The Department of Health visited the Smithville Municipal Pool for a consultation on lifeguard requirements Friday.
The controversial lifeguard situation at the pool, which has been a sore subject with city officials and golf course management of late, was thought to be settled at the May 21 meeting of the mayor and aldermen.
Officials say the subject may come up again at the next council meeting on June 18, however, as the city’s contract with the pool has led to some disagreement as to how many lifeguards and exactly what pool expenses the city is obligated to pay.
Part of the controversy arose when the aldermen voted last month to set the pay of the lifeguards at $7.25 per hour, and to fund a maximum of three lifeguards at 58 hours per week for the 13-week period that the pool is scheduled to be open.
The measure passed on a 3-0 vote, with Alderman Steve White passing on his vote because his daughter works as a lifeguard at the pool.
Alderman Gayla Hendrix was absent.
About $20,000 was allocated to pay lifeguards this season, slightly more than last year.
At the June 4 meeting, however, White said he misunderstood the terms of the measure, and thought that three lifeguards was be the minimum, not the maximum, that the city would pay for.
“I kinda had a misunderstanding,” White told the council. "It says the pay would be $7.25, having a maximum of three lifeguards. I don't feel like that three is nowhere near enough to cover that pool. I took it as minimum.”
Mayor Taft Hendrixson told the board that his recommendation was based on state regulations for a pool of that size.
“I've got the state regulations here,” Hendrixson said. “On our size pool, which we have about 7,800 square feet in our pool, state regulations say we need three lifeguards for that size pool. If you've got one to 25 swimmers, it says you need one. If you've got 26-50 swimmers, it says you need two, and over 51, it says you need three. It's a Type-A pool and that's where it’s open to the public and we have about 7,800 square feet in that pool. But it’s whatever you want to do," the mayor said.
“It also goes on to say that lifeguards shall observe from the lifeguard chair, except during instructional activities or during life-saving or emergency-type situations involving swimmers," said Hendrixson. “We've got three chairs. If you have extra lifeguards and they are not in a chair, I don't know what you would do there if something happened.”
“That's the way I understood it," said Alderman Shawn Jacobs. "That's all that's required for a pool of our size.”
White disagreed, saying that he did not feel comfortable with only three lifeguards on duty.
“That's way too few lifeguards to watch that big of an area,” White said. “You've got two diving boards. You've got the deep area. You've got the slides which are another issue. I think they have always had five plus (lifeguards on duty) in the years past. I just think that would be a liability on the city. That's my opinion,” White said.
Jacobs said he could not see any danger of the city being held liable if the pool meets regulations.
“If we're meeting the state regs, I don't see how it could be a liability," said Jacobs. “I certainly don't want to put any swimmers at risk. I am not saying that. I certainly don't want to put anybody at risk or cause a hazard. Should we compromise and say a maximum of four?” Jacobs asked.
City Attorney Vester Parsley said meeting the state requirements should be enough.
“As long as we're meeting the state regulations, you could always be sued for anything. You could still get sued with 10 lifeguards over there. Liability is always going to be there. If we meet state regulations then that's all that's required,” Parsley told the aldermen.
The report from the Department of Health, conducted by Environmentalist Mitzi Medley, echoed the state regulations,  allowing for a maximum of three lifeguards to meet requirements.
In discussing the need for an attendant at the water slide on the north side of the pool, Medley’s report says that although it is not prohibited by regulations, it is not a requirement either.
The report says that the slide is “not a permittable Type-E pool subject to attendant/ lifeguard requirements.”
The report goes on to say that an attendant “although not required per se, would control the patron traffic and prevent any possible entrapment.”
The problem may lie with the lease contract itself, which reads simply, “The tenant shall be responsible for the operation of the Smithville Swimming Pool, to include the hiring of certified lifeguards, however the landlord shall pay their salaries during all hours of operation.”
While the language of the lease itself does not cap the number of lifeguards Poss may have on duty, and states that the city will be responsible for “water, chemicals, and all other costs associated with the swimming pool,” there is some disagreement as to how far this agreement goes.
The controversy also extends to a disagreement over whether the city should take care of the tab for several lifeguards who were brought in to clean the pool the week before the facility opened to the public
“The way I see that,” Hendrixson said, “we are paying for all the utilities. We're paying for the water that goes in there. We're paying for all the pool expenses and chemicals. We're paying for all the lifeguards. We've done other work for him over there. He (Poss) is leasing the property. I don't know see how we would be obligated to keep it clean for him.”
Alderman Shawn Jacobs agreed that a line had to be drawn on what the city would pay.
“I don't know if you can consider cleaning the pool an operational expense,” Jacobs said. “We've got to draw a line somewhere. Obviously, the lease has some holes in it. We had to rush it through because we were trying to get the pool open last year at the least expense to the city.”
“And you've got to remember that the tenant is getting all the revenue,” Hendrixson interjected.
“All prior tenants have always paid the lifeguards themselves out of pool revenue,” Alderman Gayla Hendrix added. “I wasn't here the night you approved it, but apparently you have approved to pay for three (lifeguards) per day. Anything over and above that, I don't see why the tenant can't pay that.”
“We did pay (for more than three lifeguards) last year, and that was at the beginning of the lease,” White said. “That would be a good case, in my opinion, for his  attorney.”
Alderman Danny Washer expressed concern that the city make certain it abides by the term of the deal it made with Poss.
“We have a contract and whatever it says, I think we need to go by the contract,” Washer said.
“It says we'll pay all expenses with the pool but keeping the place clean, since he is getting all the revenue, I wouldn't think that is our expense. We lease the hangar at the airport to a man but he doesn't ask us to keep his hangar clean,” Hendrixson replied.
“As long as we're not breaking the contract,” said Washer.
“I think we're in compliance,” said Parsley.
“That's my only concern,” Washer said. “This contract was made last year and I think we need to abide by it no matter how it falls.”