ISG finds $14.2 million in deferred maintenance; board hears replacement vs. repair options

ISG architects and Carl Sanderson project staff presented a district facility assessment to the Stewartville School Board on Dec. 1, identifying about $14.2 million in deferred-maintenance needs and outlining options that range from targeted investments to full replacement of aging building sections. The consultants recommended more detailed concept development and engagement with the district’s facility committee before any formal referendum or bond planning.

The assessment separated condition from educational adequacy. ISG noted accessibility shortfalls—steep slopes at the main entrance, inaccessible playground surfacing and routing—and code- and life-safety concerns such as skylights without fall protection and limited emergency lighting. Mechanical systems include a 1963-era steam boiler and aging classroom vertical unit ventilators; electrical distribution panels and branch panels also date to the 1960s and show faded labeling and unknown circuits.

ISG reported the district’s roof membranes are reaching end-of-life in some areas, while windows in portions of the building date to the 1960s and are single-pane. Consultants also flagged hazardous-materials costs (asbestos/lead abatement) as important budget inputs when developing replacement or renovation options.

On cost, ISG summarized deferred maintenance by building vintage and priority. The 1963 portion represented roughly $6.2 million of the total; the 1930s tower portion’s deferred-maintenance costs produced an 88% replacement-cost ratio that the consultants said would tend to favor replacement. The 1963 portion showed roughly a 59% replacement-cost ratio, which ISG said could support continued investment.

Consultants emphasized process steps before a ballot decision: refine the priority list with maintenance staff, develop concept designs and cost estimates for either renovation or replacement options, run community engagement and staff surveys (which ISG already conducted), and coordinate with the district’s financial adviser on timing so the board can choose between a special election or a regular-ballot strategy.

Board members asked whether the district would need all 46,000 square feet in a replacement scenario, how furnishings and site work factor into estimates, and whether deferred-maintenance fixes would reduce near-term risk but still require long-term investments. ISG said the $450-per-square-foot figure they used for a comparable new building covers shell and core construction; district leadership would need to budget for furniture/finishing separately.

Next steps described by ISG and administration included deeper review by the facility committee, refinement of the priority list and cost estimates, and community outreach to determine appetite and timing for any referendum. No binding decisions or referendum votes were taken at the meeting; the presentation was informational.