Should the swimming pool in Seven Lakes North continue to have lifeguards and a diving board?
That was the contentious issue the the Seven Lakes Landowners Association [SLLA] Board of Directors dove into during their Work Session on Monday, January 14 -- and are expected to vote on during the Wednesday, January 30 Open Meeting.
Manager Ray Sohl and several board members argued that eliminating lifeguards could save money and reduce liability. Other Directors felt that providing lifeguards at the pool was not only the expectation of residents, but also the responsibility of the SLLA.
How much would be saved?
How much would be saved by dropping lifeguards appears to depend on exactly who -- or what -- replaces them.
SLLA Manager Ray Sohl projected approximately $15,000 in savings. “We are estimating two pool attendants during the weekend and one during the week," Sohl said. "That is a cost difference of about $15,000.”
Even in the absence of lifeguards, pool attendants will be necessary to control access and enforce pool rules.
Seven Lakes West eliminated the diving board and replaced lifeguards with attendants at the West Side Park pool in their second swim season after hiring Community Association Services, Inc. [CAS] to manage their community. CAS took over as SLLA manager in September.
During the Work Session, SLLA President Bob Darr suggested posting “Swim at Your Own Risk,” signage and letting the responsibility fall on swimmers and parents.
“While on different trips in the last four to five years, I have not seen a lifeguard,” said Darr. “There would be a reason why those particular organizations are not providing lifeguards.”
“That is not sufficient,” said Recreation Director Bob Racine. “Without a lifeguard, the entry would have to be controlled by key or swipe pad. We would have to put in a gate and swipe pad" -- adding to the expense.
Such modifications would need to be made, Darr agreed: “If we do not intend on having a pool attendant there, then that might need to apply.”
Outsourcing Lifeguards?
Manager Sohl said simply posting signs would not mitigate all liability.
“I have managed facilities that have outsourced that service [lifeguards]," he said. "I would support lifeguards here, due to the number of young people, if we could outsource it. I have reservations about hiring our own lifeguards and being understaffed -- or the lifeguards lacking motivation.”
But outsourcing lifeguards for Seven Lakes may be impossible, as there appear to be no local companies offering that service.
Racine spoke up on behalf of the current staffing. “What I have seen for the three years that we have been going to that pool is that we have a phenomenal lifeguard crew and manager," he said. "They monitor the diving board. They blow the whistle and make sure it’s clear before the next person dives. Could someone break their neck? Maybe. But there will be a lifeguard there to pull them out."
"I understand the budgetary thing," Racine continued. "You could save maybe $10,000 by removing lifeguards. But we should do everything we can, knowing it will never be completely safe. If not -- fill it up with sand.”
Racine added that a pool manager is required by law -- plus, someone has to handle the maintenance of the pool itself, as well as policing any rough play at the pool.
“We do need supervision at the pool for these kids,” said Racine.
Darr reported a conversation he recently had with CAS President John Stone, “concerning lifeguards, diving boards and all of this stuff. As it relates to the issue of the lifeguards versus none, we have more liability with them,” said Darr.
“We also talked about liability related to diving boards. There is not an increase of liability due to diving boards. My personal opinion is that there is, due to the risk of falling.” He also gave examples of two different incidents where other associations were held responsible for the lifeguard failing to respond properly.
Sohl cited a recent report on Association-owned pools. “Just to support what you [Darr] just said, the majority of injuries came from diving boards. They also advised other associations not to have lifeguards, if there were not code requirements, for the very reasons Bob [Darr] mentioned. If you have a lifeguard that doesn’t respond correctly to first aid, then you have more liability.”
However, Sohl also said that removing the diving board would not result in reduced cost of insurance for the Association.
Weighing the potential monetary gain against the life of a child, Security Director Steve Ritter said: “The advantage is: if it saves one child, then having lifeguards outweighs the risk.”
Racine reminded the board that a child was saved the previous summer from drowning by an SLLA lifeguard.
Pool Versus Lake Liability
The discussion then wandered from the liability risk posed by the the pool to the liability risk posed by the lakes.
“We have all kinds of conflicts," Darr said. "There are no lifeguards at beaches. It’s open swimming. The thing is: we have got stuff going on all over creation, and it doesn’t line up that with we have to have pool lifeguards,” said Darr. Sohl agreed with Darr that the lakes present a huge exposure to liability.
“When we go to the swim beach, no one expects there to be a lifeguard there,” Ritter responded. Racine agreed with Ritter that the residents expect a lifeguard at the pool.
“This issue has created more phone calls for me than any other,” said Racine. “A man called me recently. He was a lifeguard here when he was growing up. While he was working as a lifeguard, a kid had drowned -- and he pulled him out, gave him resuscitation, and brought him back.”
Sohl countered with an incident at a different Association of a young child falling and hitting its head at a wading pool. The child had extensive brain damage and the Association was held responsible.
Accidents are unavoidable, Ritter replied. Exaggerrating to make his point, he said, “Let’s drain the pool, fill it with sand, and put some play equipment there. But we will still have liability if a kid falls off the jungle gym. When people come to a pool, they expect to have a lifeguard to help parents watch the kids.”
Ritter directed the conversation away from lakes and back to pools. “I think our scope has got a little bigger than what we are talking about," he said. "The pool is the issue -- and what are the residents’ expectations.”
Hire a Manager Who is -- but isn't -- a Lifeguard?
During the discussion of how best to staff the pool if lifeguards are eliminated, Ritter asked how many attendants are enough.
“If you have an attendant there just checking swimmers in and out, then you will still need someone there responsible to yell 'Don’t run! Don’t throw the ball! Don’t jump on that person!' You are then performing a quasi-lifeguard function,” said Ritter.
To provide those services without the liability of having a lifeguard, Darr suggested hiring a manager who also just happens to be a lifeguard. “It’s almost a title thing from 'manager' to 'pool manager/pool attendant.' I am thinking we could hire a lifeguard for that job," Darr said. "We are not going to call him a 'lifeguard' for that position, but you will have that kind of control to blow a whistle for those around.”
“The expectation that residents have is that there will be a lifeguard on duty at the pool,” said Ritter. “I would venture to think, that if residents see a pool manager acting in that manner, then they will think that there is also some kind of assistance.”
Enough Discussion -- Time to Vote
Despite the lack of agreement among the Directors, Darr advocated moving the elimination of lifeguards and the diving board to the open meeting for a vote.
The first vote would be on whether to eliminate the diving boards. The second vote, Darr said, would be to “decide it one way or another, to keep the lifeguards or eliminate them.”
But Racine insisted that any motion headed to the Open Meeting for a vote needed more specificity. “If we are going to do what you’re suggesting, then we should have a type of motion and discuss it here before we take it to Open Meeting," he said. "This specific motion would be to eliminate lifeguards for the upcoming season, and that lifeguards would be replaced with ‘swim at your own risk’ signs and the pool managed by a pool attendant.”
“We have to make sure we have completely discussed this,” said Director Don Fentzlaff. “We need to make sure we have covered every base here before we take it to vote.”
Director Conrad Meyer agreed that the diving board motion was ready to be voted on, but wanted a more complete financial report concerning lifeguards.
“I think the diving board is pretty straight-forward,” said Meyer. “On the other hand, we are talking about hiring pool attendants and we need to better define the finances.”
Manager Sohl noted that current pool manager will not be returning for this year's swim season.
“We have to certify a pool manager in any case," he said. "We will also need to train one of the Association’s maintenance [staff] to do the pool maintenance and review PH rates.”
Reflecting on the responsibility and duties of the past pool manager and lifeguards, Director Chuck Leach commented: “In actuality, we might be spending more money.”
Several members of the board agreed with Meyer that the financial implications of making the switch from lifeguards to pool attendants needed more study. Meyer said that it would be addressed the following day at the monthly finance committee meeting.
The Directors then agreed that the motion to eliminate lifeguards would move forward to the Open Meeting for a vote -- and that the Directors would try to avoid “rehashing” their Work Session debate during that meeting. They would also hear any new information brought to the Open Meeting.
Both Racine and Ritter emphasized that their position in support of lifeguards was based on doing the right thing, rather than monetary considerations.
“I have to go on record," Ritter said. "I vehemently oppose taking away lifeguards to save $12,000. There will be liability either way."
“The right thing is to have lifeguards," Ritter continued. "To remove the lifeguards is unconscionable, and I could never vote for it.”
Racine nodded his agreement and said, “I agree with Steve.”
“I disagree completely,” Darr replied, ending the discussion.
The Board is expected to vote on whether to eliminate lifeguards at the January Open Meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, January 30, at 7:30 pm, in the North Clubhouse.
