The Wissahickon School District on April 28 reviewed a planned capital project to build a roughly $370,000, 14‑foot sound wall to reduce noise from a chiller serving Miller’s Middle School and bring the equipment into compliance with the Lower Gwynedd 7 p.m.–7 a.m. sound ordinance.

District facilities staff and contractors told board members the wall, combined with sound blankets already installed on the chiller, should lower measured levels enough to avoid potential fines and reduce neighbor complaints. Board Secretary Tim, speaking for facilities staff, said the acoustical consultant expects the wall to do the job: "He feels extremely confident at at the 14 foot that this will do it." The project is funded from the district’s capital budget and will be considered for approval at the board’s May 5 meeting.

The matter attracted prolonged questioning from board members over cost, effectiveness and long‑term risk. Staff reported noise readings had been between 1 and 4 decibels over the ordinance during evening hours, depending on the study and timing. The district installed acoustical blankets that staff said reduce sound by about 5 to 6 decibels at night. The proposed wall is expected to reduce sound between about 5 and 10 decibels; staff said the modelling predicts the final result will put the district below the ordinance.

Board members pressed several points: why costs were higher than expected, whether tariffs and supply chain factors contributed, whether the district had explored removing an underground storage tank, and who would be liable if the wall were built to specification but sound readings remained above the ordinance. Tim told the board the underground tank constrained construction options and that removing it would create additional complications near the chiller. He said the 14‑foot wall was selected as the design most likely to meet the acoustical targets given site constraints. On liability, staff said the district would need to review contract language and the acoustician’s insurance but that if work is built to the design specifications the district could remain responsible if the ordinance is still exceeded.

The board also asked about alternatives and longevity. Staff said the chiller has an expected useful life around 25 years and estimated roughly 18 years remaining. Members asked whether replacement chillers would be quieter; staff said newer chillers can be quieter but that a full chiller replacement would be a larger capital undertaking and had been considered previously.

No formal vote was taken April 28; the facilities items, including the chiller wall contract, were placed on the May 5 consent agenda for board action. Staff said the consultant’s report is due in about 70 days and that the facilities‑condition assessment being procured separately will support long‑range capital planning.

The discussion highlighted two outstanding community questions: whether the chosen combination of blankets and wall will satisfy residents who have complained despite being within code, and whether the district can negotiate contract terms that share project risk if sound levels remain problematic after construction.