Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arlington Heights board weighs removing village's long-standing outdoor pool-attendant rule, asks staff for research
Summary
Staff recommended removing a decades-old requirement for a designated "pool attendant" at outdoor public and semi-public pools; the board asked staff to gather state guidance, incident data and draft ordinance language for further review before taking final action.
Village staff recommended on May 4 that the board consider eliminating a longstanding village code requirement that an outdoor “pool attendant” be present at public and semi‑public pools, and asked the board to direct staff to prepare draft ordinance language and supporting research.
Director Mila (Health and Human Services) told trustees the provision dates to 1946 and differs from how nearby communities regulate pools today. Staff presented two options: keep the status quo (attendant required) or eliminate the local attendant requirement and rely on state and county rules for lifeguards and related safety measures. Staff's recommendation favored removing the village mandate and drafting amendments to align with neighboring municipalities and reduce costs and staffing constraints.
Public commenters and trustees offered a range of viewpoints. Regent Park resident and longtime HOA recreation chair Tom Acurus urged keeping lifeguards, noting his complex hires a contracted lifeguard company and that attendants play a role in controlled access and evening lockup. “It is very, very important that we continue, in my opinion, to have a lifeguard,” he said. Other residents and HOA representatives favored repeal, saying local operators struggled to staff attendants and that the state's lifeguard rules already address hazard situations.
Trustees asked staff to gather additional information: the village manager said staff will compile state requirements, local incident data (to the extent available), and examples of neighboring communities' approaches. Several trustees suggested revising rather than simply repealing the code — for example, by defining a pool attendant's duties or by adopting clear signage and inspection expectations if the local mandate is removed. The board did not take final action but directed staff to draft ordinance language and supporting data for a future meeting.
Next steps: staff will research state law, incident statistics and best practices, prepare draft ordinance text or alternatives (such as a defined attendant role or an encouragement/education approach), and circulate the proposal to trustees for review before a subsequent vote.
