Requesting The Auditor To Conduct A Sunrise Analysis Of Condominium Association Managers.
Summary
HCR 24 is a House Concurrent Resolution that asks the Hawaii State Auditor to conduct a sunrise analysis of condominium association managers. The resolution explains that condominium associations are self-governing under Chapter 514B, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and that many associations hire third-party managers to handle repairs, finances, insurance, renewals, and other operational tasks. It notes that these managers are currently required to be licensed real estate brokers or authorized trust companies and to maintain a fidelity bond, but there is no separate requirement that they understand the laws and rules governing condominium associations.
The resolution is tied to a proposed regulatory framework in H.B. No. 1312, Regular Session of 2025, which would create certification requirements for condominium association managers through the Real Estate Commission. Because Hawaii’s Regulatory Licensing Reform Act requires proposed licensing or regulation of previously unregulated professions to be reviewed through a sunrise analysis, HCR 24 formally requests that review and asks the Auditor to report findings and recommendations, including any proposed legislation, before the 2026 session. As a concurrent resolution, it does not itself change statutory law, but it initiates the review process that could lead to future regulation of condominium association managers under Chapter 514B or related licensing provisions.
Impact
HCR 24 has no direct regulatory effect on current state law, but it triggers an official review under Hawaii’s sunrise process for a potential new licensing or certification regime. If the Auditor recommends regulation and the Legislature later enacts it, the bill could lead to new statutory requirements for condominium association managers, potentially affecting who may serve in that role, what training or certification is required, and how the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs or the Real Estate Commission would oversee the profession. The resolution therefore affects condominium associations, unit owners, and current property management professionals by opening the door to future oversight and qualification standards.
Sentiment
The resolution appears generally supportive of increased oversight and professional standards for condominium association managers. Its findings emphasize the importance of condominium governance, the large number of residents affected, and reports that some managers have interfered with board members or ignored board requests. The absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials suggests no documented opposition in the available record, but the measure clearly reflects concern that current practices may not adequately protect condominium boards and residents.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether condominium association managers should be subject to new certification or licensing requirements. Supporters of the resolution point to reports of managers stifling board participation, disregarding board requests, and lacking demonstrated knowledge of condominium law and governance. Potential opponents, though not identified in the provided record, would likely argue that existing broker or trust company licensing is sufficient, that additional regulation could increase costs for associations and owners, or that the market should remain flexible. The resolution itself does not resolve that policy dispute; it asks the Auditor to evaluate whether regulation is justified.