Committee adopts substitute and backs minimal annual training for HOA board members; some members raise oversight questions

Representative Acton presented first substitute House Bill 262, which would require each homeowners‑association (HOA) board member to complete a minimum of one hour of board education each year while serving. The substitute lists subject areas for education and directs the Department of Commerce to maintain a list of persons that “purport to offer” board education; the sponsor said the Utah chapter of the Community Association Institute (CAI) will provide free training options.

Former Representative Bruce Cutler and representatives from CAI described the proposal as a modest, non‑punitive step to improve board performance. Cutler told the committee that board members sometimes do not understand state law or the priority of state law over community documents; CAI supports minimal education and has curricular materials that could be used at low or no cost.

Several witnesses described more serious HOA disputes and asked the Legislature to create stronger dispute resolution mechanisms. Matthew Hinojos and Jonathan Mower described protracted conflicts with their associations and said training alone would not resolve escalation, and they urged an HOA ombudsman or an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process to provide a neutral third party for complaints. Quinn Sperry (legislative action committee, CAI Utah chapter) said better education reduces disputes and makes managers’ work easier; he and the sponsor said they would work with the Department of Commerce to develop standards and a vetting process for training providers.

The committee adopted the substitute and then voted to recommend the bill favorably. The transcript records Representative Ward and Representative D. C. Manu as voting in opposition to the committee recommendation. Sponsors and supporters said the measure is designed to educate volunteers, not to be punitive, and that training will be publicly available to all association members.

Members asked how the Department of Commerce will vet providers and whether a mandatory, state‑mandated training requirement could become rote or perfunctory; the sponsor and CAI representatives said they would work with the department on standards and suggested participant surveys and publicly available provider information as possible quality controls.