Closing the Pool

Mike: I would congratulate you on your common sense with an amenity which is not funding itself and is costing more to maintain than it's worth. I, too, agree that you need to be realistic and if interest has wained and usage is minimal, then what to do? Close it up? Cement it over and designate an area for bocce ball/tennis, perhaps an area to congregate together with park benches/gazebo?

The only possible problem which comes to mind may be how your covenant docs are worded. That's not to say that if the appropriate majority is in favor of doing away with the pool, then a change of wording in the covenant will be required and then appropriately filed and made a matter of record.

Keep us posted and good luck in your efforts.

You might consider a broader viewpoint toward ameneties. Everything in the building doesn't have to make financial sense, and a purely financial view does not factor in resident wishes, or attractiveness.

I really don't know how your community feels about the presence of the pool, or the potential buyers in your area feel about it. My point is, neither do you. Perhaps, it would be a good idea to find out, and keep in mind everything cannot be measured in dollars.

By the way, I'm not in favor of keeping or closing the pool, just in favor of moving the discussion first to the people who live with the amenities and then those who might do so.

Your costs are too high. Here in Palm Springs, CA we pay $200 a month for twice weekly pool and spa service which includes chemicals.

Our board also pondered closing the pool for the summer to save money. I asked the Nevada Ombudsmans office for advise. I was told that the pool was an amenity that had to be kept open unless a majority of the owners voted to eliminate it.

No wonder! You have lifeguards! That puts another angle onto this. It's the lifeguards that are part of your issue. There's nothing wrong with "Swim at your own risk". That's pretty much a legal disclaimer there alone. It says that if you choose to swim at this pool, you do so at your risk and NOT ours.
Is the risk of a lawsuit that scary that you would rather keep putting money into this situation? Hate to tell you, but your going to get sued regardless of lifeguards or not. That's just life.
IMO I would get rid of the lifeguards, post a "Swim at your own risk sign", and invest in good liability insurance coverage. Seriously, you need to talk with an insurance agent and find out the options. It may be cheaper to pay for better insurance coverage than keep trying to prevent inevitable accidents.
Recently, I was at a public pool. (don't drink the water!) A kid decided to do a backflip off the diving board. He flipped into the air and missed the pool! Landed directly on his head at the side of the pool. There were lots of lifeguards around. However, they didn't see the accident until someone screamed. Now, did the accident happen? Yes. Were their safeguards in place to prevent it? Yes. Do you think the waterpark may get sued? Probably. Was it their fault? That's for a court to decide. If they do sue and win, the park's insurance will pay out.
Believe me, I am the last person to say "fire lifeguards". I've been a lifeguard and had a step-brother who almost drowned in a pool causing severe brain damage. He died 2 years ago. You can't prevent accidents and swimming is inherently dangerous activity. You drive your car every day at your own risk. So beef up the insurance coverage and reduce your costs. If you feel better, just have the lifeguards available at peak periods on the weekends/holidays.