Were Members Properly Asked to Approve Road and Clubhouse Charges?

Click here for the entire post.

Summary:

Questions about Hideaway's road work and mandatory clubhouse charge come down to one basic issue: when can the Board make members pay more on its own, and when do the bylaws require a member vote?

Hideaway's bylaws treat regular dues and fees, differently than assessments and major capital improvements.

For the road work, the key question is how the project was classified and funded. Routine maintenance may be paid through the annual operating budget without a community-wide vote. But Article XII, Section Six(B)(1) says the Board cannot impose an assessment of any kind without approval of 50 percent plus one of the members voting in a binding referendum. The bylaws define an assessment as a specific amount imposed for a specific project for a specific length of time or as a lump sum.

Article XII separately requires a referendum for capital improvements estimated to cost more than $300,000. These are two different rules. The $300,000 threshold applies to capital improvements; it does not appear in the separate provision governing project-specific assessments.

That is why members need records of the road project's scope, total cost, funding source, contracts, Board approvals, and any assessment.

We are not claiming that every road repair requires a referendum or that the Board cannot increase regular dues.

We are asking for the records needed to determine which rules actually applied.

Members deserve to know:

Was the road work ordinary maintenance or a larger project? How was it funded? Was a project-specific amount charged to members? Was a referendum required? What authority supports the mandatory clubhouse charge, and what happens to unused credits?

If both charges were properly approved under the bylaws, the underlying records should make that clear.

The mandatory clubhouse charge raises a different question. Members must pay the amount even if they do not use the restaurant, and unused credits may expire.

Hideaway has publicly stated that this charge is dues rather than an assessment and that dues historically supported restaurant losses.

But members can still reasonably ask why the amount is tied to a specific food-and-beverage credit, how unused credits are accounted for, where that money goes, and what Board vote established the program.

Per the bylaws, whether the amounts members pay are defined as dues, fees, assessments, or major capital improvements makes a big difference in the approvals needed, so the classification matters.

---

Entire Post:
Were Members Properly Asked to Approve Road and Clubhouse Charges?

Were Members Properly Asked to Approve Road and Clubhouse Charges?

Questions about Hideaway's road work and the mandatory clubhouse charge may sound like separate issues, but they raise the same basic concern:

When can the Board make members pay more on its own, and when do the bylaws require members to vote?

That distinction matters because Hideaway's bylaws treat regular dues, assessments, fees, and major capital improvements differently.

We are not saying every road repair requires a community-wide vote.

We are also not saying the Board has no authority to increase regular dues.

What we are asking is whether these particular charges were classified and approved correctly under Hideaway's own governing documents.

The Road Question Started With the Type of Work Being Done

Chrissy questioned whether large-scale road work should be treated differently from ordinary road maintenance.

There is an obvious difference between fixing potholes, sealing cracks, or performing routine maintenance and removing, resurfacing, replacing, or substantially rebuilding sections of roadway.

That difference can matter under the bylaws because the way a project is classified and funded can determine whether the Board may approve it on its own or whether members must vote.

We still want to see the records that clearly establish:

• the exact scope of the road work;
• whether the work was repair, maintenance, replacement, resurfacing, refurbishment, or another type of capital project;
• the total estimated and final cost;
• which contractor or contractors performed the work;
• the bids received;
• the funding source;
• whether the cost was included in the annual operating budget;
• whether a separate amount was levied on members for the project;
• what Board approvals occurred; and
• whether the bylaws required a referendum.

Those records would help answer the question without relying on labels.

The Bylaws Define an Assessment

Article XII, Section Six(B)(1) is especially important.

Hideaway's bylaws state that the Board may not take certain actions without approval of 50 percent plus one of the Club members voting in a binding referendum.

The first listed action is:

“Assessments of any kind.”

The bylaws then define an assessment as a levy of a specific amount imposed on the membership for either:

• a specific project for a specific length of time, or
• a lump sum.

The bylaws make an exception for dues used to meet the requirements of an annual operating budget, a court order, or a legal mandate.

That means the name placed on a charge should not be the end of the analysis.

The important questions are what the money was actually collected for, how the charge operated, and whether it fit the bylaws' definition of an assessment.

A Project-Specific Assessment Does Not Have a $300,000 Threshold

This is where another part of Article XII becomes important.

Article XII, Section Six(B)(4) separately requires a binding referendum for:

a capital improvement with an estimated cost exceeding $300,000.

Those are two different provisions.

The $300,000 threshold applies to the capital-improvement provision.

It does not appear in the separate provision governing assessments.

So if members are charged a specific amount for a specific project for a specific period, the question under Section Six(B)(1) is not simply whether the project exceeds $300,000.

The first question is whether the charge itself qualifies as an assessment under the definition contained in the bylaws.

That distinction is important because otherwise the two provisions would be treated as though they were the same rule when they are not.

Routine Maintenance May Be Different

There is also an important limitation.

Not every road expenditure is automatically a special assessment or a capital improvement requiring a member referendum.

Hideaway exists in part to maintain Club property, and the Board has authority to adopt an annual budget and pay ordinary operating expenses.

Routine pothole repair, maintenance, patching, or other ordinary road expenses could potentially be funded through the operating budget without creating a separate project assessment.

That is why the actual records matter so much.

If the road work was simply ordinary maintenance already funded through annual dues, the Board should be able to show that.

If instead members were charged a defined amount specifically to fund a road project, Article XII's assessment language becomes much more important.

Texas Law Also Requires Board Action on Assessment Increases

Texas Property Code §209.0051 adds another layer.

Under that law, a property owners' association Board may not consider or vote on certain matters without the required prior notice to owners.

Among the specifically listed matters are:

• increases in assessments, and
• levying special assessments.

Texas law does not itself answer whether Hideaway's members had to approve this particular road charge. That question depends heavily on Hideaway's own governing documents.

But Texas law does reinforce that assessment decisions are not supposed to be treated like informal administrative matters. They require properly noticed Board consideration.

The Clubhouse Charge Raises a Different Question

The mandatory clubhouse charge is a separate issue.

Members have been required to pay an additional monthly amount connected to the Clubhouse restaurant.

The charge has operated as a food-and-beverage credit, meaning members can use the amount at the restaurant.

But if a member does not use the credit during the applicable period, the value may be lost rather than refunded or transferred.

That creates an obvious concern for members who rarely or never use the restaurant.

They still have to pay.

The question is whether this is properly treated as regular dues, a fee, or an assessment under Hideaway's bylaws.

What the HOA Says About the Clubhouse Charge

Hideaway has addressed this issue on its own Community Questions & Answers page.

A member specifically cited Article XII's assessment definition and questioned why the additional restaurant-related amount was not submitted to a referendum.

The HOA responded that the charge was not an assessment because it was not for a project with a specific length of time and was not a lump-sum charge.

The HOA's position is that the amount is part of dues, and that dues are approved by the Board.

That response is important because it tells members what legal and bylaw theory the HOA is relying on.

But it does not end the discussion.

Members can still reasonably ask whether the way the charge is structured is consistent with that explanation.

The Bylaws Treat Dues, Fees, and Assessments Separately

Article IX of the bylaws is titled Dues, Fees, and Assessments.

Section One says annual dues are established by the Board and incorporated into the fiscal-year budget.

It also says any increase over the prior year must be discussed and explained to members during the budget presentation.

The bylaws further state that dues cannot be changed during the fiscal year except by a two-thirds vote of the Board.

Section Two separately says appropriate fees for use of Club facilities or property may be set by direction of the Board.

Article XII then separately defines certain project-specific levies as assessments requiring a membership referendum.

Those separate categories are exactly why the classification matters.

The HOA Says the Restaurant Was Already Supported by Dues

Hideaway's Q&A also provides more detail about the restaurant's finances.

In response to a member who said they did not use the Clubhouse restaurant and did not want to pay the additional amount, the HOA said dues had historically supported the restaurant.

The HOA stated that food-and-beverage losses in 2025 cost each member roughly $16 per month in dues.

The response said the Club's goal was to reduce the amount needed over the following years and eventually move toward a break-even operation.

The HOA also stated that changing dues would require Board action and cited the bylaws' two-thirds requirement for a dues change during a fiscal year.

That gives members useful information, but it also raises additional questions.

Why Is the Clubhouse Amount a Separate Credit?

If the additional Clubhouse amount is simply ordinary dues, why is it tied to a specific restaurant credit?

That does not automatically make it an assessment.

But it is one reason members have questioned the structure.

Ordinary dues generally fund the overall operations of the organization.

This charge appears more closely connected to a specific operation: food and beverage.

Members may therefore reasonably ask:

• Why is the amount separately identified?
• Is the money restricted to restaurant operations?
• Does unused credit become restaurant revenue?
• Does unused credit reduce future dues or operating costs?
• Can the money be spent elsewhere?
• What accounting treatment is used?
• What happens to credits that expire?
• How much revenue is generated from unused credits?
• What Board vote established the program?
• Was the charge included in the annual budget presentation?
• If the amount changed during the fiscal year, was there a two-thirds Board vote?

Those answers would make the HOA's position much easier for members to evaluate.

Members Who Do Not Use the Restaurant Still Pay

The practical concern is simple.

A member may rarely eat at the Clubhouse.

Another member may have dietary restrictions.

Someone may travel frequently, be ill, have mobility issues, or simply prefer not to use the restaurant.

Yet the mandatory amount still has to be paid.

That is why calling it a “credit” does not fully answer the concern.

A credit has value only if the member can reasonably use it.

If it expires, the member has still paid the amount.

The HOA may have a valid reason for structuring restaurant funding this way, but members deserve a clear explanation of why this mechanism was chosen and what happens to the money when credits go unused.

The HOA's Own Q&A Shows Members Are Asking the Same Question

This is not an issue raised only by our family.

Hideaway's own Q&A includes a member questioning the additional clubhouse amount and specifically citing the bylaws' definition of assessments.

That tells us other members are also trying to understand where the line falls between:

dues, a fee, and an assessment.

The HOA answered that the charge is dues.

The next step should be providing enough financial and Board records for members to see exactly how that conclusion was reached.

Road Funding Deserves the Same Transparency

The same principle should apply to the road work.

If road expenditures were paid through general maintenance funds already contained in the annual operating budget, show that.

If a capital fund paid for the project, identify the fund.

If the Board approved an Authority for Expenditure, provide it.

Hideaway's own Rules and Regulations contain an Authority for Expenditure (AFE) form for capital spending. The form asks for the estimated cost, whether the item is a new acquisition or replacement, available cash, whether circumstances changed since budget approval, and the date of Board approval for expenditures exceeding the specified threshold.

That kind of documentation is exactly what would help answer the road question.

What We Are Asking the HOA to Provide

We believe members should be able to review the basic records behind both decisions.

For the roads, that should include:

• project description and scope;
• contractor estimates;
• final contracts;
• total project cost;
• AFE documents;
• invoices;
• Board approvals;
• budget line items;
• funding source;
• any assessment calculation;
• meeting notices;
• Board minutes; and
• any referendum analysis performed before the charge was imposed.

For the Clubhouse charge, we would like to see:

• the Board motion establishing it;
• the vote;
• the annual budget containing the amount;
• any later vote changing the amount;
• financial statements showing how the money is recorded;
• restaurant losses and subsidies;
• total credits issued;
• total credits redeemed;
• total credits that expired;
• how expired credits are treated financially; and
• the bylaw provision leadership relied on when deciding this was dues rather than an assessment or fee.

Those are not unreasonable questions when every member is required to pay.

This Is About Following the Categories the Bylaws Created

The bylaws themselves distinguish between:

• dues
• fees
• assessments
• capital expenditures

and

capital improvements requiring referenda.

Those terms should mean something.

• If a charge is regular dues used to support the annual operating budget, the bylaws give the Board substantial authority.
• If it is a fee for use of a facility, another rule applies.
• If it is a project-specific assessment, Article XII requires a member referendum.
• If it is a capital improvement exceeding $300,000, Article XII separately requires a referendum.

The answer should come from what the charge actually does—not simply what leadership chooses to call it.

What We Want Answered

We believe members deserve clear answers to the following questions:

• What exactly was the scope of the road work?
• Was it maintenance, repair, resurfacing, replacement, refurbishment, or a capital improvement?
• What was the total cost?
• How was it funded?
• Was any specific amount charged to members for that project?
• If so, why was that charge not considered an assessment under Article XII?
• Was the project already fully funded in the annual operating budget?
• Was an AFE prepared and approved?
• What Board meeting approved the spending?
• Was a membership referendum considered?
• What bylaw provision authorized the mandatory Clubhouse amount?
• Is the Clubhouse amount dues, a fee, or something else?
• Why is it tied to a specific food-and-beverage credit?
• What happens to unused credit?
• How much unused credit expires each year?
• Where does that money go?
• Was the charge included and explained during the annual budget presentation?
• If it changed during the year, was the required two-thirds Board vote held?

Members should not have to guess which rules apply to charges appearing on their accounts.

Why This Matters to Every Member

This is bigger than roads or restaurant meals.

It is about the limits placed on the Board by the bylaws.

Members give the Board significant authority to operate the Club.

But the bylaws also reserve certain decisions to the membership.

That balance only works if the categories are applied consistently.

A project-specific assessment should not become ordinary dues simply because a different label makes approval easier.

At the same time, legitimate annual dues should not automatically be called an assessment simply because members dislike the expense.

The correct answer comes from the facts, the accounting, the purpose of the charge, and the language of the governing documents.

That is why we keep asking for the records.

If the road funding and clubhouse charge were properly approved under the bylaws, the documentation should make that clear.

Sources and Supporting Documents

Hide-A-Way Lake Club Bylaws — Article IX, Dues, Fees, and Assessments
Article IX states that annual dues are established by the Board and incorporated into the annual budget. Increases must be discussed and explained during the budget presentation, and dues generally cannot be changed during the fiscal year without a two-thirds Board vote. It separately addresses fees for the use of Club facilities.

Hide-A-Way Lake Club Public Documents

Hide-A-Way Lake Club Bylaws — Article XII, Section Six
Article XII requires approval of 50 percent plus one of members voting in a binding referendum before the Board may impose an assessment as defined by the bylaws. The definition includes a specific amount levied for a specific project for a specific length of time or as a lump sum. It separately requires a referendum for capital improvements estimated to exceed $300,000.

Hide-A-Way Lake Club Public Documents

Hide-A-Way Lake Club Community Questions & Answers — Dues and Clubhouse Charge
The HOA has publicly stated that the additional restaurant-related amount is considered dues rather than an assessment. The same page states that food-and-beverage losses during 2025 represented roughly $16 per month per member and that the Club intends to work toward reducing the restaurant subsidy.

Hideaway Member Questions Answered

Texas Property Code §209.0051 — Open Board Meetings
Texas law requires properly noticed Board consideration for certain significant financial actions, including increases in assessments and the levying of special assessments.

Texas Property Code Chapter 209

Texas Property Code §209.00592 — Voting and Quorum
Texas law establishes permitted methods for property-owner voting, including in-person, proxy, absentee, and electronic voting, subject to applicable governing documents.

Texas Property Code §209.00592

Hide-A-Way Lake Club Rules & Regulations — Authority for Expenditure
Hideaway's Rules & Regulations include an Authority for Expenditure process for capital expenditures. The form calls for information such as estimated cost, justification, funding availability, replacement status, and Board approval.

Hide-A-Way Lake Club Public Documents