HOA Rulemaking/Regulation

Update (10/2126): ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR OWNER PARTICIPATION—BUT FEW OWNERS KNEW ABOUT IT. Governor Lombardo’s August 17, 2026 Executive Order 2026-003 directed all state agencies to engage stakeholders in reviewing regulations and identifying those that should be clarified, revised, removed, or otherwise improved. If that sounds a lot like a rulemaking exercise, we agree—but it was represented a separate regulatory-review process. On October 8, NRED conducted the required public hearing for NAC Chapters 116, 116A and 116B—the regulations governing Nevada common-interest communities, community managers and condominium hotels. The Coalition had previously asked NRED to keep us informed of upcoming rulemaking workshops and CIC Task Force meetings, and those notices had generally been forthcoming. We received no similar advance communication concerning the October 8 Executive Order hearing and learned of it only after the meeting had occurred. NRED satisfied the applicable public-notice requirements. But minimum legal notice should not be the sole measure of whether an effort specifically intended to obtain stakeholder participation was successful. No stakeholder offered public comment during the October 8 hearing, and only one written comment had reportedly been received at that point. ( That result is telling. We saw a similar problem with the CIC Task Force. Government creates a process intended to obtain meaningful stakeholder input, but the people most affected—Nevada homeowners living under HOA regulation—often have little practical awareness that the opportunity exists.

The Executive Order does, however, provide an important additional protection. Its Section 3 requires the Division’s final report to identify stakeholder recommendations, state whether they were incorporated, and explain why recommendations that were not incorporated were rejected. The Nevada HOA Reform Coalition has therefore submitted each item in our two attached recommendation tables as a separate stakeholder recommendation for Division review. Read the Coalition’s EO 2026-003 Recommendations Table 1 and Table 2. We invite reader comments on both what we recommended—and what we may have missed.

 

As previouly noted the Coalition submitted procedural objections concerning R091-25 to the Legislative Counsel Bureau and to the Legislative Commission. As of this update, R091-25 has not yet been shown on the agenda or approved by the Legislative Commission. In other words, although the CICCH Commission voted to adopt R091-25, the version incorporating the September 9 changes has not appeared in the Legislature’s public regulation register and R091-25 has not completed Legislative Commission approval. We will continue to follow the regulation through the legislative-review process and post any scheduled hearing, committee action, or other material development here.

 

THE COMMISSION APPROVED R091-25.  OWNER OBJECTIONS WERE LEFT UNRESOLVED.

​

On September 9, the Commission for Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels approved R091-25 after nearly a year of workshops and extensive public comment. Health, safety and welfare has received most of the attention- and now damage. NVHOAReform and other owners raised substantive objections to multiple parts of the regulation - see below. The Commission did not make meaningful changes addressing those concerns before approving the package. Read our post approval post: A Dangerous New HOA Weapon — and Owners Are the Target.

​

Workshop materails can be found here.

 

Just as troubling was how final approval occurred. The Commission conducted a workshop on September 8 but did not direct changes to the noticed text of R091-25 at that time. When it reconvened the next day for the adoption hearing, the previously noticed, unaltered text was again before the public—and, inexplicably, was read aloud in its entirety. Only after that unusual reading and the public-comment period had closed did the Commission begin considering material changes to several sections of the regulation. The public was not given an opportunity to comment on the changes the Commission was actually considering before those revisions were approved.

The Commission then revised and approved mutiple provisions without reopening public comment or even providing actual text of the changes it would approve. The Coaltion submitted a Point of Order (POO) challenging that adoption process. It was ignored by the Commission. We have filed a formal protest with the Legislative Counsel Bureau concerning what we see as a non-complaint process. 

 

LCB File No. R091-25 sections worthy of owner concern

The Commission held workshops on December 9, 2025, March 10, 2026, June 9, 2026, and September 8 , 2026. Five proposals were of particular attention to Coalition homeowners.

 

SECTION 2: HOW DOES A $100 HOA FINE BECOME $10,000, OR MORE, AND POTENTIAL FORECLOUSRE?

Nevada law ordinarily limits HOA fines. But the Legislature created an exception for violations that may adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of residents.

That exception matters because qualifying violations can expose an owner to dramatically greater fines—and may have consequences extending beyond the fine itself.

Section 2 attempts to define when that exception applies. 

 

NVHOAReform believes the proposed regulation remains too broad and provides inadequate safeguards for homeowners. A condition can present some conceivable risk to health or safety without presenting a sufficiently serious, immediate and substantial danger to justify removing Nevada's ordinary protections on HOA fines. The regulation should clearly distinguish between an ordinary HOA violation and the exceptional circumstances that justify extraordinary punishment. A $100 violation should not become a $10,000 violation simply because an association can attach the words “health, safety or welfare” to it.

 

Read more at the posts: Nevada’s HOA Health-and-Safety Fine Proposal Has Changed — But the Blank Check Problem Remains, Workshop Update: Regulators Continue Considering $10,000 HOA Fine Rule Connected to HSW and HOA Fines Up to $10,000 — Expanding Private Enforcement

Read here my opposition letter to Section 2

​

SECTION 3: Fiduciary-Duty Affidavits 

Section 3 needs clarification, particularly in light of how this provision has changed during the rulemaking process. If Section 3 instead requires the homeowner to identify a separate statute, regulation or order before a fiduciary-duty complaint may proceed, I oppose it. That would appear to narrow the independent duties the Legislature expressly imposed in NRS 116.3103. 

​

Read here my comment letter to Section 3

 

SECTION 4: NRED SEEKS MORE SECRECY — NOT THE TRANSPARENCY OWNERS DEMAND

Section 4 raised a very different concern. The Division currently possesses the ability to investigate complaints and recommend corrective action to avoid filing a formal complaint. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. If an association made a mistake and voluntarily corrects it, an expensive enforcement proceeding may be unnecessary.

However, Section 4 propsoed and approved formally allows significant remedial decisions to occur through confidential Division processes the Commissioners and public have repeatedly been told they are excluded from—at least as the Division interprets confidentiality. The Commission cannot meaningfully monitor, guide, or correct - as the law directs-what it cannot see. That is not a minor procedural concern. It is a foundational issue of governance.

 

Read more at the posts: NRED Seeks More Secrecy — Not the Transparency HOA Owners Demand

Read here my opposition letter to Section 4

 

SECTION 5: PETITION/RULEMAKING CONSIDERATION

Section 5 should not merely require the Administrator to “consider” a petition submitted by owners within 30 days. That is already required by law. The regulation should reflect the statutory requirement: within 30 days, the petition must either be denied in writing with reasons or regulation-making proceedings must be initiated. If the Administrator does not deny the petition within that statutory period, the regulation should then establish a definite process for bringing the petition before the Commission. The subsequent process is at issue. 

 

What should not be permitted --but approve September 9th, was the open-ended standard under which NRED determines indefinitely when Commission consideration becomes “feasible.” Once a petition has not been denied within the statutory period, it should be the Commission—not the Administrator—that determines the priority and timing of its consideration. NVHOAReform believes the current handling and refusal to consider for the past year its petitions, demonstrate why those safeguards are necessary (see Law Reform Needed, rulemaking update)

 

Read here my opposition letter to Section 5

 

SECTION 6: Reserve Funding

NVHOAREFORM supports in part. Section 6’s eliminates baseline funding. But the change also affects how the Commission should view the annual reserve budget. It raises a few important implementation questions that require answers. Each association should annually prepare and approve a clearly identifiable document titled Reserve Budget. (see HOA Reserve Funding — What Owners Will Actually Pay)

 

Read here my letter reference Section 6.

​