.

New Ballot Measures for West County Schools OKed

Backed by fresh survey results showing support for property tax ballot measures for West Contra Costa schools, the school board voted unanimously Monday night in favor of both parcel tax and bond measures on the November ballot.

It looks like West Contra Costa County voters will soon have another chance to vote on ballot measures for local schools.

Buoyed by new surveys showing support for revenue measures for West Contra Costa schools, the school board Monday night endorsed two ballot measures for the November ballot – one for extending the current parcel tax for academic programs and the other for a construction bond to rebuild or upgrade aging schools.

The vote came after 14 speakers, including members of the newly formed grassroots group called Support West County Students, appealed for board support of new revenue measures. Most favored a parcel tax, and a couple urged the board to delay a ballot measure until March when there will be fewer competing state and local tax measures on the ballot. 

The ambitious unanimous action by the board of the West Contra Contra Costa Unified School District at DeJean Middle School in Richmond came after the five-member panel received surprising news of solid public support for the measures.

Telephone surveys earlier this month showed enough support for either a new parcel tax measure or a bond measure to pass, while support for both measures together – while not as strong – indicated a potential for passage depending on the amount of the parcel tax.

The results – following the narrow defeat of the Measure K parcel tax for West County schools in the June election – surprised and delighted school board members and community supporters of a new tax. Even the head of the survey firm said the findings were beyond what he expected.

"What this is saying," said Bryan Godbe, president of Godbe Research, "is that without a lot of information, you can win both of these – together." He paused to let the news sink in, and added, "I was a little surprised myself."

The surveys by Godbe's firm showed 74 percent of voters who were not given a lot of information about the measure would be likely to approve an extension of the current parcel tax, which is 7.2 cents per square foot, and that a nearly equal percentage, 73.3 percent, would be likely to vote for an increase of 3 cents a square foot, as had been proposed by Measure K. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percent, Godbe said.

A parcel tax needs two-thirds approval to win. Measure K received a 65.52-percent yes vote.

For a bond measure, the survey showed 64.2 percent of voters who received a short description of the proposal would support it. A bond measure, which also would be added to property tax bills as a percent of assessed valuation, needs 55 percent of the vote to pass.

The board opted not to try for an increase in the parcel tax, as sought under Measure K, but to ask for a five-year extension of the current tax, which expires June 30, 2014. The bond measure would call for a $360-million, 10-year bond program that add $48 per $100,000 of assessed valuation on property tax bills.

Godbe indicated that combining an increased parcel tax with the bond measure may not be advisable given the lower support for that combination than for an extension of the current parcel tax along with the bond measure.

Extending the current parcel tax, board members noted, would not allow the district to restore the when the board adopted this year's budget on June 27, following the defeat of Measure K. But, as Board President Charles Ramsey noted, extending the current parcel tax gives the district more time to win voter support for an increase later, especially if the state tax measures fail in November and trigger a $12-million cut in district funding.

Legally, the vote Monday night did not place the measures on the ballot. It instructed district staff to prepare the measures for board adoption at an Aug. 1 meeting. The deadline for submitting ballot measures is Aug. 10. Ramsey said after the meeting that the vote represented the board's decision on whether to go forward with the measures.

Board member Tony Thurmond called going for both measures in November "a very risky proposition," adding that the poll results were "pleasantly surprising and encouraging."

When the board agreed at a special July 2 meeting to do a survey, it decided to hire Godbe Research to ask only about a parcel tax boost, and explicitly ruled out a bond measure. But a community political action committee, For the Children of West County, commissioned Godbe to poll opinion also on the bond measure and on extending the current amount of the parcel tax for schools. The results of both commissions were combined into a single report presented to the board Monday night.

Board member Antonio Medrano said he had favored going for only a parcel tax at the July 2 meeting, but that he changed his mind after talking to constituents in Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo and seeing that "people's eyes just woke up" when they realized a bond measure could be used to fix or replace elementary schools that are badly in need of upgrades like Grant, Olinda and Lake.

Ramsey also noted the public support shown in the surveys for fixing run-down schools, noting "the fact that we have several of our schools in Richmond, Grant, in San Pablo, Lake, and other schools that haven't gotten any of their fair share. And the results tell us that the public wants to support those schools to be able to move forward."

He acknowledged that a "substantial campaign" will be needed to win passage.

Medrano said he's confident, based on the poll surveys, that both measures can be passed – with a lot of work.

"Looking at the evidence that came up tonight about the real possibility of not only passing a parcel tax with no increase and a bond measure, I'm convinced that we can do both," he said.

"We'll work ourselves to death," Medrano continued. "We'll go out to the communities and reach out from one end of the community to the other and say, 'This is what we're doing. In the county we have Crespi, in San Pablo we have Lake, in Pinole we have Collins and Shannon, and in Richmond we have Grant and Olinda. All areas need serious support and serious rebuilding of those schools.'"

Ben Steinberg, parent of a second grader at Mira Vista Elementary School and acting leader of Support West County Students, said the 16-day-old group invites all who would like to attend to a parcel tax strategy meeting Wednesday night at a place yet to be announced. Contact information for the group, included in a Letter to Editor they wrote to Patch, is phone (510) 255-1834 and e-mail wccusdparceltax@gmail.com.

"Passing a parcel tax, whenever it goes on the ballot, will not be easy," Steinberg said. "It will require relationships, coordination, resources and allies."

In the surveys, Godbe Research interviewed 601 voters for a renewal of the current parcel tax and the bond measure and 602 voters for a measure that would renew and increase the parcel tax by three cents.

A 21-page report summarizing the survey results was handed out at the school board meeting and is attached to this article.

Betty Buginas July 24, 2012 at 10:41 PM
Ira, the parcel tax is expected to do better in November than it did in June largely because of the group of voters expected to turn out for the presidential race.
Charles Cowens July 25, 2012 at 01:50 AM
The presentation from last night for both polls and the survey and the cross tabs document for the district-sponsored survey are up on the district web site now. http://www.wccusd.net/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&ModuleInstanceID=2193&ViewID=047E6BE3-6D87-4130-8424-D8E4E9ED6C2A&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=2053&PageID=1 Because the poll for what the Board actually voted to move forward on was a "private" poll commissioned by For the Children of West County otherwise known as Charles Ramsey, the survey and cross-tabs for it are not subject to the Open Records Act even though it was the basis for the Board decision.
Ira Sharenow July 25, 2012 at 03:42 AM
Charles, thank you very much for posting the links. I believe that Charles Ramsey is a board member, so I would think that he has to release anything he has unless the California open records law is even weaker than I thought. But I assume that nothing prevents Mr. Ramsey from just posting the raw data on the district’s web site or on his advocacy group’s web site. He doesn’t have to but then those who are concerned about transparency may just decide to vote NO. http://www.protectwestcountyschools.com/the-value-of-measure-k/ I took a quick look at the presentation. I noticed that 340 of the 602 (56%) responders were female. I also noticed that394 of the 467 responders who stated party preference said Dem (84%). So I wonder if the data was properly re-weighted post survey to account for some basic stratification issues. It does not appear as though people were asked their community or zip code or how they voted on Measure K. So how representative of the real voting population is this survey? How were people picked? How much non-response was there? How were the questions asked? I did not look closely at the material, so possibly I am missing something. Who paid for the survey?
Ira Sharenow July 25, 2012 at 06:19 AM
Betty, I take the opposite position of you as to the impact of the Presidential election versus a small election. In the small election people who are motivated to support the tax have an increased likelihood of voting. Moreover, wealthy people such as El Cerrito and Kensington residents who send their kids to private schools or to Albany schools are also more likely to vote in a low turnout election. Also more young people are likely to vote in November. Additionally, there was no organized opposition (as far as I can tell) in the low turnout election while in November with so many tax measures on the ballot, some people will simply vote NO on every tax. Charles, you did great. I expected the surveyors to ask the respondents where they lived. I also expected them to ask them how they voted on past tax measures. Were they really not asked those basic questions? If I were really studying the race, I would want to know the expected increase in votes in each precinct. Using that information and then just assuming each district’s proportions stayed constant, how would the measures do? It seems that the purpose of the survey is to get the volunteer base motivated. I hope that school board members will write regular columns in Patch or submit to regular interviews so that the public can understand why the new money might be better spent than past funds. How much are we currently paying in parcel taxes and in bond related taxes? Are there any hidden taxes?
Marguerite Meade July 25, 2012 at 06:22 AM
For what purpose(s) is the bond/parcel tax money going to be used, specifically??
Charles Cowens July 25, 2012 at 06:27 AM
The District paid for the public parcel-tax-only survey. For the Children of West County paid for the private parcel-tax-renewal-plus-survey. I think there are a lot of questions to ask about the survey (like the geographical distribution) before rushing into anything, but our school board seems perfectly happy to go forward. July 2d, just an anomaly. And, you should also thank Dr. Harter and his staff for getting the documents up so quickly.
Milton H July 25, 2012 at 01:52 PM
I read in the West County times that Mr.Godbe got $30,000 for this silly and useless survey. Although the money probably was given by the construction companies, this is just another example of the wasting money habits of Ramsey/Kronenberg. Sorry but I'm again voting NO (especially on the building bond) until both of those members leave.
Michael O'Connor July 25, 2012 at 02:09 PM
It hasn't been written yet.
Betty Buginas July 25, 2012 at 02:10 PM
Ira, I was not taking a position, just sharing the explanation given at the board meeting that relates to your question: "Where is the increased support coming from?"
Betty Buginas July 25, 2012 at 02:44 PM
Bonds are for buildings, parcel taxes for programs. District schools were in pretty awful shape several years ago – heaters would break and whole classes of student would be bundled up in jackets, ceiling tiles fell on kids, it was difficult to make much use of technology without some questionable wiring practices, and most importantly they would likely not have kept our children safe in a major earthquake. The district set out to bring all our schools up to standard, so most public school students in our community are now fortunate to be in safe buildings. A few schools are still in awful shape and this bond will make sure those students get buildings that are as safe and modern as the rest, as well as provide improved technology throughout the district. (There’s a lot of catching up to do in terms of the technology available in our schools vs. the private sector.) The parcel tax being put on the November ballot is only to continue what we are paying now and with the huge cuts to school budgets due to the statewide budget mess all it really is going to do is stave off another layer of cuts that do things like raise class sizes and eliminate programs like music, libraries, and sports. The agenda from an earlier board meeting posted on Patch gives more information. See C1: http://elcerrito.patch.com/articles/school-board-takes-step-toward-november-parcel-tax-election#pdf-10518931
Ira Sharenow July 25, 2012 at 06:26 PM
Dear Mr. Harter and Mr. Ramsey. Thank you very much for posting the survey relating to support for potential revenue generating measures. Can you please send me the raw data in a form that can be read in by statistical software such as R? Files with extensions such as CSV, XLS, XLSX, and DBF are all acceptable. I also need to know the meaning of each column and the sampling protocol. How were respondents chosen? Does the information that is on the district’s site represent the complete survey? It seems as though some of the most basic questions were not asked. In which community do you live in? In the last election how did you vote on that parcel tax measure? Race/ethnicity: white, black, Asian, Hispanic? Income level? I saw this on the school site: Note: The data have been weighted to reflect the actual population characteristics of likely voters in the West Contra Costa Unified School District in terms of their gender, age, and political party type. Also were questions just asked in English or were other languages used as well? Who paid for the surveys and how much did they pay? I trust that the margin of error just refers to totals and not subgroups. What were the actual questions that were asked? I am amazed that the increase in tax does not appear to lose voter support.
Ira Sharenow July 25, 2012 at 06:27 PM
Godbe Research is an experienced firm. I am surprised that so many basic questions were not asked. By the way, in the past how accurate have their surveys been? http://www.godberesearch.com/level2/schools/schools_clients.html I have some additional questions. As of now, how many WCCUSD area students are using inter-district transfer to transfer out and where are they going? How many are going to private schools? How many are using fake addresses to go to an out of district school? By grade what percentage of students who live in El Cerrito are going to school in El Cerrito or Kensington? By grade what percentage of students who live in Kensington are going to school in El Cerrito or Kensington? By grade (or at least by school), what percentage of students who attend schools located in El Cerrito or Kensington actually live in El Cerrito or Kensington? In particular what percentage of El Cerrito HS students lives in El Cerrito or Kensington?
Ira Sharenow July 25, 2012 at 06:28 PM
I am also very much interested in knowing what percentage of students who live in El Cerrito or Kensington and are of high school age actually goes to El Cerrito HS. Why is the Albany HS API score 852 while the El Cerrito HS API score is only 658? The schools are just blocks apart. Finally, I noticed that in the last 10 years (2002-2012) WCCUSD has lost over 5,000 students. Has the district closed schools and reduced the number of administrators in response? Please provide details. Why has WCCUSD lost so many students when neighboring districts have not? AUSD has substantially increased its enrollment in that timeframe. Thanks. Ira Sharenow
Valerie Snider July 25, 2012 at 07:41 PM
Betty, you didn't mention that the schools that will be rebuilt with the new bond money (should it pass) are schools that the district previously decided to close. The decision to close some district schools was based on "declining enrollment and structural budget deficits." The process to determine which schools should close involved substantial community support and engagement. The Board passed a resolution on Feb. 11, 2009 to close several schools under a three-year plan. Five schools have already closed. The schools that the proposed bond money would rebuild are on temporary life support from the cities of Richmond and San Pablo. The budget situation is even worse now than it was in 2009 and enrollment (as far as I know) hasn't suddenly increased. The district's written policy promotes fewer, larger schools (for economies of scale). At the meeting no explanation was offered by the board as to where the revenue to operate these schools will come from when the support from the cities is gone.
Valerie Snider July 25, 2012 at 07:53 PM
Ira, the district knows how many students "legally" transfer to other public schools (because there is paper work involved). But they don't know how many use address fraud, or how many attend private school. And they have never attempted to find out. They spend lots of money for consultants - but they've never considered it important to find out how many leave the district and why.
Ira Sharenow July 25, 2012 at 09:24 PM
Valerie, thanks. Last August 19 Debbie Haynie from the superintendent’s office sent me a document that said 1,225 students transferred out, including 269 to Albany and 281 to Berkeley. There were 87 transfers out from ECHS, 19 from Kensington, 40 from Fairmont, 13 from Madera, 52 from Portola. De Anza had the most at 131. Pinole Valey HS was second at 90 students leaving. Then Kennedy at 89. There are significant financial and academic implications for El Cerrito and surrounding communities. Perhaps some day some realtors will comment on the impact on the purchase price of single family houses and the rent that landlords can demand. I think the transfer issue (legal and otherwise) is so important it may be far too hot for the media to cover.
Ira Sharenow July 25, 2012 at 09:29 PM
How does the district determine dropout rates? Say a student attended a school in El Cerrito and then used a fake address to attend school in Albany. How does WCCUSD track and then classify such a student?
Marguerite Meade July 26, 2012 at 02:29 PM
Can someone state to what "programs" the parcel tax money will go? If the question cannot be answered, why would anyone vote for it?
Ira Sharenow July 26, 2012 at 07:14 PM
I took a closer look at the survey. It appears as though the surveyor was required to obtain the precinct, so I do not know why the district did not at least report community by community results. http://www.wccusd.net/cms/lib03/CA01001466/Centricity/domain/1/parcel%20tax%20survey/West%20Contra%20Costa%20USD%20Parcel%20Tax%20Tracking%20Survey%20-%20Final.pdf I would have liked to have seen support based on community/Measure K vote/Dem or Republican. The data actually provided to us seems rather meaningless. Support could actually be down across the board and they could come back with apparently favorable results. Does anyone know why they did not stratify by community or precinct? From the small amount of information provided, the entire survey design seems very iffy.
Giorgio C. August 02, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Last night, I watched in horror as the board recognized the construction management company, Seville Group: Verbiage from agenda "D.1 Recognition of Seville Group for 10 Years of Service Comment: Over the last ten years, the Seville Group (SGI) has provided service to the District as Program Manager for the bond program. The District deeply appreciates the expertise and commitment that SGI has brought to the effort." Now view this document about one citizen's plea for campaign contribution limits http://www.districtguide.org/CampaignReport10.6.10.pdf The Seville Group donated $330,000.00 to the campaigns of board members. The Seville Group landed $46 million in contracts. And we are thanking them? Now read the following statement from a district Financial audit found here www.wccusd.net/cms/.../FINAL_WCCUSD_Report__121611.docx "The District also places an over-reliance on construction management firms to perform the budgeting and cash flow functions of the projects." The WCCUSD has two weeks remaining (out of 90 days) to submit a response to the Grand Jury on their report on school construction bond oversight. Here is the report. http://www.cc-courts.org/_data/n_0038/resources/live/rpt12081.pdf Was it too much to ask for our board members to respond to this report BEFORE voting on a bond measure? Candidate Studdiford is on the CBOC. Why didn't he ask for an update on this response last night?
Milton H August 02, 2012 at 02:14 PM
I was also sickened by the board's behavior last night. At the start, you had Kronenberg telling the seville group that we hope you get a 20 year pin. Then you had Ramsey rudely yelling at someone "Hey, I'm running this meeting". Followed by not giving an answer to a speaker's question of how much interest we will all have to pay on this new bond. To close it out, they started celebrating early on both bonds passing. Laugh now Medrano, Ramsey, and Kronenberg because when both fail on November 6th, it will be the 3 of you who will look like fools by putting a bond and parcel tax on an already tax heavy ballot.
Michael O'Connor August 02, 2012 at 02:37 PM
The Seville Group was hired to represent the District as a qualified construction management firm. They oversee all contruction projects, in the District's name, as required by the State. They are not employed in any way by construction firms. The only responsibility of the CBOC is to review semiannual audits of the construction bond expenditures. The CBOC imprimatur only signifies that, to the best of the CBOC's collective knowledge, all funds were spent legally. Nothing more is required or expected of that group.
Ira Sharenow August 06, 2012 at 07:56 PM
We need some investigative reporting. Does anyone have any contacts at California Watch? http://californiawatch.org/topic/K%E2%80%9312 Also does anyone have a copy of the entire ballot language?
Giorgio C. August 10, 2012 at 01:47 PM
Forty four WCCUSD schools are in violation of Ed Code for failing to provide the number of credentialed teachers employed at their respective sites in the 2010-2011 school year. The 7 Principals who complied are: Coronado: 19 credentialed teachers, 1 non-credentialed teacher. Hannah Ranch: 21 credentialed teachers, 0 non-credentialed teachers. Madera: 21 credentialed teachers, 0 non-credentialed teachers Mira Vista: 21 credentialed teachers, 0 non-credentialed teachers Tara Hills: 28 credentialed teachers, 0 non-credentialed teachers Middle College High: 11 credentialed teachers, 0 non-credentialed teachers Richmond High: 75 credentialed teachers, 0 non-credentialed teachers. Portola: Reported 20 credentialed teachers, but chose to not report the number of non-credentialed teachers. This is the only school that provided 1/2 of the information. Where were the 100 plus non-credentialed teachers employed? We have 1 accounted for. They might be great teachers, but I don't know if the district does not provide this information. If I am paying for their salaries via a Parcel Tax, don't I have a right to know what I am getting for my money? According to the Ed Code, I do.
Ira Sharenow August 22, 2012 at 05:04 PM
Debbie Haynie, Executive Secretary to the Superintendent, was kind enough to respond to my questions. Below are the questions and answers. hank you very much for posting the surveys relating to support for potential revenue generating measures. Can you please send me the raw data in a form that can be read in by statistical software such as R? Files with extensions such as CSV, XLS, XLSX, and DBF are all acceptable. THE DISTRICT HAS ONLY THE RESULTS AS POSTED. I also need to know the meaning of each column and the sampling protocol. How were respondents chosen? THE DISTRICT ONLY HAS THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. Does the information that is on the district’s site represent the complete survey? It seems as though some of the most basic questions were not asked. YES, THE DISTRICT ONLY HAS THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. In which community do you live in? In the last election how did you vote on that parcel tax measure? Race/ethnicity: white, black, Asian, Hispanic? Income level? THE DISTRICT ONLY HAS THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. I saw this on the school site: Note: The data have been weighted to reflect the actual population characteristics of likely voters in the West Contra Costa Unified School District in terms of their gender, age, and political party type. THE COUNTY OFFICE OF ELECTIONS HAS THIS INFORMATION.
Ira Sharenow August 22, 2012 at 05:05 PM
Also were questions just asked in English or were other languages used as well? THE SURVEY WAS AVAILABLE IN SPANISH AS WELL AS ENGLISH Who paid for the surveys and how much did they pay? THE DISTRICT PAID FOR THE PARCEL TAX SURVEY AT A COST $27,000. THE OTHER SURVEY WAS PAID FOR WITH PRIVATE FUNDS. I trust that the margin of error just refers to totals and not subgroups. THE MARGIN OF ERROR IS FOR THE SAMPLE AS A WHOLE. What were the actual questions that were asked? I am amazed that the increase in tax does not appear to lose voter support. THE SURVEY QUESTIONS ARE POSTED ON THE DISTRICT WEB SITE. Godbe Research is an experienced firm. I am surprised that so many basic questions were not asked. By the way, in the past how accurate have their surveys been? http://www.godberesearch.com/level2/schools/schools_clients.html
Ira Sharenow August 22, 2012 at 05:06 PM
I have some additional questions. As of now, how many WCCUSD area students will be using inter-district transfer to transfer out and where are they going? How many are going to private schools? How many are using fake addresses to go to an out of district school? If you need to wait a few weeks to give a better answer to this group of questions, I can wait. INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE 2012-13 SCHOOL YEAR. By grade what percentage of students who live in El Cerrito are going to school in El Cerrito or Kensington? INFORMATION NOT COLLECTED BY THE DISTRICT. STUDENTS IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS DO NOT REGISTER WITH THE DISTRICT. By grade what percentage of students who live in Kensington are going to school in El Cerrito or Kensington? INFORMATION NOT COLLECTED BY THE DISTRICT. By grade (or at least by school), what percentage of students who attend schools located in El Cerrito or Kensington actually live in El Cerrito or Kensington? In particular what percentage of El Cerrito HS students lives in El Cerrito or Kensington? INFORMATION NOT COLLECTED BY THE DISTRICT. I am also very much interested in knowing what percentage of students who live in El Cerrito or Kensington and are of high school age actually goes to El Cerrito HS. INFORMATION NOT COLLECTED BY THE DISTRICT.
Ira Sharenow August 22, 2012 at 05:07 PM
Why is the Albany HS API score 852 while the El Cerrito HS API score is only 658? The schools are just blocks apart. Finally, I noticed that in the last 10 years (2002-2012) WCCUSD has lost over 5,000 students. Has the district closed schools and reduced the number of administrators in response? Please provide details. Why has WCCUSD lost so many students when neighboring districts have not? AUSD has substantially increased its enrollment in that time frame. LIKE OAKLAND, ANTIOCH AND MORE THAN 50% OF THE DISTRICTS IN CALIFORNIA, WCCUSD HAS LOST POPULATION. THE SCHOOL AGE POPULATION IN CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN DECLINING AS BIRTHRATES HAVE DECLINED.
Valerie Snider August 22, 2012 at 06:45 PM
Based on the district's comment (above), “WCCUSD HAS LOST POPULATION. THE SCHOOL AGE POPULATION IN CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN DECLINING AS BIRTHRATES HAVE DECLINED," one has to ask why the district is asking the taxpayers for another $360 million (plus interest) on top of the $1.3 billion (plus interest) of bond construction money. The board passed a resolution in 2009 to close schools under a three-year plan, due to declining enrollment and budget deficits. Now they're asking us for money to rebuild schools slated for closure as the financial situation gets even worse. Another bond measure will lower the district's bond rating, raising the interest rate (and increasing the construction cost to taxpayers). Parents are asked to donate paper and Kleenex to our teachers (who would otherwise pay out of their own pockets); yet the board wants another $360 million to rebuild schools for a future of declining enrollment. Where will the money come from to operate the rebuilt schools?
Ira Sharenow September 20, 2012 at 07:40 PM
The Contra Costa registrar and others have useful ballot measures information. I am very interested in supporting Measure 37 GMO labeling. There are many state and local tax measures, not just the two WCCUSD issues. Also of interest is the Richmond Measure N which taxes sugar sweetened drinks. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2012_ballot_propositions http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/November_6,_2012_election_in_California http://www.cocovote.us/content.aspx?id=153 http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something