Neighbors press board for independent study after noisy middle‑school chiller install; district outlines mitigation plans

Multiple neighbors urged the Wissahickon School Board on Jan. 27 to revisit the district’s plan to address persistent noise from a middle‑school chiller, saying the engineering work to date has not resolved summer‑time disruptions and asking for independent review and clearer timelines.

Eric Rudolph, who identified his address near Montgomery Road, summarized meetings between neighbors and district staff and said the proposed sound wall design does not appear to “mitigate the noise sufficiently.” Rudolph told the board he and neighbors believe the firm that originally installed the chiller and the district’s current consultant may have conflicts of interest because one company engineered both the chiller installation and the proposed fix. He also criticized load‑testing data, saying reports used different test conditions (e.g., April at 56°F vs. August at 68°F) and that the consultant’s calculations claiming 100% load were inconsistent with field conditions.

Irene Lewis, another nearby resident, asked the board to reconsider the district’s approach and posed specific questions: whether the district had evaluated the original decision to use an air‑cooled chiller rather than a water‑cooled system; whether a more experienced acoustical firm should be engaged; how cost‑effectiveness was being weighed; and whether neighbors would be part of any outcome evaluation. “Bringing in an independent expert could provide fresh perspectives and build greater confidence in the outcome,” Lewis said.

Board members and staff acknowledged the ongoing concerns. Facilities committee materials earlier in the meeting noted a facilities design study approving further work on the chiller mitigation and the board’s facilities committee discussed the item at recent meetings, but neighbors said they had not received clear updates on progress. In remarks during committee reporting, a district official said the wall design was being engineered and the district had engaged consultants, but did not give a public timetable beyond noting that the design work approved in December was ongoing and that details would be shared.

Public commenters and board members called for stronger transparency about testing methodology, independent verification and better communication of timelines. Several asked whether the district would consider alternative technologies (for example, returning to a water‑cooled system) and whether a third‑party acoustical firm with no prior engagement on the original installation should be retained to assess mitigation effectiveness and verify noise levels after any fixes.

No formal vote or new contract award was recorded at the Jan. 27 meeting. The facilities committee and staff said work on the design and permitting would continue; neighbors said they expect a more robust review and a clearer schedule for testing and verification before the next summer cooling season.