Facility Condition Assessment
GREATER LATROBE SCHOOL DISTRICT Completed 2019-2020
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
As part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the Facilities Department implemented a comprehensive Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) that provides a “point-in-time” overview of the District’s portfolio of all educational facilities. The FCA This Assessment is established by the Facilities Department and is reviewed on an annual basis with major corrections or alterations noted.
In collaboration with district administrators, the objective of the FCA for the District is to meet the following goals:
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 to develop into the Capital Improvement Plan
The findings in this report are based on recognized facility condition assessment approaches, methods, and best practices used to evaluate and assess the physical condition of educational facilities. Included in these assessments were educational buildings, site and ground features.
Items and issues identified in the FCA could have the potential to impact current operations and future capabilities of capital improvements. The result of the FCA survey provides a baseline assessment of current deferred maintenance and capital replacement funding needs that should be utilized in planning decisions and consideration of future reinvestments into District facilities.
Facility Assessment Process
Beginning in 2019, the Facilities Department invested hundred of labor hours performing comprehensive assessments of the Districts facilities and athletic fields, totaling nearly 900,000 square-feet over 162-acres.
The FCA process includes a review of building drawings and other facility operational specifications. Interviews were conducted with the maintenance and custodial staff to document non-visible and ongoing building component problems. Site visits were conducted to verify data already gathered as well as to record additional information found during the inspection. Based on visual observations and on-site discussions with staff members provided the assessor with a thorough understanding of the conditions of the building and site components. Therefore allowing the development of a written description of each facility including an overview of the construction, building systems, and general overall conditions.
Publications used as references for the anticipated service life of the building systems include the Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA) “Building Systems Useful Life” and the American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Applications Handbook” as a reference for the service life of systems and equipment. In many instances, actual experience may indicate a longer service life for a particular system, but these are the best available recognized standards for the anticipated service life of capital assets typically found in educational and support facilities.
The results of the field studies within the FCA include a listing of deficiencies with suggested recommendations and benefits of improvement along with an associated budget cost. The budget estimates were developed utilizing industry cost information. These estimations of cost attempt to describe all costs reasonably associated with performing the prescribed benefit work. However, other costs for project financing, downtime of systems, operational inefficiencies are not included. In some cases, these estimates may exceed the replacement value for the respective system as a whole. It is critical to note that the intent is to provide estimated costs as approximations for budgeting purposes. As a result, not all budgets will match future contractor’s or vendor’s proposals.
