Know Your 2026 Mayor Candidates
Know Who You're Seating: Windsor Mayor 2026
Windsor will elect a new mayor on November 3. Mayor Rosa Reynoza is not seeking re-election, leaving two candidates: Vice Mayor Tanya Potter and retired educator Rick Massell (Press Democrat).
The mayor helps set the Town's direction on the issues residents are raising most: how much housing gets built, where, and whether roads, water, fire protection, and evacuation routes can keep up. The mayor also shapes how closely the Town works with Windsor Unified on growth that affects our schools.
As with our school board post, our question is simple: who is each candidate connected to, and what have they said about growth? Here is what the public record shows.
Tanya Potter
Tanya Potter is Windsor's Vice Mayor and the District 4 Town Council member, and works as a police sergeant (county voter guide). She and her husband have lived in Windsor for 21 years and raised three children here, and she reports more than 20 years in law enforcement (campaign site).
Prior runs. She ran for mayor in 2020, when Dominic Foppoli won, and won the District 4 council seat in 2022 with 72% of the vote (county election results). Before the council, she was vice chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission and served on the Public Arts Advisory Commission (Press Democrat, 2022).
Other boards. Her campaign site lists her council assignments to regional public agencies:
Sonoma Clean Power Authority Board
Northern Sonoma County Homelessness Task Force
Alternate seats on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) General Assembly, the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority / Regional Climate Protection Authority
ABAG is worth knowing about: it is the regional body that divides state housing targets among Bay Area cities and towns, including Windsor.
On growth. Potter's campaign slogan is "Safety. Transparency. Thoughtful Growth." Her site says she advocates "Slow Growth" built around Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Her ballot statement promises planning codes that make new developments safe by design, investment in roads, drinking water and wastewater, and closing the Town's structural deficit through spending cuts and economic development. In 2022, she said Windsor will always need affordable housing and that new housing must include enough police and fire service.
At a Station Area Plan meeting, residents reported that Potter said she wants to see developments that favor townhomes people can buy and build equity in, rather than encouraging people to get stuck renting long-term.
Standing up on Cora Creek. When Gallaher's 106-unit Cora Creek apartments came before the Town on an appeal in 2025, Potter pushed for a closer review of the project's safety design. According to a neighbor who attended the meetings, she secured several changes: apartment entrances visible from outside rather than tucked along interior hallways, four clearly marked pedestrian entrances from the Town's planned pathway, see-through wrought-iron fencing, and electronic keypads so police, fire, and EMS can get into the buildings. The project still went forward, but those changes reflect the "safety by design" approach she campaigns on.
Connections. We found no public record of business or board ties between Potter and housing developers.
Who funds her campaigns: no developers. We reviewed Potter's campaign filings with the Town of Windsor for her 2022 council race and her 2026 mayor race (campaign statements portal). Not one contribution comes from a developer, builder, real estate firm, or Gallaher entity. Her largest backers are public safety groups and herself:
Sonoma County Deputy Sheriffs' Association: $250 in 2022 and $500 in 2026
Santa Rosa firefighters (IAFF Local 1401): $250 in 2022
Tanya Potter herself: $250 in 2022, plus $200 and a $1,500 loan to her own mayoral campaign in 2026
The rest came from individuals, mostly in Sonoma County, giving $100 to $250 each. Her entire 2022 campaign raised under $4,000.
Rick Massell
Rick Massell is running as a retired educator. He filed his intention to run on August 6 and qualified on August 11, during the extended filing period after Mayor Reynoza decided not to run (Town of Windsor). He did not submit a candidate statement for the voter guide.
We found no prior runs for Windsor office, no news coverage, and no public record of business ties, board seats, or developer connections.
Who funds his campaign? As of our review of the Town's campaign statements portal in October 2026, Massell had reported no campaign contributions, so there is no developer money and no other outside money to report.
That is not a mark against him, but it does mean voters have little to go on. If you see Rick at a forum or on your doorstep, ask him the questions below.
Questions to ask both candidates
Do you have any business, board or financial ties to developers doing business in Windsor?
Will you accept campaign contributions from developers or their affiliates?
Should the Town rezone the former Windsor Creek Elementary site for housing?
How will you make sure roads, water, wastewater and evacuation routes keep pace with new housing?
Do you favor ownership housing like townhomes, rental apartments, or both, and where?
How will you work with Windsor Unified on growth, school capacity and safe routes to school?
Vote November 3. Know who you're seating.
Sources
This post is not paid for by or in support of any candidate. It is meant to create transparency and help residents understand candidates and who is funding them.
Know Your WUSD Candidates
Know Who You're Seating: Windsor Unified School Board 2026
On November 3, Windsor voters will fill three seats on the Windsor Unified School District (WUSD) Board of Trustees. Four people are running.
Every housing project the Town approves brings new students and new demands on the roads, water and emergency services our kids rely on. WUSD and the Town must plan for that growth together, and that only works if the people at the table are independent. Before you vote, know who you’re seating.
Growth our infrastructure can handle
The Save Windsor Alliance supports responsible growth: housing planned around the infrastructure it depends on, not squeezed in ahead of it. We want decision-makers at the Town and WUSD to openly weigh:
Traffic and parking, especially at school drop-off and pick-up
Fire evacuation routes and emergency response staffing
Water, sewer and power capacity, including PG&E shutoffs
School capacity, developer fees, and safe routes to campus
Parks and open space
None of this is anti-housing. It’s about getting the order right: infrastructure first, then growth. That’s how we build affordable homes people can buy, including low-income housing, while supporting the town.
No developer ties in local politics
Our position is simple: no developer money and no developer ties in our school and town politics. We want trustees who never need to recuse themselves, so all five can make informed, unbiased decisions. (See Rich Carnation below for why this matters now.)
Taxpayers fund our schools, so ask questions
Measure J would extend the current bond rate of $44 per $100,000 of assessed value to raise about $92 million for repairs and upgrades (WUSD). In 2024, voters narrowly rejected Measure V, a $122.5 million bond, which got about 50% yes when it needed 55% (county results).
After residents raised concerns, the board resolved on August 17 that no Measure J money will be spent on the Windsor Creek property (WUSD). Public pressure works. Whatever you decide on Measure J, hold trustees accountable for every dollar.
Meet the candidates
Four candidates are running for three seats. Here is what public record shows, drawn from official ballot statements (county voter guide) and other public sources.
Michael Brown — challenger
Michael is a first-time candidate who lists his occupation as a local retail salesperson. He is Mayor Rosa Reynoza’s son.
Michael is new to politics, and that is the point. He has no ties to developers, no long list of boards, and no relationships he would need to step away from. He brings fresh eyes and a willingness to step up and serve. SWA spoke with Michael and asked for a statement; see below.
“Hello, I’m Michael Brown, and I’m running for the Windsor School Board.
I’m 21 years old and a product of public schools. I’m deeply grateful for the teachers who guided me through my education, and I want to bring the focus back to where it belongs: our teachers and students.
My decision to run grew out of the people I’ve connected with while managing a store here in Windsor. Their stories and concerns showed me how much our schools matter to this community, and I want to help and inspire others to get involved and make a difference too.
I won’t pretend to have all the answers. We’re all still learning, and I’m young and eager to learn more. What I can promise is dedication: I will work hard, listen, and do my best for our students, teachers, and community.
I’ve attended school board meetings and see clear opportunities for improvement. I want to increase transparency, make meetings more organized and accessible, and strengthen the board’s work with the public. I also believe a young adult’s perspective is valuable on the board, and I’m ready to serve.
If you have questions or would like to talk, in person or by phone, please reach out at 707-836-6914. Thank you.”
Trish Donoho — challenger
Trish is a first-time candidate with deep roots in Windsor schools. She is a mother of four, with a current Windsor High student and several graduates, and her oldest daughter now teaches in the district. She has served on the Windsor High School Site Council and has spent years volunteering in our schools.
Professionally, Trish leads business analytics for a winery, guiding strategic decisions through financial analysis and long-term planning. Those are exactly the skills a board needs to oversee bond dollars and plan for growth. Her platform centers on responsible use of resources, strong support for teachers and staff, and transparent communication with the community.
Rich Carnation — incumbent
Rich has served on the board since 2018 and is seeking a third term. He founded Waterworks Industries, a Windsor aquatic design and construction company, and is Windsor High’s founding head wrestling coach. He was an early board member of the Windsor Boys and Girls Club and served on Windsor’s first General Plan Advisory Committee.
Rich has given a great deal to Windsor athletics. He also serves as an uncompensated board member of Gallaher Community Housing, the nonprofit arm of Gallaher Homes (Press Democrat).
The Windsor Creek connection. On June 22, 2026, WUSD signed a binding agreement to sell the 11.5-acre former Windsor Creek Elementary site on Conde Lane to Gallaher Community Housing, contingent on Town rezoning, for an estimated $7.5 million (WUSD). The Town had offered about $3 million for a park and civic space; the district says state surplus-land law required it to prioritize housing (Press Democrat). Gallaher first proposed up to 384 units and in September floated a 245-home design, not yet formally submitted. It is also building the 106-unit Cora Creek complex across the street, and Windsor Creek would be its fifth project in town (Press Democrat).
Rich abstained when the board first approved negotiations with Gallaher in June 2024, and recused himself and left the room when they were reapproved in August 2024. In April 2026, the Fair Political Practices Commission advised that his nonprofit role does not create a legal financial conflict but must be disclosed; it gave no opinion on the 2024 decisions (FPPC Advice Letter A-25-169). The district says he continues to recuse himself from Windsor Creek decisions.
Nothing suggests he broke the law, and we take him at his word. But recusal is a patch, not a solution. A trustee on a developer’s board still shapes the board’s culture, its relationships, and every related decision that isn’t labeled “Windsor Creek.”
Stephanie Ahmad — incumbent
Stephanie has served since 2018, including as board president. She grew up in Windsor, was co-valedictorian at Windsor High, and is an employee benefits attorney. She has led the Stephanie has served since 2018, including as board president. She grew up in Windsor, was co-valedictorian at Windsor High, and is an employee benefits attorney. She has led the Windsor Educational Foundation and served on the Measure F Bond Oversight Committee. Her husband teaches at Windsor High.
In her ballot statement, Stephanie names the Windsor Creek teacher and staff housing project as one of her proudest accomplishments and says her top priority this term is academic achievement.
What the record shows:
“Teacher and staff housing.” District employees get priority, not exclusive access. Every unit is capped at 80% of area median income ($92,300 for one person in 2026), so some staff won’t qualify.
“Not paid for by taxpayers.” The agreement allows government construction financing, and the district is paid mostly after construction, behind Gallaher’s lender. At 245 homes, the price drops to a $5.66 million floor.
“Among the healthiest in our area.” In September, staff reported unrestricted reserves of about 10% of spending: above the required minimum, but below the roughly 17% state average they cited (meeting summary).
Source for section references: Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions, 8955 Conde Lane, between WUSD and Gallaher Community Housing, Inc., dated June 22, 2026, with Reconveyance Agreement. [PSA Agreement.]
The Save Windsor Alliance endorses Michael Brown and Trish Donoho
The Save Windsor Alliance is proud to endorse Michael Brown and Trish Donoho for the Windsor Unified School District Board of Trustees.
Both are independent of the developers shaping Windsor's future. Neither will need to recuse themselves from decisions about the growth that affects our schools.
Trish brings years of hands-on involvement in our schools and the financial skills to scrutinize bond spending.
Michael brings fresh energy and a willingness to serve without strings attached.
Together, they offer what this board needs most right now: independent judgment, accountability to taxpayers, and a commitment to working with the Town on growth that our schools and infrastructure can actually support.
Know who you're seating
Don't take our word for it. Here is how to look:
Read the candidate statements in your county voter guide, links below.
Check campaign contributions. Candidates file Form 460 reports with the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters.
Check economic interests. Incumbent trustees file Form 700 statements listing their business interests and income sources. Request them from the district.
Watch the board. Minutes and recordings show how each trustee voted, and when.
Vote November 3. Know who you're seating.
Sources
FPPC Advice Letter A-25-169 (Carnation / Gallaher Community Housing)
Healdsburg Tribune: WUSD board reorganization (Ahmad president, Carnation VP)
Press Democrat: Windsor Creek proposal downsized to 245 homes (Sept. 2026)
Press Democrat: Windsor gives Gallaher Community Housing nod for Cora Creek (2025)
Press Democrat: Residents, council members voice concern over Windsor Creek site (Feb. 2026)
Press Democrat: Gallaher acquires former Windsor school site (July 2026)
Hoodline: Windsor neighbors fear 'fire trap' as 384-unit complex proposed
This post is not paid for by or in support of any candidate. It is meant to create transparency and help residents understand candidates and who is funding them.
Know Who You're Seating Part 2
Part Two — Evan Kubota
In Part One of “Know Who You’re Seating,” we looked at campaign contributions, public records, development interests, and the connections surrounding Gina Fortino Dickson’s previous campaign.
But if we’re going to ask these questions, we need to ask them consistently.
So, in Part Two, we’re looking at Evan Kubota — current Chair of the Windsor Planning Commission and a candidate for Windsor Town Council, District 1.
Who has financially supported him? What does his record on the Planning Commission show? How has he voted on significant development projects? And how has he engaged with residents on one of the biggest land-use issues currently facing our community?
For Evan, we have something valuable to look at: a public record.
And we also have firsthand experience.
Evan Kubota and the Planning Commission
Evan Kubota has served on the Windsor Planning Commission since January 2023 and currently serves as Chair.
The Planning Commission reviews land-use matters including development applications, subdivisions, use permits, zoning issues, and General Plan matters. Depending on the application, the Commission may make a final decision or make a recommendation to the Windsor Town Council.
Because Evan has served on the Commission for several years, residents have an existing record of his participation in Windsor planning decisions to review.
One of those decisions was Cora Creek.
Cora Creek: A Documented Vote
On April 22, 2025, the Windsor Planning Commission considered Cora Creek, a proposed 106-unit apartment development at 8975 Conde Lane by Gallaher Community Housing.
The application included Site Plan and Design Review, a density bonus, affordable-housing waivers, and an incentive.
According to the official meeting minutes, commissioners discussed issues including emergency access through the Windsor Creek Elementary School site, traffic and residential street standards, creek-development standards, architecture, creek visibility and access, neighboring roads, landscaping, and the potential future development of Windsor Creek Elementary.
Before the hearing, Kubota disclosed that he had spoken with both the applicant and Windsor resident Kevin Scanlon. Fortino Dickson disclosed that she had visited the site and received correspondence from the applicant’s representative.
When it came time to vote, Fortino Dickson made the motion to approve Cora Creek. Commissioner Rennie seconded the motion.
The final vote was:
YES: Fortino Dickson, Rennie, Richards
NO: Zahner, Kubota
Evan Kubota voted against approval of Cora Creek.
The official minutes do not attribute every comment made during deliberations to individual commissioners, so the minutes alone do not establish Kubota’s specific reasons for voting no. What they do establish is his vote.
The minutes also state that Vice Chair Zahner disclosed before the hearing that he had visited the project site with the applicant and had met with Rich Carnation.
Then Came Windsor Creek
On July 14, 2026, with Evan serving as Chair, the Planning Commission received a presentation specifically addressing the General Plan land-use and zoning designation for 8955 Conde Lane — the Windsor Creek Elementary School property.
The presentation addressed the property’s existing General Plan and zoning designations, Windsor’s Housing Element and RHNA obligations, and the state-law framework affecting potential housing development on school district property.
It also confirmed something important in understanding Windsor Creek’s place in the Town’s current housing planning:
Windsor Creek was not included as a housing inventory site in Windsor’s certified Housing Element.
For residents who had spent months trying to understand what could happen to this property, this meeting put the land-use and zoning questions surrounding Windsor Creek into a public Planning Commission meeting.
But our experience with Evan and Windsor Creek hasn’t been limited to what happens at Town Hall.
Our Experience With Evan
Our group, Save Windsor, has had many opportunities to speak directly with Evan about Windsor Creek, development, open space, infrastructure, and the priorities that matter to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Those conversations haven’t happened just once.
Evan has attended our neighborhood meetings. He has taken individual calls. He has spoken separately with members of our group, answered questions when he could, and made himself available when residents wanted to better understand the planning process.
Through those conversations, we have found significant alignment between many of the priorities Evan has discussed with us and the concerns we have repeatedly heard from residents — particularly around listening to affected neighborhoods and considering the impacts development can have on the surrounding community.
There have also been questions Evan has not answered because of his role on the Planning Commission and the possibility that matters involving the property could ultimately come before the Commission.
These are firsthand observations based on our interactions with Evan throughout the Windsor Creek process.
And there’s another important distinction we want to make clear:
Most of us involved with Save Windsor and the Windsor Creek neighborhood are in District 4. We cannot vote in the District 1 Town Council race.
But a Town Councilmember’s decisions don't exist within the boundaries of one district.
Councilmembers collectively make decisions affecting Windsor’s development, infrastructure, parks, public spaces, finances, and future. What happens in one district can affect residents throughout the Town.
That’s why we believe it’s important for residents across Windsor to understand the people asking to serve on the Council — even when they don’t personally get to vote in that particular race.
Following Evan’s Campaign Money
Evan has run for Windsor Town Council before.
In early 2022, he formed “Kubota for Windsor Town Council 2022; Elect Evan” and filed to run for an at-large Town Council seat. His campaign disclosure identifies the office sought as Windsor Town Councilmember — At-Large.
His campaign disclosure covering January 1 through February 26, 2022 reports $2,600 in monetary contributions, along with a $400 loan from Evan to his campaign, for $3,000 in total contributions received during that reporting period.
The reported monetary contributors were:
Chris Dahl — $500, identified as a Planner with Devincenti Concrete
Darcie Dahl — $500, with “Mother” listed in the occupation field
Michael Kubota — $100, identified as an Accountant with Kaiser
Kathryn Kubota — $500, identified as retired
Marshall Kubota — $500, identified as Medical Director with Partnership Health Plan
Russell Kubota — $500, identified as an Attorney with the Law Office of Russell T. Kubota Evan2
A separate contribution report also documents the $500 contributions from Chris and Darcie Dahl and Evan’s $400 campaign loan. Russell Kubota’s $500 contribution is separately documented as well.
The campaign filing shows that Evan’s $400 loan was subsequently forgiven. It also reports $3,000 in expenditures and a $0 ending cash balance for the reporting period.
The filing later records a $499.74 return of funds to Russell Kubota, described as “Candidate Withdrew.”
These are the contributors identified in the campaign records we reviewed. The filings themselves do not establish development interests in Windsor for these contributors, so we are not making that assertion.
And that distinction is important.
If we’re going to follow the money, we should follow everyone’s money.
The point isn’t to treat every campaign contribution as suspicious. It’s to make the information available and look deeper when the public record gives us a reason to.
Look at the Complete Record
For Evan Kubota, the records we reviewed establish several things.
He has served on the Windsor Planning Commission since 2023 and currently serves as Chair.
He voted against approval of the 106-unit Cora Creek development.
He chaired the July 2026 Planning Commission meeting where the Windsor Creek Elementary property’s land-use and zoning designations were publicly discussed.
His available 2022 campaign filings identify who financially supported his previous Town Council campaign and how much they contributed.
And then there is something that doesn’t necessarily appear in Town minutes or campaign filings:
He has repeatedly shown up to meet with residents directly affected by the Windsor Creek issue.
Our group has had many opportunities to speak with Evan about his priorities. He has taken the time to talk with us collectively and individually, listen to our concerns, and answer our questions.
We have found areas where the priorities he has discussed with us align with priorities Save Windsor and many residents have expressed.
That is also part of our experience, and we believe it belongs in the conversation alongside the campaign filings, meeting minutes, and voting record.
Know Who You’re Seating
That’s what this series is about.
Don’t rely solely on campaign mailers or yard signs. Don’t assume one vote, one contribution, or one meeting tells you everything about a person.
Follow the contributions. Read the minutes. Watch the meetings. Look at the votes. Ask questions. And pay attention to who shows up.
We’ll continue looking at the public record and sharing what we find so Windsor residents have the information to reach their own conclusions.
This post is not paid for by or in support of any candidate. It is meant to create transparency and help residents understand candidates and who is funding them.
Know Who You're Seating: Following the Money in Windsor
Part 1 —Gina Fortino Dickson
When we elect someone to represent Windsor, we aren't just voting for a name on a ballot. We are trusting that person to make decisions that affect our neighborhoods, our schools, our open spaces, our infrastructure, our safety, and the future of our town.
So we should know who we are seating.
And part of that means knowing who financially supports the people running for office — especially when those supporters have development and real estate interests in the same community those elected officials will help govern.
This isn't about making accusations. It's about transparency. These are public records, available to all of us, and Windsor residents deserve to understand what they show and ask their own questions.
Why We Started Looking
For me, the questions started with Cora Creek, but after we reached out to Gina several times via email to speak with her and ask questions, without any reply, we started wondering why.
Cora Creek is the 106-unit affordable apartment project at 8975 Conde Lane being developed by Gallaher Community Housing. The project includes two four-story buildings, an 80% density bonus, reduced parking requirements, and multiple affordable-housing waivers and incentives.
At the April 22, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, commissioners raised concerns about the project's architecture, visibility and access to Windsor Creek, impacts on adjacent roads, landscaping, and other design issues.
Commissioner Gina Fortino Dickson made the motion to approve the project.
Commissioners Fortino Dickson, Rennie, and Richards voted yes. Vice Chair Zahner and Chair Kubota voted no.
The meeting minutes also show that Fortino Dickson disclosed that she had visited the project site and received correspondence from the applicant's representative.
Source: Town of Windsor Planning Commission Minutes, April 22, 2025.
As a resident, Gina's strong support of Cora Creek confused me.
Other commissioners were raising significant concerns and asking for changes. Councilmember Tanya Potter, whose District 4 residents are directly affected by development in this area, has dedicated considerable personal time to advocating around development impacts and state housing requirements.
For me, it didn't pencil.
So we started looking deeper.
Gina Fortino Dickson's History Running for Office
Gina Fortino Dickson is not new to local government.
She served on the Clearlake Planning Commission before being elected to the Clearlake City Council in 2012. She later served as Vice Mayor before resigning from the Council in 2016 when her family moved out of Lake County.
After moving to Windsor, she ran for Windsor Town Council in 2018, finishing eighth in a field of ten candidates.
She ran again for Windsor Town Council, District 1, in 2022, receiving 811 votes to Mike Wall's 1,386.
She is now running again for Windsor Town Council, District 1, in 2026.
That makes four City/Town Council campaigns: Clearlake in 2012, Windsor in 2018, Windsor in 2022, and Windsor again in 2026.
And when we looked at the public campaign finance documents from her 2022 Windsor campaign, some names stood out.
Among her financial supporters were Mark Millan, Natalie Balfour, Richard Coombs, and Rich Carnation and his wife.
So we started asking a very simple question:
Who are these people?
Natalie Balfour
Natalie Balfour is very clearly involved in real estate development in Windsor.
Town records identify Balfour as the Asset and Project Manager for Airport Business Center, a California limited partnership. In correspondence with the Town of Windsor regarding its General Plan, Balfour advocated on behalf of Airport Business Center for increased residential density and greater flexibility for residential development in commercial areas.
That matters when we're looking at who is financially supporting candidates for Windsor Town Council.
Balfour has been the applicant, developer, or project manager on multiple Windsor projects, including:
19th Hole: A 4.95-acre, 11-lot residential subdivision at 1340 19th Hole Drive. The Town identifies the developer as “Natalie Balfour / Airport Business Center.”
Elowen Oaks Apartments (Formerly known as Shiloh Apartments): Town records identify Balfour as the applicant for a project at Shiloh Road/Golf Course Drive involving approximately 60 residential units in six three-story buildings, along with approximately 3,571 square feet of commercial space.
There is another important connection here: Balfour isn't simply an unrelated Windsor developer who happened to contribute to Gina Fortino Dickson's 2022 campaign. She has publicly represented Richard Coombs and his development interests.
The Town's 2019 Planning Commission records for the 19th Hole project identify the applicant as “Natalie Balfour / Richard Coombs.”
And in December 2020, Balfour wrote directly to the Windsor Town Council stating:
“I am writing on behalf of Richard Coombs and Airport Business Center…”
That letter encouraged the Council to appoint either Mark Millan or Clay Fritz to a vacant Windsor Town Council seat.
So when we started following the names appearing among Gina's 2022 financial supporters, we weren't looking at completely unrelated people.
We found documented connections between them.
Natalie Balfour → Airport Business Center → Richard Coombs → Windsor development projects.
And we found Balfour, writing on behalf of Coombs and Airport Business Center, previously advocating for Mark Millan to hold a seat on the Windsor Town Council.
Those facts don't prove anything improper. But they're relevant, and Windsor residents deserve to know about them when evaluating who financially supports candidates seeking decision-making authority over development and land use in our community.
Sources:
Town of Windsor General Plan correspondence: Windsor Granicus
19th Hole development records: Discover Windsor / Town of Windsor
Shiloh Apartments records: Town of Windsor
2019 Planning Commission records: Town of Windsor
December 2020 correspondence to Windsor Town Council: Town of Windsor
Richard "Rick" Coombs
Richard Coombs is a longtime Windsor-area property owner and developer associated with Airport Business Center and Coombs Development.
Town records connect Coombs and Airport Business Center to multiple Windsor properties and development projects, including the 19th Hole project and properties around Shiloh Road, Golf Course Drive and other areas of Windsor.
More recently, Windsor's 2026 Major Project Development List identifies Richard Coombs and Larry Wasems as the applicants/developers of the Arata North Subdivision, a proposed 55-lot residential subdivision on approximately 10.47 acres at 115 Arata Lane.
There is also a documented political connection between Coombs, Balfour and former Windsor Mayor Mark Millan.
In 2020, Balfour wrote to the Windsor Town Council on behalf of Richard Coombs and Airport Business Center, encouraging the Council to appoint either Mark Millan or Clay Fritz to a vacant Town Council seat.
Again, none of this proves wrongdoing.
But these relationships are relevant public information when the same individuals are financially supporting candidates who may ultimately vote on development and land-use decisions affecting Windsor.
Mark Millan
Mark Millan is different from Balfour and Coombs. Based on the records we reviewed, we would not characterize him as a developer.
Millan is a former Windsor Town Council member and former Mayor of Windsor. He is also the founder and CEO of Data Instincts, a consulting company specializing in public outreach and engagement, particularly involving water and recycled-water infrastructure projects.
Millan and Fortino Dickson also have a documented civic history together.
Both ran for Windsor Town Council in 2018.
Today, both are listed as Advisors to Leadership Windsor through the Windsor Chamber of Commerce — Millan as a past Windsor mayor and CEO of Data Instincts, and Fortino Dickson as an attorney and Windsor Planning Commissioner.
And, as noted above, Airport Business Center and Richard Coombs, through Natalie Balfour, publicly supported Millan's appointment to the Windsor Town Council in 2020.
Those are documented connections. What they mean is something Windsor residents can decide for themselves.
Rich Carnation
This connection deserves particular attention because it intersects with an issue Windsor residents are dealing with right now.
Rich Carnation is a longtime Windsor Unified School District trustee and has served as both President and Vice President of the Board.
He is also a founding director of Gallaher Community Housing — the same nonprofit developer behind Cora Creek and currently involved in the proposed acquisition and redevelopment of the Windsor Creek Elementary School property.
This relationship has generated enough community concern that WUSD addresses it directly on its Windsor Creek information page.
According to the District, when Gallaher Community Housing approached WUSD, the District sought guidance from the California Fair Political Practices Commission regarding whether Carnation could participate in discussions involving Gallaher. Carnation recused himself while that guidance was pending.
WUSD states that the FPPC subsequently advised in April 2026 that his participation would not constitute a conflict of interest because he receives no financial benefit from his nonprofit board position.
However, the District also says Carnation has chosen to continue recusing himself from discussions and negotiations regarding the Windsor Creek sale because of community concerns.
But this is where residents began asking more questions.
During the period when the Town of Windsor was engaging with WUSD about potentially purchasing the Windsor Creek property, closed-session meetings became a regular part of the process. This created concern among residents who were trying to understand what was actually being discussed and where negotiations stood.
And despite his stated recusal, Carnation was present during closed sessions related to the property.
We don't know what was discussed behind those closed doors, what Carnation's participation was, or whether he participated at all. His presence does not, by itself, establish that he violated his recusal or participated in negotiations.
But when a trustee also serves on the board of the organization interested in acquiring and developing the property — and has publicly stated that he is recusing himself from discussions surrounding that property — residents have every right to ask why he was present and exactly what that recusal included.
That's not an accusation. It's a question of transparency.
If the purpose of the recusal was to remove the appearance of a conflict and give the community confidence in the process, residents deserve clarity about what his role was during those closed sessions.
To be clear, we're not saying Rich Carnation has been found to have a legal conflict of interest. According to WUSD, the FPPC advised otherwise.
We're saying residents have every right to understand that he holds positions connected to both sides of this proposed transaction — as a WUSD trustee and as a founding director of Gallaher Community Housing — and to consider that information when evaluating the process.
And this brings us back to Gina Fortino Dickson.
Public campaign records show that Rich Carnation and his wife financially supported Fortino Dickson's 2022 Windsor Town Council campaign.
Again, a campaign contribution does not prove wrongdoing or establish that a candidate is beholden to a donor.
But when we're asking Windsor residents to understand who financially supported a candidate — and what interests, organizations and development projects those supporters are connected to — this is part of the public record that deserves to be seen.
So What Does All of This Mean?
Maybe nothing improper.
And that needs to be said clearly.
We are not claiming Gina Fortino Dickson is receiving kickbacks. We are not claiming a secret agreement exists between Gina and these individuals. We have not found evidence establishing either of those things, and Save Windsor is not going to manufacture claims that the public record doesn't support.
What we are doing is asking questions.
Why did several people with significant development, property, or development-related interests in Windsor financially support the same candidate?
What relationships exist between these individuals?
What projects have they brought before the Town?
What decisions has Gina participated in as a Planning Commissioner involving those interests?
And as she asks Windsor residents to elect her to the Town Council in 2026, what should voters know about the people who have financially supported her previous campaigns?
Those aren't accusations.
Those are questions residents should be asking of every candidate seeking power over land-use, housing, development, and public property decisions in Windsor.
Know Who You're Seating
We are the community of Windsor, and it's up to us to hold the people who run for leadership roles in our community accountable and ensure we are seating people who have all of our interests in mind — not simply the interests of developers, political supporters, organizations, or any other special interest.
Campaign contributions don't automatically mean someone is beholden to a donor.
Knowing who those donors are still matters.
Knowing what they own matters.
Knowing what they're developing matters.
Knowing which projects come before our Planning Commission and Town Council matters.
And knowing how our leaders vote matters.
Save Windsor is questioning the relationships and allegiances here because that's part of what an engaged community is supposed to do.
We're looking at public documents. We're connecting documented relationships. We're asking questions.
And we're encouraging every Windsor resident to do the same.
Read the records. Follow the money. Watch the votes. And know who you're seating. Review all candidates’ contributions here, and you can see the documentation for yourself. Don’t just take it from us!
This post is not paid for by or in support of any candidate. It is meant to create transparency and help residents understand candidates and who is funding them. As of this post, no contributions have been made to Gina Fortino Dickson's 2026 campaigns.
Neighborhood Gathering Recap & Information Updates
Windsor Residents Hold Neighborhood Gathering
Thank you to everyone who attended our neighborhood gathering last night!
We had 44 residents join us from neighborhoods all across Windsor. That was encouraging to see because this isn't just an Oakfield issue—this is public land that belongs to all of Windsor. What happens on this property affects our entire community.
I'd also like to thank the Town Council members, Mayor, Planning Commissioners, and Town staff who attended. We appreciate you taking the time to listen to residents and be part of the conversation.
Where are we in the process?
The Windsor Creek proposal is currently in the preliminary application phase.
This means the applicant has submitted a preliminary application explaining what they would like to build on the property.
Town staff is now reviewing that application and preparing comments back to the applicant. This review process generally takes 4–6 weeks, and this is where your public comments matter.
Town staff will consider the comments they receive from the public as part of their review.
Please submit your comments before August 7.
Email:
KJordan@townofwindsor.com
towncouncil@townofwindsor.ca.gov
Please copy both on your email.
What makes a strong public comment?
The most effective comments explain why you oppose rezoning this property.
Comments like "I don't like it" or "No more apartments" don't provide enough information to help support the case.
Instead, explain why preserving this land as Public matters to you and our community.
Some examples include:
• Preserving land intended for public use and future community needs.
• Protecting the character and overall look and feel of Windsor.
• Increased traffic and congestion.
• Parking impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
• Environmental concerns.
• Fire safety and emergency evacuation.
• Impacts on existing residents.
• The importance of maintaining public spaces for future generations.
The more thoughtful and specific your comments are, the more valuable they become during the review process.
A note about the General Plan and Housing Element
I've seen a lot of confusion about Windsor's housing requirements, so I wanted to help explain how this works.
Yes, the Town is required by the State to plan for a certain number of future housing units through its General Plan and Housing Element.
However, those units don't all have to be built today.
The Town's responsibility is to ensure there is enough land designated for future residential development. When you look around Windsor, there are numerous vacant parcels that are already zoned for residential use. Those sites are part of Windsor's long-term housing plan and help meet the State's requirements. This information is available in the General Plan, which anyone can request to view.
The Windsor Creek property is different. It is currently designated as Public land.
Rezoning this property to Residential would require amendments to the General Plan, revisions to the Station Area Plan, additional environmental review and analysis, public hearings, and significant staff time.
To be clear...
We are not opposed to housing.
We understand Windsor has housing obligations, and there are many opportunities to build housing on properties that are already planned and designated for residential development.
What we are opposing is changing land that has long been designated for Public use into residential housing. We believe this property should remain Public so it can serve the entire Windsor community now and into the future.
How you can help
✔ Submit your public comments before August 7.
✔ Email KJordan@townofwindsor.com and copy towncouncil@townofwindsor.ca.gov.
✔ Share this post with your friends and neighbors throughout Windsor.
✔ Encourage others to submit comments as well.
Visit SaveWindsor.org where we've gathered everything in one place, including:
• Public comment templates
• Contact information
• Helpful resources explaining the process
Our goal is to make it easier for everyone to stay informed and participate.
We're also planning another neighborhood meeting where we'll take a deeper dive into the planning process and project timeline. We hope to invite the Town Planner to join us so residents can ask questions and better understand each step moving forward.
Start thinking about your questions now—we want this to be another productive conversation that helps educate our community.
If you'd like to be notified about that meeting (since we know not everyone sees Facebook posts), send me an email with your email address, and I'll add you to our notification list. Email jessievallery@gmail.com.
We know everyone is busy. But decisions like this shape Windsor for decades.
Please take a few moments to submit your comments and make your voice heard.
Why We're Voting NO on the WUSD Bond
Why we are voting no on the Windsor School bond this November.
Because Trust Has Been Broken
In a recent Press Democrat article, Windsor Unified School District Superintendent Jeremy Decker stated:
"There's no way I can go around the law, even if I wanted to… nothing about the bond has anything to do with Windsor Creek. No money generated from the school bond will go into Windsor Creek at all."
We understand that the proposed November bond measure is separate from the Windsor Creek project financially. Nobody is suggesting that bond dollars would directly fund the Windsor Creek development.
But for many residents, this is no longer just about money.
It's about trust.
We feel like we've been given different answers at different times.
At public Town meetings and WUSD Board meetings, residents were told that the process for developing the Windsor Creek property would involve:
Submission of a development application;
Review by the Town of Windsor;
Rezoning of the property;
Potential amendments to the Town's General Plan;
Environmental review and studies;
Traffic, safety, and other required analyses;
A public process that could take months or longer.
Many residents walked away from those meetings believing that there would be a lengthy public review process before any major decisions could move forward.
Now, we are seeing comments from school district employees and others on social media stating that the project may not require rezoning at all.
The reality is that no formal application has yet been submitted to the Town's Planning Department. None of us, including the public, actually know what the final proposal will look like.
That uncertainty is exactly why residents are asking questions.
When the information presented publicly appears to change depending on who's speaking, it creates confusion. And when residents raise concerns and feel dismissed, it creates something even worse: a loss of trust.
We support affordable housing.
Let's be clear: many of us agree that Windsor needs more affordable housing.
What concerns us is whether this particular project represents thoughtful planning for our community.
Many residents were surprised to learn that California affordable housing is not a single category. There are multiple affordability levels, including:
Extremely Low Income
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
According to Gallaher's publicly presented concept from August 2024, the proposal contemplated approximately 360 units at around 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). The public materials presented at that time did not specifically identify the project as employee housing for Windsor Unified staff.
That raises questions.
If this project is intended primarily to address school employee housing needs:
How many employees actually need housing?
How many employees would choose to live there?
How was the number of approximately 360 units determined?
At a public meeting, residents asked whether WUSD had surveyed staff to determine housing demand. Superintendent Decker stated that they had not conducted a survey.
We don't doubt that there is a need for workforce housing.
What we don't understand is how the district determined that a project of this size is necessary without first collecting data from the employees it says the project is intended to serve.
Our concerns are also about planning.
This proposed development would not exist in isolation.
Residents in this area are already facing significant growth, including:
More than 100 units currently under construction near Armando Renzullo Way; the approved Cora Creek apartments
Additional approved housing planned near Old Oak Road
Existing traffic and evacuation concerns affecting the same general neighborhood
Adding another 300+ units into the middle of this area raises legitimate questions about:
Traffic congestion
Emergency access and evacuation
Fire safety
Infrastructure capacity
Long-term neighborhood planning
These are not "not in my backyard" arguments.
These are questions about whether growth is being planned thoughtfully and responsibly.
If WUSD's hands are truly tied, then advocate for thoughtful development.
We have repeatedly heard that state law limits what WUSD can do with surplus property.
If that is true, we believe district leadership should still advocate for the community it serves.
If affordable housing must be built, then residents deserve to know:
Why this density?
Why this number of units?
What alternatives were considered?
How were community impacts evaluated?
Those questions have not been answered to the satisfaction of many residents.
This is why many of us are voting NO on the bond.
This is not because we don't support public education.
This is not because we oppose affordable housing.
This is because public trust matters.
For many residents, the Windsor Creek process has created the feeling that community concerns are heard but not considered, that public explanations change over time, and that major decisions are moving forward without sufficient transparency.
If the district wants residents to support a continued tax measure, then the district must first rebuild trust with the community it serves.
For us, this has become an "if this, then that" situation.
If WUSD cannot support residents in pursuing thoughtful, transparent growth planning for Windsor, then many residents feel they cannot support providing the district with additional taxing authority.
It's really that simple.
Sign the petition here to oppose unthoughtful expansion and demand transparency.
Why 360 Units?
Why 360 Units? If This Project Is for School Employees, Show Us the Need
Let's start with something I believe many Windsor residents can agree on.
Teachers, classified staff, and other school employees deserve the opportunity to live in the communities they serve. Sonoma County is an expensive place to live, and workforce housing is an important part of the solution. I support finding ways to help those who educate our children live closer to where they work.
But supporting workforce housing doesn't mean we shouldn't ask questions about the size of a proposed project.
Why Approximately 360 Units?
The question many residents continue to ask is simple:
Why approximately 360 units?
How was that number determined?
Earlier this year, during a public meeting, members of the Windsor Unified School District Board were asked whether they had surveyed district employees to determine how many teachers and staff would actually be interested in living in district-sponsored workforce housing.
The response given at the meeting was that they had not.
If that's the case, then how was the need for approximately 360 units established?
If the purpose of this development is to provide housing for school employees, shouldn't the first step be understanding how many employees would actually use it?
That seems like a reasonable place to begin:
Survey the employees.
Determine the need.
Build a project that reflects that demand.
Instead, residents are being presented with a proposal for approximately 360 apartment and condominium units without understanding how that number was reached.
Why the Size Matters
A project of this size doesn't exist in a vacuum.
It affects roads, emergency services, utilities, schools, neighborhood character, and the Town's ability to provide services for everyone who lives here.
It also doesn't stand alone.
More than 100 homes are already under construction on Armando Renzullo Way, immediately adjacent to the Windsor Creek property. Another approved residential development is planned at the end of Old Oak, which will connect into the same neighborhood.
Every new development adds demand on the same infrastructure.
That's why getting the size right matters.
Questions That Deserve Answers
Many residents have also seen workforce and affordable housing developments throughout the region that continue to experience vacancies after opening. If a project is built larger than the actual demand, what happens to those remaining units?
Will they remain dedicated to school employees?
Will eligibility eventually expand?
What is the long-term plan?
These are fair questions that deserve clear answers.
If there is data showing that approximately 360 units are needed for Windsor Unified School District employees, the community should be shown that data.
If there isn't, then perhaps that information should be gathered before moving forward with one of the largest residential developments proposed in this area of Windsor.
Thoughtful Planning Benefits Everyone
This isn't about saying "no" to workforce housing.
It's about asking whether the project is appropriately sized.
Could a smaller project fully meet the housing needs of school employees while reducing impacts on the surrounding neighborhood?
Could the project be phased, allowing the District to meet demonstrated demand first and expand later if additional housing is truly needed?
Those possibilities deserve consideration.
Responsible planning isn't about building the biggest project possible.
It's about building the right project.
Supporting workforce housing and asking for thoughtful planning are not opposing ideas—they go hand in hand.
Good planning starts with good data.
If this project is truly about providing homes for school employees, then let's begin with the people it's intended to serve.
Survey them.
Measure the need.
Share the findings with the community.
Then build a project that reflects those results.
That's not opposing workforce housing.
That's asking for responsible planning that benefits school employees, existing residents, and the future of Windsor.
Stand With Us
If you believe Windsor deserves thoughtful, data-driven planning that balances workforce housing with the needs of the entire community, we invite you to add your name to our petition.
Sign the petition today and join us in advocating for thoughtful growth in Windsor, California.
Windsor Needs More Revenue
Windsor residents demand thoughtful expansion.
If Windsor Needs More Revenue Today, How Can It Support Hundreds More Homes Tomorrow?
At multiple public meetings, Town of Windsor officials have shared a consistent message: the Town needs additional revenue to maintain essential municipal services.
In fact, the Town is asking voters to consider a new local sales tax this November. According to Town officials, the additional revenue would help fund police, public safety, and other critical community services that have already been reduced due to budget limitations.
As a Windsor resident, I actually support this measure.
Strong public services benefit everyone, and many neighboring communities already have similar local taxes in place.
But that support raises an important question.
If the Town is already struggling to fund services for the residents who live here today, why would it continue approving hundreds of additional high-density housing units before ensuring the infrastructure and public services can support that growth?
This isn't simply about one project.
More than 100 homes are already under construction on Armando Renzullo Way, adjacent to the Windsor Creek property. Another approved residential development is planned at the end of Old Oak, connecting to the same neighborhood.
Now, the proposed Windsor Creek project would add approximately 360 apartment and condominium units to that same area.
That is a tremendous amount of growth concentrated into one neighborhood.
This Isn't About Opposing Housing
Let's be clear.
Many residents—including those supporting Save Windsor—are not opposed to housing for school employees, affordable housing, or subsidized workforce housing.
What many residents oppose is the continued approval of large, high-density developments without a comprehensive plan for the infrastructure and public services needed to support them.
Growth should be thoughtful.
Growth should be planned.
Growth should happen at a pace the Town can sustain.
The Biggest Concern Isn't Traffic
Traffic is often mentioned, but for many Oakfield neighborhood residents, the greater concern is emergency access.
The Windsor Creek neighborhood is largely served by a single primary route in and out.
During a wildfire, major emergency, or evacuation event, residents are asking a reasonable question:
How will thousands of additional residents safely evacuate if this neighborhood continues to grow without corresponding infrastructure improvements?
Wildfire evacuation is no longer a hypothetical concern in Sonoma County. It is part of the reality of living here.
Planning for safe evacuation should be considered before adding hundreds of new homes—not afterward.
Thoughtful Planning Benefits Everyone
This discussion should not be reduced to accusations of "Not In My Backyard."
The people raising these concerns are asking for responsible planning that benefits the entire community.
That means balancing housing needs with infrastructure, emergency preparedness, public safety, and the Town's financial capacity.
If Windsor is asking voters for additional tax revenue because existing services are already stretched thin, then it is reasonable to ask whether now is the right time to continue approving additional high-density developments before those challenges are addressed.
These are questions worth asking—not because we oppose housing, but because we want Windsor to grow in a way that is sustainable, safe, and serves everyone who calls this community home.
Windsor Has Already Exceeded Its Low-Income Housing Allocation
Windsor low-income housing allocation has been met, the town needs very low and moderate, but that’s not what Gallaher Homes has in mind for the Windsor Creek Elementary site.
If Windsor Has Already Exceeded Its Low-Income Housing Allocation, What Does That Mean for the Windsor Creek Project?
As Windsor residents continue evaluating the proposed Windsor Creek development, much of the conversation has centered on affordable housing and whether the project is necessary to help the Town meet its state-mandated housing goals.
A review of publicly available housing data raises an important question:
If Windsor has already exceeded its Low Income housing allocation, does the Windsor Creek project address Windsor's most significant remaining housing needs?
Understanding the Housing Categories
California's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process does not simply assign cities a single affordable housing target. Instead, housing needs are broken into separate categories:
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Each category is tracked independently by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Based on publicly available Annual Progress Report (APR) information and community review of the data, Windsor has reportedly permitted approximately 604 housing units toward its overall RHNA obligation of 994 units. Community members reviewing the data have also noted that Windsor appears to have exceeded its Low Income housing allocation while remaining behind in the Very Low Income and Moderate Income categories.
Why This Matters for Windsor Creek
The proposed Windsor Creek development has been described as providing housing targeted to households earning up to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI).
Housing serving households at approximately 80% AMI generally falls within the state's Low Income housing category.
If Windsor has already exceeded its Low Income allocation, residents may reasonably ask whether a project of this size is addressing the categories where Windsor still faces the greatest unmet need.
This is not an argument against affordable housing. It is a question about alignment.
If the Town's remaining housing obligations are concentrated in the Very Low Income and Moderate Income categories, should future developments be designed to help close those gaps?
Looking Beyond Housing Numbers
The Windsor Creek discussion involves far more than housing allocations.
Residents have consistently raised concerns regarding:
Emergency evacuation routes
Wildfire safety
Traffic congestion
School capacity
Water and infrastructure impacts
Wildlife habitat and creek corridor preservation
Loss of open space
Neighborhood compatibility
These issues affect the long-term character, safety, and sustainability of Windsor and deserve careful consideration alongside housing policy.
A Data-Driven Conversation
Housing policy is often presented as a simple choice between supporting housing or opposing housing.
The reality is more complex.
The question facing Windsor residents is not whether housing should be built. The question is whether proposed developments are addressing the Town's greatest needs while balancing safety, infrastructure, environmental stewardship, and quality of life.
As additional information becomes available, residents should continue reviewing the data, asking questions, and engaging in thoughtful discussion about how Windsor grows in the years ahead.
Sources
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
Annual Progress Reports (APR)
This article is based on publicly available housing data resources and community review of Annual Progress Report information. Residents are encouraged to review source materials and Town planning documents directly.