Committee begins procurement process for courthouse air‑conditioning replacement; presenters recommend modular chillers

Representatives from Ash Creek and contractor WHB briefed the Highway Committee on the condition of the courthouse air‑conditioning system and presented a replacement option using modular chillers, saying the existing outdoor units are aging, leaking refrigerant, and are near obsolescence.

Why it matters: committee members said uninterrupted cooling is important for courthouse operations and for inmate care and transport. Presenters emphasized redundancy in the recommended layout and asked the committee to allow staff to prepare a request for proposals so bidders can present firm costs and lead times.

Presenters’ recommendation and technical summary: WHB recommended a modular‑chiller approach (Multistack or similar). Staff said the courthouse currently has about 50 tons of cooling capacity; WHB proposed two 30‑ton modular chiller modules (60 tons total) that would operate as a single system but have internal redundancy so one module can continue to cool if the other fails. The plan calls for two separate outdoor condenser banks and separate power feeds so each module can run independently. Presenters said the selected modular units can be delivered through standard doors and fit in the available basement space after modest pad expansion.

Power, code and site issues: presenters said the new equipment uses three‑phase power and that the county electrical panel has room to accept the new feeds. They said the units use a lower‑global‑warming‑potential refrigerant (R‑454B) and include onboard refrigerant‑leak monitoring. The proposed outdoor condensers would project slightly farther from the building than the current units; presenters reported a verbal clearance from a state staff member, Matt Williams, but told the committee they had not yet received written sign‑off from the state on setback or right‑of‑way details.

Timing and cost signals: WHB and Ash Creek reported lead times for the selected modules of roughly 16 weeks and told the committee a final decision and procurement schedule should be in place by December to be ready for the following cooling season; they said they would be “surprised” if a complete replacement exceeded $500,000, but did not provide a firm bid during the meeting. Presenters said they will assemble drawings, a layout, and preliminary cost estimates for an RFP and that the county should expect to issue an RFP and receive proposals before making a contract decision.

Alternatives and risks discussed: committee members asked about alternative solutions (packaged air‑cooled chillers or replacing only certain components). Presenters said alternatives exist but can complicate redundancy or increase noise; they noted that returning to a cooling‑tower arrangement is generally more appropriate for very large facilities and often increases maintenance and water‑treatment needs. Committee members asked the contractors to include a visual layout and a plan‑B option for evaluation in procurement documents.

Committee direction: the committee asked staff to draft an RFP incorporating the modular‑chiller layout and to return bids to the committee for review. Presenters agreed to provide drawings and a detailed proposal to county staff.

Ending: The committee set a procurement timetable to align with equipment lead times and the county’s budget cycle; staff said finalized cost proposals and an RFP will be returned to the committee in the coming weeks so the committee can recommend a procurement to the county board.