HB2648 amends the Illinois Common Interest Community Association Act to set a statutory cap on what a common interest community association may charge members, unit owners, mortgagees, or their authorized agents for retrieving and copying association records. The bill allows a reasonable records fee of up to $375, plus an optional rush fee of up to $100 if the records are needed within 72 hours. It also requires the association to provide an itemized statement explaining the basis for any fees charged.
The bill further provides that the $375 cap will be adjusted annually, beginning one year after the effective date, based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U). In effect, the measure creates a standardized, inflation-adjusted fee framework for records requests under the Act while preserving the existing right of members to inspect and copy association records and to seek relief, including attorney’s fees and costs, if records are not provided as required.
Impact
HB2648 would directly amend Section 1-30 of the Common Interest Community Association Act, changing the rules governing association record requests and the fees that boards may impose. It would establish a statewide ceiling on copying/retrieval charges, authorize a limited expedited-service fee, require itemization of charges, and tie the main fee cap to CPI-U inflation adjustments over time. The practical effect would be to regulate association billing practices and provide clearer cost expectations for homeowners, unit owners, mortgagees, and their agents seeking records.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no documented debate history to measure support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at standardizing and limiting fees while preserving access to records, which suggests a consumer-protection orientation. The absence of recorded votes or discussion means the overall sentiment cannot be reliably characterized beyond the bill’s apparent administrative and fee-limiting purpose.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the fee cap itself: associations may view the $375 limit, even with CPI-U indexing, as too restrictive if actual retrieval and copying costs are higher, while homeowners and other requesters may support the cap as a safeguard against excessive charges. A second possible issue is the $100 rush fee, which could be seen as reasonable compensation for expedited service by associations but unnecessary or burdensome by requesters. The bill also requires itemized billing, which may be welcomed by requesters seeking transparency but could add administrative burden for boards and managing agents.