Freeman School Board approves $9,500 assessment to evaluate long-running plumbing problems at junior–senior high

The Freeman School District 33-1 school board voted to hire a contractor to perform an imagery-based assessment of the junior–senior high plumbing system after hearing that persistent drainage problems may reflect decades-old pipe deterioration.

Superintendent (speaker 3) told the board that camera inspections show sagging sections and pooling inside drain lines and that, in some places, cast‑iron piping may have corroded through. "They worry that the bottom of the pipe within the junior senior high school…may have rusted all the way through the cast iron," the superintendent said, describing conditions that make it hard to determine whether lining is feasible.

Why it matters: the assessment — quoted at $9,500 by the superintendent — will tell the district whether a comparatively affordable lining approach is viable or whether the district would face a far more invasive pipe‑replacement project that would require cutting concrete floors and extensive hallway excavation. The board discussed coordinating the inspection with planned asbestos abatement and upcoming locker and carpet work to limit disruption and hauling of classroom furniture.

Board member (speaker 4) urged prompt action, saying, "If it's been a problem for nearly 2 decades, I don't imagine it's gonna fix itself." The superintendent said imagery tracing will provide a precise map of pipe locations and condition and recommended proceeding to get an accurate picture before committing to a replacement.

Options discussed included lining the pipes — described as a "very, very healthy option" and potentially a 20–30 year solution if pipe bottoms remain intact — or a much more intrusive replacement that would require digging beneath hallways and disrupting building finishes. The superintendent also explained that plans sometimes do not reflect actual buried infrastructure locations and cited a past mismatch between plans and a geothermal field as an example.

The board approved a motion to proceed with the assessment. The motion was made and seconded (mover recorded in the minutes as Cody) and carried by voice vote. Next steps noted in the discussion included scheduling the assessment to coincide with asbestos abatement and adjusting phasing for lockers and carpeting if needed.

Clarifying details: the superintendent identified the assessment cost as $9,500; current field‑painting and maintenance practices were discussed earlier in the meeting (about 8 boxes of paint at roughly $190 per box per painting cycle), which the superintendent cited when describing broader facilities planning and potential efficiency improvements.

The board did not adopt a final repair plan at the meeting; the assessment will inform whether lining is feasible or whether replacement and major reconstruction are required.