Possible operational issues: Questions about the occupancy limits of the Rotunda, and air conditioning

Post #6 in a series

On a hot Austin summer day, shade temperatures can reach 104 degrees. Visitors queue outside, and as the line moves, they will eventually reach the Rotunda — the rehabilitated Bathhouse's new, air-conditioned entrance.

The architects' own construction documents suggest that keeping that queue orderly, and that air conditioning intact, may be harder than it sounds.

What the Plans Say

Sheet T1.02 of the 100% Construction Documents (Limbacher & Godfrey Architects, dated April 26, 2023) contains the project's Occupant Loads table — the code-required calculation of how many people each room is allowed to hold. For Room 4, the Rotunda, using the standard assembly-space factor of one person per 30 square feet, the table calculates an occupant load of 13 people for the Rotunda's 381 square feet. The adjoining Transaction and Passage areas are each calculated separately, at 1 person apiece. The Exhibits area has an occupant load of 25 people. Several of these people need to be CoA staff.

Occupant Loads table, Sheet T1.02, Zilker Metro Park Barton Springs Bathhouse Rehabilitation, April 26, 2023.

It is my understanding that the entire Rotunda is conditioned space with inoperable windows. In other words, there's no cracking a window for airflow — the Rotunda depends entirely on mechanical air conditioning, and its only connections to the outside air are its doors.

The Operational Question

That leaves the building's daily operation to reconcile a 13-person occupancy limit inside the Rotunda and 25-person occupancy of the Exhibits with a queue of visitors outside in well over 100-degree heat, every one of them eager to step into the air conditioning.

Questions for a journalist:

• How will the Rotunda's 13-person occupancy limit be maintained when visitors are eager to step inside to feel the air conditioning? Similarly for the Exhibit's 25-person occupancy limit?
• If the entry door is not closed between each visitor — and is instead propped open — how does the operational plan account for the resulting loss of air conditioning?
• Who is responsible for monitoring the number of visitors inside the Rotunda to ensure compliance with the stated occupancy limit?

Sources

Sheet T1.02, “Design Data” / Occupant Loads table, from the 100% Construction Design Intent Document set for the Zilker Metro Park Barton Springs Bathhouse Rehabilitation (Limbacher & Godfrey Architects, April 26, 2023; City contract CSP 6100 CLMB341 / CIP 6066.035). Source: CSP_6100_CLMB341_PLANS_v1.pdf; full sheet also available as “BSBH Cover page 2 Occupant loads.pdf”.

Two Concerns of Barton Springs Conservancy - Staffing and Storage

Post #5 in a series

Barton Springs Conservancy (BSC) — the nonprofit partner that helped raise private funding for the Bathhouse rehab and the new exhibits — has flagged two operational concerns to the City in emails obtained through public information requests: staffing to run the rehabilitated Bathhouse, and storage for the tools and equipment BSC's volunteers use to maintain the springs. Neither appears to have a clear, current public answer.

1. Staffing

In July 2025, BSC president Mike Cannatti wrote to PARD Assistant Director Lucas Massie, following up on what he called “a pressing matter now that we are in the budget season.”

(Above) Mike Cannatti (BSC) to Lucas Massie (PARD Assistant Director), July 19, 2025.

Cannatti's understanding was that PARD's own budget submission to the City Manager's office had included five new FTEs in each of the next three fiscal years (FY26–28): building and grounds assistants to operate, manage, and clean the rehabilitated bathhouse grounds, plus exhibit staff — cultural and arts education specialists, exhibit specialists — to staff and maintain the new education exhibits at the central rotunda. Roughly speaking, he estimated, this would cost just under $2 million, staggered over four years. Cannatti also wrote that BSC understood the City Manager's proposed budget had not included that requested staffing funding, and that BSC wanted to raise the gap with City Council during that summer's budget deliberations.

That was the summer of 2025. The current answer to the Bathhouse staffing needs should be found in the City's FY2027 budget.

Questions for a journalist:

• Has the CoA sufficiently budgeted for staff?
• How many additional staff positions are needed for the new Bathhouse rehab?

2. Storage

In March 2026, Cannatti raised a second, more concrete concern: where BSC's volunteers were supposed to store their own equipment.

(Above) BSC explains the lack of storage for volunteer equipment — Mike Cannatti to Ellen Colfax (PARD) and David Polkinghorn, March 24, 2026.

(Above) CoA's Ellen Colfax replies — March 25, 2026.

Colfax acknowledged the problem — volunteers' tools, wheelbarrows, and ladders had been stacking up in the emergency exit hall, which she confirmed isn't allowed — and said Aquatics staff would move the wheelbarrows to a fenced area behind the café. A permanent solution for the rest of the equipment, she wrote, was still being worked out.

Questions for a journalist:

• Has the CoA found a permanent storage location for BSC's volunteer equipment at or near the Bathhouse?
• After coordinating donations of over $3.5M for the Bathhouse rehab project, why did the designers neglect to create storage for the BSC's tools, wheelbarrows and ladders?

Sources

Emails obtained through City of Austin public information requests: the staffing thread (Cannatti to Massie, July 19, 2025, forwarded to Jesus Aguirre July 21, 2025) via PIR #249, and the storage thread (Cannatti to Colfax and Polkinghorn, March 24–25, 2026) via PIR #507: original message and Colfax's reply.

Questions: Has the current Limbacher design satisfied all objectives?

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.

“Objectives of the Project,” City of Austin Scope of Services, RFQS_6100_CLMP223, Revision Date 10/01/15.

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.

What the Visitor Encounters Entering the New Rotunda: An Inventory of the 2023 Electronics Program

Post #3 in a series

You've come to Barton Springs Pool, bathing suit and towel in hand. You enter through the restored historic Rotunda.

Below is a room-by-room inventory of the audio-visual and IT hardware built into the Rotunda, the adjoining exhibit hall, and the Beverly S. Sheffield Education Center — drawn directly from the exhibit designer's 2023 equipment schedule.

The known price tag for the exhibits — the equipment, design, fabrication, and installation — totaled at least $750,000, though the total cost is unknown.

• Barton Springs Conservancy — $384,000 (private philanthropic dollars)
• Watershed Protection Department (Salamander Fund) — $291,000 (public dollars)
• Water Department — $75,000 (public dollars)

Source Note

This inventory is drawn from a single sheet in the construction document set for the Zilker Metro Park Barton Springs Bathhouse Rehabilitation (City contract CSP 6100 CLMB341 / CIP 6066.035): sheet WF15.2, titled “Splash! Interpretive Experience — Audio Visual/Information Technology Inventory Draft,” prepared by the exhibit design firm FD2S Inc. (Austin, TX) and dated April 26, 2023, as part of the “100% Construction Design Intent Document” set. It is explicitly labeled a draft — a design-phase budget estimate, not a confirmed as-purchased invoice. Actual equipment and pricing may have changed by the time of installation.

Source: CSP_6100_CLMB341_PLANS_v1.pdf.

The three sections below follow the order a visitor moves through the building: into the Rotunda first, then the adjoining exhibit hall, then the Beverly S. Sheffield Education Center classroom space.

1. The Rotunda

Three installations, totaling $55,887 in listed hardware.

Bulkhead Projection Surface (AV-R3) — $37,156. A Christie D20HD-HS large-venue laser projector with a Christie 0.84–1.02:1 zoom lens, driven by a dedicated Windows 10 PC. It projects onto what the drawings call a “bulkhead” — a printed graphic wall surface with a designated live-video area built into it.

Digital Scrapbook (AV-R2) — $11,347. An Ideum 43″ inline touchscreen paired with a Windows 10 PC, plus a second, non-touch LG 43UH5F-H digital signage display run by a BrightSign LS424 media player, showing historical photographs and related content.

Video Docent Kiosk (AV-R1) — $7,384. An Ideum 43″ inline touch display with a commercial-grade (24/7-rated) Chromebox for playback, and a handset speaker visitors pick up to hear narrated audio — functioning like an audio-tour stop.

2. The Exhibit Space

Four installations. The individually itemized line items sum to $89,344; the sheet's own section header separately states the exhibit space's hardware total as $167,536. That roughly $78,000 difference isn't explained by anything legible on the sheet — it may reflect cost categories (cabling/infrastructure, engineering, installation labor, additional contingency) not broken out in the itemized rows, or a line item obscured in the drawing. Both figures are reported here as they appear in the source.

“Swim with the Salamanders” (AV-EX3) — $51,981. An 11-panel LG 49VL5G-M video wall (one panel held as a spare), run by three Datapath FX4 4K video-wall decoders and a high-spec Windows 10 PC, with a Microsoft Kinect Azure motion-tracking camera reading visitors' movement, two Crestron ceiling speakers, and a Crestron AMP-X300 amplifier.

“Watershed Model” (AV-EX2) — $26,711. An Epson Pro L1505UHNL large-venue laser projector onto a physical model, an Elo Touch E146266 open-frame touchscreen, a medium-spec Windows 10 PC, a Crestron NVX-360 video extender/receiver pair, and a handset speaker.

“Protection Lands” (AV-EX1) — $7,384. An Ideum 43″ inline touch display, a 24/7-rated commercial Chromebox for playback, and a handset speaker.

“Ceiling Scrim” (AV-EX4) — $3,268. A custom addressable RGB LED lighting installation, an Intel NUC mini-PC for playback, a Crestron pendant speaker, a Crestron AMP-X300 amplifier, and a Crestron relay.

3. The Beverly S. Sheffield Education Center

Two installations, totaling $22,303.

“Curricula-based Display” (AV-ED2) — $20,572. A 55″ Ideum inline touchscreen driven by a full Crestron control-room setup: an NVX-360 video switcher, a 7″ LCD control panel, an HDMI input panel, an AM3200 wireless video input, and a CP4 control processor, plus two ceiling speakers, an amplifier, and a low-spec Windows 10 PC. Relative to its size, this is the single most electronics-dense installation in the building.

“Salamander Aquarium” (AV-ED1) — $1,731. An Elo Touch E146266 23″ display, a BrightSign LS424 media player, and a handset speaker.

Totals

Space	Hardware total (as itemized)
Rotunda	$55,887
Exhibit Space	$89,344 (sheet header states $167,536 — see note above)
Sheffield Education Center	$22,303
Combined (itemized figures)	$167,534

Across all three spaces, the single most expensive individually-identifiable device is the $51,981 11-panel LG video wall in “Swim with the Salamanders” — the largest hardware commitment of any one exhibit in the building.

The Design Options Shown to the Public

Post #2 in a series

Below is a sequence of design images related to the Joan Means Khabele Bathhouse rehabilitation project, shown in chronological order.

1946 Plan

City of Austin, Barton Springs Bathhouse Rehabilitation Design Update presentation, October 30, 2019 (slide labeled “1946 PLAN”).

2016 Feasibility Study Recommendations

Source: Zilker Park Bathhouse Zone Feasibility Study, City of Austin Parks + Recreation Department, MWM DesignGroup, June 10, 2016.

1. Cover Page
“Zilker Park Bathhouse Zone Feasibility Study,” City of Austin Parks + Recreation Department, MWM DesignGroup, June 10, 2016.

2. Recommendation: Phase 1 – Life Safety and Access Improvements
From Section VII, Recommendations, 1. Bathhouse Rehabilitation, a) Phase 1: Life Safety and Access Improvements.

3. Recommendation: Phase 4 – Rehabilitation of Rotunda and Changing Areas
From Section VII, Recommendations, 1. Bathhouse Rehabilitation, d) Phase 4: Rehabilitation of Rotunda and Changing Areas.

4. Recommendation: Sheffield Education Center Improvements
From Section VII, Recommendations, 2. Sheffield Education Center Improvements.

5. Bathhouse Projects, Phase Four (site diagram)
Zilker Park Bathhouse Zone Feasibility Study, site diagram.

A Vision Plan Created by Barton Springs Conservancy, 2016–2017

A Conceptual Vision for a Visitor Education Center
Barton Springs Conservancy promotional video, “BSC – For the Love of the Springs” (One Story Productions), vimeo.com/216682712.

Visitor Education Center – Exhibit Detail
Barton Springs Conservancy promotional video, “BSC – For the Love of the Springs” (One Story Productions), vimeo.com/216682712.

Prior to Bathhouse Rehab: Existing Floor Plan

City of Austin, Barton Springs Bathhouse Rehabilitation Design Update presentation, October 30, 2019.

2019: Limbacher's Final Preferred Scheme

City of Austin, Barton Springs Bathhouse Rehabilitation Design Update presentation, October 30, 2019.

For Comparison: Limbacher's 2008 Proposal

The 2019 designs above came from architect Laurie Limbacher. Limbacher had also proposed a bathhouse design more than a decade earlier, shown to the public in 2008.

Limbacher’s proposed design in 2008
Barton Springs Pool Master Plan, 2008. See the annotated version.

Introducing: The 2026 Barton Springs Pool Bathhouse Rehab Project

Post #1 in a series

I'll be using my public information request (PIR) research to share with the general public what I've learned about the Joan Means Khabele Bathhouse rehabilitation project at Barton Springs Pool. This series will cover:

• The costs — how much public and private money has gone into this project, and where it came from.
• The design options shown to the public, side by side:
  • (a) the 1946 original historic plan, which the rehab project promised to restore the "character and quality" of;
  • (b) the 2008 Limbacher Master Plan (bathhouse section);
  • (c) a 2016–2017 Barton Springs Conservancy (BSC) design for a new stand-alone visitor center to hold BSC storage, exhibits, and an education center;
  • (d) the concepts Austin stakeholders rated highest in an October 2018 values workshop — Rotunda Concept 4.2, Women's Concept 3, Men's Concept 1 — later shown again at an October 2019 design-update meeting;
  • (e) the full 2024 architectural plans that were actually built.
• Select project objectives compared to what was actually delivered.
• Possible operational issues, including: safety egress during an emergency evacuation of the entire north pool's visitors; Rotunda air conditioning with an entrance/exit door sized for one person at a time; and staff and City of Austin employee storage shortages.
• The donor plaque issue — revisiting the project's costs.

This project had a completion deadline of November 30, 2025 — the Final Completion date set by the City's own Change Order 10. As of this post, we are roughly 292 days past that deadline, and the Grand Opening is now scheduled for mid-October 2026.

The Costs

(1) How much public money has been invested in the bathhouse?

$18,315,781

• 2012 Bond (Prop 14) — $2,098,100
• 2018 Bond (Prop C) — $257,871
• Historic Preservation Fund (Hotel Occupancy Tax) — $14,718,060
• Austin Water — $75,000
• Austin Watershed Protection Dept. / Salamander Conservation Fund — $290,750
• Zilker Parking Fees — $311,000
• Council Appropriation, Adult Changing Table (FY24) — $100,000
• One-Time General Fund Transfer to CIP (FY23) — $465,000

Source: City PIR response, PIR #C201348-110123.

(2) How much came from private donations?

$3,834,000 — all from Barton Springs Conservancy (BSC).

Source: City fiscal-note record, PIR #C332202-090226 (5 recorded BSC payments, 2019–2025); see also the City's EDIMS fiscal-note record for the underlying $3,000,000 + $384,000 BSC agreement. Independently confirmed: BSC's own website states its private fundraising total is “$3,384,000” (BSC hasn't yet updated its site for the 5th, 2025 payment).

(3) Total for the bathhouse rehab?

$22,149,781 ($18,315,781 public + $3,834,000 private)

Note: the City's own original PIR #3 summary put the full-project total at $21,699,781 — that figure used BSC's earlier $3,384,000 total, before the 5th, $450,000 payment (January 2025) came to light. The $22,149,781 figure above reflects that later correction.

(4) How much did BSC fund, and are we sure about that amount?

$3,834,000. Yes — confirmed by the City's fiscal records.

A City-provided funding summary I received separately still shows BSC's total as $3.38M; it hasn't been updated for this $450K payment, which the City's own fiscal-note record (via a separate records request) confirms was recorded in January 2025.

All private donations to the project passed through BSC.

(5) How much is being spent on interpretation and exhibits?

Unknown.

Here's what is known: BSC paid $384,000 toward the exhibits (per PIR #C332202-090226), and two City sources — the Salamander Conservation Fund ($291,000) and Austin Water ($75,000) — add another $366,000. Combined, that's $750,000 in known dollars connected to the exhibits. It is unknown whether taxpayers contributed additional dollars, beyond this $750,000 of combined private and public money, toward the exhibits.

No one has publicly disclosed a total exhibits cost. Also unknown: what portion of the Rotunda A/C upgrade — which a 2023 cost-cutting proposal recommended dropping, but which was ultimately kept — should be attributed to exhibit needs versus general building comfort.