DC bill would license management companies, not just managers
DC bill would license management companies, not just managers
2026-09-09 · District of Columbia · Legislation · Pending — not yet law
A District of Columbia bill would require the company that manages a condominium, not merely the individual who does the work, to hold a licence. Bill 26-156, the Licensing for Accountability of Management of Properties Amendment Act of 2025 — the LAMP Act — is pending and has not moved.1
Councilmember Anita Bonds introduced it on February 27, 2025, co-introduced by Councilmember Robert C. White, Jr. It was referred to the Committee on Public Works and Operations on March 4, 2025, and a Notice of Intent to Act was published on March 7, 2025. Its legislative history ends there: no hearing, no markup, no committee report in more than eighteen months.
What it would do
The bill adds a new § 47-2853.183a to the District's licensing law, headed “Licensure of property management firms.”
No firm, franchise, partnership, association or corporation providing property management services — including a licensed property manager who employs another property manager — could operate in the District without a property management firm licence. To obtain one:
- The firm must itself be licensed under applicable District and federal law.
- Every member, partner, trustee or officer engaged in property management must individually hold a property manager licence.
- The firm must designate a lead property manager for each property it manages.
- Every employee rendering professional services must hold a licence or certificate from the Real Estate Commission.
The gap it is aimed at
The District already licenses individual property managers under § 47-2853.183. It does not license the companies.
Councilmember Bonds's transmittal letter builds the case on a federal prosecution: a property manager convicted of embezzling more than $380,000 from clients over a decade, harming small property owners including housing cooperatives. Without entity-level licensure, there was no regulatory mechanism to reach the company.
This is a repeat, and the first attempt did better
The same measure was Bill 25-639 in the previous Council Period. Introduced December 21, 2023 by Councilmember Bonds with Councilmember Gray, referred in January 2024, it received two public hearings, on July 2 and July 3, 2024 — and then died without a markup at the end of Council Period 25.
Bill 26-156 has so far done worse than the version that failed.
The open question: does it reach community-association managers?
This is where the detail matters, and where the reporting is thin.
Neither the bill's own text as introduced nor the agency materials referencing it state explicitly whether community association management firms — as distinct from firms managing rental property for owners — fall inside the definition of “property management services.” The District's existing individual property-manager licence is aimed principally at those managing property for others in a landlord context.
Do not assume the answer either way. The reach of the definition to condominium and cooperative management is the open question, and it is the reason the community-association industry is watching the bill at all.
What is on the record is the industry's position: the Community Associations Institute's DC Legislative Action Committee has opposed the measure, arguing it duplicates existing fidelity-bond protection, adds taxpayer-funded licensure, and raises barriers to entry. CAI's own 2026 policy summary names manager licensing as one of exactly two District legislative priorities, alongside condominium insurance.
What it would change for a board, if it passed and if it applied
A regulatory route against a management company. Today an association whose managing agent mishandles funds, misses filings or abandons the account has contract remedies and a lawsuit. Entity licensure would add a complaint to a licensing body, with the company's ability to operate at stake. For a small self-managed-turned-managed association without the resources to litigate, that is a materially different kind of leverage.
A named individual accountable for the property. The designated lead property manager requirement would put a licensed person's name against each account. Boards that have cycled through four portfolio managers in two years will recognise why that provision exists.
Cost and supply. CAI's objection is not frivolous. Licensure raises the cost of operating and the barrier to entry, and the District's community-association management market is not large. That cost tends to arrive in the management fee.
What a board can do now
Nothing driven by this bill, which is not law and shows no sign of moving. But two things worth doing regardless.
Check that the association's own managing agent holds whatever District licence currently applies to the individuals doing the work, and that the association's records and funds are held under a fidelity bond adequate to the balances involved. Both are questions the association can answer today without waiting for a licensing statute, and both are what the licensing statute is a proxy for.
What to watch next
A hearing. Council Period 26 ends at noon on January 2, 2027, and a measure not finally adopted by then lapses without prejudice to reintroduction. A bill with no hearing eighteen months after referral is, on the ordinary arithmetic, unlikely to be adopted — but its predecessor got two hearings and still died, so hearings are not the tell here. A committee markup would be.
Related District of Columbia HOA Topics
Stay on top of District of Columbia HOA law
Every week: new District of Columbia legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.