Performance Services lays out 20‑year facilities plan for Elkhart Community Schools; near‑term price tag in the hundreds of millions

Performance Services presented a districtwide physical‑conditions assessment of Elkhart Community Schools at the board’s Aug. 26 public work session, outlining building‑by‑building scores, recommended repairs and multiple project packages to guide maintenance and capital planning over the next 10 to 20 years.

The report, produced after a five‑month survey of the district’s roughly 30 buildings, catalogs interior finishes, site and envelope conditions, accessibility, and building systems and assigns a weighted score for each facility. Performance Services said the district’s total replacement value for buildings is about $1.1 billion (land not included) and offered two planning figures: roughly $358 million to complete every recommended improvement now, and a $513 million estimate after applying an annual 5% escalation factor the consultant used for long‑range budgeting.

"What this is going to provide ECS is a very clear and a very proactive plan to help you manage your facilities from an operational and maintenance perspective," Performance Services Business Development Manager Tony Kuykendall said. "We prepared a strategic plan to help the district look at the next 10, the next 20 years of how you operate and maintain all of your facilities."

Why it matters

The assessment flags aging mechanical, electrical and plumbing equipment that staff have maintained beyond typical life expectancies, as well as accessibility shortcomings—especially restrooms—and a mix of older windows and roofing in some schools. Performance Services said major systems, not routine maintenance, weight the scoring most heavily; the company used ASHRAE energy standards and manufacturer life‑expectancies among roughly 75 line items for each building.

Key findings and examples

- Districtwide condition: Many buildings were described as "in good shape" from a finishes standpoint where the district has invested, but several facilities scored in the 50–60 range where consultants recommended targeted investment; anything below 50 was labeled as needing earlier attention. - Accessibility and safety: Consultants noted ADA accessibility gaps (restrooms, access to upper floors at some sites) and recommended continued investment even after recent security improvements. - Mechanical systems: Engineers reported original air‑handling units at some buildings dating to the 1970s and older pneumatic controls; the report links system replacement to improved indoor comfort and energy savings. "Air handling units bring in ventilation air and distribute hot and cold air to the classrooms...students do much better learning when they've got that optimal learning environment," said engineer Dale Basel. - Example costs: Performance Services summarized a project package for the high school, career center and freshman center that the firm estimated as roughly two phased projects; each phase was budgeted at about $6.5 million, and the two‑phase effort was presented as roughly $12–13 million in current dollars to replace major air handlers and associated infrastructure.

A living workbook and next steps

The consultants delivered a multi‑tab Excel workbook—each building has a tab with line‑item conditions, prioritization and estimated costs—to be maintained as a living document by the district. "This is the live copy. You can edit this. Every one of these buildings has a separate tab," Kuykendall said; the firm proposed that the board validate 2026 project priorities and then move the top packages into design and competitive bidding.

Performance Services recommended staged project packages rather than a single, districtwide bond for everything at once. The consultants also flagged inflation and escalation as drivers of higher long‑term cost and noted the district can re‑prioritize the workbook annually as conditions, funding and community priorities shift.

Board and staff discussion

Board members and staff pressed the consultants on what drives low scores and how to move individual buildings above target thresholds with targeted work. Consultants said replacing windows or targeted site repairs can make measurable short‑term improvements to a building’s score, while replacing major mechanical systems drives larger long‑term benefits but requires bigger capital commitments.

"When you do replace it, it helps your building comfort, indoor learning environments, and there is energy savings opportunities as well," Basel said. Dr. Huff and other trustees asked about funding sources and whether past investments had been captured in the dataset; Performance Services said the team incorporated district records and recent projects where possible but cautioned that ad‑hoc work can yield piecemeal results across a large building footprint.

What the district provided

District staff confirmed the consultant’s replacement‑value figure and that the valuation excludes land. Elkhart staff said recent bonds and project work (including roughly $122 million in construction since early 2018) contributed maintenance and new‑construction investments but have not eliminated the need for a long‑range reinvestment strategy.

Where this goes next

Performance Services will, if the board directs, convert prioritized packages into design documents and a procurement schedule; the firm also offered to remain the long‑term manager of the living strategic plan if the board chooses. The district’s operations staff and administration said they will use the workbook to inform 2026 budget and bonding decisions and to evaluate whether to bundle projects for competitive pricing or to phase work to match available funds.

"This will be updated, and it will be managed going forward, each and every year for the district," Kuykendall said.

Ending

The assessment gives the board a detailed, ranked picture of facility needs and a numeric roadmap for decisions about bonds, project packaging and the timing of investments. The district now must decide which packages to advance into design and whether to finance priority work through bonds, grants or a mix of funding tools. The consultants emphasized the report is a planning tool to guide those decisions—not a binding scope of work—while staff said the workbook will support near‑term budget priorities and long‑term capital planning.