Planning Meeting 2/3/26

Tonight’s board planning meeting included directors Alicia, Mike, Leslie, Susan, and Louise, with several community members in attendance.

The meeting opened with a community comment period, which was unexpected as a process has not been established for planning meetings.

During that period, Elle raised a governance-focused question: what the board envisions for meaningful community engagement—specifically, how residents can provide feedback in ways that lead to tangible dialogue and responsive governance. That question was not directly answered; instead, discussion reverted to whether planning meetings should have community comments at all, and if comments might be dropped if a meeting is not designated a “decision meeting.”

The board noted intent to track pending legislation related to community associations, including:

• HB 1500, a bill affecting resale certificate requirements tied to property transfers (the document packages sellers must provide to prospective buyers) — commonly referred to as a “property transfer” bill.

We are also aware of HB 1501, a bill concerning allowable inquiries by unit owners into association governance or operations, which would establish deadlines for substantive written responses, and consequences when the law is not applied fairly.

HB 1501 Enables Better Oversight for Members

House Bill 1501 — Inquiries into association governance or operations 

Neutral, Plain-Language Summary

HB 1501 would create a clear process for written inquiries by unit owners about how their homeowners association is governed or operated. Under the version in committee, when an owner (or authorized agent) sends a written inquiry by certified mail about governance or operations:

• The association would need to provide a substantive response in writing within 30 days, or

• If a third-party opinion (like legal counsel) is required, then within 60 days.

• If the association fails to provide a substantive response as required, it could not recover attorneys’ fees or costs in any later dispute related to that inquiry.

• The association could adopt reasonable rules about responding to questions, such as limiting one written inquiry per unit per 30-day period, but all questions in a single written inquiry must be answered.

This bill applies to unit owners in common interest communities, including HOAs and condominium associations. It does not by itself dictate broad records retention timelines (that remains governed by existing statutes), but it would create a predictable response timeline for owners seeking clarification about governance and operations — an important part of transparency.

Why it matters for participation: If enacted, HB 1501 would give residents a clear, statutory path for asking questions about governance and receiving answers within a predictable timeframe — potentially enabling stronger, documented feedback loops between members and boards.

By encouraging timely, substantive responses to member inquiries, HB 1501 also reinforces the importance of maintaining clear, contemporaneous records of board actions and explanations—something that supports transparency for both boards and residents.

Other topics included ongoing questions about records retention requirements under state law, a concern about a covenant affecting Lot 2151, and clarification that the association’s management contract auto-renewed for 2026, with a 60-day minimum notice period required for cancellation or proposal requests.

Near the end of the meeting, the board revisited community comment. Directors suggested that if the board feels too tired to go through remaining agenda items, the meeting could be ended early — including skipping a closing comment opportunity. 

This approach reflects a view of community participation as conditional on board time and energy levels, rather than as a core function of governance. For members, this creates uncertainty about when and how concerns may be raised, particularly at moments when board actions or emerging decisions may benefit from immediate clarification or feedback.

During this discussion, the board referenced the January 20, 2026 meeting, characterizing prior community discussion as something to avoid if the board was “too tired to argue.” The minutes from that meeting show that members asked questions and shared concerns about board actions taken earlier in the meeting, offering feedback on decisions that had just occurred.

One director also noted the desire to avoid a “circular firing squad.” We want to be clear about how this lands for many residents. When multiple members raise similar concerns, it does not indicate opposition to the board. It indicates alignment among members and an effort to surface shared perspectives. The only way to know whether concerns are broadly held is for people to speak.

The meeting concluded without a final community comment period, despite one at the outset.

Governance Layer - Let's Connect to Best Practices

Predictable structures for participation Dropping community comments at the end of meetings for the board’s convenience means that members will not know if they have an effective place to raise concerns - or not - at the end of the meeting.

Feedback loops that deliver clarity Elle’s question was fundamentally about how feedback will be tracked, responded to, and integrated into board decision-making. Without a clear mechanism or response, the question remained an open governance gap rather than a resolved process matter.

Psychological safety for inquiry and disagreement Characterizing substantive

concerns as “arguments” or framing member questions as burdensome can unintentionally discourage participation. Constructive disagreement is part of healthy governance; systems should support question-asking as a normal input rather than a problem to avoid.

Capacity for sustained engagement Ending comment opportunities when the board is “too tired” signals decision pathways that depend on internal energy, rather than shared norms. That creates variability in access and makes community input less reliable as a component of governance planning.