Save our PUD Pools
Disclaimer: The counterpoints raised on this page are based on the Jan 9 Town Hall presentation of the Pull Repurposing proposal and discussions in smaller meetings organized by the PUD Ad-hoc Pool Usage committee. This is the slide presented with an outline of the proposal. We don’t yet have access to the exact wording of the ballot.
Protect Our Community – Protect Our Home Values
If a few pools are removed today, where does it stop tomorrow? Once removal begins, there is no clear limiting principle preventing further reductions — potentially even the elimination of all pools over time. Once common amenities are removed, the change is permanent.
Take Action
✅ Vote NO on pool removal
✅ Fill out the “Save Our PUD Pools” online form to stay in touch
Why Did I Receive the Leaflet on my Mailbox?
The PUD Board discussed a request to include the leaflet as part of the election material but decided against it in order to “keep the election materials consistent and neutral.” Obviously, we believe that counter arguments to a PUD Board proposal should be heard.
Who are we?
We’re a group of homeowners who oppose the PUD Board’s proposal to repurpose the pools. In conversations with neighbors—and in community meetings leading up to the vote—we’ve heard many concerns and questions about the proposal.
Because there hasn’t been a clear way to bring these voices together, we shared the leaflet you received and authored this webpage to raise awareness of these perspectives and to help neighbors connect through the “Save Our PUD Pools” online registration form,
If you don’t share our view, we understand—and we apologize for the extra piece of paper in your mailbox.
- Savas Parastatidis (email me) & Mary Czerwinski
- Jan & Leslie Claesson
- Mark & Shelly Enstrom
Summary of the proposal
Pools #27 and #29 will be permanently removed and the land given to the Country Club without any compensation to the PUD. The PUD Board proposes the removal of shared amenities and permanent elimination of their value to the community, value into which we all bought when we made a decision to purchase a house in Indian Ridge. The PUD Board is also asking for homeowner permission to start a multi-year effort to repurpose other pools, some of which will be sold to developers to build new houses.
Counterpoints to the PUD Board’s proposal
1. Savings
The proposal presents the removal of pools #27 and #29 and the repurposing of others as a “cost saving.” In reality, this represents the permanent loss of a shared amenity, not a direct financial benefit to homeowners. It’s an exchange… remove an amenity for reduction in annual cost. As per the committee’s own presentation, pool maintenance is affordable today.
While operating costs may decrease, this comes at the expense of:
- Losing ongoing use of a shared facility, and
- Transferring land, which is collectively owned by us, the homeowners, to another legal entity without compensation.
A true cost-saving approach would reduce expenses while maintaining — or improving — shared amenities, not eliminating them. Example: Reduce the cleaning costs by coordinating a better contract together with the HOA and the Country Club for all pools in Indian Ridge.
2. Value
Under CC&Rs Section 4.4.C, the Board may act without a membership vote only if the property involved is valued at less than 5% of the PUD’s annual expenses. The Board is choosing to ask for your vote in order to embark in a multi-year effort to repurpose and give away pools, with no clear end in sight. However:
- No written valuation report has been presented supporting the 5% threshold (for pool plus land or for just the land), and
- No written analysis has been provided regarding the impact on nearby home values for pools #27 and #29 — or for other properties the Board has indicated may be repurposed in the future.
The committee’s own presentation (Jan 9th town hall) indicates that for selling the land and building a house in place of one of the other PUD pools, a positive vote of 301 homeowners will be required. Why aren’t #27 and #29 treated the same way?
The proposal contemplates the gradual repurposing of additional pools over the coming years, removing more shared amenities without any analysis on value exchange (will we get more value out of the repurposed spaces?). There are subjective views but no hard data or expert analyses.
The committee’s own presentation (Jan 9 town hall) indicates the future direction… More pools will be repurposed and even sold, to be replaced by new home constructions — a process that would involve multi-year construction impacts.
Even if the currently impacted pools are not in your neighborhood, nothing in the proposal prevents your neighborhood pool from being next.
A NO vote sends a clear message that the community does not support the ongoing loss of PUD pools.
Side note
If a homeowner asked for exclusive use of a community pool (say Pool #27) and offered to cover all maintenance costs, the Board would need the positive vote of 2/3 of the homeowners—because the pool would become unavailable to everyone else, which is generally treated as a member vote issue under California Civil Code §4600.
Yet under our CC&Rs, Section 4.4.C, the PUD Board can remove that same pool from community use and transfer it to the Country Club without compensation—and without a vote (as described in the town hall meetings).
Even so, the Board is asking homeowners to vote now—but not on a clear, pool-by-pool plan. The proposal is a broad “roadmap” that provides few specifics beyond the immediate fate of Pools #27 and #29, while leaving future decisions about the remaining pools open-ended.
So this vote is not really about a detailed plan. It’s effectively a yes/no on whether homeowners want to keep our pools as they are, or allow the Board to begin a multi-year process of removing, transferring, or repurposing pools with little or no further homeowner input—permanently changing the nature of our community.
What’s to prevent the Board from using CC&R §4.4.C again and again until the pools are gone, one at a time?
Vote NO on removing or repurposing our pools.
3. Environmental Impact
We all care about environmental responsibility. However, the proposal cites concerns about wastefulness raised by an unspecified number of homeowners, without context or supporting data. Were these concerns expressed by 5 people? 50? 100?
We knowingly purchased homes in a community designed with 17 neighborhood pools. These amenities existed at the time of purchase and were part of the community’s character.
The PUD is also built around grass golf courses, which carry their own environmental footprint. Singling out pools without addressing broader environmental tradeoffs raises questions about consistency and proportionality.
Environmental considerations deserve transparent, data-driven analysis, not general statements.
4. Usage
No objective data has been presented regarding pool usage:
- No usage counts
- No seasonal or location-based analysis
- No comparison across pool sites
Furthermore, no data has been presented on what impact the rotating schedule had on PUD pool usage. From homeowner testimonials, it appears that the lack of warm pools discouraged ad-hoc use. Permanent decisions should not be made without quantitative data.
Even if usage varies, neighborhood pools are a luxury amenity that influenced purchase decisions for many homeowners.
Removing this amenity also raises an important question for future buyers: What does it signal about the stability and long-term vision of the community?
Why This Matters
We bought our homes in a community with 17 PUD pools—a visible, material part of its layout, character, and appeal. Removing pools changes that permanently.
What’s at Stake?
- Property value and long-term marketability
- Walkable access to shared amenities
- Community character and livability
- Fair and equitable treatment of all 601 homes
- Establishing a precedent for removing shared amenities — in some cases without compensation
What the Proposal Would Do
- Permanently remove existing common amenities
- Reduce convenience and access for some homeowners
- Alter the established character of the PUD
- Proceed without objective, quantitative usage data
- Establish a precedent for continued future pool removals
Take Action
✅ Vote NO on pool removal
✅ Fill out the “Save Our PUD Pools” online form to stay in touch
This is a homeowner-led informational message intended to encourage informed voting.