Board, public and staff clash over Irmo High east wing plans and safety evidence

A prolonged portion of the June 8 School District 5 meeting focused on Irmo High School’s east wing: whether earlier actions by the district and designers had committed the district to demolishing the old wing, whether the building is unsafe, and whether independent engineering or air‑quality studies should be commissioned before deciding to retain or remove portions of the structure.

Multiple public speakers and at least one current or former board member said the planning documents, RFP language and the schematic the board approved had anticipated removal of the existing east wing after construction of a new east wing and replacement with a parking area. Those speakers asked why the administration later proposed keeping a substantial portion of the existing wing and asked for a structural-engineering evaluation and an air-quality study before moving forward.

“On September 27, 2021, the head of operations told the board Irmo High’s east wing was in poor condition and that maintaining it would be nearly impossible,” said a public commenter who led the historical recap. She said the original RFP included language that removal of the existing east wing would follow construction.

Administration representatives and other board members reviewed the public record during the meeting and said the minutes and exhibits do not show a unanimous vote to demolish the old east wing and that earlier facility assessments (the MBcon and MPS reports) rated the wing as in poor condition but did not, in administration’s reading, mandate an immediate demolition on safety grounds. The administration noted a successful 2024 bond referendum that provided funds to address poor-rated facilities and said the referendum, together with phased construction, was expected to address the building’s long-term needs.

Dr. Ross and other administrators emphasized that past studies flagged layout and programmatic inadequacy (classroom configuration, stairwell sightlines) and deferred some structural or hazardous findings to specific code and facility-review processes. Administration said two structural items flagged as Level 1 (a window and door lintel) were not load-bearing and could be addressed with reconditioning. The fire marshal and state Office of School Facilities would be involved in any major reconditioning to certify safety and code compliance, administrators said.

Several board members and public speakers urged that regardless of prior planning language, the district should commission an up-to-date engineering evaluation and an air-quality study targeted at the interstitial spaces between floors before deciding to keep the existing wing. A motion to require those studies was discussed but not adopted during the meeting; one board member said they had requested such studies previously and the motion to fund them had been denied.

The administration said records are available in the board packet and invited reviewers to examine the minutes, schematics and RFPs. The administration also told the board that if air- or structural studies revealed immediate hazards, they would be addressed and that current inspections show the building meets fire-code requirements for occupancy.

Outcome and next steps: No final board vote to demolish or retain the entire old east wing occurred at the June 8 meeting. The discussion exposed differing interpretations about past approvals and left open the possibility of commissioning targeted engineering or air‑quality studies at the board’s direction; board members said they would continue to examine the record and asked administration to provide documentation upon request.

Speakers and records cited in this article are available in the board packet and the meeting transcript for June 8, 2026.