House committee weighs bill to create online HOA resource; Secretary of State flags limits

The House Committee on General and Housing on Thursday, March 12 considered H.172, a bill that would direct the Secretary of State to establish an online common interest community resource to provide information about homeowners associations and other common interest communities.

Cameron Wood of the Office of Legislative Council walked committee members through the bill and the statutory framework for common interest communities, noting that Vermont applies the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act and that the law's applicability depends on when and how a community was created. "It really is a pretty in-depth and hard to distinguish area of law," Wood said, describing different rules for condominiums and planned communities and the many fact-specific variables that can affect owners' rights.

The bill places the resource center in Title 10 V.S.A. —700 and directs the Secretary of State to "establish and maintain the resource center to provide information to the public about Vermont's common interest ownership communities." The text also allows the Secretary of State to contract the work to a nonprofit and requires online, user-friendly materials on organization, governance, budgeting, conflict resolution and rights and responsibilities.

The bill's sponsor, a committee member, said the intent is to give residents "a central place where people could go and see all the information" and described the proposal as a web-based information hub rather than a complaints office. "It's not a complaint center," the sponsor said, adding the resource would help constituents find accurate information and point them to appropriate next steps.

David Hall, director of business services at the Secretary of State's office, told the committee his division already fields calls about HOAs but cautioned that "there really is no state agency department with regulatory authority over them." Hall said associations are largely governed by private law and that enforcement is typically contractual or, in consumer-protection cases, handled by the attorney general. He warned that a state-hosted resource could spur many fact-specific calls and create expectations the office cannot meet without additional staff or clearer limits on scope.

Committee members and Hall discussed trade-offs in language and branding. Hall recommended avoiding terminology that suggests case-level intervention; several members suggested a curated web tab linking statutes, guidance and referrals would meet the bill's aims without creating unsustainable demand. Hall said the Secretary of State could host baseline statutory information and explanatory material, but that more prescriptive or hands-on services would raise capacity and possible legal-advice concerns.

Members also flagged practical questions such as whether the bill needs an appropriation; Hall said an informational page consistent with existing division practice likely would not require new funding, but broader obligations could. The committee asked Hall to draft a "distilled" description of what his office could feasibly host and to work with Legislative Council and the sponsor on language. Several members noted that if timing becomes tight the committee could attach the language to a Senate housing bill under consideration.

The discussion included testimony about real-world consequences residents face: a member recounted that a treasurer in a small association once embezzled about $20,000, a matter later handled in court, to underscore why clearer information and stronger safeguards matter to constituents.

The committee did not take a vote on H.172. Members agreed to receive the Secretary of State's distilled proposal and to continue coordinating offline. The panel adjourned until 10:45 a.m. to take up H.74 (tenant representation pilot program).