January 7 - Meeting Information

2021 Boundary Review Committee Meeting - 6:00-8:00 p.m., Thursday, January 7, 2021

YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/INK34mXEZHM 


  • Welcome/Attendance
  • Review and approve minutes from last meeting
  • Questions from committee on (a) community correspondence and (b) springboard from last meeting
  • Changes made to Springboard from prior meeting on the 17th of December.
  • Break out groups:
    • What additional questions/concerns are still on the table for Elementary Boundaries?
    • Report out from groups and answer any clarifying questions
  • Motions?
  • Looking ahead or if time allows: Middle School Boundaries
  • Wrap up (next agenda and any additional homework)
  • Adjourn

Meeting Mini Summary

2021 Boundary Review Committee - January 7, 2021

Official Action

The committee passed a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the 12/17 committee meeting. The committee also passed a motion to the updated springboard by a vote of 98%.


For the third meeting, committee members were asked to approve the prior meeting’s minutes. There was discussion regarding community correspondence that had been received, as well as updates to the proposed springboard. Updates made included: 1. keeping Piece #38 (Black Nugget) at PCMS, 2. Elementary splits at (a) IVE, (b) Sunny Hills and a (c) proposed Discovery boundary change to Endeavour that would feed into Beaver Lake MS, 3. combining the Lakemont community schools (Sunset and Cougar Ridge) feed into IMS, and 4. technical corrections of pieces being moved into their appropriate geographical area. Committee members had a chance to break out into sessions to further discuss their thoughts on the updated springboard, and came back together to report out. An initial motion was made to approve the first, second part (a) and (b) (while striking part c) and the fourth points of the updated springboard. A second motion was made, then seconded, to approve the first and fourth points of the updated springboard. This motion passed, while action was given to the Technical Team to refine information prior to the next meeting.

Up Next

Committee members will return for the next meeting on January 21. During this time in between meetings, the Technical Team will continue to refine a few smaller neighborhoods as well as looking into different boundary configurations for Clark. The next meeting will spend time walking through any additional updates to the amended springboard.

Official Meeting Minutes

2021 Boundary Review Committee - December 17, 2020


  • Boundary Review Committee (BRC) members were welcomed by Dr. Josh Almy and CFO Jake Kuper
  • 40 voting BRC members were present, out of 40 total members, meeting quorum requirements
    • Quorum established at 12/3 meeting - 75% of all committee members
    • Quorum reached for 1/7 meeting - 100%

Agenda Review

  • Walkthrough of agenda with BRC members

Review and Approve Minutes from 12/17 Meeting

  • BRC members were given a chance to review minutes from previous meeting
    • Comment made re: BRC is a meeting of the public, should this be changed to meeting before the public? Per Mr. Kuper, semantics the same.
  • Motion was made by Marta Burnett, then seconded to approve minutes as presented
    • Results: 37 BRC voting members approved – MOTION CARRIED
    • Minutes will now be designated as official

Q&A from BRC Members re: Community Correspondence and Updated Springboard

  • Based on community input, springboard has been updated to address concerns. Mr. Kuper walked BRC members through changes
    • Black Nugget Piece #38 reviewed and will continue to stay at PCMS
      1. Needed for transportation efficiency
      2. Closer to feeder school
    • Elementary Splits:
      1. IVE 70%/30% split – 70% IMS & 30% MS #6 – allows for future growth in corridor
      2. Sunny Hills 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% PCMS – remains split
      3. Discovery proposed 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% BLMS
        1. Solution: change portion of Discovery boundary (49A and 50) to Endeavour
        2. New Endeavour boundary feeds to BLMS with no split
  • Lakemont Community wishes to keep Sunset and Cougar Ridge together and feed into IMS. Tradeoffs occur, including IVE 100% feeding into MS #6 which allows not much room for growth. Potential to split Clark. Concern of potential growth planned to occur on valley floor per City of Issaquah.
  • Technical corrections
    1. Piece 65 moves from ES #17 to ES #16
    2. Piece 47 and Piece 66A adjusted to PLMS boundary line
  • BRC members then asked questions and provided feedback to committee from input received from their respective communities
  • Christy Otley (Clark Principal)
    • Piece #38 (Black Nugget) – slated to go to ES #16, would it then move to ES #17 when that opens?

Answer: No. This piece will stay with ES #16, will not be moved twice.

  • Lisa Reeder (Discovery)
    • Can email correspondence be distributed earlier to BRC members?

Answer: Yes. Due to high volume of email input (over 300+) we are trying to balance sending all community input out for BRC members to review in a timely fashion. Administrative Team can work on earlier cutoff date.

  • LeAnn Tuupo (Sunset Principal)
    • Are there potential growth numbers assigned to middle schools?

Answer: Projected growth by building is difficult to predict until boundaries have been established, and effects of pandemic are throwing off modeling predictions used in the past. City of Issaquah has large housing projects forecasted out for the next ten years. South end of District could see more growth, dependent on Urban Growth Boundary Line (UGBL) movement

Changes made to December 17 Springboard

  • Piece #38 (Black Nugget) – keeping this piece homed to PCMS (as opposed to moving to IMS) to increase efficiency of transportation as well as keeping close to feeder school
  • Elementary Splits – note than when splits do occur, this is to help balance out middle school populations
    1. IVE being split 70% to IMS and 30% to MS #6 will allow for future growth in the corridor, and prevent IMS from overcrowding
    2. Sunny Hills being split 80% to PLMS and 20% to PCMS will remain split
    3. Discovery is proposed to be 80% split to PLMS and 20% split to BLMS
      1. Part of this portion inside Discovery could be moved to Endeavour (49A and 50)
      2. If this were to occur, Endeavour would feed into BLMS with no split
  • During last boundary change (10+ years ago), these pieces were moved from Endeavour and BLMS to current boundaries. Community was not pleased with the move at that time.
  • Community has expressed no interest now in making these boundary changes and would like to remain at Discovery and Pine Lake.
  • Kathy Keegan (Discovery Principal)
  • During earlier BRC meeting, it was discussed that Discovery boundary stays the same. Why are we looking to change now?

Answer: This was just a proposal to move this piece to Endeavour to have these students together earlier as cohort if they were then heading to BLMS. This proposal was not voted on, and therefore can be struck if needed.

  • Lakemont community asking for Sunset and Cougar Ridge to feed into IMS.
    • If IMS were to obtain both schools populations, Clark would have to be split. However, this could eliminate split at IVE.
  • Technical Corrections
    • Piece 65 was part of ES #17 and will be moved to ES #16 – just one student in this block
    • Pieces 47 & 66A were adjusted to PLMS boundary line
  • Kelly Butterworth (Sunset)
    • If Lakemont community comes together at IMS, and Clark is then split, could it be split via communities that are closer to PCMS vs communities closer to IMS? (split via I-90) Since Piece 38 has ~ 79 students going to PCMS? Could all if Sunset, Clark and Cougar Ridge go to IMS? Community needs to understand the future growth plans from the cities.

Answer: If IMS contains SS, CL and CR, this would leave no room for future valley growth into IMS. Mr. Kuper will send out the Urban Growth Plan (UGP) to BRC members for review. These plans show development and re-development of areas in Issaquah.

  • Roselyn Osuagwu (Challenger)
    • Once boundaries are established, can we keep kids at current school one year to finish out their time in building? Grandfather them in?

Answer: Historically, allowing students to remain in current building after boundaries are changed has not worked. This process as seen in the past takes numerous years for the cleanup of the boundaries to actually show population shift in buildings. One exception is when a new high school opens, seniors are allowed to finish out their year at their current building.

Group Breakout and Discussion

  • Groups were sent into breakout rooms to review and discuss new springboard proposals and bring back any issues

Group Report Out

  • Group 1 – Jo Ellen Tapper spokesperson
    • Not much support of moving neighborhoods to Endeavour
    • Concerns about equity and building size. Is this committee’s top priority right sizing buildings? Communities may have hurt feelings, comparing newer and older schools, pitting neighborhoods against each other – how can we welcome in new families?

Answer: Time will be spent to help new school community come together after boundary change – addressed with new communities, PTSAs, outreach, etc

  • Communication out to community is key for reasons why we are changing boundaries
  • More natural to split Clark than IVE
  • Transportation costs – are we spending more time bussing students to schools out of neighborhoods
  • Small communities going to Sunny Hills vs ES #16 which is geographically closer – Rainbow Lake Ranch and Highland Creek

Answer: Technical Team to look into these neighborhoods.

  • Group 2 – Lisa Reeder spokesperson
    • OK with #1 and #4 proposals
    • Piece #54 remained with Discovery, so why can’t the other neighborhoods remain as well? Even though it’s been stated that change is harder on parents, many students came together to sign petition to not change their boundaries
    • Endeavour is not a close walking school to these communities.
    • Lakemont support from IVE rep is mixed – while excited about IVE staying together, will there be transportation issues sending more buses up and down Lakemont?
    • Clark being split to support this is new direction. What will this community think? In order to support the Lakemont combination, another school has to be split.
    • IVE & Newcastle will go to MS #6 but will split at HS again – with NC going to Liberty and IVE going to Issaquah HS.
  • Group 3 – Erin McKee spokesperson
    • OK with #1 and #4 proposals
    • Discovery piece (2C) – concerned about transportation efficiency and student experience – will they spend more time commuting than needed?
    • Lakemont – some IVE students live very close to IMS yet we will send them to MS #6?
    • Newcastle and IVE communities don’t share any physical boundaries
  • Group 4 – Tim Baynes spokesperson
    • OK with #1 and #4 proposals
    • Sunny Hills communities OK with split
    • Discovery – Keeping Piece 54 along with Piece 49 & 50 here leads to a large population
    • Lakemont – Clark community may not have had ample time to weigh in on this split proposal if Sunset, Cougar Ridge and IVE stay together
  • Group 5 – Carrie Reckling spokesperson
    • OK with #1, #2A, #2C and #4 proposals
    • 2B – Rainbow Ranch – look into moving to ES #16 away from Sunny Hills

Answer: Transportation will look into this piece, was moved to SH due to PLMS feeder patterns

  • Lakemont – IMS will become a much bigger school, how do we balance numbers
  • Concerned about impact on Clark and IMS communities


  • Kuper recapped what was said by the groups, as well as emerging themes of the conversation. He noted potential of some further homework on part of Technical Team.
  • Almy noted the committee should not bring a motion forward if further discussion needed, and additional meetings can be scheduled in future.
  • Lisa Reeder asked question if motion could be brought forward to approve #1 and #4, and to strike out #2C in updates to springboard proposal.
  • Tera Coyle asked if there was another neighborhood that could be taken into Endeavour
  • Motion was made by Andrew Guss to bring forward and approve #1, #2A & #2B, #4 and strike #2C in updates to springboard proposal.
    • Black Nugget Piece #38 reviewed and will continue to stay at PCMS
    • Elementary Splits:
      1. IVE 70%/30% split – 70% IMS & 30% MS #6 – allows for future growth in corridor
      2. Sunny Hills 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% PCMS – remains split
      3. Discovery proposed 80%/20% split – 80% PLMS & 20% BLMS
        • Solution: change portion of Discovery boundary (49A and 50) to Endeavour
        • New Endeavour boundary feeds to BLMS with no split
  • Technical corrections
    1. Piece 65 moves from ES #17 to ES #16
    2. Piece 47 and Piece 66A adjusted to PLMS boundary line
  • Motion was made by Dana Rundle to bring forward and approve #1 and #4 in updates to springboard proposal.
    • Black Nugget Piece #38 reviewed and will continue to stay at PCMS
    • Technical corrections
      1. Piece 65 moves from ES #17 to ES #16
      2. Piece 47 and Piece 66A adjusted to PLMS boundary line
    • This motion was seconded.
    • Vote was taken on motion
    • Results: of 40 present members: 39 YES, 1 abstained
      • 98% - meets passage requirement of 75% - MOTION CARRIED

Overview of Next Meeting and Closure

  • Technical Team will look into pieces of Highland Creek and Rainbow Lake Ranch moving to ES #16 as well as a potential Clark split.
  • Free and Reduced Lunch Rates were pulled up to inform all of any misperceptions that could occur by combining certain schools together.
  • Focus will be on continuing to refine final pieces of elementary boundary details as well as starting middle school boundary detail discussions
  • Reach out to Dr. Almy or Mr. Kuper with any questions in the interim
  • Next meeting – January 21 @ 6PM