Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverhead seeks engineering review as costly HVAC replacement looms at George Young Community Center
Summary
Town staff told the board the 1976 HVAC at George Young Community Center is failing and hard to access; a county-contracted estimate neared $400,000, and staff proposed a $9,200 outside engineering study to identify cost-effective options and bid the work in May.
Town staff reported that the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system at the George Young Community Center — installed when the building was converted from a schoolhouse in 1976 — is at the end of its useful life and difficult to service because much of the equipment is located in the attic.
"The equipment is pretty much entombed in the attic," the presenter said, describing freeze damage and recent reliance on backup electric resistive coils that are expensive to operate and insufficient in cold conditions. Staff described code-driven constraints (fresh-air intakes, fire dampers, economizers) that increase space needs and complicate replacement.
A county-contractor walk-through produced a repair proposal approaching $400,000, driven largely by labor to disassemble and reassemble units to get them into the attic. Public-works staff recommended instead hiring an outside HVAC engineering consultant to evaluate alternatives — options include opening interior ceilings to remove units in one piece, breaking one large unit into multiple smaller units that fit existing openings, or installing external package units with exposed ductwork — and to prepare plans and specs for bidding.
Staff recommended drawing $9,200 from the consulting engineering budget to retain a small outside engineering firm to produce the evaluation and bid documents. The presenter said that schedule would allow a May bid, award in June, equipment ordering over the summer, and construction after summer camp ends in September with completion by December, subject to equipment lead times.
Costs, trade-offs and community impacts were discussed: some members noted grant searches were unsuccessful because the project is categorized as maintenance rather than higher-priority capital work; others pressed for options that preserve the building’s historic appearance and minimize exterior ductwork.
What’s next: The board asked staff to proceed with a professional services agreement for the engineering evaluation and return with recommended specs and cost estimates to finalize a bidding schedule.
