Committee hears mixed testimony on bill to limit HOA changes to unit uses

Representative Jacobson introduced House Bill 2,118 at the Jan. 13 Housing Committee hearing, saying the measure aims to protect homeowners who relied on existing homeowners association (HOA) covenants when they purchased their units. “If you relied on… I can definitely keep chickens… then they can't pull that rug out from under you,” Jacobson said, framing the bill as a fairness and certainty provision.

Audrey Vazik, staff to the committee, summarized the bill's mechanics: HB 2,118 would prohibit an HOA from adopting, amending or enforcing a covenant, condition or restriction (CCR) that imposes more onerous limits on the types of unit uses than existed when the owner acquired the unit unless the owner signs written agreement at the time of adoption or amendment. Vazik noted exemptions for CCRs required to comply with federal, state or local law and for CCRs that are not enforceable by an HOA; the bill would also require an owner who claims an exception to record it in each county where the unit sits and to pay recording fees.

Public testimony was largely opposed. Terry Leahy, testifying for WCAI, said the bill would “gut these ongoing compliance efforts” because many associations are already working to meet recent statutory changes and need supermajority votes to amend governing documents. Leahy argued courts have already provided protections for uses that buyers could not reasonably anticipate and said the bill would encourage owners to vote against any amendment that they might later oppose.

Summer Elwood, a community manager at Emerald Management, told the committee HB 2,118 would force associations to track purchase dates, research historical documents and manage recorded exceptions, creating “complexity” that translates into “higher costs, more staff time, more legal review” and ultimately higher homeowner dues. Cheryl Grant, a board member at the CaliPointe Owners Association, said her 50‑year, 600‑unit community could not practically operate with two different enforcement regimes for residents who bought at different times.

Steve Horvath, a longtime condo owner and cofounder of HOA United, voiced concerns about governance breakdowns but also said he supported the bill’s general intent and recommended it might need to be strengthened to protect owners in certain appellate‑level scenarios. Horvath referenced existing statutory thresholds (he cited a 1989 provision requiring a 90% supermajority for some declarations and said the new Wukaiwa standard uses 67%) and suggested the committee consider whether protections removed from a prior bill should be restored.

Committee members pressed witnesses on practical and legal consequences. Representative Engel asked whether the incentives Leahy described would differ from the incentives under current law; Leahy said the measure would make amending documents “doubly hard” by creating extra reasons for owners to oppose changes. Chair Peterson closed the public hearing after members indicated there were no further questions.

The hearing record shows widespread concern from property managers, HOA board members and condo‑industry representatives that the bill would increase administrative burden, create inconsistent enforcement within communities and interfere with the established amendment processes that associations and courts currently use. Supporters on the dais emphasized homeowner protections and predictability for buyers. No vote occurred at this hearing; the committee closed the public record for HB 2,118 and moved on to the next item.

Ending: The committee closed the public hearing on HB 2,118 after receiving testimony and questions; members did not take a vote during the Jan. 13 session and the matter remained pending for future committee action.