All right, welcome back. We have a few questions and quite frankly, most of them are very transaction specific. And so I just want to remind you, this isn't a property management course, it's not a contracts course and it's not an NAR settlement course. And so you should take those courses to get the specific answers for those questions. But I do want to point out one more thing. And that is, there are some forms that have been created by the Colorado Bar Association, which are available on the website right now. And those are not commission approved. But if you would like to use a couple of these forms, they can be really helpful. So there's a link here at the bottom to that Colorado Bar Association form store. You can also find that on Dora's website, just above the regular broker forms, if you just search on that page. But there are a few there that are very helpful. One is the Tenant Rate on Disclosure form, which is what was required by Senate Bill 23-206. And then the Buyer Rate on Disclosure form for the same reason. So those two. And then the third form, which I've had a few people ask about, is the Brokerage Form Compensation Agreement form. And so what that is, is this is basically brokerage firm to brokerage firm compensation agreement, so that if the selection that you made in Section 29 requires that the selling broker's firm give payment to the buyer broker's firm, there is a way to memorialize that agreement outside of the purchase and sale contract. So that's available for you on that link here at the bottom. Okay, so thank you to the folks at the Bar Association for preparing those for us. All right. This next section then we are gonna move into is gonna be a highlight of some of the changes that the Colorado General Assembly made through new legislation this year, okay? So there are two major house bills. We're gonna talk about the first one is House Bill 24-1175. This is concerning a local government's right of first refusal or offer to purchase a qualifying multifamily property for the purpose of providing long-term affordable housing or mixed income development, okay? The second one is gonna be House Bill 24-1152. And this one is concerning the increasing number of accessory dwelling units and in connection there with making an appropriation, okay? So we're gonna talk about those two items pretty in depth here, okay? We're also gonna talk about some of the things going on with common interest bills, although we'll talk about those a little less thoroughly. And we'll talk about a couple of other laws, you know, involving water and involving land or owner liability under recreational use statute, couple of little changes that do affect real estate, okay? Let's look at our first scenario. Broker regularly lists residential, commercial and mixed use properties. She works in Durango, where there is an affordable housing shortage. She just listed a 10 unit mixed use property with two commercial units and eight affordable housing residential units, which were previously rental units. Broker receives two offers and a contract is signed. Broker schedules the closing. Broker is then contacted by the city stating that it wants to purchase the property, okay? So this is after it's already signed, the closing is scheduled, now the city is interested, okay? What is a right of first refusal, okay? What is a qualifying property? And where can a broker learn more about local government requirements for affordable housing? Okay, so those are the questions we're gonna talk about. So obviously in Colorado, we do have a housing shortage as I'm sure you're aware. And House Bill 2411.75 was passed and became law in August. And it basically grants a right of first refusal to any local government on certain qualifying properties in order to increase affordable housing stock. And so basically when properties come for sale, it automatically allows that, you know, municipality as a third party to step in and match an existing offer. That's what a right of first refusal is, okay? So pursuant to the House Bill, the offer must be economically identical to any other offer that a seller receives and is willing to accept on the qualifying property. So once the offer was received and scheduled for a closing, obviously it seems obvious that they were willing to accept that offer. And so the government then stepped in and said we would like to match it. If the local government provides notice to a seller that the government may exercise its right of first refusal, the residential seller shall not proceed with the sale of the property to any other property. And the local government gets the right to make an offer. Okay, so basically what that looks like in practice is, you know, at this point now that in our scenario, now that the broker has received the offer from the municipality, she can no longer proceed to closing on the contract that has been accepted. So there's obviously gonna be some ramifications there too. Probably wondering what a qualifying property is. So a qualifying property is defined as a multifamily residential or mixed use property consisting of not less than five units that is existing affordable housing, excluding a mobile home park, okay? And the goal is to increase affordable housing stock. It applies to residential and commercial practice, okay? So there's mixed use. In this case, we had two units that were commercial and eight units that were residential. So because of that, they are above that five units. And it is indeed a qualifying property, okay? Where can brokers learn more about local government requirements for affordable housing? Well, if you are assisting with the listing or purchasing of qualified properties, you need to be aware of the rights conferred upon local governments by this bill. Also, local governments may opt to waive their right of first refusal by just posting in a conspicuous location on their website, okay? So really the practice pointer is, if you're gonna buy or sell a property, if you are working with someone who you suspect will be buying or selling a qualified property, check with the local government ahead of time. Ask if they will provide a waiver and you can go ahead with the sale. Because otherwise, you may find that attorneys need to get involved because the commission is getting contacted pretty frequently right now. When those municipalities reach out, the brokers were completely unaware of this law, did not know what was going on and did not know that they could not proceed with closing that sale that was under contract. All right, another scenario here. Broker is the owner of several single family homes for rental purposes near Fort Collins. Each home is in an HOA on parcels of two acres each. Broker plans to build several accessory dwelling units, ADUs, to increase rental income and reviews the association governing documents, but notes that ADUs are not permitted. Nevertheless, she reaches out to the board and submits an architectural design plan and request. Okay, so this is an interesting scenario because it is true that many HOA documents will say that ADUs are prohibited, and yet HB 24-1152 was passed last year, and things have changed a bit. So these are the questions now. Can the board deny the broker's request to build several ADUs? And must the broker provide additional off-street parking to address additional residents? Okay, so can the HOA board deny the broker's request to build several ADUs? No, it is no longer permitted. So even if the original CCNR said that there were no ADUs, even if the current restrictions and regulations say that ADUs are not permitted in the HOA, they in fact are, and an HOA cannot say no to that request. Okay, HB 24 allows single ADU use as an accessory to a single-unit detached dwelling, okay? So that means anywhere that is in subject jurisdiction, which let's define that term too, okay? Subject jurisdiction means either a municipality that has a population of 1,000 or more and is within a metro organization, or the portion of a county that is within a census-designated place with a population of 40,000 or more and is within a metro planning organization. So in common interest communities, no provision of a declaration by law or rule may restrict the creation of an ADU, okay? If such a provision was passed or implemented, whether before or after the effective date of the House bill the restriction is void as a matter of public policy. So it really does not matter what your HOA documents say. ADUs may be built, okay? Must the broker provide additional off-street parking? This is a more interesting question actually, because it depends, okay, maybe. If there's existing off-street parking available, then there is no requirement. So if you're in a residential area where there's plenty of off-street parking available because you live near an alley or something like that, that's fine. As long as there is a parking lot available, that's also fine. If there's plenty of parking, it is not an issue. If there are not overly restrictive designs, they basically can't require new off-street parking as long as there is an existing driveway or garage or tandem parking spot or something. They cannot require that it be on the same lot that is owner-occupied. So there is absolutely no way that an HOA can say that an ADU cannot be built on a unit because it's a rental unit, okay? They cannot require the ADU or other dwelling to be occupied by the owner either, okay? So it can be a separate rental unit. It does not have to be part of the unit. And it cannot have a terribly restrictive designer dimension standard. So it basically just can't create such ticky-tack requirements that it's not feasible to actually construct or to purchase an accessory dwelling unit. So it just needs to be reasonable, okay? All right. The bills that were specific to the common interest communities, HB 2413.37, it changes the process by which an HOA board can foreclose on a lien. There was a lot of activity in the last couple of years where HOAs foreclosed. And so now there are some restrictions on that now. HB 2413.83 clarified who can sign an HOA declaration, and it needs to be basically the owner of the real estate. And then Senate Bill 2421 increased the number of units allowed from 10 to 20 for associations to be considered a limited expense community, okay? So these are all some small changes, but if you are working in the area of common interest communities, these are very important to know about, okay? Basically, an association can only foreclose on a lien as long as the association has done one of three things, all right? The first is they could have obtained a personal judgment against the unit owner in a civil action. So that's one time when they could foreclose. Number two would be if they attempted to bring a civil action against the unit owner and were prevented because the unit owner passed away or became incapacitated. And then the third and final way would be if they attempted a civil action against the unit owner, but the association attempted and was unable to serve the unit owner for a full 180 days. At that point, then foreclosure process can begin. It also put a new limit on the reimbursement amount for attorney fees that the HOA can seek from a unit owner who's delinquent. So it's either $5,000 or 50% of the original amount owned, whichever is less, okay? This bill also establishes a right of redemption for 180 days following a foreclosure sale. All right, a few more bills common interest communities should keep a look on. HB 2412.33, this one regarded modifications to procedural requirements with which a unit association can comply when seeking payment of delinquent accounts. So basically it's just requiring that associations update their collections policy and that has to happen now. It's required by Kiowa. SB 2464 discusses residential eviction related information. And basically this directs the judicial department to gather and make public the information regarding residential eviction, which may then prove valuable later for property managers, common interest communities, and can be shared. So there is some publicly available information, residential eviction data. SB 24134 basically says that common interest communities can no longer have covenants or enforce covenants that prohibit a home-based business. And so as long as the home-based business is appropriate to a home, so it would need to still follow architectural control, parking, landscaping. I mean, obviously you cannot set up a grocery store in your HOA, but an appropriate home-based business cannot be precluded anymore. And concerning the enactment of the Uniform Unlawful Restrictions in Lands Record Act, SB 24145 rules restrictions that are discriminatory on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, disability, or other personal characteristics. But this basically creates a mechanism by which the board or units can have that language removed from declarations. So if you have old language within your covenants or within the CC&Rs for a community, you can now have a simplified way of removing that prejudicial language without having to get every homeowner to sign off of it and so forth. Okay, some more laws affecting real estate. HB 241267, this had to do with metro districts, and it basically is requiring now dispute resolution policy for those that are able to enforce covenants and design review. It also limits the ability to foreclose on liens and imposes restrictions on metro districts similarly to how they were on HOAs. Basically, if metro districts plan to enforce covenants, they must have a written fines policy. If they are enforcing covenants and design review services, they must also have a written dispute resolution policy. Okay, metro districts are also prohibited under this bill from enforcing public policy issues similar to those found in Kiowa. So display of flags, displays of signs, defensible space for fire mitigation, rain barrels, family childcare, things like that. All of those things are now required in metro districts as well. HB 241302, this is concerning information to real property owners regarding property taxes. And basically, this is just saying that whether it's a town, city, school district or a special district, any taxing authority has to disclose each tax levy as a part of their annual certification. And so now as part of your annual certification, all of these will be broken out and it's publicly available. All right, other laws and bills affecting real estate. HB 241451, this is protections against discrimination based on hair length associated with one's race. Okay, so basically, previously hair texture, hair type and protective hairstyles were protected against discrimination in public education. It now adds hair length to that list, okay, as a protective trait. HB 24005, concerning the conservation of water in the state through the prohibition of certain landscaping practices. Basically, local entities are prohibited from installing, planting or placing non-functional turf, artificial turf or invasive species. Brokers should consider making their buyers aware of these changes that affect the expectations of future community elements, okay? And then finally, SB 2458, concerning landowner liability under the consumer, or the Colorado Recreational Use Statute. Basically, just requires specific signage be posted by landowners in order to protect an owner from negligence against recreational users of the property. All right, that takes us to the end of that section. We'll take a quick break, and we will be back with the commission news and resources.

Colorado legislation

real estate brokers

affordable housing

accessory dwelling units

HOA regulations

property tax transparency