New HOA Laws – The Good, The Bad, The OK (Part 1)

Episode Blog

INTRO:  On this week’s episode of CACM chat HOA life to hear exclusive insights and expert perspectives on community association management from leaders across California. This podcast is about the hard work that managers do to positively impact the lives of more than 15 million residents living in over 50,000 homeowner associations across California.

TOM: Hey, welcome back to you all out there in the podcast world to another episode of the CACM chat HOA life podcast, where no HOA topic is off limits. Here in California, legislation changes every year that has negative and positive impacts on homeowner associations in California, managers and management companies. It’s a lot folks. It’s a lot every year. For example, the 2024 legislative session included at least seven insurance related bills, mainly addressing needs, needed changes within the fair plan, all of which failed in committee.

Commercial Insurances California is in crisis mode. So, these negatively impact homeowner associations. It is important to note that the insurance commissioner is putting through regulations within his department to address some of the things that were referenced in these bills that failed.

However, within the same legislative session, there were a lot of successes that has a positive impact on our industry. Today’s topic is part one of two parts of the 2024 legislative wrap-up. I’m excited to welcome Jennifer Wada to the podcast today. Jennifer is the principal of Wada Government Relations, LLC. She provides lobbying and political consulting services on a broad range of issues.

Jennifer represents clients, including CACM, before the California legislature, the governor’s office, and state agencies. She has been instrumental in helping me and CACM navigate the legislative process and work with legislators and their teams to make bills workable in California. Jennifer, welcome.

JENNIFER:  Thank you, Tom. Glad to be here.

TOM: It’s my pleasure. I appreciate you taking the time. The legislation is pretty much out of session now, correct?

JENNIFER: Yes. So, they adjourned August 30th and then the governor had a month to sign or veto bills. So, we’re just coming out of the period where now we know what’s happened to all the bills.

TOM: So, you have free time. I’m only kidding. I know you don’t.

JENNIFER: Well, I have you as a client Tom

TOM: And I so apologize because I know I run you ragged.

JENNIFER: Well, it’s great that I’ve gotten to see kind of the world evolve because as you know, I represented CACM for a long time. So, this is a fun forum. I like it.

TOM: Yes, you have represented CACM for a very long time. So, and I appreciate everything that you do because I know it’s not an easy process, especially when you and I are hammering out. Well, what does that mean? Well, what is the intent? And do we change this language? And what language should we add in?

What recommendations can we make and so on and so on? It could be rather intriguing process. I’m a political junkie. you know, I just, happen to love the process. I happen to love being involved in it. Obviously, you do too as a lobbyist.

JENNIFER: Yes. I mean, it makes it easy that you’re so interested in it. A lot of people are not. So, I love it.

TOM: No, it’s a, yeah. So, this political, this political season nationally is an intriguing process for me to watch but we are definitely not going down that path.

JENNIFER: That could take another, that’s another episode.

TOM: Yeah, that’s like a four-day episode. I’m not willing to do that. Nor do I think our members and our listeners have any desire to hear anything about that.

JENNIFER: I think they’re hearing enough already.

TOM: I do as well. I do as well. So, as I mentioned in the introduction, there’s been some positive and some negative bills and it always happens.

We’ll use AB 1470 as, or I’m sorry, SB 1470 as one of the bills that was potentially very negative to our industry, but thankfully got killed in committing. This would have been a bill, if I understood it correctly, that would have rolled back SB 800 to pretty much non-existence and would have put all the responsibility for construction defect back onto a homeowner association, is that correct?

JENNIFER: That’s right. It would have completely removed the strict liability put in place by SB 800. It was extremely sweeping, and it would have shifted, basically shifted the entire burden to associations. The only way that a builder would have been liable is if you could prove habitability was impacted. So, as you know, like that’s… wide open. So, it would have pulled the association into endless litigation. It would have been terrible.

TOM: Well, habitability could literally be subjective. I mean, obviously, there’s a certain point where it’s literally uninhabitable. So, it’s not a subjective thing. But in general, habitability can be or uninhabitable can be a very subjective opinion. And this, Bill, when you and I first looked at this, we were like, my God, we have to be all on top of this very quickly, literally just be in strong opposition.

It was interesting that it got as far as in the process as it did simply because the California Builders Industry Association also opposed it. And that’s their industry. Yet the bill kept moving forward. I remember you and I had a conversation going, how is that even possible?

JENNIYFER: Well, it’s amazing how much legislation, and I’m sure all the listeners have seen this, right? How much legislation moves through the process. You know, in the California legislature, a lot of things are able to get out of the first house. So, there’s a lot of deference given by members to their colleagues, right? There’s a lot of by committee chairs, kind of a, you’ll see a lot in committee of votes of, know, I’ll vote for it now.

Even if they have an issue with it, right? I’ll vote for it now, but I’d like to see this worked on and this worked on. So yes, a lot of bills do get through the first rounds.

TOM: Well, and this one got through the first round, thankfully, it didn’t get through the second round because this was a nightmare.

JENNIFER: Yeah, well, and I have to give a shout out to CACM and you Tom and a lot of members of the legislative committee that really put a ton of time and work into that as you were there on in, you know, in the meetings with the legislative staff and consultants, et cetera. That was very time consuming. And I think that it obviously made a difference in getting the legislation pulled.

TOM: It did and thank you. I appreciate that sentiment. Again, it was a bill that I felt very strongly opposed to because for obvious reasons. But we were successful in defeating it in committee. As soon as that was done, we had glass champagne and moved on.

Pretty much what it was. But there were two bills, well, three bills, very specific to CIDs that had, going back to my original opening comments, that did have a very positive impact. Some extremely positive. Like I think AB 2114, which was affectionately, or addressing what was affectionately known as the balcony bill SB 326, this adds now civil engineers. And to me, that was, it was an interesting process, but it’s also a simple addition because our industry desperately needed that.

JENNIFER: Yes. Yeah. So, it actually did fly through the legislature. I don’t know that it even got one no vote. I, it’s very possible it didn’t. I think it flew out unanimously for the most part. And that was signed early. So, because the bill had an urgency, what we call an urgency clause in it, which means as soon as the governor signs it, it’s effective.

Most regular legislation is effective January one of the year after it’s signed. But because this had the urgency measure in it, it’s effective now. So civil engineers can be used now.

TOM: And I think that, again, going back to the positive side, that’s a huge positive impact to the industry because I know finding non-civil engineers to do these inspections was beginning to get very taxing.

And it almost just created a whole industry in and of itself. So, adding civil engineers now broadens the ability for managers and management companies and homeowner association boards to go out and achieve these or accomplish these inspections.

The deadline, there’s a little confusion. There was another bill, AB 2579, that dealt similarly with a different balcony bill. But that bill is very specific to multifamily and excluding homeowner associations or CIDs. Am I correct in that assumption?

JENNIFER: Yes, I believe so. So that bill stemmed from SB 721, same author as, no wait, no. Yes, SB 721, that was by Senator Hill who is no longer in the legislature, but that bill is what this bill is based on extending the deadline and CIDs were exempted from that bill. I believe it would require.

TOM: Which is a shame.

JENNIFER: Yeah, I know. I know. It was actually in the process of 2114 looked out of whether you could extend the deadline for the CID balcony inspections. And there was some pushback about the need and whether associations could comply and that they had a lot of lead up time, et cetera. So that was not done, I believe. Right. I mean,

TOM: Well, we’re not included in it. The extension has not been, I want to say approved or we pursued it, but it certainly wasn’t approved. So, the deadline for filing for these first inspections is still January 1st, 2025. So, for the benefit of our listeners in California, please get this done. You’ve heard me and every other professional tell you this. Talk to your legal counsel, talk to your engineers, but get these inspections done. You don’t want to be on the receiving end of not having them done.

So, two other bills, super positive, in my opinion, super positive for the industry, will deal with, if you don’t mind, SB 900 first, because we were heavily involved. While we were also heavily involved in the electronic bill, we were heavily involved in this one with Senator Umberg in Orange County, and who had a gas leak in one of his constituent buildings. And this had four months of just no gas in the community. They had portable showers being shipped into them all through Senator Umberg or with his help at least. And so, I want to give kudos to Senator Umberg for, you know, even going down the road of, we have to implement some fixes here. But the original bill, I think was a bit of a nightmare if you want to tap on some of that.

JENNIFER: Yeah. So, the original bill basically just outright said the association in in the situation where there is a service interruption of gas, water, you know, those utilities that the association is liable period to repair or replace. It then required that the replacement or the repairs be completed within 30 days from discovery of the leak essentially, which as everyone knows is completely impossible.

TOM: That’s absurd.

JENNIFER:  Right. So, I mean, and then there’s a whole cost issue associated with that, right? And the ability to get the funding for that. So, it was a nightmare to the senators and the senator staff credit.

 They, you know, had said, we knew that we wanted to work with you. We knew, right? But it was an emergency. And so, they threw this legislation out there knowing that we would certainly see it and come running to them to negotiate a better bill, which is exactly what happened.

TOM: Well, I mean, the final bill came out. Well, in the process, I remember we were negotiating, getting the 30 days and trying to explain the unrealistic perspective of that. They very positively changed the language to commence the repairs or commence the process within 14 days. And I think that was super, super positive because that just literally means you start making calls and obtain requesting proposals and so on.

 But in that in that same process, they also threw out, well, if the boards can’t do it, the legislatively will will provide the authority to management to do it. And I remember when you when I first heard that, I kind of went, definitely not. Right. That’s that’s a nonstarter from the start. That just that’s not going anywhere.

JENNFIER: Yeah, I mean, it’s and that took some time because you know, one thing that CACM, the role that CACM serves is to educate legislators about what managers actually do, right? And their role in the association.

So often you see, you know, anti, for lack of a better term, anti-HOA groups out there, right? And it’s always the big bad manager that’s doing all of this. And we have to go in and educate and say, the manager cannot act without authority from the board, right? They’re the agent of the association and we have to make those distinctions.

 So, you’re absolutely right there. The whole point of this legislation was, well, in the wake of this disaster, there was confusion, right? The utility was blaming the HOA, the HOA was blaming the utility. There were claims that the management company wasn’t doing anything. And so, what the author’s intent was, was we need to A, clarify responsibility and then B, expedite the process. However, we can get this fixed as quickly as possible.

“hey, management” and that’s when it was thrown out, right, in meetings that we were in is, “well, the managers, why don’t we just give the manager sole authority to just fix it, right?”

TOM: Red flag, red flag.

JENNIFER: Right, without the authority of the board, and, but then they offered, you know, when we objected to that, then they offered indemnification, which obviously doesn’t help.

TOM: Managers out there know, whether you’re in California or not, if you manage Homeowner Association, you know, you can have all the indemnification you want. If there’s a lawsuit, you’re getting tossed in. That’s just the reality of what we do. I was happy that the Senator and his team kind of rethought that process with our help, course. Rethought that process. And now the bill that actually came out, I think is, in my opinion, spectacular.

The final language it is super positive. Again, it only requires commencing. And I’ll read a part of the summary if you don’t mind. The bill would require an associations board to commence the process to make those repairs within 14 days as provided. Now, again, that’s as simple as starting the process to obtain proposals. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, I want to qualify, it’s an emergency. There is no reason that a manager, a management company, or a homeowner association board should not aggressively move forward with all of this. This is an, it’s an emergency in a community. You have to deal with this as a leader. Be the leader, go attack it, get all the information you need, start the process, especially now with this bill, you can start this process within 14 days. It also is very, very specific to utilities.

It’s not, you know, a gutter falls off and rain is falling into our unit. Oh my God. Appreciating that as an emergency unit of itself, but it doesn’t fall under the confines of SB 900. However, what does is if there are insufficient funds in reserve to cover the cost of repairs, the bill now authorizes an association to obtain competitive financing to comment repairs or replacements without a vote and to levy a specialist, an emergency assessment to repay the loan if necessary, conditions are met.

This, in my opinion, from a manager’s perspective, simplifies this process incredibly, incredibly. And I know you and I went through this language with them. What was their thought when we were originally trying to pursue, okay, well, if we’re aggressively start this within 14 days, we need something on the back end. We need help on the other end. And they were receptive, if I remember correctly.

JENNIFER: And that was one of the comments that we had, one of the comments that CAI CLAC had as well is with the original version of the bill, right? Like A, getting it all done in 30 days is impossible and we need the money to be able to do it, right? And there are lots of hoops that association would have to go through. You wouldn’t be able to do it in 30 days, et cetera. That led to a conversation about financing, right?

We had submitted amendments that did what you mentioned, commenced the process as opposed to having to complete repairs and then suggesting the ability to get a loan without member approval. And so that, you know, I think that they saw that as legitimate, right? Because when you let associations, they’re very underfunded. And so, they acknowledged that.

TOM: Yeah. We’re going to, in a future episode, have that discussion and I’ll probably be putting a bill through next year. I shouldn’t say probably. We might be putting a bill through next year to develop some level of minimal funding, minimal reserve funding, because I think that’s part of the problem. And I think if we put a minimum funding level in, it’ll be part of the solution.

It might be an impact on homeowner associations at the front end, but I personally think from a management perspective, in order to accomplish, especially emergencies, having nothing to do with this bill, just in general, you need to have that reserve. And if you don’t, you’re going to, if it’s not a utility bill, now that you can immediately go out and seek loans and everything else, you’re going to have a very long and arduous process to go through just to accomplish getting this repair done. Yeah.

JENNIFER: And that has been talked about for years. As you know, it’s extremely controversial, extremely difficult to mandate a certain reserve level given the diversity of associations out there. So yes, I mean, I know that’s a discussion that often comes up. It’s a hard one to tackle, but at some point, it will need to be tackled.

TOM: Well, we are in the process, I should say, of putting together a reserve task force of reserve specialists. And we’re going to see if we can’t get some consensus within that contingency of reservists. And if we can, then we’ll see if we can get a bill put together. We’ll see what, everything comes in time.

JENNIFER: Yeah, really quickly, Tom, just on the emergency piece, I did want to also want to note that it adds to the definition of emergency for purposes of emergency assessments, situations where there’s a threat to personal health. Right now, it says personal safety, but now it additionally says personal health. So that’s also very helpful.

TOM: Yeah, because personal safety again could be a subjective thing. I mean, there’s the obvious, but the ones that aren’t so obvious, it could be very subjective. And again, to qualify, it’s necessary to restore this bill specific to gas, heat, water, or electrical services beginning in a common area. Even if the matter extends into another area, that will also push the onus on to the homeowner to do repairs within their unit if we have to go in and you know, do certain repairs.

There’s obvious, you know, CCNR compliance things and what trumps what, and as far as legislation over governing documents, but the bill is pretty clear on what to do and what exactly falls into the category of this specific bill. And that’s not always the case.

JENNIFER: Right. To be clear, the bill does place the initial responsibility on the association, right? So, for, you know, gas, water, and electric service interruptions. So that’s the default. But then it also includes helpful language that says, you know, unless otherwise provided in the declaration or unless the utility service is the one that failed to maintain or repair the lines.

TOM: I appreciate that qualification for sure.

JENNIFER: Yeah. And it clarifies that nothing changes the legal duty of a utility company or a local government to repair or replace the items. So it keeps those protections in place.

TOM: So, the other, and the final for today’s conversation, at least the really big one that’s just I think has a very positive impact in the long term is AB 2159, more affectionately known as the electronic bill, electronic voting bill in California.

There are 27 states, if I remember correctly, in the United States, or 23. think there’s 27 that has electronic voting on their legislation as a law, that electronic voting for homeowner associations is legally allowable in 27 states. California is now going to be one of those, so making the 28. And CACM looked at this and did the research on this a couple of years ago.

And when we were, we were going to put through a bill until we found out that CLAC was interested in putting through an electronic voting bill. We decided, you know what, it’s more appropriate for them to do it anyway. So, we did, and you know, we want to partner with, with our, our sister organization. So, we, we took a step back and said, yeah, let’s, you know, let’s see if we can support you through this process and let’s see where this goes.

It had some bumps in the road. I’ll let you kind of walk us through the process and where we are.

JENNIFER: Sure. So, yeah, this is the bill that would authorize associations to adopt an operating rule to provide for electronic secret ballots, notwithstanding governing documents. Shockingly, the bill actually had a fairly calm ride.

In the first house and was getting out. I think there’s an understanding now more than before. This bill has been run. I think the first one was 2014 maybe.

TOM: 2013 or 2014. And if I remember correctly, it got killed in Senate judiciary because there was a lot of safety and security concerns.

JENNIFER: Correct. And those were present in this discussion, but I think there was also a different understanding this time around given that we’re living in the day and age we’re living in. We just came out of COVID. Everybody knows electronic stuff works.

TOM: We can do virtual episodes on a podcast.

JENNIFER: Exactly. We’re podcasting now. So, we could vote by podcast maybe.

TOM: Don’t open Pandora’s box.

JENNIFER: Yeah. Just kidding. You have virtual meetings though. you know, but yeah. So, so there was a different understanding. The bill actually was moving smoothly. The Center for Homeowner Association Law and the California Alliance of Retired Americans were opposed due to privacy concerns and fraud being more likely with electronic voting. And they had those concerns, but despite their opposition, the bill still was getting out and moving through the process. We did hit some snags in Senate judiciary again, and that’s…

You know, Verifying Voting was an organization that was opposed and activated. They are, I believe, a national organization, but they’re not really focused on homeowner associations specifically. They’re more on national elections and the use of technology or the misuse of technology in elections. So, this bill piques their interest. I think they viewed it as a slippery slope, right? Sending a bad precedent for future elections.

They thought it was a threat to election security. They claimed that the ballots, electronic ballots, compromise integrity of elections because they could be intercepted, deleted, altered. And then the Secretary of State’s office, which has opposed these bills in the past, also came on in opposition of the bill, largely echoing verified voting’s concerns about the possibility of interception or altering of the ballot.

TOM: And if I remember correctly, both of those letters were extremely focused on opposition. Like they didn’t hold back punches. I mean, they went right after it.

JENNIFER: Totally. And they opposed in committee, right? They lobbied against the bills. But ultimately, we were able to get the bills out. There were some amendments that had to be taken, such as the focusing on the ability for homeowners to opt out, right? And the individual notice being provided of two members of their right to opt out.

So, I think that that was helpful. Toward the end of the session, and I want to be clear, toward the end of the session, there were some discussions about an opt out versus an opt in. As you know, Tom, we have opposed an opt in, right? Because it’s more burdensome on the homeowners to now have to let their association know they want to do electronic secret balloting, since most indications are that most people would want that.

And it’s cheaper for the association and for them, obviously. So, there is language amendments in there now that say that in the operating rule, the association has to basically at least provide an opt-in or an opt-out. The board can decide which direction it wants to go, but in order to be able to use an electronic secret ballot, you have to at least give the homeowners an out, right? Either opting in or out.

TOM: Well, and I’m, as you well know, cause I express this opinion through this process. I am, when I was on the management side of this industry, and I still am a very proponent of opt out because opt in means you have to chase after people, you know, trying to get them to opt in, explain all the benefits over and over and over again. If you explain the benefits once or twice or whatever times upfront, and then you implement, and then the homeowner then has the option to say, “you know, I’m not comfortable. I want to opt out.” You don’t have to chase anybody here.

 You’re not trying to get more people opted in because it will be less expensive for them. It’ll be easier for them, and it’ll save the manager time and expense as well. But the opt out, it’s an automatic. So, for those listening, use your, use your best judgment to make recommendations to your board on opt in or opt out. Again, personally, I’m a fan of opt out.

JENNIFER: Yeah, the operating, the bill also states things that the operating rule has to include. So, it has to allow any member to opt out no later than 90 days before the election, things like that. Clarifying that you get a secret or written ballot if you opt out the process for opting out.

It requires HOA, and I think this is important for managers, is it requires the HOA to maintain a voting list, identifying which members are voting either way, which you would do anyway.

TOM:  Sure.

JENNIFER: But yeah, you should take a look at the legislation because it, and I’m sure lots of law seminars out there, including CACMs, we’ll make sure that you do know, but there’s requirements for the operating rules.

TOM: And it’s going to take time. I mean, any new legislation is, there’s a process and to get it on the books, especially this type of a bill, to get this on the books is so hard and far harder to make edits to it or corrections to it or improvements to it down the road.

 Because then we have some practical experience. We have certain things that, well, you got to get it on the books. And sometimes getting it on the books is going to cause, well, my homeowner associates is not going to do this, not going to do that. I don’t understand. There’s going to be some learning curve.

Fine, all these things are perfectly normal and perfectly understandable. Learn it. Go to the seminars that teach it. Talk to your legal counsel. Create the rule that, and preferably create the rule without doubt, but that’s an association-specific decision. Create those rules. There’s no reason not to move this forward because the quicker you as a manager implements this new legislation, the quicker that it will smooth itself out.

If you don’t start doing it now in 2025 during the election time, the normal election period, latter part of the year, you’re going to be behind the eight-ball trying to put it all together. Now, if you’re one of those associations that have a mid-year or your fiscal year is July, your fiscal year is May, you need to jump all over this right now. Read the bill, talk to your legal counsel, get a rule made.

Talk to your board, educate everybody in your community, hold a town hall meeting, newsletters, whatever the case may be, whatever you feel is necessary to do. I strongly encourage you to go out and do it because you really, you don’t want to be behind the eight ball or you’re right back to the old multi-color, different envelopes and different signature blah, blah, blah. And oh my God, this process is going to change, in my opinion, it’s going to change how we do business in the future. How Homeowner Association do business in the future.

If I remember correctly, think Jennifer, and you tell me if I’m correct or not, I also think it’s important to highlight the fact that this bill is very specific exclusively to voting for board members, like a vote, like an election. It can’t be used for an assessment increase. It is very exclusive to the election of directors. Am I correct in remembering that?

JENNIFER: Yes, Homeowner Association elections assessments are excluded. Yeah. So yeah, and that was really helpful, right? But yeah, I think I yeah, I think CAI CLAC did a great job.

TOM: Yeah, kudos out to CLAC. Yeah, I think they did a great job pushing this forward or putting it forward. And I appreciated the opportunity to partner with them in moving it forward through the process. So, kudos to you guys.

JENNIFER: Yeah, absolutely.

TOM: Jennifer, do you have anything else, any parting comments you want to share?

JENNIFER: Well, I would just say a couple things. One, to follow on your getting things on the books is important, right? I think that that’s a really important thing to note because CID legislation is really complicated. And as everyone who follows this stuff knows, there’s often, especially in this industry, a lot of technical cleanup bills or bills that come after the fact because of the complexity of associations and how they operate.

It’s a different beast. And so, some of it requires implementation to work out all of the kinks. And then we’re always able to go back in and clean it up. The other thing I would say is you know, there was maybe a short lull of not a lot of CID legislation, but now it seems like every year there’s a lot, right?

TOM: Yeah, we had, I think we had a year or two of my, when I first started here, that it was a little smooth sailing and then all of a sudden it was like [sound effect].

JENNIFER: Right. And so now we’re back kind of to that, to back to having a lot of CID bills, which can be good and can be bad, but you know, that’s why it’s really important to stay vigilant and watch them all. like you said, Tom, some of them, start off bad, we’re either able to kill them early or we’re able to negotiate amendments to make them palatable. That happens a lot.

 One thing to notice if we’re talking about the elections this year in the California legislature, I think it’s 35 open seats. So, there’s 24, I think in the assembly and 11 in the Senate. And those are all going to be members that come into those seats, right? Many of whom will have never had any…like there’ll be a kind of first time in the legislature, some are moving from the assembly to the Senate, et cetera. But regardless, there’s going to be a lot of education required.

And often with that, when we see those waves, we see a lot of, you know, kind of a renewal of interest in CID legislation because, you know, they’re not aware of bills that have come before them or whatnot, or they’re just, you know. So, I think we should anticipate that as well, and also anticipate a need to really do a whole new re-education.

TOM: So, I should get on Southwest and start booking my flights and getting my hotels and while there’s discounted rates.

JENNIFER: A lot of new faces to meet, a lot of new legislators to educate. That’s for sure.

TOM: You know, I look at that as a positive. look at that personally, I look at that as an opportunity because we have now an opportunity to, as you very well stated, to educate new legislators that are not familiar with our industry. So, to me, this is a golden opportunity to make them aware of the industry, the Homeowner Association or the CID industry, what managers do, what management companies do, and how they relate to the association and so on. I think it’s a great opportunity. So, I look forward to a very fun legislative season.

JENNIFER: Yeah.

TOM: But until one of those bills comes out and I go, good heavens, why we, there’s no way we could do this. No, we have to fight this.

JENNIFER: Yeah

TOM: Hopefully, hopefully, those are minimal this coming season.

JENNIFER: Yeah, hopefully.

TOM: Which is 2025 for you listening. So, well, Jennifer, thank you so much. Stick around for just a minute. I do greatly appreciate, your time. And I really greatly appreciate your knowledge and your expertise in helping navigate the legislative process. To me, that’s an invaluable service that you provide. So, thank you very much.

JENNIFER: Yeah, no, thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to represent this industry. It’s important.

TOM: I also think it’s appropriate to say thank you and shout out kudos to our legislative committee.

JENNIFER:  Absolutely.

TOM: together, albeit virtually, they get together every month during the legislative process. Matter of fact, we have a meeting in a couple hours today as a wrap up. We’re recording this a couple of days before you folks are listening to it. And so, they’re the ones who do a lot of the knowledge sharing to us. And say, this is my opinion, this is how I read this. The practical side of this bill is going to be this. And that helps us give the groundwork to go back and have these conversations with legislators and their team.

So, shout out and say a quick thank you to our legislative committee. And for those of you listening, feel free to send us some comments and some questions, stories, whatever you feel like shooting out to us, we’d appreciate it. Send them to podcast@cacm.org.

We have a bill tracking report that Jennifer does every single month during the legislative season. The bill tracking report is listed on our website in our member resources area. We encourage you to go and check out those bills both now, because the wrap-up bill is available, but also through the legislative season, it’ll tell you all the bills that we are at least tracking. And it’ll tell all the status of the bill, a summary of the bill, and what our priority is and certain positions.

Again, Jennifer, thank you so much to our listeners. We greatly appreciate your time as well. And I look forward to talking to you guys soon. Thanks.

OUTRO: And that concludes this week’s episode of CACM Chat, HOA Life. Have questions you want answered? Send them to podcast@cacm.org and we’ll address them in an upcoming episode. Make sure to regularly check out our website at cacm.org. And don’t forget to join our rapidly expanding social media community. Just follow @CACMChat on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and X. Thanks for joining me.