Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances proposed change to county lifeguard rule after questions on safety, alcohol and insurance
Summary
The committee advanced a proposal to change the county lifeguard threshold (currently tied to the state's 2,000 square‑foot rule)—the petitioner sought to raise the local threshold to about 2,500 sq ft—while commissioners sought amendments for signage, alcohol restrictions and insurance considerations.
A St. Joseph County committee advanced a proposed local change to pool lifeguard requirements after a lengthy discussion about safety, alcohol and insurance implications.
Speaker 3 described the request: county regulations currently require a lifeguard at pools of 2,000 square feet or larger, and a local operator asked the county to raise that threshold so his facility (reported surface area 2,461 square feet) would not require a lifeguard. Speaker 3 cited state regulation language (transcribed as “410IEC 6-2.1-25, section 25”) and said the county’s health department may administer a different local rule. The petitioner’s difficulty hiring lifeguards was a central reason the operator asked for a change.
Commissioners and staff raised multiple concerns: Speaker 4 asked about alcohol sale or consumption within enclosed pool areas and suggested an amendment to prohibit alcohol where no lifeguard is required; Speaker 5 said drowning risk is not solely a function of surface area and cautioned against making policy based solely on one operator’s staffing challenges; Speaker 8 suggested a targeted amendment applying to pools in a narrow square‑footage band that would require no alcohol and required signage if lifeguards are not on duty.
Staff and other participants noted limited state data on drowning in pools (Speaker 3 said most drowning incidents occur in ponds and lakes rather than pools, and that the county had four pool drownings in the past four years). Commissioners discussed insurance implications and whether insurers would require different staffing or conditions if the county eased its requirement. Several members suggested signage amendments and alcohol restrictions to mitigate unintended consequences.
After discussion and suggestions for targeted amendments (signage, alcohol restrictions for pools without lifeguards, and a narrower square‑footage carve‑out), the committee voted to move the matter forward for further consideration (recorded in the transcript as "bill number 1 2024 moves forward"). The committee did not adopt a final ordinance text during the meeting; staff will prepare language reflecting the requested amendments for future hearings.
