Maintenance staff recommends rooftop water hydrants to protect Susquehanna Township SD HVAC investment

Maintenance staff presented a plan to install dedicated rooftop water hydrants on the roofs of the district’s four school buildings so technicians can clean and maintain rooftop HVAC coils more safely and efficiently.

The district’s facilities presenter said the lowest bid to install hydrants and preserve roof warranties was about $40,000 for the hydrants plus roughly $11,000 for associated roofing work, for a total near $51,000 to equip 12 rooftop service points across the buildings. The presenter said using the roof hydrants would allow crews to avoid repeatedly hauling hoses up and down and reduce the need to work close to roof edges.

Why it matters: Board members and staff framed the proposal as an investment in protecting recent HVAC capital spending. The presenter noted that the district has spent roughly $2.9 million on HVAC equipment in recent years and described the hydrant cost as “1.77%” of that investment. Lead HVAC technician Tim Irvin described safety and equipment concerns tied to current cleaning methods and to chemical cleaners used on coils. “The acid is extremely corrosive. It’ll eat through aluminum. It’ll eat through copper,” Irvin said, and added that chemical cleaners must be thoroughly rinsed to avoid corrosion. Irvin also told the board that crews should follow OSHA guidance for work near roof edges and that harnessing is required when workers approach an edge.

Alternatives considered: Staff described multiple alternatives that were reviewed. They presented a pressure-washer–based approach with rented lifts and a portable water tank; staff said contractors advised against using high-pressure washing because it can damage coils, can cause chemical kickback toward workers, and increases fall risk by requiring employees to work at roof edges to manage hoses. Staff also examined running supply piping across roofs and leaving hoses and a job box on the roof as a lower-cost option, and noted trade-offs such as freeze protection and waterproofing that would affect lifecycle and maintenance. The presenter said a portable backpack coil-cleaning sprayer exists but holds only about five gallons and would not address the need for larger-volume rinsing after acid-based coil-cleaner use.

Frequency and safety: Staff recommended at least annual coil cleaning and said more frequent cleaning—twice a year or as-needed after high-pollen periods—would improve unit performance. The team described PPE (gloves, goggles) and harness use as necessary mitigations for chemical and fall risk. Irvin said having roof hydrants would make the work less labor intensive and reduce the chance of accidental damage: “If I see something that needs to be cleaned, I don’t want to wait till the following year to clean it,” he said.

Board discussion and next steps: Board members asked about distances between hydrants, warranty implications of roof penetrations, and whether outsourcing cleaning to contractors might be less costly. Staff said the proposed roof penetrations would be performed using the district’s roofer (the vendor that installed recent roofs) in order to preserve warranties. No vote or binding decision was taken at the meeting; the item was presented and discussed for future board consideration.

Ending: Staff said they would continue to provide cost and logistics detail to the board to enable a future decision. The board acknowledged safety, efficiency and the potential to extend service life of rooftop units as key factors for consideration.