The counterpoints raised on this page are based the PUD Ballot, PUD President’s Feb 3rd email, 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. These are the two points on which homeowners are asked to vote (taken from the PUD President’s email to all homeowners):
If a few pools are removed today or the use of the area changes, where does it stop tomorrow? Once removal or repurposing of a pool area 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.
The presented “cost savings” over 10y represent a relatively low amount per year per homeowner. Also, PUD Board has not presented any concrete plans about the community amenities that will replace the pools and their associated costs, perhaps eliminating a large portion (if not all) of the “savings”.
The PUD Board is not treating all homeowners equality. There is an issue of equality and fairness with the requested vote. Some homeowners are impacted much more than others by the pool removals. Some use the ones closer to their house. The value of the houses closer to the pools will be negatively affected.
âś…Â Vote NO on pool removal and repurposing. Vote NO to both Vote 1 and Vote 2 in the ballot.
âś…Â Read our Feb 5th email to all the PUD Members.
✅ Fill out the “Save Our PUD Pools” online form to stay in touch
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.” The PUD Board also initially declined requests to send a link to this webpage via email to all members. Obviously, we believe that counter arguments to a PUD Board proposal should be heard. Since we had no other way of communicating with all the PUD Members, we distributed a leaflet.
After the distribution of the leaflet, the PUD Board granted us access to the PUD member’s emails as required by California Civic Codes §5200, §5205, §5210, and §4515. This allowed us to send an email on Feb 5th to all members, after the ballot wording became known and after the PUB President’s email to everyone.
We’re a group of homeowners (38 and counting) 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 in your mailbox and authored this webpage to raise awareness of these perspectives and to help neighbors connect through the “Save Our PUD Pools” online registration form, Once we were granted access to the homeowners’ emails, we followed up with an email.
If you don’t share our view, we understand—and we apologize for the extra piece of paper in your mailbox and the extra email in your inbox.
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, starting with pool #33 and then two additional pools that it will choose over time.
A “yes” vote to Vote 1 will result in the permanent removal of pools #27 and #29 and the repurposing of pool #33 as a “cost saving.”
A “yes” vote to Vote 2 will result in two additional pools being repurposed (the Board will choose which ones) in 2027-2028. One of those pools may be the one closer to your house, the one you care about.
Permanent loss of shared amenities (and precedent)
Once pools are removed or repurposed, the change is effectively permanent—and it sets a precedent for continued reductions over time that can, over time, dramatically alter the unique character of the community we all bought into.
Lack of important data
The membership is asked to vote on a very important and impactful topic, given the permanent loss of shared amenities, without access to key data and analyses.
Potential legal challenge to the process
See the letter to the PUD Board from PUD member Michael Ross. The PUD Board hasn’t yet addressed in writing whether it believes it has the authority to take away shared amenities, as articulated by Mr. Ross. The ballot does not indicate whether the Board is seeking approval of the proposal by the majority of those who vote vs the membership (301 “yes” votes) or some other number.
In reality, the removal of pools #27 and #29 will result in 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:
The estimated “cost savings” over 10 years is presented to be $1,394,947. This “cost saving” was calculated by assuming that the removal of 3 pools will proportionally reduce all associated costs, which is probably not going to be the case. But even if we assume that the estimate is correct, it represents a “saving” of $232.5 per year per homeowner for the loss of 3 pools and the land of two of them, without compensation to the PUD or the homeowneres.
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.
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. Indeed, the Board has changed the wording of the original proposal. The ballot does NOT include wording about the sale for the construction of houses because of or the transfer of land to the Country Club . However, the Board has NOT shared the analysis of why it has the authority to remove pools #27 and #29 and repurpose others without requesting the vote of 301 members.
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 isn’t the repurposing of pools treated in 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. No hard data or expert analyses have been shared.
The committee’s own presentation (Jan 9 town hall) indicates the future direction… More pools will be repurposed — 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. In fact, Vote 2 doesn’t specify which pools will be chosen next. The Board might choose the one in your neighborhood.
A NO vote to both Vote 1 and Vote 2 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, the PUD Board is proposing the repurposing of pools and is requesting only the majority of those who vote.
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.
Vote NO on removing or repurposing our pools.
We all care about environmental responsibility. However, the Jan 9th Town Hall presentation cited 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.
No objective data has been presented regarding pool usage:
Irreversible 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.
Furthermore, Pools #27, #29, and #33 are the ones further away from houses and have been used by the “Play at Ridge” community to hold events/gatherings.
The argument in the PUD President’s Feb 3rd email to the PUD members that access to Pools #27 and #29 is only possible via a walkway is very misleading. Just like any other community pool, one has to walk to the pool area’s gate. One might have to work few extra feet, yes! But then they reach two beautiful pool areas which aren’t attached to/surrounded by houses and are unique in terms of location in our community. Why would we ever want to remove them?
Removing shared amenities also raises an important question for future buyers: What does it signal about the stability and long-term vision of the community?
Disclaimer: The below is NOT legal advice. It was NOT prepared by a lawyer.
The “Board Authority re Pool Repurposing” document explains, in plain language, why the IR PUD Board does NOT have unilateral authority under the 2022 CC&Rs (see PUD Governance documents) to permanently repurpose or decommission a common-area swimming pool, and why any such action would require clear member approval. It shows that swimming pools are defined Common Facilities, that all owners hold recorded easement rights to use them, and that these rights cannot be materially impaired or eliminated by Board action alone or by vague references to a “plan.” The document also highlights the legal, title, and property-value implications of ignoring those easements, and emphasizes that any member vote must explicitly disclose whether it amends the governing documents, extinguishes easement rights, or permanently expands Board authority. Its goal is to help homeowners understand the real limits of Board power and the level of transparency required before members are asked to vote.
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.
âś…Â Vote NO on pool removal and repurposing. Vote NO to both Vote 1 and Vote 2 in the ballot.
âś…Â Read our Feb 5th email to all the PUD Members.
✅ 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.