Emmett board orders safety assessment after engineers flag water, settling in high‑school domes

Emmett — The Emmett Independent District board on Tuesday escalated concerns about the condition of the high‑school’s monolithic domes after facilities staff and outside contractors described waterlogged foam, cracking and signs of structural settling.

Facilities staff reviewed a district 10‑year maintenance plan that showed $11.7 million in completed projects and an estimated $24.2 million in remaining work. A walk‑around estimate to resurface the domes was discussed at about $2.3 million, but trustees cautioned the number could rise sharply after engineers inspect underlying shotcrete and foundations.

“Once you start tearing into something, you just find a rat hole,” said Speaker 3, summarizing the facilities team’s findings about internal cracking. Contractors who inspected the domes told trustees that water was present inside foam layers and that anchors used for access had failed, complicating safe, tethered inspections.

At the meeting, trustees recounted earlier dome repairs that involved different contractors and materials. Speaker 4 described a process in which a selected contractor subcontracted to a lower bidder and used a different coating product that, according to the presenter, left patchwork repairs rather than a uniform surface.

Several trustees pressed for an immediate, independent structural assessment focused on safety. “I would like an answer to the safety component,” Trustee (unnamed, Speaker 7) said, urging staff to seek certified geotechnical and structural engineers. Superintendent (Speaker 1) said staff will obtain engineers’ reports and provide cost estimates for both targeted repairs and worst‑case remediation.

Trustees were explicit that resurfacing alone may only conceal deeper problems. Speaker 6 warned the district that locking in a surface coating without removing trapped moisture could ‘lock in’ deterioration and leave the district with larger bills later. Staff agreed to prioritize an engineering safety analysis and return to the board with findings and a recommended next procedural step.

Next steps: the board directed administrators to secure qualified engineering inspections and to report back by the January or February board meeting with safety findings and cost scenarios. No construction contract or final remediation decision was made at the meeting.