On Feb 26, 7:57*pm, (Malcolm Hoar) wrote:
In article , bob haller wrote:

if re use isnt part of plan just jackhammer big hole in bottom so
water cant accumulate, fill the now junk pool with fill ...........

In some places like California there are very stringent code
requirements for filling in pools. It's a *very* expensive
proposition.

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar * * * * * "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Gary Player. |
|http://www.malch.com/* * * * * * * Shpx gur PQN. * * * * * * * *|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Closing the pool, especially given the stated economics, sounds like a
foolish move to me. I once was president of a condo association and
we had a former board member who wanted to do the same thing with the
association pool which served 120 units. At the time, about 15 years
ago, it cost us about $16K a season to run it, which included a
lifeguard. Even though I personally rarely used the pool, my thougth
was that the $130 a year out of my pocket was small compared to the
potential loss in resale value. I could only imagine telling a
prospective buyer that we have a pool, but it's closed because we
can't afford to run it. Plus, I'm not sure it's legal or would
survive a court challenge. Unit owners bought their units with
rights to the ammenities and I'm not sure you can just take a major
one away.

In this case, I would expect that they would save a lot more than
going from $100K down to $50K by closing the pool. However, using
the 50K savings, I'd divide that by the number of homes served.
Since this is supposed to be a municipality, it would seem likely that
it comes out to a small amount per home. Instead of closing it,
perhaps a better solution would be to charge a seasonal fee for those
that actual use it to offset some or all of the cost.