Why We're Voting NO on the WUSD Bond

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.