February 24, 2026 | Mark Luis Foster

Well here we are again, another legislative session in St. Paul and yet another bill for HOAs to be concerned about. SF1750 was filed yesterday and some testimony already occurred today. Our Sponsor, SJJ Law, participated in testimony today with Finn Jacobsen carrying the weight.  I’ve included his video testimony from 2/24/26 below.

Not unlike last year’s session when an HOA reform bill was introduced, this revised bill (HF1286 and companion SF1750) are under intense scrutiny, as increased regulation on top of current MCIOA laws in Minnesota could lead to confusion among active board members and higher costs for homeowner associations.  .

According to an article today from Session Daily, among its proposed policies, the bill would:

• allow a common interest community of single-family homes that doesn’t include any common elements to terminate the community by a two-thirds vote of unit owners;
• provide unit owners at least 21 days to review and comment on proposed rule and regulation changes;
• require an association to adopt a schedule of fines for violations and cap violation fines and late assessment payments;
• require a board of directors to provide to unit owners any meeting agendas and contracts and documents on which the board will vote and allow unit owners to speak on an agenda item;
• prohibit board members from deliberating or voting to approve a contract in which they or a family member will likely have a financial gain;
• require a board or property manager to solicit at least three written competitive bids for property maintenance, construction, repair or reconstruction services with an estimated cost of at least $50,000, with some exceptions such as emergency repairs;
• prohibit a property manager from requiring an association to work with a particular vendor;
• limit an association’s authority to regulate parking on a public right of way;
• set requirements for a dispute resolution process between a unit owner and association; and
• prohibit local governments from adding a condition to a building permit approval that requires the creation of an HOA or inclusion of any services, features or common property that would require a HOA unless requested by the developer.

According to the article:

Matt Greenstein, a managing partner of Greenstein Sellers, said the bill would interfere with the self-governance process of HOAs, unit owners’ rights and the ability for HOAs to incentivize timely payments from unit owners. It also includes language that incentivizes disputes. “While we want to have a process where it’s transparent and homeowners can provide feedback, we can’t have a process where one decision can be questioned indefinitely for years,” he said.

You can read the Session Daily article in its entirety HERE.

I’ve included Finn Jacobsen’s testimony below. As always, we continue to monitor this legislation, along with SF3622.