MEEB ATTORNEYS KEEPING AN EYE ON HARMFUL BILLS TARGETING CONDOMINIUMS
The New Year brings new legislative sessions in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire. MEEB Partners Matt Gaines, Janet Aronson and Gary Daddario, who chair or co-chair the Community Association Institute of New England’s Legislative Action Committees, (LACs), are watching for bills that would be harmful to condominiums and they’ve already found a few. In this report, they summarize the bills their committees are tracking and the measures they may be considering.
Massachusetts LAC – Matthew Gaines
The more than 50 bills we track each year typically contain many that are old, some that are new, and a few that would adversely affect condominium communities. Most of these undesirable bills are triggered by disgruntled condo owners who persuade a legislator that their personal issues with a condo board require a legislative response. Although these bills typically don’t go anywhere, some do gain traction and all have to be monitored.
One bill the Mass-LAC is monitoring in the current legislative session, which began January 7, 2025, aims to “enhance transparency and governance” in condo associations.
While there is nothing wrong in principle with the stated goal (“enhancing transparency’), many of the bill’s provisions are problematic. Of most concern, the bill would:
Require open meetings for all condo associations.
Require associations to use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
Establish an ombudsman in the Attorney General’s office to mediate disputes between condo owners and boards.
Require boards to provide documents requested by owners within 10 days of the request for associations with fewer than 50 units, and within 5 days for larger communities.
The problem with these provisions and with proposals like them is that they attempt to impose ‘one-size-fits-all’ requirements that don’t fit all condominiums or all situations. What works in a 200-unit high rise may not work at all in a suburban town-house style community. A community with a full time manager might easily respond to records requests within five days, but that requirement could overwhelm the volunteer board members in a self-managed community.
A more fundamental problem with sweeping measures like this is that they ignore the fundamental precept on which condominiums are based: They are self-governing communities.
The Legislature should not make governance decisions that owners can and should make for themselves by amending their governing documents.
This measure received a favorable report in the House last year from the Housing Committee and has carried over into the new term. It still has a long way to go before the House votes on it (and sends it to the Senate), but because it has cleared one hurdle, the LAC is keeping a close eye on it.
The LAC’s ‘watch’ list also includes measures that would:
Require automatic sprinkler systems in all multifamily buildings that undergo “substantial modification.” The current wording doesn’t define what constitutes a “substantial modification” and absent clarification, the cost of essential renovations – like roof replacements, could increase from expensive to exorbitant and possibly unaffordable for many condominium communities. The bill hasn’t yet received the second vote in the House that would send it to the Senate, where a committee has reported it favorably. The LAC hopes to persuade lawmakers to amend this bill or defeat it.
Add language to the state Condominium Act forbidding associations from restricting the breeds or sizes of dogs allowed in their communities. This House bill is another example of the Legislature telling condo owners what they can and can’t do in their communities. The measure was reported favorably by the Housing Committee and referred to Ways and Means, where we hope it will die.
Prohibit condo associations from unreasonably restricting the installation of solar panels. This would be reasonable in a town home community, where each building has its own roof, but unworkable in a high rise or mid-rise with limited roof space. How would you decide who gets to use the limited roof space? The bill hasn’t been reported out of committee yet and the arguments against it are clear. But given the focus on ‘being green,’ it could gain traction, so the LAC is watching it closely.
Rhode Island LAC – Janet Aronson
The 2025 legislative session ended in June and the 2026 session is just getting started. We don’t know what this year will bring, but if the past predicts the future, we can expect some measures that will concern us.
We’ve already seen one of them, dealing broadly with condominium governance. Like the Massachusetts bill Matt described, this one would require open meetings, establish an ombudsman to deal with disputes between association boards and owners, and require open meetings, among other measures the LAC opposes. The committee will be monitoring this measure and will be prepared to testify against it.
The LAC hasn’t finalized its legislative agenda for this year, but we are discussing bills addressing insurance and reserve studies for condo associations.
Bare walls insurance coverage. This measure would clarify that all condo associations can obtain ‘bare walls’ insurance coverage, which covers only the primary structure and common areas, but doesn’t cover interior finishes, fixtures and appliances, which would be covered by a more comprehensive ‘all-in’ policy.
Reserve studies. The LAC is also evaluating aways to underscore the importance of periodic reserve studies for community associations.
Legislature last year approved several measures the LAC either introduced or supported dealing with:
Mortgagee notice. The bill establishes a process for notifying mortgagees when their consent is required and specifies that their failure to respond within 65 days will be deemed approval.
Virtual meetings. The bill allows meetings of condo board and owners to be conducted fully or partially through virtual platforms. The measure also allows owners to vote electronically.
Deductible notice. Owners with a claim against the association’s master policy are required to pay the portion of the policy deductible applicable to their unit. This bill requires associations to notify owners of any increase in the deductible within 30 days of receiving notice of that increase from the association’s insurer.
Fee cap. The LAC’s ‘we’re glad that didn’t pass’ list includes a measure that would have prevented associations in which fewer than 50 percent of the units are ‘deed-restricted’ (designated for low- or moderate-income owners) from increasing monthly common fees on those units by more than five percent annually. The law also specified that owners of these units could not be required to pay more than 50 percent of any supplemental assessment. The unfairness to other owners and negative impact on association finances were obvious and proved to be persuasive. The bill died in committee, and we are hoping it won’t surface again this year.
New Hampshire LAC – Gary Daddario
Many of the bills proposed in the new legislative session reflect the state’s focus on creating more “workforce” (affordable) housing, by relaxing development restrictions or increasing taxes.
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs). This bill would require municipalities to allow single-family homeowners to construct ‘as of right’ one accessory dwelling unit on their lot. This is likely to appeal to many homeowners as a way to provide housing for their adult children or their aging parents. But for municipalities, the result could be a population explosion that would increase traffic and demands on schools, hospitals and other public services. Although this bill doesn’t specifically target condominiums, if it passes, condo owners might try to assert their right to create accessory apartments inside their units or on tiny sections of the lots in townhome communities. For that reason, in addition to opposing the bill because of its negative impact on communities, the LAC is going to suggest language clarifying that the measure would not apply to condominiums if it is approved.
Supplemental property taxes on second homes. The LAC is very concerned about these bills (there are two of them) because many condominiums in New Hampshire are vacation properties. One would double the property taxes on homes occupied as a primary residence for less than six months; another would impose a surcharge of $2.50 per $500 of value on second homes valued at more than $1 million. The revenue from these supplemental property taxes wouldn’t go to municipalities; it would go to the state to be used to finance ‘workforce” housing that would not necessarily be located in the communities where the taxes are paid.
There are many things wrong with these bills, starting with the damage they would do to the second home market and the tourism industry in New Hampshire. The bills would also unfairly burden second home owners by forcing them to pay more for services than single-family owners, which might be unconstitutional and is certainly bad policy.
The legislature held public hearings on these bills before many people were aware of them, but if there is an opportunity for further input, the LAC is going to suggest that condos be exempt from both measures if they are approved.
Development exemptions. This measure would have a significant impact on condominiums. Many local development requirements do not apply to projects with 10 units or fewer. This measure would waive those requirements for developments with up to 50 units. The goal is to increase housing development, but the result for condominiums could be budget shortfalls, underfunded reserves, and/or developer shortcuts resulting in construction flaws that condo associations would have to resolve through litigation, costly repairs, or both. It isn’t hard to imagine that a developer planning a 100-unit condominium would build two 50-unit communities instead, ducking obligations for all 100 units. There might be an argument for expanding the development waiver, but the LAC will argue that going from 10 units to 50 is too large a leap.
Owner access to association records. The state condominium law addresses this issue for condominium associations, but it doesn’t apply to HOAs, for which there is no separate statute. This measure would require boards or managers to respond to owner requests for information within five days. The LAC will suggest that the response time for HOAs should mirror the more reasonable 14 days in the condominium statute; and that, the Legislature should create a statutory framework for HOAs similar to the one created for New Hampshire condominiums and timeshares.
Electric rates. The LAC will again support this measure, which seeks to apply residential rates to the electricity used for septic systems and well pumps. Condominiums currently pay a much higher commercial rate for these components, even if the communities are designated exclusively for residential use. The bill’s proponents have argued in the past that condominiums are inherently commercial in nature. The LAC will argue again that components used in communities restricted to residential use should be taxed at the residential rate.
Please contact Mathew Gaines, Janet Aronson, and Gary Daddario, with any questions regarding any of the above legislative initiatives.