Capital Improvement Program
GREATER LATROBE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Recommendations and Analysis
Fiscal Years 2020-2025
DISTRIBUTED APRIL 2021
ISSUED BY
Department of Facilities, Operations & Planning
REPRESENTATIVE
Kurt R Thomas, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP BD+C Director of Facilities, Operations & PlanningBOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
Eric Hauser, President
Paul McCommons, Vice-President
Heidi Kozar
Steve LoCascio
Susan Mains
Merle Musick
William Palmer
Cathy Sarraf
Michael Zorch, M.D.
SCHOOL AUTHORITY
Carl Baumeister
Gene Leonard, Ed. D.
Keith Visconti
Barry Banker
Chuck Gray
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
Georgia Teppert, Ed.D.
ADMINISTRATION
Michael Porembka - Assistant Superintendent
Daniel Watson - Business Administrator
Becki Pellis - Director of Curriculum, Instruction, and Technology
Laurie Golobish - Director of Pupil Services
Eugene Joe - Student Support Services Coordinator
Mark Mears - Director of Athletics
Jillian Meloy - Director of Food Services
Jessica Golden - Director of Development and Center of Student Creativity
Introduction & Background
The Greater Latrobe School District School Board of Directors is responsible for ensuring adequate educational and operational facilities for the students, staff, and community of Greater Latrobe. To fulfill this obligation, the School Board adopts a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The CIP provides the Board with a comprehensive program of capital improvements that are being considered to maintain, acquire or construct necessary improvements over the next five-year period.
In collaboration with district administrators, the School Board regularly engages in a comprehensive review of capital needs and assesses projects to meet the following goals:
1. Minimize facility deterioration and avoid deferred maintenance
2. Maintain an optimal learning environment for existing, expanding and new academic programs
3. Annually audit and assess facility conditions for health, safety and energy efficiencies
4. Plan for short-term capital maintenance and improvements
5. Plan for long-term capital new construction, renovation and/or alterations
The CIP is a thorough, good-faith document intended to convey the Greater Latrobe School District’s planned and future investments in its infrastructure. The CIP is assessed annually and is subject to modification based on changes in enrollments; updated standards for education, health, and safety; budgetary matters and other economic factors that influence priorities and alter the plan.
School facilities have a significant role in the success of students. The CIP defines characteristics of buildings, rooms and outdoor facilities necessary to provide quality learning environments that are flexible, durable and efficient.
Furthermore, the CIP exemplifies the strong emphasis that the Board has historically placed on providing high-quality education in academics, athletics and arts programs, building strong foundations for student learning.
Capital Improvement Planning Process
This CIP Process is an integrated and comprehensive undertaking to anticipate and develop well-researched plans for new construction, replacement of aging infrastructure, facility renovations or alterations, and the incorporation of long-term preventative maintenance of existing facilities. Under the direction of the School Board of Directors and the oversight of the Superintendent, the CIP Process integrates the staff functions of not only Facilities but also, Finance, Transportation, Food Service, and Custodial Services.
The CIP Process has three main components:
1. Identification and prioritization of capital facility needs
2. Obtaining, managing and accounting for capital funding
3. Project design, bid, and construction of capital improvements
Identification and Prioritization
The projects contained in the CIP include periodic equipment replacement, major maintenance-type projects that are incurred on a recurring basis, as well as one-time expenditures of funds for such items as new construction, expansion or major renovation of facilities, acquisition of land or site improvements, utility and energy efficiency upgrades, vehicle fleet replacement and other infrastructure projects.
Lesser know requirements include:
1. Access control and door security
2. Auditorium upgrades for fire curtain, sound, acoustics seating, and rigging
3. Bleacher and grandstand upgrades
4. Floor coverings and other interior finishes
5. Roof re-roofing and re-covers
6. Building system upgrades, ie. fire alarm, lighting, electrical, data, HVAC and plumbing systems
7. Furniture and equipment
8 Site asphalt parking, roadways, and playgrounds
Identification
The list of potential projects is a direct result of the information gathered and assessed by the planning process. There are a number of factors to consider when evaluating potential projects, including:
1. Public health, safety and welfare concerns
2 Legal regulations mandated by local, state or federal government
3. Repair, renovation or replacement of obsolete building systems that are at or near the end of serviceable life
4. Specific needs for improved operational service, timeliness or cost savings
5. Investment return or ability to leverage other monetary fund resources
6. Project risk and feasibility pertaining to cost, time frames and capacity
The ability to accurately assess capital improvement projects in existing buildings is a detailed, accurate and continuous assessment of the District’s facilities. The District has developed a Facility Condition Assessment that provides a “point-in-time” overview of every facility in the District. This Assessment is established by the Facilities Department and is reviewed on an annual basis with major corrections or alterations noted
The current Facility Condition Assessment is an appendix to this document and should be reviewed in conjunction.
Prioritization
To facilitate a proper prioritization or ranking assignment of possible capital projects, the Capital Improvement Program incorporates a listing of a criterion and subsequent ratings for a criterion into a logic matrix.
Projects will be populated from the Facility Needs Assessment in which criteria will be considered for each project and assign a rating on how well it meets the criterion Criteria are preassigned with a set weight that represents a degree of need or importance factor.
Ratings are then set or determined by their impact in regards to either Safety, Educational Impact, Operational Impact, Age and Service Life.
Criterion defined:
1. Public Health, Safety, and Welfare: Items that relate to the well-being of the body or mind of the occupant; must be free from the risk of danger, damage or injury resulting from the physical environment; and one that properly accommodates the human activity.
2. Legal / Code Mandates: Items related to federal, state or local jurisdiction that regulate the physical environment.
3. Educational Development / Impact: Items that have a direct correlation to the development of the educational process or affect the learning environment.
4 Service Life Expectancy / Age: The age of and forecast life expectancy of products based on operational experience and real-world results.
5. Operational / Deferred Maintenance Impacts: Items whose postponement from routine upkeep can cause building and equipment neglect and consequently enabling minor repair work to develop into a more serious condition.
6. Technology Changes: New ideas or advancements of the latest technology that have a direct effect on the learning environment.
7. Rebranding, Aesthetic or Social Value: Items that pertain to the physical space in that gives form to the values, history, and traditions of the District and provides the setting for the student experience.
8. New Learning Trend: Items pertaining to the evolving learning process that can affect the built environment
Rating per Criterion The list of potential projects is populated from the Capital Needs List. Recommendations have been assigned a priority index which represents the degree of need. The priority rating index rankings from 0 to 7, with 7 representing the highest degree of need.
Factors affecting priority ratings include items such as the following: built-in redundancies; criticality of components in relation to the overall facility function; the educational impact of deterioration, deficiency, or existing condition identified during Facility Condition Assessment.
The following page includes the Logic Matrix for Assigning Project Score (Priority)
Capital Resources
The Capital Improvement Program utilizes multiple mechanisms for funding and allocating cost to each identified need addressed in the Facility Needs Assessment and subsequent capital projects. This section further identifies available and potential funding sources to meet the capital needs of the District.
These potential resources include the following:
1. General Fund (Annual Operating Budget)
2. Capital Fund (Reserve Fund)
3. Debt Fund (General Obligation Bonds)
4. State K-12 Funding (PlanCon)
5. Other Sources ( ie. Grants, Donations, Savings associated with new assets)
General Fund. The General Fund consists of budget accounts that comprise the district’s annual operating budget Approximately three percent of revenues from real estate taxes are allocated in the category of Plant Operations. Within that category the district budgets for expenditures that pertain to the maintenance and replacement of service systems and other built-in equipment; and improvement to sites.
Proper and adequate annual budgeting allows financial flexibility to address small capital projects. These projects can prolong life expectancy and reduce costly future replacements that would require more substantial expenses and usage of reserve funding.
Capital Fund. The vast majority of funding for capital projects is sourced through this Reserve Fund. Districts have the option of establishing a fund that is a depository for earmarked capital projects. Subsequent annual transfers from the Fund Balance allow larger “pay-as-you-go” capital projects to occur without debt financing and thus allowing more monies to be allocated to the capital need
The Capital Fund is a critical component to the district’s facility planning to meet those capital needs identified as larger in scope or that need to be funded over several years and allocations may be carried forward over multiple years until completion. Per state rule, monies within the Capital Fund are kept segregated from the annual budget accounts and must be used for capital projects and not other purposes such as salaries or instructional
supplies. At the end of every budget year, the District makes prudent financial strategies to move monies from the General Fund into the Capital Fund to support future projects.
Debt Fund. A general obligation bonding process is utilized when the district borrows money or issues debt when the Reserve Fund is not large enough to generate sufficient funding to pay for the acquisition of property, new construction, renovations, and major alterations to capital facilities The monies received can only be used for a specific project as indicated in the bond issue and is used to payout as Work is performed by contractors.
The district’s business office is responsible for examining the current debt service structure as outstanding debt is “serviced” each year by allocations in the annual budget. These monies are segregated from any General or Capital Fund and all bond authorizations and payments are approved by the School Authority.
State K-12 Funding. Sometimes the Commonwealth will share the cost of certain large capital projects which is a process known as PlanCon. PlanCon is a set of forms and procedures used to apply for reimbursement from the Commonwealth. The Division of School Facilities in the Department of Education reviews proposed school building projects, building utilization, and building conditions. Furthermore, the Division calculates the state reimbursement rate for qualified school construction projects.
It should be noted that the Department has continued the implementation of a moratorium on all new submissions for the current fiscal year.
Other Sources. Utilization of grants, donations or savings from energy management capital improvements can be sources of funding for capital projects, while these are typically smaller in size and scale, they are a feasible approach to improvements.
It is important to note that the capital needs identified dramatically outweigh the current local and statewide resources available. The ability of the District to perform each and all of the projects identified is dependent on the availability of local resources and state K-12 facilities funding. Capital financing should be viewed as a long-term commitment that will require ongoing and continual support by the Commonwealth and the local community.
Cost estimates, financing methods and recommended time schedules for the improvements are included in the CIP and are referenced by individual projects.
Project Design, Bidding & Construction
Once a capital project has been authorized by the Board, the full scope of the project is defined and established. In this process, the size, specified requirements and an estimated budget are achieved.
Project Design.
The design of capital projects typically will be completed within the Districts Facilities Department. However, building alterations, renovations, new construction, or special projects will require the hiring of professional design services or design-build services
Advertising a request for a proposal for a valued-based selection process will be orchestrated for such services, including the selection of Architects, Engineers, Construction Agents, and/or other specialty consultants. In planning to contract for professional services the Department shall evaluate the statements of qualifications and proposal fees for the project. The selection of such professional services will be recommended to the Board of School Directors for approval before agreements and contracts are established.
The Facilities Department will initiate an Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) for projects to ensure their successful delivery. This OPR will guide the selection of building materials; building systems, such as mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and technology (MEPT); and construction methods and delivery are to be utilized as a guideline during pre-design, design, construction, acceptance, and operational decisions.
Building alterations, renovations or new construction projects should include the creation of Educational Specifications. This document represents a compilation of the District’s mission, vision, goals, policies, procedures, program delivery methodologies, space organizational concepts that bring innovation to the learning environment.
Following the completion of Educational Specifications, the District and design professionals will work together to develop the program of requirements. Once the POR is approved the design phases begin:
Schematic Design Phase (SD): Spaces are drawn to scale indicating relative sizes as developed in the POR. These spaces are organized in groupings and oriented around
building circulation and service systems. Building systems schematics, energy modeling and consumption information, if applicable, should occur.
Design Development Phase (DD): The drawings indicated greater levels of detail. In addition to room and building size, mechanical building systems, and materials are expressed in the documents. Preliminary specifications for all components are prepared and are used along with the drawings in preparation for the construction estimate of the cost.
Construction Documents Phase (CD): In the conclusion of the DD Phase, all decisions regarding the project design shall be resolved and documented. The CD Phase is to prepare the documentation that will accurately and precisely convey the design that will be utilized for bidding and construction. These documents are used as the basis of the final estimate of construction cost necessary for the District to approve prior to entering the Bidding Phase.
Bidding/Contractor Selection.
Construction bidding and contractor selection will be in accordance with all Federal, State and School Code Regulations. Contractor/Vendor selection for capital projects that fall under the monetary thresholds for bidding will follow a similar process as professional services. Requests for proposals will be reviewed and a value-based selection conducted. Capital Projects that require a public bidding process will be bid, bidders are evaluated, and contracts are executed per School Code and other Regulations. Established District manufacturers or preferred material vendors will be utilized for all self-performed work. Self-performed work consists of minor building alterations, equipment replacements or similar capital projects where it is cost-effective to be managed by the District.
Construction Process.
District personnel are typically used to oversee the construction of small capital projects These projects are typically designed in-house, are on small-scale budgets and/or scope extent. Larger contracts for construction will require professional construction supervision and management. The selection process for such professional expertise will follow a similar process as the selection for professional services. This process will typically be reserved where the capital project is of substantial size and the type or the specialty of work scope requires specialized expertise and oversight.
Fiscal Years 2020-2025
Existing Facilities Summary
The following includes important information regarding the Greater Latrobe School District (GLSD) existing facilities. Basic statistical data such as the address, age, site size, building square footage, number of parking spaces, number of classrooms. Additional detailed information can be found in the Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA).
Elementary Education
Primary and Intermediate education for GLSD is geographically divided amongst three elementary school buildings that house grade levels Kindergarten through Sixth Grade.
Baggaley Elementary. 4080 Route 982Latrobe, PA 15650
Original Construction: 1951
Addition: 1974 |Renovation: 1998
Site Area: 23.3 acres | Building Area: 98,730 sf
Parking Spaces: 91 Standard, 2 Accessible
As-Built Classrooms: 28 Grade 1-6, 4 Kindergarten, 3 Special Ed., 5 Encore
Latrobe Elementary. 20 Cedar StreetLatrobe, PA 15650
Original Construction: 2018
Site Area: 6 acres | Building Area: 124,124 sf
Parking Spaces:
As-Built Classrooms: 35 Grade 1-6, 6 Kindergarten, 3 Special Ed., 6 Encore
Mt View Elementary 1010 Mountain ViewGreensburg, PA 15601
Original Construction: 1952
Addition/s: 1960, 1974 | Renovation: 1999
Site Area: 19.2 acres | Building Area: 99,031 sf
Parking Spaces: 115 Standard, 5 Accessible
As-Built Classrooms: 29 Grade 1-6, 4 Kindergarten, 5 Special Ed., 5 Encore
Fiscal Years 2020-2025
Secondary Education
Secondary education for GLSD follows the model of locating a junior and high school adjacent to one another. The proximity of co-located schools provides multiple benefits, the least of which is a six-year continuity of secondary education for students 7th through 12th grades, as well as for parents, teachers, and administration. The District’s existing co-located sites share facilities such as an auditorium, athletic fields, and parking but are still able to maintain their own identity.
Greater Latrobe Junior High School. 130 High School Road - Latrobe, PA 15650
Original Construction: 1974
Additi 2001 |R ti 1998 2014
Greater Latrobe Senior High School. 131 High School Road - Latrobe, PA 15650
Original Construction: 1966 | Addition: 2001 | Renovation: 2003, 2014
Site Area: 94.7 acres |Building Area: 305,950 sf
Parking Spaces: 463 Standard, 13 Accessible
CSC: 17 Standard, Student Lot ‘B’: 47 Standard; Teacher Lot: 96 Standard, 2 Accessible
Visitor/Admin Lot: 46 Standard, 8 Accessible; Student Lot ‘A’: 174 Standard
Student Lot ‘C’: 83 Standard, 4 Accessible
As-Built Classrooms: 40 General Studies, 8 Special Ed, 10 Sciences, 11 Encore, 3 Tech
Fiscal Years 2020-2025
Non-Educational Facilities
Additional buildings within the District consist of a community stadium with numerous outbuildings, an Athletic Complex (Field House and Pressbox) at the Senior High School, a Central District Office, and multiple natural turf and synthetic playing fields.
Memorial Stadium. 131 Irving Avenue - Latrobe, PA 15650
Original Construction: 1951 | Addition & Renovation: 2001
Site Area: 15.7 acres | Building Area: 27,650 sf
Parking Spaces: 285 Standard, 6 Accessible
Athletic Complex. 130 High School Road - Latrobe, PA 15650
Original Construction: 2014
Site Area: Included into Senior High Acreage | Building/s Area: 24,235 sf
Parking Spaces: 8 Standard, 2 Accessible (additional into Senior High parking)
Central Administration. 1816 Lincoln Avenue - Latrobe, PA 15650
Original Construction: 1960 | Renovation: 2011 (purchased date)
Site Area: 0 6 acres | Building Area: 9,851 sf
Parking Spaces: 22 Standard, 1 Accessible
Rotary Park. 130 High School Road - Latrobe, PA 15650
Original Construction: N/A
Site Area: 13 acres (included into Senior High Acreage) |Building/s Area: 3,200 sf
Parking Spaces: N/A
Building Age and Renovation History
As indicated above the average age of the District’s educational buildings is nearly 50-years, not including the completion of the new Latrobe Elementary School. The most recent major renovation projects are approaching 20-years of age. The historical age of the Districts’ main school buildings is above the national average of 44-years old and nearly 8-years beyond the national average for a major renovation being 12-years.
Evaluation of Existing Facilities
The District continues to evaluate the needs of the District and strives to provide a safe and positive learning environment for its students. In 2014, the District built a new Athletic Complex Facility, that included a 2000 seat bleacher Pressbox and Field House with two synthetic turf fields. Also completed this past year was a new elementary school, Latrobe Elementary School, the first new school built in over 40-years, that replaces the original 1914 Latrobe High School building.
The Junior High School underwent a small renovation to the main corridor and entrance spaces but has not had significant alterations since the late-1990’s renovation. The Senior High School is currently undergoing a systematic roof replacement process, but it has not had any significant alterations since 2001. Of the remaining schools, Baggaley and Mountain View, none have had major renovations since the late-1990’s. Only minor security, technology, and HVAC upgrades over the last 20-years have occurred.
Feasibility Studies
The District typically initiated feasibility studies prior to major construction projects, the earliest traced to 1989 then again in 1991 and followed by 1996. Each study commonly had the same findings and recommendations All of the buildings were in good-to-fair condition and with the proper maintenance, can continue in use for the next twenty years.
However, problems exist within all the building’s HVAC systems, electrical systems and other major building shell components, such as roofing and windows. This is further substantiated by the latest feasibility study, conducted in 2009, in which the study recommended the replacement of building systems that are life-cycle dependent; these include flooring, boilers and roofing membranes within five to ten years.
The replacement of Latrobe Elementary school was the only major construction project that followed the 2009 study. Other facilities strictly followed a standard level of spending for general maintenance and repair While particularly important as the building’s age, this practice falls short of the required replacement of building systems as they have extended well beyond their useful service life. The continuation of this plan will lead to an increase in deferred maintenance cost, an increase in energy usage, and inflated expenditures for major maintenance and/or capital renewal projects.
Fiscal Years 2020-2025
Supporting Documents
The following supporting documents are an appendix to this document and shall be reviewed in conjunction with the CIP.
1. Facility Condition Assessment (FCA)
2. Facility Needs Summary
3. Capital Improvement Plan (forecast 2020-2025)
Facility Condition Assessment
The Facility Condition Assessment provides a “point-in-time” overview of every facility in the District. This Assessment is established by the Facilities Department and is reviewed on an annual basis with major corrections or alterations noted. The primary goals of this assessment include:
1. To determine the overall building conditions and the conditions of the primary systems
2. Identify and prioritize building systems based on need, observed deficiencies, remaining useful/service life, and determine a recommended timeframe for when systems should be replaced or upgraded
3. Recommend actions for the deficiencies and recommendations to address deferred maintenance
4. Provide cost estimates for the required actions
Facility Needs Summary
The Facility Needs Summary provides the following lists as defined from the Facility Condition Assessment document.
1. A complete listing of all facility deficiencies and potential projects
2. A sorted listing of all facility deficiencies by the assigned priority index
3 A complete listing of capital needs per building
One of the most powerful types of data that can be derived from the Facility Needs Summary is the Facility Condition Index (FCI). The FCI offers a relative scale on which to compare facilities. It describes the physical condition of a building and its component
systems against a cost model for a similar newly constructed building as they were at the beginning of the service life. The total cost of all deficiencies is divided by the current Replacement Value resulting in the FCI. The FCI percentage ranges can be interpreted into the following recommended actions
Less than 15% Minimal Improvement Needed
15 to 25% Refurbish/Maintain Systems
25 to 45% Replace Systems
45 to 60% Building should be considered for a major renovation
Greater than 60% Building should be considered for replacement
Items are categorized by building group elements and type of deficiency/improvement category. These categories are the following:
Capital Renewal. Projects pertaining to the building’s systems (roofs, building exteriors, elevators, HVAC, electrical, lighting, fire protection systems, equipment or interior finishes) are at the end of their useful life and need to be replaced. Deferred Maintenance Projects pertaining to the building failing systems that are operating beyond their useful life. Functional Deficiency. Projects pertaining to the building systems that do not adequately meet the current need nor the expansion requirements for future building system growth. New Construction. Proposed projects pertaining to the construction of new elements. Educational Adequacy. Projects pertaining to elements designed to improve the adequacy of the built environment for achieving educational program goals.
In addition to the building summaries, a list of potential projects is populated from the Capital Needs List. Recommendations have been assigned a priority index which represents the degree of need. These prioritized needs are then to establish budgetary requirements for the deferred maintenance backlogs, capital renewal, and functional and educational programmatic improvements to establish the proposed Capital Improvement Plan.
Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement provides a listing of capital needs as defined from the Facility Condition Assessment document. The priorities have been established using a logic matrix and anticipated estimated budget cost.
Summary of Findings & Recommendations
As identified by the Capital Improvement Plan, additional funding must be obtained in order for the District to begin the process of component replacements and minor renovation projects such as roofs, boilers, HVAC, windows, lighting, etc. Each District building’s Facility Condition Index presents a ratio percentage that can be considered a “critical” condition category. This FCI ratio is a direct response to aging buildings with building systems well beyond their service life.
Maintenance Recommendation
Percentage increases of 4-5% should be upheld yearly into the annual operating fund as allocated to the building maintenance as the District will need to address ongoing component replacement and minor repairs to systems not slated for immediate replacement or modernization.
Ideally, addressing either short or long-term capital improvements requires the proper allocating of adequate funds for ongoing maintenance and set-asides capital funding for high-dollar system repairs and replacements for appropriate intervals. To accomplish this, no revisions should be made to the current filtering of District funds into the Capital Improvement Fund
Short Term Recommendation
District to review items that comprise the capital improvement plan and first address those affecting life/safety issues, those having the greatest potential for future damage to other building components, those that are code compliance issues, critical mechanical and electrical issues, and educational components.
Long Term Recommendation
If no further capital improvements are achieved, the FCI ratio will only increase over the next five years to ten years. The District will need to address how to meet the financial shortfalls to best address the needs through a combination of repairs, replacement and strategic renovations to address program change and facility condition simultaneously.
When all the variables are analyzed, it is evident that further analysis into either a path of short-term capital improvement projects or long-term modernization of all educational facilities through building replacement or renovations is required. The latter option would require the execution of a more detailed and comprehensive Facilities Master Plan.
Facilities Master Plan
This plan would further brainstorm the future educational delivery of the District with a framework developed to examine items such as pre-kindergarten programming, grade configurations, optimum class size, student enrollments, and other programs and services. Being that all District school buildings are in need of full modernization or reconstruction the Facilities Master Plan will also establish an order of implementation.
Ideally, this plan would incorporate a community engagement component. A process by gathering input from focus groups by pulling together a community advisory team composed of key stakeholders. Community engagement events would occur to share options and feedback for refining the community values, parameters, and preferences as it pertains to the District’s facilities.
Lastly, the Facilities Master Plan should determine the order in which buildings will be replaced or fully modernized will improve the investment strategy of the capital improvement program. For example, if a building needs a new roof, and the building is scheduled for renovation within a few years, the investment in the roof should not be made. However, if the building is scheduled for renovation in the later years, a short-term fix may be in order.
Modifications may be required due to factors such as changes in funding from state or local sources, demographic changes that affect enrollment projects and future education program needs. By assessing current facilities, gaining input from the community and incorporating assistance from professionals, Greater Latrobe Schools facilities will set the standard for education.
Ultimately, the goal of the District is to create school environments that are conducive to efficient and effective learning, teaching and community activities. It is with this in mind that the Greater Latrobe School District embarks on a process to redefine and modernize its educational facilities.
References
1. Bahr, S., and Sparks, D. (2016). Changes in America’s Public School Facilities: From School Year 1998–99 to School Year 2012–13. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics
2. Collaborative for High-Performance Schools. (2016). 2014 US-CHPS Criteria: New Construction and Renovation. Sacramento, CA: Collaborative for High-Performance Schools.
3. Filardo, Mary. (2016) State of Our Schools: America’s K-12 Facilities 2016. Washington, D.C.: 21st Century School Fund.
4. Foothills Architecture + Consulting. (2009) Feasibility Study for the Greater Latrobe School District, prepared by Charles E. Rogers, R.A.
5. HHSDR Architects & Engineers. (1996) Greater Latrobe School District Feasibility Study, prepared by Charles E. Rogers, R.A.
6. National Forum on Education Statistics. (2018). Forum Guide to Facility Information Management: A Resource for State and Local Education Agencies (NFES 2018-156)
U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
7. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Forum on Education Statistics. (2003) Planning Guide for Maintaining School Facilities, NCES 2003-347, prepared by T. Szuba, R. Young, and the School Facilities Maintenance Task Force. Washington, DC.
8. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (2013) Condition of Public School Facilities: 2012–13, FRSS 105, (Table 217.10)
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Indoor Air Quality for Schools Reference Guide Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Schools: An Overview of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency Opportunities. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.
Related Resources
APPA: Leadership in Educational Facilities
The gathering place for those of us engaged in the field of educational facilities management and dedication to the ongoing evolution of its professionals into influential leaders in education. www.appa.org
ASHRAE
ASHRAE, founded in 1894, is a global society advancing human well-being through sustainable technology for the built environment. The Society and its members focus on building systems, energy efficiency, indoor air quality and sustainability within the industry. Through research, standards writing, publishing and continuing education, ASHRAE shapes tomorrow’s built environment today. www.ashrae.org
Association for Learning Environments
The Association for Learning Environments was first established in 1921 as the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction (NCSC) then becoming Council of Education Facility Planners International (CEFPI) in 1971. It took its current name in 2015. The Association for Learning Environments is a professional 501 (c)(3) non-profit association whose sole mission is improving the places where children learn. www.a4le.org
CHPS: Collaborative for High-Performance Schools
The mission of the Collaborative for High-Performance Schools is to nationally foster well-designed, operated, and maintained K-12 educational facilities that enhance student performance; positively impact student, teacher, and staff health and wellness; make education more enjoyable and rewarding; and promote positive environmental stewardship. www.chps.net
National Council on School Facilities
The mission of the National Council on School Facilities is to support states in their varied roles and responsibilities and to advocate for support mechanisms and processes that equitably deliver safe, healthy, and educationally appropriate public school facilities that are sustainable and fiscally sound. www.facilitiescouncil.org
National Center for Education Statistics
The National Center for Education Statistics, the National Forum on Education Statistics, and the Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO) are pleased to provide this Planning Guide to education administrators, facilities staff, community members, and other individuals who are interested in the responsible management of our nation's school facilities www nces ed gov
PA Department of Education School Construction and Facilities (PlanCon)
The Division of School Facilities in the Department of Education reviews proposed school building projects calculates state reimbursement for qualified school construction projects, and reviews and approves the financing for reimbursable projects. www.education.pa.gov
The 21st-Century School Fund
The 21st Century School Fund (21CSF) was founded in 1994 on the premise that communities are responsible for creating healthy, safe, and educationally appropriate learning environments. www.21csf.org
The Center for Green Schools (at the U.S. Green Building Council)
USGBC launched the National Green Schools Campaign committing to a vision of green schools for every child. USGBC founded the Center for Green Schools in 2010. www.centerforgreenschools.org
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Guidance and Tools for Healthy Schools
Healthy school environments can affect the attendance, concentration and performance of both students and educators. The EPA presents information about establishing and enhancing healthy school environments. www.epa.gov/schools
U.S. Green Building Council
The U.S. Green Building Council is committed to a sustainable, prosperous future through LEED, the leading program for green buildings and communities worldwide. Their mission is to transform the way buildings and communities are designed, built and operated, enabling an environmentally and socially responsible, healthy, and prosperous environment that improves the quality of life. www.usgbc.org