Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Perry County commissioners table decision on courthouse HVAC replacement
Summary
Commissioners heard lengthy discussion about persistent problems with the courthouse chiller system and voted to table a decision to pursue repairs or an overhaul pending further review and input from county council and staff.
Perry County commissioners tabled further action Monday after an extended discussion about chronic problems with the courthouse heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system.
The commission heard that the courthouse chiller system has required repeated compressor replacements, that warranty coverage has lapsed for earlier work, and that past disputes between contractors and the county are in the file. A motion to table a decision on repair or replacement passed after discussion; the board said it will take more time to gather bids and consult council and staff before committing to a course of action.
The county’s summary of maintenance history noted six compressors on the system and reported that the most recent failure would be at least the third compressor replaced. Speakers said parts and labor have been costly, that the system has been “problematic” since installation, and that the full HVAC system will require an expensive overhaul if the county chooses replacement rather than continued repairs. One attendee described the equipment as a “piece of junk since day one.”
Commissioners discussed short-term mitigation: continuing to operate with available compressors while planning next steps, and the possibility of soliciting bids to obtain cost estimates and alternatives. Commissioners and staff agreed the annex building uses a different HVAC configuration and might present comparative options.
The motion to table will allow staff to solicit bids, assemble historical documents in the county file and bring back figures to the commission and county council for review. No contract or purchase decision was made at the meeting.
Speakers who participated directly in the discussion asked for additional analysis, cost estimates and involvement of the county council because of the potential budgetary impact. The commission directed staff to collect bids and bring a fuller recommendation to a future meeting.
The matter was formally tabled by motion and second; the motion passed on a voice vote of those present.
The commission did not set a specific date for a follow-up vote but directed staff to prepare cost estimates and contractor bids for review during a future meeting.
