Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boundary Petition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sammamish neighborhood petition prompts public comment at Snoqualmie Valley board meeting
Summary
Multiple Sammamish residents told the board their neighborhood is misassigned to Snoqualmie Valley School District, citing long bus rides, duplicated bus routes with Lake Washington School District, and disproportionate tax allocation; residents asked the board to pursue a territory transfer under state law.
Several Sammamish residents urged the Snoqualmie Valley School District board on Oct. 9 to approve a petition seeking transfer of a small neighborhood to Lake Washington School District, describing long daily commutes for students and fiscal and community harms.
Saurabh Shrivastava told the board that children from his neighborhood face “two hours in school bus every single day” when assigned to Snoqualmie Valley, and that many families choose Lake Washington schools through transfer rather than attend their assigned schools. “It's unacceptable that elementary kids commute 2 hours a day for basic education,” he said, asking the board to “fix this decadal misalignment.”
Kelly Dillingham, a certified public accountant and resident, presented a fiscal argument: she estimated the neighborhood contributes about $380,000 annually to the district’s general fund — roughly 0.3% of the district’s reported $137,000,000 revenue — and said residents might withhold future bond or levy support if their petition is denied.
Other commenters described repeated denials of choice transfers, logistical burdens of annual reapplication, and legal avenues for boundary change. One speaker referenced “Chapter 28A.315 of the Revised Code of Washington” as authority for boundary adjustments; a petitioner also told the board that many neighborhood homes' students now attend Lake Washington schools, yet property taxes still flow to Snoqualmie Valley.
Board members did not respond during the public comment period, consistent with meeting rules; they reiterated that public comment is the time to speak rather than receive immediate answers. The board has not taken a formal action during this meeting on the petition but public comment makes the boundary issue part of the public record and signals community pressure for further consideration.
Next steps: petitioners asked the district to initiate or support a territory transfer; the board will consider the public input and legal/financial implications in subsequent work and meetings.
