Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wissahickon board rejects $370,000 sound‑wall plan for middle school chiller after neighbors, members raise doubts
Summary
Neighbors and board members debated a proposed $370,000 sound wall to reduce noise from the Wissahickon Middle School outdoor chiller; the board voted down the proposal and asked staff to research alternatives including returning to a water‑cooled system.
The Wissahickon School District Board debated and then voted down a $370,000 proposal to build a sound wall around the air‑cooled chiller at Wissahickon Middle School, after neighbors and several board members questioned whether the wall would reliably meet township noise limits.
Neighbors told the board the unit has produced “relentless blaring sound” that reaches backyards and athletic fields. Irene Lewis, a nearby resident, played a recording at the meeting and said the noise “stretches into the woods and into our backyards and down onto our streets.” Eric Rudolph of Lower Gwynedd Township urged the board to consider re‑installing a water‑cooled chiller, saying water‑cooled systems are “twice as efficient” and historically quieter.
The board split on whether to approve action item 16.3, the sound‑wall contract. After discussion and a roll‑call vote (one yes, multiple no), the motion failed. Board members who opposed the immediate purchase cited rising costs and uncertainty that the wall would reduce sound to the township’s allowable level. Board members who supported the wall said it was important to provide neighbors near‑term relief during the summer months.
District staff and public commenters described tradeoffs. Eric Rudolph and other speakers said the prior water‑cooled chillers had operated for decades without complaints and said the Department of Energy guidance favors water‑cooled systems for efficiency and longevity. A district representative said returning the chiller inside the building or placing a new system on the roof would significantly increase project cost (the district estimate discussed at the meeting for roof placement was roughly $1.2 million) and require a longer procurement and construction timeline.
Board members asked staff to return with alternative options and cost estimates. One board member summarized the choice before the board as whether to spend $370,000 now on a sound wall that may or may not fully resolve the problem or to delay and study other solutions that could cost substantially more but might meet noise limits more consistently. The board requested further analysis of alternatives, potential timelines, and which options would meet Lower Gwynedd Township sound ordinances.
Neighbors and residents will continue to press for a permanent fix; several urged the district to seek independent acoustical review and to provide clearer timelines and guarantees before committing additional capital funds.
