Concerning private membership club covenants.
HB26-1316 would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2027, the recording of new covenants or declarations that require a residential property owner to join and pay dues to a private membership club. The bill defines private membership clubs broadly to include privately owned or operated country clubs, golf clubs, tennis clubs, sports and recreation clubs, and equestrian clubs, while excluding unit owners’ associations, metropolitan districts, and recreational amenities owned or operated by those entities.
The bill also creates ongoing disclosure requirements for private membership clubs that collect dues or fees from residential property owners subject to such covenants. Clubs would have to provide detailed financial and governance information, including anticipated and actual dues collected, budgets, assessments, annual financial statements, insurance policy information, bylaws, and meeting minutes. This information must be posted on a public website and delivered directly to affected property owners at no cost, within 90 days after the club’s fiscal year ends and updated annually thereafter.
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to Colorado law governing real property covenants, making certain club-membership requirements void and unenforceable when recorded on or after January 1, 2027. It would also create a private right of action for property owners against noncompliant clubs, allow owners to stop paying dues or fees while the club is out of compliance, and authorize recovery of actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. The measure would affect private clubs tied to residential developments and the property owners who are obligated to pay them, while expressly preserving the status of common-interest communities and metropolitan-district amenities.
The available context suggests the bill was not advanced by the House Committee on Transportation, Housing & Local Government, which postponed it indefinitely. That action indicates the measure did not have sufficient support to move forward in committee. No vote tally or transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed floor or committee debate, but the bill’s introduction and committee assignment suggest it was treated as a housing and local-government issue with potential consumer-protection implications.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on private contractual arrangements that bind property owners to club membership and dues, especially where those obligations are embedded in recorded covenants. Supporters would likely view the bill as protecting homeowners from mandatory fees and requiring transparency from clubs that benefit from property-based obligations. Opponents or affected stakeholders may argue that the bill interferes with private property agreements, imposes extensive disclosure burdens, and could disrupt financing or operations for clubs and residential developments that rely on those dues. The exclusions for HOAs, metropolitan districts, and district-owned amenities suggest an effort to avoid sweeping in common-interest community governance, but the bill still targets a narrow class of private club arrangements.