Nevada Legislature 83rd session (2025)- Failed HOA legislation
The final standing committee to which a bill or joint resolution is referred in its House of origin may only take action on the bill or joint resolution on or before the 68th calendar day of the legislative session (Joint Standing Rule 14.3.1). Below are bills introduced and did not survive.
last update 04/14/25
AB 129
Title/Summary- Revise bidding procedure for HOAs. (formally BDR 10-818) Strongly Support
The bill sought to end the unintended loophole used to avoid the clear intent of the statute requiring competitive bids for large projects and contracts. I worked closely with the bill's sponsor Assemblyperson Dickman. Unfortunately, my involvement started after the bill's first print containing a fate flaw- requiring award to lowest bidder. This bill was a start at restoring some balance to the severely unbalanced relationship between developer and manager dominated HOAs and the residents and homeowners.
When heard in committee, the sponsor committed to amendment (found here along with some background) the unfortunate and acknowledged mistake of requiring the minimum bid. The amendment added provisions addressing "evergreen" provisions, prohibiting a declarant board from approving a contract with an entity affiliated with the declarant, and providing for greater owner transparency.
Find here CAI's positions on HOA bills. Not surprising CAI opposes AB 129 and most all owner friendly bills. In the case of AB 129 CAI makes untrue assertions as to what the bill proposes. All projects do not go to bid. Requiring bids for large contracts is a widely accepted as a good business practice. Nothing "imprudent" about requiring HOA boards exercise more quality control and good practices.
No hearing was scheduled. Chair of Asm Jud, Asm Miller, refused to schedule the bill for a hearing.
Title/Summary- Provides HOA may not prohibit small child care establishments within a units. Oppose
The mandates an HOA permit a unit's owner or tenant to operate a "small child care establishment". This is defined as an establishment that furnishes care to not more than four children under 18 years of age who are not related to the operator of the establishment for at least 6 hr/day and at least 4 days/week (NRS 432A.029). Nevada does not require a licence to operate if serving 4 or less children.
My comments for this bill are the same as for AB 185. The bill oversteps the authority the Legislature should exert over an HOA and its owners.
During an Assembly Judiciary hearing held February 27, it was discussed as BDR.
Title/Summary- Condo property insurance Oppose (until amended)
Eliminates some requirements to insure townhouses. Amendments can be made to address what I see is the objective. However, until so, I must oppose. I have yet to reach the sponsor for comment.
Never heard.
Title/Summary- Complaints filed are public records Support (strongly with a few minor changes)
Changes make all complaints filed with NRED and information compiled from investigations public records- accessible to anyone interested. I do not concur with the red herring arguments from industry opposition government entities do so NRED stands to lose the cooperation and confidence of the public. Setting aside public confidence in NRED is already lost, this bill would expose the state's capture regulator to much need scrutiny. Sunshine laws exist for good reason. Half of Nevada's homes are under HOA control, giving these organizations significant power over citizens' property rights. Yet the current system keeps homeowners in the dark. Open records are fundamental to democracy. Government agencies routinely handle investigations while maintaining appropriate transparency. Truly sensitive personal information can be redacted while making the substance of complaints public.
The bill as introduced has some flaws that could be amended out and or fixed. I am in touch with the sponsor, Senator Buck seeking changes.
Opposition to SB221, making Intervention Affidavits and related information subject to public records requests, fundamentally misunderstands the proper relationship between state regulatory bodies and the citizenry they serve. The position requires thorough scrutiny and rejection. Making complaints public "risk[ing] confidentiality in investigations" and could "enable harassment" is reasoning precisely backward when viewed through the lens of proper democratic governance and established principles of open government. The system currently protects HOA boards from "harassment" by homeowners through draconian penalties, while simultaneously shielding those same boards from public scrutiny of their actions. The scales are already tipped dramatically against individual homeowners- as my experience demonstrates spend over half a million dollars on legal challenges with no meaningful regulatory relief. The current system results in complaints being dismissed as "unsubstantiated" without explanation, leaving homeowners in the dark. As have noted, "NRED should be able to at least explain what was lacking in the complaint." The absence of transparency shields not the integrity of investigations, but rather the absence of meaningful investigation.
Public records don't cause harassment – they create accountability. Democracy thrives in sunlight, not shadows. SB221 would restore balance to a system that currently favors industry insiders over the homeowners they're supposed to serve.
Never heard
Title/Summary- Recording of meetings Strongly Support
Authorizes owners to record various meetings. I am working with the bill's sponsor Senator Buck. I anticipate an amendment will be introduced requiring owners be noticed and allowed to attend all meetings of the executive board (expect the very narrow exceptions currently identified).
Opposition argues owners should be grateful they have the right to even attend board meetings. They go on asserting recording meetings "has no legitimate legal purpose, further incentivizes such inappropriate activates as well as creating a hostile situation..." despite recording meeting is required under the law. WOW.
Never heard.
Title/Summary- Multiple provisions related to HOA. Oppose
If passed, Justice Court would be an option for owners. This has been used effectively in California for years. Ensuring elected directors know the law and their responsibilities is also a good idea. I'd like to see changes in this section of NRS 116 precluding an HOA from suing its owners for violations of the law- often solely to chill.
Homeowners must be protected from the weaponization of association attorney’s fees for attempting to enforce the law. The Division and the Ombudsman have jurisdiction to investigate and the Commission has jurisdiction to take appropriate action against any entity that commits violation of law (NRS 116).
Conducting undefined "reports on the background of candidates" to be an HOA director is a bad idea for many reasons. This needs to be removed.
Changing reserves study update to annually, now required at least every five (5) years, would increase costs while adding little value- unless the updated study if actually used. It is not the answer to boards failing to understand the study, failing to act on the valuable information it holds, and/or using reserves and an unbudgeted "piggy bank". I see alternatives approaches to achieve what appears is the desired result.
This bill was release 3/12/25. I talked to the sponsor about changes.
The bill was never heard.
Title/Summary- Multiple provisions related to HOA. Strongly Oppose Success SB 433 is dead
SB 433 was killed. Numerous changes to NRS 116. It is an almost exact copy of SB 417(2023) introduced during the last session by Senator Schieble and the CAI (HOA industry), led by Adam Clarkson. Senate Majority Leader Cannizzaro is the point of contact. I have reached out to here for clarification.
New provisions mandate HOAs, particularly condo associations take measure to ensure structural integrity of buildings. It requires regular inspections and funding corrective actions is needed. However--
The second component of SB 433 is an attack on owners. The provisions are prone to abuse. Rouge boards, managers, even vendors will weaponize proposed changes to chill owner opposition. Its predecessor, SB 417(2023) sought to revise the definition of a "violation" in turn, allow NRED to investigate opposition as a criminal violation, allow an executive board, a director, a manager, and/or an employee of any vendor the right to bring a civil action for what is described as "bullying" (an exact copy of Nevada law addressing bullying in schools). SB 433 will do the same. The chilling effect of this on HOAs across Nevada should this bill pass can not be underestimated.
Nevada already has laws in place. Certainly, speaking out in opposition to a decision/action of your HOA board is not a criminal act. Nor should criminal investigations be conducted by the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED). The Division has failed in advancing owner complaints and keeps owners in the dark (see SB 221) fueling frustrations. This would allow them to attack you in the dark.
Here is a pdf of SB 433 as introduced. NRED "expects a surge in complaints requiring additional [staff]".
Public opposition resulted in the removal of the chilling provisions of SB 417(2023). It resurfaced in SB 433(2025). Here is my testimony during the 2023 hearing. Public opposition resulted it the bill's death this session.
The private regulatory enforcement of a quasi-governmental HOA allowed in SB 433 is wrong. It will lead to a "chilling effect" deterring protected speech or actions due to fear of perceived illegality or negative consequences. Public enforcers are best vested with the authority to implement the law- not HOAs, industry players, and/or their vested legal counsel.
The bill also makes changes to NRS 38 (Alternate Dispute Resolution) affecting HOA owner who file complaints. Making arbitration as the default will case a huge (4x) increase in cost/claim bore by participants.
Here is link to a good story by Dana Gentry of the Nevada Current written in 2023 about SB 417. It applies to SB 433.
Find here my letter in strong opposition to SB 433. Go here , look in the upper right hand corner of the page and express your "Opinion" on the bill. It is very easy.
The bill was never heard.