The part that reached existing covenants

The prospective ban was the headline, but the disclosure regime was where the bill bit. It applied to any club collecting dues from an owner under such a covenant, new or old.

Nine categories would have had to be published: anticipated dues for the current fiscal year, total and per owner; actual dues collected last fiscal year; the fiscal year start date; the operating budget; a list by type of regular and special assessments; annual financial statements including reserves; a full insurance schedule with “company names, policy limits, policy deductibles, additional named insureds, and expiration dates”; bylaws, articles and rules; and “the minutes of the executive board and member meetings from the prior fiscal year.”

Delivery was belt and braces: conspicuous posting on the club's public website plus a mailed or emailed notice of the URL, and mailing or personal delivery to each paying owner — at no cost to owners, within ninety days after the club's fiscal year end, annually.

The remedy that made it contentious

Two sentences carried the enforcement, and they are unusually sharp for a disclosure statute.

“If a private membership club does not make the information … available or otherwise violates this section, any covenant that requires a property owner to pay dues or fees to the private membership club is void and unenforceable until the private membership club makes the information … available.”

And: “if a private membership club is not in compliance with this section, a property owner is not required to pay any dues or fees to the private membership club and may bring a civil claim for relief against the private membership club.” A prevailing owner “may be awarded actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.”

That is a self-executing dues holiday plus a fee-shifting private action, and because the disclosure duty reached existing covenants, the retroactive bite lived here rather than in the ban.

Why the vote pattern matters

The committee did not dismiss this bill; it fought over it. On March 24, 2026 the record shows amendment L.006 passing without objection, L.007 passing 8–5, L.008 passing 7–6, L.009 passing without objection, L.010 failing 6–7, and L.012 passing without objection — before the referral motion failed 5–8 and the postponement carried 8–5.

A thirteen-member committee producing 7–6 and 6–7 splits across six amendments is a committee genuinely divided. Against that, the bill again had a single prime sponsor — Representative Eliza Hamrick — and no Senate sponsor. No published statement of reasons for the kill has been located.

What this leaves in place, and who it affects

Mandatory club-membership covenants remain fully enforceable in Colorado, and a club has no statutory duty to disclose anything to the owners who fund it. An owner in a Colorado golf or equestrian community whose deed obliges club dues has whatever inspection rights the club's own governing instrument gives them, and no more.

The contrast with the community-association world is the point. An owner in a CCIOA community has statutory records-inspection rights under C.R.S. 38-33.3-317 and an annual disclosure list under 38-33.3-209.4. An owner paying a mandatory club, sometimes in the same subdivision, has neither. HB26-1316 was an attempt to close that asymmetry, and it closed nothing.

The bill's exclusions also confirm rather than change one point: where the recreational amenity is owned by the association or by a metropolitan district, the association's or district's own disclosure obligations already apply, and always did.

What to watch next

This is a plausible 2027 refile — a 5–8 referral loss after six worked amendments is a bill with real support that lost on the margin — but no sponsor has publicly said so, and Colorado has no interim committee in this space to carry a draft into January. The 2026 general election also intervenes, and the session that just ended was widely described as one defined by pending legislative turnover.