The pool has been closed all summer, but the amenity fee never missed a month

My apartment complex charges a separate monthly amenity fee for the pool, gym, package room and resident lounge. The pool closed in May for “urgent deck maintenance.” It is now late August, the gate is still locked and the only visible activity is a stack of pavers that has developed its own weather pattern.

Management sends a short update every few weeks saying work is progressing. The fee has continued at the full amount. When I asked whether residents would receive a credit, the office said the charge supports the full amenity program, not any single feature. That is technically consistent with the label. It also ignores the fact that the pool dominates every brochure and was the reason several of us chose this complex over a cheaper one.

A tenant group is circulating a letter demanding a full refund for every month of closure. Another resident wants to stop paying the fee until the pool reopens. I am not comfortable unilaterally withholding a charge without reviewing the lease and getting appropriate local advice. I also think a vague complaint will produce another vague update.

I want the letter to ask for four concrete things: the reason for the continuing delay, the current completion milestone, the calculation behind any proposed credit, and a commitment to regular dated updates. A full refund may be unlikely because the gym and package room remained open. Zero adjustment also feels difficult to defend when a major seasonal amenity disappeared for the entire season.

My neighbor says asking for information weakens the demand. She wants one number and a deadline. I think a number pulled from frustration is easy to dismiss. The strongest request may be a proportional credit tied to the advertised amenity and the actual closure period, while leaving the legal interpretation to people qualified to make it.

What would make a resident letter firm without becoming theatrical? Would you request a specific credit, ask management to propose one, or focus first on forcing a transparent timeline?