The Cost of Doing Nothing

There’s a phrase that often crops up when school leaders talk about facilities: kicking the can down the road. The term describes a common (and practical!) response to the tight budgets and competing priorities so many districts are struggling to balance. A roof replacement might get pushed back another year to preserve programming dollars. HVAC upgrades are postponed to accommodate rising utility costs. A boiler still technically works, even if it’s well beyond its expected lifespan. 

Individually, these decisions are understandable and often reasonable–but many superintendents and board members have watched these choices quietly compound into a full-blown crisis. At some point, deferred maintenance stops being a facility decision and becomes an issue of long-term stewardship.  

The truth is, “doing nothing isn’t free,” says Kirk McMahon, a former superintendent and client relationship manager at SHP.  “It’s just a different kind of spending, one that typically results in a much higher price tag down the road.”  Let’s explore the cost of doing nothing a bit further, as well as how to address facility problems before they become emergencies. 

In addition, many districts find themselves spending significant money just to maintain facilities that are no longer serving students particularly well. One of the clearest illustrations of deferred maintenance costs comes not from a financial model, but from experience. 

“I’ve worked with a district that has spent almost a decade, through three superintendents and different board configurations, pouring money into an aging building while working toward a replacement that isn’t even on the horizon,” Kirk says. And every year spent patching or repairing instead of planning is another year of operating dollars going into a facility that will never return that investment.

Superintendents often worry about the optics of asking their community for more money, and for good reason; after all, the majority of school levies in Ohio failed in May 2026. But with the right data and communication strategies in hand, school leadership can make a compelling case to their community about the value of thoughtful investment. 

The best place to start? According to Kirk, a facilities assessment is the clear launching pad. At a relatively modest cost per building, a thorough assessment can give a district a clear picture of current facility conditions, the most pressing issues to be addressed, and potential outcomes of continuing to defer maintenance or upgrades. That work doesn’t have to precede a massive bond issue, either, Kirk notes–instead, it can inform something more approachable and actionable, like a five-year spending plan. 

“The data from a facilities assessment can shift the conversation from ‘we need money’ to ‘here’s exactly what we need, and here’s what it will cost you to do nothing instead,’” he says. Old, failing facilities where districts are continuously pouring money into repairs are not a good return on investment, and most community members can understand that argument when it’s presented with clear data and a plan of action.

What do the districts and institutions that navigate deferred maintenance most effectively have in common? It’s simple, Kirk says: They tend to treat facilities planning not as a construction problem, but as a stewardship responsibility.

School buildings and campus facilities represent some of the largest investments a community will make, and maintaining them thoughtfully is part of honoring that investment. Maintenance doesn’t necessarily require massive capital projects, either; it often boils down to understanding building conditions and system lifecycles well enough to prioritize intelligently. Phasing improvements strategically, timing important bond work to align with retiring millage, and identifying where money is being spent without meaningfully improving outcomes can be extremely effective in maintaining a building’s functionality and staving off disruptive, expensive crises.

Kicking the can down the road isn’t neutral. It’s a choice—one that usually costs more and leaves the brunt of the work for whoever comes next. Districts that are proactive when it comes to facility maintenance and planning are in a fundamentally stronger position than those that opt for a more reactive approach.

Ready to stop patching and start planning? Contact us to schedule a facilities assessment.