top of page

CIC Task Force: HOA Reform

 

NVHOAReform is closely following the work of Nevada’s Common-Interest Community (CIC) Task Force, which was created to address systemic HOA governance problems that lawmakers themselves have acknowledged are difficult to resolve within Nevada’s compressed, biennial legislative sessions. The Task Force created by SB 392(2019), authorized the Director of the Department of Business and Industry to convene a task force specifically charged with examining HOA-related issues and developing vetted, practical reform proposals for legislative adoption. Its work may influence CIC legislation for the 2026 legislative session and beyond, making its early direction, structure, and operating choices especially consequential.  As noted in the post Lawmakers See “HOA” as a Four-Letter Word-Time for Accountability, the "reconstituted” CIC Task Force may well be owners only viable option.

​

At its core, the Task Force was intended to do something Nevada’s HOA system rarely does: meaningfully include homeowners in diagnosing systemic problems and shaping solutions. However, that purpose has been difficult to discern in practice. The Task Force convened only twice in 2020 without meaningful public participation and then went dormant. Its recent “reconstruction” raises renewed concerns. The current Task Force is dominated by industry representatives, placing the very mechanism lawmakers hoped would help level the playing field for homeowners at risk of being steered by those with strong incentives to preserve the status quo. Compounding this concern, the Task Force appears poised to operate under rules, notice practices, and meeting formats that significantly restrict homeowner participation and limit meaningful public engagement. Lawful, but the minimum the law requires. This is not how a body behaves when homeowner input is viewed as essential rather than inconvenient.

​

The letter below gives readers a concrete sense of the kinds of issues Nevada’s CIC Task Force should be addressing if it is to serve the purpose lawmakers intended. Rather than focusing on isolated homeowner disputes, it outlines the deeper structural failures within Nevada’s HOA regulatory system: a dispute-resolution process that too often fails owners, inconsistent and opaque enforcement, dormant rulemaking, and broader imbalances involving declarant control, vendor capture, financial accountability, and transparency. As the letter to Director Sanchez explains, Nevada’s problem is not the absence of statutes, but more the failure of the administrative system meant to make those statutes work in practice. Policy Framework for Nevada Common-Interest Communities (10/24//25)

 

NVHOAReform is concerned that Nevada’s current rulemaking direction may normalize private regulatory enforcement, allowing HOA industry actors to function more like prosecutors of state law than governed participants within it. When enforcement shifts from accountable public institutions to private interests, fairness, transparency, and owner confidence all suffer. Read more: Danger: private regulatory enforcement

 

Our coverage will track not only what the Task Force is addressing, but what it is leaving untouched—and why omissions matter. Find NVHOAReform's list of laws that are in need of reform and the Task Force should be addressing here. Read more: Nevada’s HOA System Remains “Unfinished” and A Referee Program for Nevada HOAs: Fixing a Dispute Resolution System That Fails Homeowners.

_______________________________

 

Meeting #1, 12/19/24 11:00am 

Agenda, discussion items, and meeting link information can be found at the NRED website or Nevada Business and Industry meetings.  The Task Force met virtually as scheduled, with several members absent and very limited homeowner participation (fewer than seven owners present). My initial impression was underwhelming. The public notice and meeting format was not conducive to meaningful owner input, despite the Legislature’s stated intent that the Task Force solicit and consider homeowner perspectives. Substantively, much of the discussion focused on issues already within the CIC Commission’s existing authority, rather than on legislative gaps or structural reforms. On a promising note, it was suggested ADR reform, a top NVHOAReform effort, be a subject of future Task Force meetings.

 

Public comment was submitted by NVHOAReform on the following agenda items: 

​

Meeting #2, 2/25/26, @11:00 am

The agenda, discussion items, and meeting link information was posted 2/18/26. It can be found at the NRED website or Nevada Business and Industry meetings. The Task Force met virtually-only.

 

We sent a letter to the Task Force asking it improve owners invovlement and submitted the following list of Unresolved HOA Rulemaking matters for consideration Feb 5, 2026. 

​

I am concerned with public participation in the Task Force process itself. A principal reason lawmakers turned to a task force model for CICs was to expand stakeholder input — especially from homeowners — and allow broader vetting of potential reforms than is typically possible during the compressed legislative session. When meetings are held with only the minimum required public notice, conducted exclusively in virtual format,
and structured around brief public comment periods, the process may satisfy statutory requirements but materially limit both the breadth and depth of stakeholder engagement—the very thing the Task Force is meant to foster. Homeowners do not expect every reform outcome to favor their position, but they will reasonably bristle in the absence of transparency. They expect clarity in the reasoning behind regulatory interpretations and meaningful opportunities to be heard before policies or practices become entrenched. Without that visibility and participation, it becomes difficult for members to understand why certain practices are permitted, to assess whether outcomes are fair, or to have confidence that the system is operating as intended. 

 

Public comment was submitted by NVHOAReform on the agenda item 4(1) the ADR program along with a cover letter expressing concern with approriate owner access to the Task Force process. You can find it posted by NRED here or here on NVHOReform.

 

Comments were submitted addressing agenda item 5(1) - the definition of "meeting" and in opposition to suggested changed to item 5(3)- placing allegations of association violations on agenda for comment.

 

NVHOAReform requested the Task Force in a future meeting discuss Division compliance with NRS 233B (Administrative Procedures Act) dealing with petitioning for regulatory action. Read the letter here. 

 

Little was done during the nearly two hour meeting beyond the presentations scheduled. There was discussion after each of the four agenda items restricted to commissioners. All that spoke appear to endorse what was suggested by NRED. No materail action was taken. The Nevada Current did a story around the ADR presentation. No firm date set for the next meeting or if any of NVHOAReform’s proposals will be addressed. 

​

Meeting #3, 4/14/26, @11:00 am

The agenda, discussion items, and meeting-link information for the April 14, 2026 CIC Task Force meeting were posted on April 8, 2026 and are available on the NRED website here. The Task Force meeting is scheduled to be virtual only.


NVHOAReform has submitting public comment on the following agenda items:
4.A.1 — Defining HOA “Meetings”
This appears to be part of an effort to move Nevada HOAs away from their recognized quasi-governmental character and toward a more corporate, less transparent, and less accountable model — precisely the direction Nevada lawmakers have been trying to avoid since 2003. The agenda framing does not squarely confront that concern. You can find the discussion material, when posted by NRED, here, or on NVHOAReform here.
4.A.2 — Defining Capital Improvement
This topic may affect what an HOA board can do without owner consent or notice. You can find the discussion material, when posted by NRED, here, or on NVHOAReform here.
4.A.3 — Owner Rights to Place a Complaint on the Agenda and Receive a Response
This item concerns whether homeowners will have any meaningful ability to bring concerns before the board and receive a response, or whether boards will remain free to control the agenda in ways that shut owners out and leave important issues unanswered. You can find the discussion material, when posted by NRED, here, or on NVHOAReform here. The referenced December 2025 meetng comment letter can be found here. 
4.A.4 — Reasonable Time to Prohibit Use of a Common Element
NVHOAReform has not submitted comment on this item.
4.A.5 — Proposed Changes to Nevada’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Law
This is the most critical item. It concerns possible changes to Nevada’s Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR/NRS 38) process for common-interest community disputes. You can find the discussion material, when posted by NRED, here, or on NVHOAReform here. The full referenced NVHOAReform policy paper on ADR reform can be found here.

​

​

bottom of page