Additional Nevada Legislator's 82nd (2023) session legislation
Last hearing- Apr 13, 2023 Senate Judiciary. Do pass.
Assembly Amendment No. 636 Jun 05, 2023- To Assembly
Click here to leave an opinion and get stats for the bill
Click here for full bill text
SB 378 would make more association records available on line. Good. However, as written 1) financial statements, 2) reserve studies, 3) association contracts, and 4) civil action filings – all association records owners are currently entitled to inspect are not included. It would also require an HOA maintain cybersecurity insurance. The nature and extent of insurance would depend on whether the association is working with a payment processor as well as its size. Amendment 636 made introduced on Jun 05 made significant changes.
IMPORTANT: “meetings” is not defined in NRS 116. I requested it be defined in this bill. If my definition or similar is adopted, it would end secret meetings of the board- now call "workshops." See my proposal for changes here.
I am NEUTRAL on this bill. While the bill would improve owner engagement and overall transparency, but could do more. I'd like to see the bill will be amended to include the proposal made here. Then I'd be a strong supporter.
Last hearing- Apr 11, 2023 Senate Judiciary. Do pass
Next hearing- Failed to advance by the deadline
Click here to leave an opinion and get stats for the bill
Click here for full bill text as amended
SB 174 deals with the licensing of those who can perform an act associated with a foreclosure.
Approved by the Governor June 1, 2023
Click here to leave an opinion and get stats for the bill
Click here for full bill text
AB 309 will permit the use of electronic ballots for HOA elections and removal of the executive board.
I support passage of AB 309 provided the language requiring third-party administration is retained.
I generally supported this bill. I'd like to see some changes to make it even better that were never incorporated:
-
Mandated owners be informed of the results of board elections. Incredibly, this is not required today.
-
Give candidates the option (only during a 90 day election window) to provide additional campaign information to owners. I see no reason a candidate’s nomination should not be provided with the ballot and the cost bore by the Association (as it stands today) and also providing a candidate the option to provide additional campaign material- at the candidate’s cost. At present an association can allow this but could allow only one or the other (for example, should the incumbent board seek to limit oppositional voices).
-
My concern is if an electronic ballot is made available (not mailed via postal or electronically to owners) the Association has no clear obligation to notify owners the ballot is available. As currently written an Association seeking to limit owner voting, could comply with the letter of the law, making a ballot “available” at an electronic location, while the location is not widely known to owners. This could seriously limit participation by making it hard to vote.
Last action June 4, 2023- Amended No 971 exempting those who own < 10 units in the State and Senate Final Passage
Click here to leave an opinion and get stats for the bill
Click here for full bill text Reprint 1
SB 395 is not specifically impacting HOAs of NRS 116. Rather, it would have the secretary of state’s office create and maintain a public registry of the corporations and limited liability companies that purchase or own residential real property in Nevada, and it would limit corporate investment to 1,000 housing units per year. A Stateline analysis of data from real estate analytics firm CoreLogic found that nearly a quarter of all single-family homes sold in 2021 were purchased by investors. In Nevada, the same analysis found, the share of investor purchases increased from 18% to 30% from 2020 to 2021. Read the Nevada Current article for more here
A loop hole fails to require affiliated companies to be subject to the legislation. I was neutral on this bill. This was corrected via amendment. My concern with the legislation remains less about access to housing rather, as a property owner my focus is private equity investors and the system that serve them developing "creative solutions" and "pushing boundaries", much as we saw in the mortgages leading up to 2008. The complicating factors of interest rates, maintenance costs rise considerably, and/or a general reallocation/reduction of capital create risks investors selling into an illiquid market could cause prices to fall and debt to be marked down, thus creating a negative feedback loop with forced sales, as we saw in 2008. Will the expenses of these portfolios remain manageable? If rents experience downward pressure, expenses will experience pressure. This would adversely affect the quality of these rentals as institutional investors work to meet investor and shareholder expectations. SFR (single-family rental securitization) is an enterprise that surged in the last few years and needs to be conducted with great care and professionalism because it touches people’s everyday lives so deeply. We need only look to issues with mortgage securitization (loans sold and pooled to create a security that is traded in the capital markets). Read SFR primer here.