Wasatch board narrows high‑school boundary choices; staff to post tweaked “D/H” map for public hearing

The Wasatch County School Board moved on Thursday to narrow a set of proposed high‑school boundary scenarios and asked staff to prepare a refined “D/H” map for public notice and parent comment ahead of a scheduled hearing. Directors spent the study session weighing neighborhood integrity, projected enrollment and whether families would use school choice if their home boundary assigned them elsewhere.

Board members and staff examined two maps that had drawn the most attention: scenario D, which follows Highway 40 as a clear dividing line and preserves the current JR Smith split, and scenario H, which shifts the boundary around Coyote Parkway neighborhoods to keep some communities intact. Eric Campbell, the district analyst who presented the maps, described G as following planning maps near SR‑32/Highway 32 and said H would “move that boundary down” around Coyote Parkway to reduce neighborhood splits.

The discussion centered on tradeoffs: some directors favored D because it produced a more balanced enrollment projection over the next five years, while others preferred H because it minimized splitting neighborhoods. Several members raised concerns that an initial imbalance in free‑and‑reduced‑lunch percentages could be amplified if many families exercised school choice. One director summarized the board’s guiding principle: “We want kids to be connected” and emphasized program access and student safety when considering which feeder patterns to preserve.

After an informal ranking exercise, directors narrowed the field to the D/H category (a D map, H map, and minor tweak variants). Staff was directed to develop a precise D/H hybrid, check legal notice requirements, prepare maps and an explanatory video, and mail notices to affected secondary students’ households before the public hearing. Staff noted the district’s established practice is to post the proposed boundary option for comment and that parents must be allowed time to respond prior to the hearing.

The board did not take a final vote on a boundary at the study session; members emphasized the next step would be to publish the refined map, gather public comment at the hearing and then consider adjustments. The session ended with a unanimous voice vote to adjourn.