Davis County health officials send revised public-pool regulations to public comment; higher fees proposed

The Davis County Board of Health on Aug. 12 approved sending proposed revisions to the county's public-pool regulation out for public comment, and agreed to appoint a volunteer public hearing officer to accept oral testimony.

The revisions, presented by Jay (Environmental health staff), would formally adopt the state administrative code cited in the presentation (R392-302) as the baseline standard and add local requirements and enforcement language, expanded construction inspections, a clause allowing the health department to require structural-engineer certifications for certain aquatic structures, and higher permit and plan-review fees to cover rising laboratory and inspection costs.

Jay told the board the department inspects roughly 250 public pools in the county and samples each pool monthly for two tests: a bacteriological assay and a heterotrophic plate count. He said the laboratory and staff costs for those samples have risen sharply. "On an annual permit where we're running, collecting a sample 12 times a year, and there's 2 samples, and those can run up to $50.60 dollars a month," he said. Jay also described the department's plan-review and construction inspection workload and emphasized that improperly built or uncovered circulation piping can cause long-term water-quality and safety problems.

The proposed rule language would explicitly allow the department to require a structural engineer to review and approve certain features before a permit is renewed. "We're not structural engineers, but when we go out there and we feel like maybe there's some steps up to this water slide that don't seem very safe ... we're giving us the ability to require them to have a structural engineer look at it, to approve that it's safe before we renew that permit," Jay said.

Board members asked about the size of the fee increases and whether sampling could be separated from the permit so facilities could choose private labs. Jay said Davis County currently bundles sampling in its permit and subsidizes sample collection and a short onsite inspection that accompanies sampling. He said removing sampling from the permit would require many operators to obtain private lab services and could shift costs back to property taxpayers if the department continued to operate at current staffing levels.

After discussion, a board member moved and another seconded to send the proposed regulation to public comment; the motion passed with no recorded opposition. The board also accepted a volunteer to serve as public hearing officer; the person who volunteered will be identified in the public-notice materials and in the packet returned with public-comment summaries.

Department staff said the public-comment period will collect industry and operator feedback on technical design and operational items referenced in the state code, and the department will return summary reports and recommended edits to the board after the comment period closes.

The department emphasized that the changes are a routine five-year review and modernization of the code the health department enforces, and include updates already adopted elsewhere such as interlock requirements that shut off chemical feeders when pumps stop, updated lifeguard requirements and provisions for newer facility types such as cold-plunge pools.

Board members asked staff to monitor neighboring jurisdictions' fee changes so Davis County remains broadly comparable. Staff said the proposed fee increases are intended to bring the program closer to cost recovery given climbing lab and inspection supply prices; they noted the department is currently covering a portion of sampling and inspection costs from other revenue and that the permit fee changes would reduce that subsidy.

The board voted to send the package to public comment and will receive a report of comments and a recommended final rule at a later meeting.