sponsor any substantive HOA reform over the past several years.

HOA Property Manager Licensing: Fees Transparency is a License to Abuse

The Community Association Institute (CAI), HOA lawyers, and large property management companies know one thing is certain: laws on transparency and disclosure will not inhibit abusive practices in the HOA property management industry.  In 2014 these groups combined their legislative, political, and financial efforts to kill a Bill (HB 14-1254) that would have ended or limited the dollar amount of the illegal and unjustified HOA home sale transfer fee.  They legislatively completed this by changing the Bill to address the transfer fee as a "disclosure item" in the upcoming property manager licensing law.  This was completed to avoid any direct oversight, scrutiny, or rules to ensure no change took affect.  Even the idea of real disclosure and accountability on justifying the legality/use of the transfer fee were so feared in the watered down Bill that ALL definitive language was removed:  no requirements to disclose why the fee was charged, who determined the amount and pocketed the fee, who benefited from the fee, what work was performed that was extraordinary/unique due to the sale of a home that was not already paid for by HOA dues, that the HOA did not mandate the fee and it was neither a mandatory or legal requirement, and that if not paid could hold up the sale of a home.  The modified Bill also avoided stating that that any excessive and unjustified fee COULD NOT be challenged by the home seller/buyer and if found to be inappropriate by the State property manager licensing authority COULD NOT be directed for refund or reduced in amount .  Thus the crafted disclosure Bill had nothing to do with justifying the fee or reining in abuse but only to ensure its' unabated continuance.

So the lesson in Disclosure and Transparency Legislation 101: A Bill portrayed to rein in abuse and misuse through disclosure will present the illusion of change, enforcement and consumer protection but change nothing with the most significant impact being that the abused be informed (and only minimally) of how they are to be abused.

The Colorado HOA Forum will continue its' efforts to educate the public and legislators on HOA issues and to legislatively end/limit the HOA Transfer Fee to save Coloradans millions each year.

HOA Legislation Needed for Majority of Colorado Home Owners

Homeowners Association (HOA) issues are not the most sexy issues but are the most underreported issues affecting a majority of Colorado home owners. These issues are also mostly neglected by our legislators who don't fully understand the economic and property rights issues associated with HOAs. Colorado has numerous, definitive, and comprehensive HOA laws but presently these are mostly unenforceable from the home owners perspective. HOA home owners pay fees and assessments upwards of $10 million a year to sell their homes that are not applicable too other home owners. These home owners are also unknowingly (until they receive a bill) subjected and vulnerable to major special assessments and fees without their knowledge or approval and if not paid can be foreclosed upon. It is also the only living environment that requires a home owner to go to court using their limited funds to defend their rights under the law only to have their own money (HOA dues) used in court by the HOA to defeat such rights. HOA legislative reform is needed, is non-partisan, and will affect the lives of Coloradans equal to any legislation passed. Our organization, Colorado HOA Forum, www.coloradohoaforum.com, will again be seeking legislative sponsors and media interest for this highly affective issue that is more material than sensational in the lives of our citizens.

Colorado HOA Forum's Newsletter Aug - Oct 2014

We've delayed the distribution of our newsletter until after the 2014 election.  We distribute it to legislators and wanted that event to pass and allow for our email with the newsletter to not be mixed in with their election material.  Previous newsletters 

 

Note, the newsletter will continue to cover Colorado HOA issues but we are attempting to provide readers with a more broad and diverse source of HOA news.  We do this by scanning HOA news from around the nation. We hope this provides the reader with topics we wouldn't ordinarily cover but are of importance.  Although some of these articles are from other states the content is applicable to Colorado.  As always, consult your HOA governing documents and our State laws prior to proceeding with any complaint or legal action and/or write us or the Colorado State HOA Office for comment.

 

We continue to ask your support in contacting legislators to sponsor our legislative goals to reform HOA governance.  We are available to meet with them at their location, date, and time of convenience.

 

Please join our cause, receive our newsletter, and get involved in our email campaigns for legislative reform.

Your Voice: HOA Oversight in Colorado Raises Questions: Part II

This is part two of a two part article on HOA governance in Colorado and the role of a government agency in influencing (or not) HOA law.
DORA is also chartered to seek out multiple providers for educational requirements under CAM licensing and to develop testing procedures. To date, and after one year, DORA has not posted on its’ web site the competing educational providers with the CAI remaining the sole source. CAI legislative sponsors promoted the CAI courses and DORA gave tacit approval and to date there has been nothing indicating that DORA has reviewed and certified the courses, that the courses are reflective of current HOA changes in the law, and a process to mandate annual review of such courses will take place. Also, by not early on posting alternative sources for educational classes the CAI can charge what they want and CAMs are left with a sole source of “approved classes?” An unintended (again) promoting of a private company via a government agency.
DORA is now considering allowing the CAI to conduct its’ own testing and grading of exams and granting partial license certification to PMs. This is contradictory to the law that indicates a professional testing company shall complete testing and grading with only DORA granting license certification in part or in full. Furthermore, the oversight, review, and update of CAI class material, testing and grading procedures, and security over such tests have not been reviewed by DORA. We know of no plans to do so. If the CAI request is granted, we will have the same folks (CAI) that have been “leaders” in CAM education and leadership in Colorado for two decades and resulted in the in the need for regulatory oversight be the guiding light in “cleaning-up” the industry. This arrangement (along with CAI involvement in guidelines) is equivalent to allowing a company that is polluting a lake and waterways write their own rules and standards and complete testing of waters for safety, and issue their own licenses. DORA needs to take full control of this program to maintain the integrity of the licensing program.
Then there is the recent event whereby a Bill was proposed to end/limit the unwarranted, unjustified, and illegal (in Colorado) HOA home sale Transfer Fee. Our legislative sources at the Colorado HOA Forum and articles on the CAI legal web site indicate the CAI lobbied hard to defeat this Bill. As a result the Bill was totally diluted into a disclosure law thus ensuring nothing would change and million of dollars would continue into the bank accounts of CAI members. DORA was to address disclosure of all fees and the HOA home sale Transfer Fee in their guidelines for CAM licensing. Not surprisingly, the first release of CAM licensing guidelines included only vague directives on fees disclosure. DORA’s ambiguous and loose disclosure mandates for HOA Transfer Fees don’t require justifying the fee in detail. DORA CAM guidelines don’t mention in disclosure requirements that the HOA Transfer Fee is not mandated by law nor hold up the sale of a home hostage in the event the fee is protested by the seller. Also, with no requirement to justify the fee by cause with an itemized invoice, it will make it difficult for home owners to protest this fee. The opportunity for DORA to protect consumer rights, as their charter indicates, will be missed if fees disclosure of all types are not required to be detailed and justified.
The next test for DORA is coming this legislative session. Our organization will be pursuing legislative sponsors for an out of court binding dispute resolution process for home owner complaints Bill. The CAM licensing program includes a home owner complaint resolution process handled out of court through DORA. Also, a State HOA dispute resolution study completed by DORA endorsed this process. The CAI and legal types, however, oppose this process. DORA will be asked to speak on this issue and if they reject it they are rejecting and invalidating the very work they will be doing under CAM licensing and other licensing programs they administer. DORA should also speak to allegations that this out of court process will result in home owners losing legal rights and the process is as costly as a court appearance: both NOT true.
Citizen trust in our government institutions is at an all time low and HOA home owners need look no further than the examples above to take that trust down another notch. If DORA was fully operating within its’ mission statement (see below) and being an active participant in the legislative and regulatory process there would be no reason for this article:
“DORA is dedicated to preserving the integrity of the marketplace and is committed to promoting a fair and competitive business environment in Colorado. Consumer protection is our mission.”

HOA Oversight (in Colorado) Raises Questions: Part I of II

The length of this article requires it to be published in two Parts. This topic could have been written in two paragraphs without background and factual content but then the it would appear to be just another article of allegations and rambling without explanation or supportive discussion.

You've seen it before. An industry pollutes or its' practices cheat citizens so much resulting in regulation of the industry. You've also observed the very industry to be regulated writing the rules and getting too involved with the regulatory process. In Colorado the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) implements HOA law, issues HOA property manager licenses, can levy fines for violations, hosts the State HOA Office, and provides oversight.

DORA's independence in HOA legislative proposals and implementing the law raises questions. In particular, their relationship with the with the well financed lobbying organization (the Community Association Institute (CAI)) that represents HOA property managers (also referred to as Community Association Managers (CAMs)) and HOA lawyers. Although we don't suspect any criminal violations or anyone in DORA receiving financial benefit, we do observe events that make the impression that the CAI is influencing regulatory guidelines and legislation at the expense of home owners.

A recent Colorado law licensing CAMs was jaded with DORA's tacit approval of a highly unusual precedent in regulatory legislation. DORA was aware of and never spoke up about questionable verbiage inserted in the law that defined educational requirements. The law listed one provider's (CAI) educational courses to satisfy when other's were known to be available. This is using regulatory legislation to promote a private business! DORA should have made known that they neither reviewed or certified any of the CAI courses since they would be stuck with using them if in the law (even if subsequently they found them to be deficient).

DORA has also been directed to write property manager guidelines. Their proposal seems very much like CAI guidelines that were developed several years arlier. How questionable is it to have the very industry you are regulating write the oversight rules and regulations? Will the dozens of proposed guidelines received by DORA from the public get equal importance?

More in Part II

Colorado Construction Defects and HOAs: the simple made complicated

The issue of construction defects litigation just shouldn't be this complicated.  The reporting on this issue has focused on civic organizations and the construction industry contending that too many law suits made too easy by HOAs and condominium associations make building affordable housing too difficult and costly.  Then from the HOA lawyers perspective who get their hands into the bank accounts of HOAs to fund costly and in many cases financially devastating law suits argue that HOAs and home owners can't have their hands tied in defending home owners against shoddy construction practices.  The contentious issue behind all this is whether HOA home owners, and this includes condominium complexes with community associations, would be required to vote on whether to use HOA funds prior to the Board pursuing construction defects litigation.  Simple HOA legislative reform in existing HOA law requiring home owner approval prior to using HOA funds in law suits would seem resolve most if not all issues in this controversy.  This would empower home owners in the use of "their funds" and require HOA Boards (and their lawyers) to inform and educate the home owner on the proposed legal action including the cost/benefit and risk in legal action and in the event of an unsuccessful legal action the estimated, if any, resulting special assessment on home owners to pay legal fees. It would surely cut down the number of construction defects cases but at the same time keep in tack the ability for home owners (HOAs) to arbitrate (which is already mandated in many HOA governing) and/or pursue legal action.  Why is the easy made so often so difficult?