Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Acoustics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Acoustical study finds elevated noise at Mesa Public Library; consultant outlines repairs and options
Summary
A consultant presented a noise assessment recommending maintenance and construction options — from sealing operable partitions and moving return‑air grills to adding ceiling and wall absorption — to reduce speech audibility and HVAC‑related noise in meeting rooms, the rotunda and reading areas.
An acoustical assessment of the Mesa Public Library presented to the Los Alamos County Library Board identified several noise problems and a range of remediation options, from low‑cost maintenance to more substantial construction.
Tara, presenting a report prepared by acoustician Basile Gerdy, said meeting-room operable partitions on Level 2 are underperforming — with field STC performance generally in the mid‑30s to 40s — and recommended an inspection and basic maintenance by the partition vendor (Modernfold) as a first step. If repairs fail to improve performance, she recommended replacing the operable walls with higher‑rated panels (STC 53–55) or building stick‑walls where noise reduction is more important than flexibility.
On Level 1 and the ground‑level young adult reading area, Tara said elevated background noise is largely tied to unbalanced HVAC airflow. She cited measurements showing background levels near NC 52 (about 59 dBA) in the loudest spots and recommended a rebalancing and test‑and‑balance by a controls or mechanical contractor as the first mitigation step. If balancing cannot resolve the issue, options include relocating terminal units, adding duct‑liners, replacing open ceilings with sheetrock ceilings, or creating lined transfer ducts to reduce paths through return grills.
The library’s rotunda — described as architecturally attractive but acoustically reflective — produced focusing and vertical sound travel that made children’s activities especially audible on surrounding floors. Tara said measured attenuation from ground to Level 1 was only about 6 dB (insufficient to mask loud activity), while attenuation to Level 2 reached roughly 25 dB. Recommended measures include adding absorption to ceilings and upper walls (fabric‑wrapped panels, felt, stretch fabric, or acoustical plaster) and, where appropriate, glass partitions, though Tara cautioned that blocking openings can affect HVAC performance and fire/smoke pathways and should be coordinated with mechanical engineers.
Tara offered lower‑cost pilot options — more tapestries or temporary wall panels — to test effectiveness before committing to higher‑cost construction. She said she would supply the board with Basile Gerdy’s full report and noted architects in the firm’s Phoenix office could help with pricing estimates.
No vote was required; the presentation was informational. Board members thanked the presenter and indicated they would discuss next steps, including obtaining pricing for selected mitigation measures.
