Both houses of the Maryland General Assembly rejected bills that would have created a regulatory system for property managers.  Senate Bill 274 died in the Judicial Proceedings Committee, while House Bill 10 suffered the same result in the Environmental Matters Committee.  Each bill would have brought residential property managers for condominiums, cooperatives and homewoner associations under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Department of Licensing and Regulation.  The Senate bill called for a registration process, while the more broad House version would have established a formal licensing procedure.

Senate Bill 274 would have required that residential property managers for condominiums, cooperatives and homewoner associations be registered with the Maryland Department of Licensing and Regulation.  Unlike House Bill 10, which called for a licensing process, the Senate proposal would have the Department issue registration certificates that would be renewed every two years.  An applicant, in addition to paying a registration fee, would be requried to identify all of the communities that they mangage, and certify that they are covered by fidelity insurance.  The Department would be authorized to establish other requirements for registrants, and to investigate complaints alleging a failure to comply with the applicable provisions, or refer complaints to the State’s Attorney’s Office..  Failures to comply could result in misdemeanor and fine.

House Bill 10 would have amended the Business Occupations and Professions Article of the Maryland Annotated Code to create a State Board of Common Ownership Community Managers in the Department of Licensing and Regulation to issue licenses to the managers of “common ownership communities.  Such a license would be required before any individual would be permitted to provide property management services to communities in the State.  Applicants would be required to complete a training program and pass an examination, along with paying a licensing fee.  The licenses would be issued for two years, and would be renewable upon submission of a renewal applciation and fee.

The House bill would have also required that any property manager entering into a contract to provide management services to a condominium, cooperative or homeowners association file proof of a fidelity bond, theft insurance, or other comparable written insurance as may be required by the proposed State Board of Common Ownership Community Managers.  The bond or insurance would be required to provide coverage in the lesser amount of $2 million or the highest aggregate amount of the operating and reserve balances of the community under the contract during the prior three months.