City Performance Analysis
Most Closures
- Colleyville: 18.75% (3/16)
- Westlake: 13.33% (2/15)
- Bedford: 11.11% (9/81)
Zero Closures
- Keller (35 inspections)
- Southlake (28 inspections)
- Benbrook (18 inspections)
- Crowley (15 inspections)
Most Deficiencies
- Colleyville: 5.1 avg (16 inspections)
- Westlake: 4.9 avg (15 inspections)
- Bedford: 4.5 avg (81 inspections)
Fewest Deficiencies
- Keller: 2.1 avg (35 inspections)
- Grapevine: 2.7 avg (92 inspections)
- Hurst: 3.3 avg (49 inspections)
Quick Facts
Closures at a glance
A closure is counted when the inspector’s comment explicitly indicates a closure/shutdown. Notes like “no closure” or “closure not required” are treated as not closed, and “allowed to reopen” is not counted as a closure.
Closure Rates by City (≥10 inspections)
| city | inspections | closures | closure_rate_% |
|---|---|---|---|
| colleyville | 16 | 3 | 18.75 |
| westlake | 15 | 2 | 13.33 |
| bedford | 81 | 9 | 11.11 |
| hurst | 49 | 4 | 8.16 |
| white settlement | 16 | 1 | 6.25 |
| saginaw | 17 | 1 | 5.88 |
| grapevine | 92 | 5 | 5.43 |
| haltom city | 26 | 1 | 3.85 |
| keller | 35 | 0 | 0.00 |
| southlake | 28 | 0 | 0.00 |
| benbrook | 18 | 0 | 0.00 |
| crowley | 15 | 0 | 0.00 |
Downloads (closures)
Closures topline (CSV) Closures by month (CSV) Closures by city (CSV)
Corrective actions
365 of 472 inspections included at least one corrective action — 77.33%. That means most pools needed work the day inspectors arrived.
Average Deficiencies by City (≥10 inspections)
Cities where actions are most common
| City | Total Inspections | % Needing Action | Avg Actions Required | Most Common Issue | % of That Issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| westlake | 15 | 100.00 | 5.20 | Signage/permit posting | 41.03 |
| southlake | 28 | 89.29 | 5.32 | Misc fixes | 44.30 |
| bedford | 81 | 88.89 | 4.46 | Misc fixes | 37.67 |
| colleyville | 16 | 87.50 | 6.44 | Misc fixes | 44.66 |
| benbrook | 18 | 77.78 | 2.11 | Misc fixes | 34.21 |
| haltom city | 26 | 76.92 | 3.31 | Misc fixes | 47.67 |
| saginaw | 17 | 76.47 | 2.18 | Misc fixes | 51.35 |
| hurst | 49 | 75.51 | 2.63 | Misc fixes | 30.23 |
| crowley | 15 | 73.33 | 2.00 | Misc fixes | 66.67 |
| white settlement | 16 | 68.75 | 4.19 | Misc fixes | 43.28 |
| keller | 35 | 65.71 | 1.80 | Misc fixes | 30.16 |
| grapevine | 92 | 63.04 | 2.24 | Misc fixes | 50.49 |
What inspectors most often told pools to do
| category | actions |
|---|---|
| Misc fixes* | 610 |
| Repair/replace equipment | 315 |
| Signage/permit posting | 248 |
| Gate/fence/latch | 98 |
| Clean/clear water | 71 |
| Adjust chemistry (chlorine/pH) | 68 |
| Records/testing kit/logs | 51 |
| Drain cover/VGBA | 18 |
| Electrical/GFCI/Bonding | 14 |
| Lifesaving gear | 5 |
| Spa temperature | 2 |
*Misc fixes includes: missing/loose handrails, broken tiles, emergency phone issues, missing skimmer weirs, expired test chemicals, pipe labeling, emergency signage size requirements, lifesaving equipment repairs (rope attachments), restroom supply issues, and other maintenance items not fitting major categories.
Distribution of Deficiencies per Inspection
Downloads (actions)
Corrective actions by city (CSV) Action categories overall (CSV) Corrective actions (flat export) (CSV)
Source Data
Raw Inspection Data: pool_inspection_2025.csv
Note: This is the unprocessed source dataset extracted from Tarrant County's inspection portal. Data may contain inconsistencies, duplicates, or formatting variations as originally recorded by inspectors.
Key Insights & Areas of Focus
High-Priority Cities
Immediate Attention Recommended:
- Colleyville: 18.75% closure rate suggests systematic issues requiring targeted intervention
- Westlake: 100% of inspections require corrective actions—consider enhanced pre-inspection protocols
- Bedford: High absolute number of closures (9) with significant inspection volume
Best Performers
Zero Closures Maintained: Keller, Southlake, Benbrook, and Crowley demonstrate effective pool maintenance standards that could serve as models for other municipalities.
Common Issues Requiring System-Wide Attention
Most common issue type
Second most frequent
Administrative compliance
These patterns suggest opportunities for preventive maintenance programs and standardized compliance checklists.
Key Performance Patterns
About This Data
This independent analysis of Tarrant County pool inspection data provides transparency into pool maintenance standards. DFW Pool Patrol connects homeowners with licensed professionals who help maintain compliance with these standards.
Methodology & Technical Details
Data Source & Methodology
This analysis is based on pool inspection data gathered from the Tarrant County Health Department's public inspection portal covering the period January 1, 2025 through August 22, 2025.
Data Collection Process
- Inspection records extracted from official Tarrant County database
- Closure status determined through inspector comments and notes fields
- Deficiencies and corrective actions categorized from inspector observations
- City-level analysis limited to municipalities with ≥10 inspections for statistical relevance
Data Limitations & Disclaimers
Important: This data should be interpreted with the following limitations in mind:
- Closure Status: Pool closures were identified through inspector comment fields. It's possible some closures were not recorded in comments or were recorded inconsistently.
- Data Accuracy: All information reflects what was entered by Tarrant County inspectors. Recording errors or omissions by county staff are possible.
- Scope: Analysis covers only pools inspected by Tarrant County during the specified timeframe—not all pools in the region.
- Seasonal Variation: Data represents partial-year results and may not reflect full annual patterns.
Report Information
Last Updated: August 23, 2025
Data Coverage: January 01, 2025 – August 22, 2025
Total Records: 472 inspections across 12 Tarrant County cities