Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Haslett board hears facilities assessment, bond-planning timeline from King Scott Architects
Summary
King Scott Architects presented a facilities study timeline tied to the district strategic plan, saying condition assessments and a vision alignment will guide concept development and a steering committee before an election decision in spring 2027 and a potential bond vote in November 2027.
Haslett Public Schools trustees on June 22 heard a presentation from King Scott Architects laying out a multi-stage facilities study and a bond‑planning timeline that could culminate in a November 2027 vote.
Laura Cassi of King Scott said the firm will pair a condition assessment of building systems with a vision‑alignment process that ties upgrades to the district strategic plan. "Ultimately our goal is to uh focus on that pillar five of the strategic plan which is the operational excellence specifically the infrastructure alignment component as we explore um what is really needed to um support sort of the learning of tomorrow in Haslett Public Schools," Cassi said.
Cassi described a 30/60 launch plan: the first 30 days for internal listening with staff and facilities leadership, and the 60‑day period for external outreach to PTOs and other community stakeholders. King Scott will assemble condition reports (roofs, windows, mechanical systems), build guiding design principles, and then move into concepting and steering‑committee work in the fall. Cassi said the board would reach a decision in March–April on whether to pursue an election and, if so, proceed through bond mechanics and outreach toward a November 2027 vote.
Sammy Shashelski, also on the King Scott team, said the firm has conducted multiple walkthroughs across district buildings since school let out and is documenting items that may require capital funding. "We have over the past two weeks have had teams out at all of the buildings, um, across the district," Shashelski said, describing participation from architectural, civil, mechanical and electrical specialists.
Board members asked whether the architects incorporate maintenance‑request histories and operational costs into their assessments; Cassi and Shashelski said facility staff input and operational cost data are part of the problem‑seeking phase and emphasized multiple engagement modalities (surveys, varied meeting times) to reach families, students and staff. The architects said students often are invited to serve on design advisory teams to provide user perspective.
The presentation set the scope and a rough schedule for next steps rather than programmatic decisions. The board did not take action on the facilities program at the meeting; King Scott will return with assessments and steering‑committee recommendations later in the process.
