Post #4 in a series
The Scope of Services for the Joan Means Khabele Bathhouse rehab design contract (RFQS_6100_CLMP223) laid out seven objectives. Four of them are not immediately apparent to the public eye.
It would be helpful if City staff could explain each of the four boxed and highlighted objectives above, including answers to these questions:
- Life safety egress — Are there 25 linear feet of north-side egress in the event of an emergency?
- How was the location of the Exhibits and Education Center decided?
- Relocated and expanded Aquatics Facilities with storage for WPD salamander biologist equipment: have the storage needs of CoA staff been met?
- The new parking lot: please explain in terms of impervious cover requirements of the entire site.
1. Life Safety Egress
The Scope calls for “Life Safety Egress, ADA accessibility and automated entry improvements to the Bathhouse and related Barton Springs Pool perimeter.” The City's own 2016 Feasibility Study had already spelled out why this mattered, in fairly blunt terms: “At present, the number and location of emergency exits from the north side of the pool are conspicuously deficient with respect to the requirements of the Building Code… the north side of the pool should be provided per code with not less than four means of egress, with a total width of not less than 25'.” The same study noted that state pool regulations require every door, gate, and window in the pool enclosure to be either staffed or locked, which is why it recommended that egress points double as supervised entry points — and separately, that a required means of egress cannot be gender-segregated, nor located in an area that is.
Put together, that's a specific, checkable standard: at least four emergency exits from the north side of the pool, totaling 25 feet of width or more, each one supervised, and none of them split by gender.
Has the completed design met it?
2. The Sheffield Education Center and SPLASH! Exhibit Location
The Scope calls for the design team to “Determine Sheffield Education Center/SPLASH! Exhibit Location and related Remodel.” But the 2016 Feasibility Study's Recommendations section (covered in Post #2 of this series) didn't leave that question open — it concluded that relocating the Sheffield Education Center off-site was “the most viable means” of protecting its educational programs from the next flood, and that a relocated Center could be combined with a new Visitor's Center for the park. That's not what happened: the Education Center and the SPLASH! exhibit both remain inside the Bathhouse.
Who decided to keep them there, and why wasn't the 2016 study's recommendation followed?
3. Aquatics Facilities and WPD Storage
The Scope calls for “Relocated and expanded Aquatics Facilities with storage for WPD salamander biologist equipment within the Bathhouse.” Two things about that are worth checking.
First, the Aquatics space doesn't appear to have moved — it's still carved out of the women's dressing area, in roughly the same footprint as before. Why wasn't it relocated?
Second, the objective specifically promises storage space for the Watershed Protection Department's salamander biologists. Did WPD actually get that storage?
4. Parking Lot Reconfiguration and Site Improvements
The Scope calls for the design to coordinate with “Parking lot Reconfiguration and Site Improvements.”
Please explain the new parking lot in terms of the alterations in the ratio of pervious-to-impervious cover of the entire site, including the Bathhouse.
Sources
These questions are drawn directly from two City documents: the Scope of Services for the design contract (RFQS_6100_CLMP223, “Objectives of the Project,” Revision Date 10/01/15) and the 2016 Zilker Park Bathhouse Zone Feasibility Study (City of Austin Parks + Recreation Department / MWM DesignGroup), both obtained through public information requests. None of the four questions above has a public answer yet.
