News

Menlo Park City School District board leaning toward March parcel tax election

Meeting planned for next week to discuss amount of tax

In a discussion that took up most of a six-hour meeting, the Menlo Park City School District's governing board agreed on Nov. 9 that it will probably put a parcel tax measure on the ballot in March in an attempt to balance the district's budget before it is forced to give layoff notices.

What board members couldn't agree on was how much of a parcel tax they should ask for. They will meet again on Thursday, Nov. 17, at 7 p.m. in the Hillview Middle School Performing Arts Center, 1100 Elder Ave., to discuss that issue.

Board members are juggling the desire to make sure they propose a parcel tax that will be acceptable to at least two-thirds of the voters and the reality that if they ask for anything less than $515 per parcel they will have to make cuts to balance the budget.

Without a new parcel tax, the district projects a budget shortfall of $5.3 million by the 2020-21 school year.

"I don't like the cuts, they're not comfortable," said board member Stacy Jones. "I don't want to make cuts, but I also don't want to be in the position where we have to slash and burn because we didn't pass a parcel tax," she said.

Board members had a massive amount of information to process, including transcripts of all the public comments they received between Sept. 27 and Oct. 31 on the budget issues. There were 469 online comments and 77 from board meetings.

The board also got an overview of detailed plans for cuts in programs. Five scenarios ranged from the passage of a new $515 per parcel tax requiring no budget cuts, to not replacing the parcel tax that expires on June 30, 2017, which requires $4.5 million in budget cuts over the next three school years.

In the no-parcel-tax scenario, class sizes would be increased by an average of two students in kindergarten through fifth grade and by three students in sixth through eighth grade, the teachers' work year would be shortened and the contracts of the principals, assistant principals and department directors would be shortened by five days per year. Teacher salary increases would be half a percent smaller than usual, the schools would stop giving iPads to each middle school student, the middle school's "mini-course" week would go away, art teachers and librarians would be replaced with aides and science and most classroom aides would be eliminated. Hillview Middle School would offer fewer electives (and those offered would have larger class sizes) and the district would eliminate the job of one custodian.

The board is also scheduled to meet again on Nov. 30 to approve details of a measure that would appear on the March 7, 2017 ballot. Dec. 9 is the deadline to submit measures for that ballot.

The board's decision is complicated by the fact that even though two new board members were elected on Nov. 8, they will not take office until after the deadline for the March ballot. Even who those two board members are was not clear at the time of Wednesday's meeting because the second, third and fourth place candidates were very close and the ballots of nearly 25 percent of registered voters countywide were still uncounted.

Members of the current board agreed that they want the incoming board members to approve of the timing and amount of any parcel tax.

Comments

2 people like this
Posted by Margaret Davis
a resident of Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
on Nov 10, 2016 at 1:37 pm

Did you learn nothing last time? Special elections asking for money piss people off. Combine the election with a REGULARLY SCHEDULED ELECTION and the results will be better.


3 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 10, 2016 at 3:36 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

The board still doesn't get it. Hopefully Lucas and Ackerman can bring some sanity to this board.


8 people like this
Posted by HelloHanalei
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:03 pm

HelloHanalei is a registered user.

Margaret, March would NOT be a special election.

The District has posted a comprehensive FAQ, to which you can link from the main page of the MPCSD website.

Web Link

The FAQ contains the question "If the District puts a parcel tax measure before the community, when would that happen?" Within the detailed answer to that question, you will find this information: "OPTION 1: March 2017 (precinct voting; polls open + absentee ballots)"

March 2017 is a regularly-scheduled election, during which voters would vote on a variety of matters in addition, possibly, to a potential MPCSD parcel tax. The March election is also the time frame that would enable the District not to give pink slips to teachers, since the filing deadline precedes the date by which it's mandated to give notice to any teachers who might not have a job the following year.

Menlo Voter, what exactly is it that you think the District doesn't get? MPCSD is in the midst of a financial shortfall that must be addressed via cuts, increased funding, or some combination of the two. $900K in cuts has been made this year, and the entirely reasonable hope is that the community might be willing to accept a parcel tax to forestall further cuts.

Ackerman has voiced his support for a parcel tax in an amount greater than a straight renewal of Measure C, and Lucas has also said she would support a well-structured parcel tax. So what "sanity" would they bring that's markedly different from what the current Board is considering?

If you have a fundamental objection to a parcel tax, fine: take your 1 vote to the polls and vote against it. Endlessly dragging the District and the School Board on Town Square doesn't accomplish anything, and is starting to make you appear a little unhinged.


8 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:12 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

Hello:

The sanity that Lucas and Ackerman will hopefully bring is the building of trust with this community. It has been lost. We won't trust any actions by the board until transparency is put in place and trust is restored.

As to the deficit. You and your fellow board members created this problem. And you made it worse by giving raises and bonuses immediately after losing the parcel tax vote. So, don't whine to me about the deficit.


7 people like this
Posted by HelloHanalei
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:13 pm

HelloHanalei is a registered user.

MV, I'm not a Board member, just someone who knows the facts. ;)


8 people like this
Posted by HelloHanalei
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:21 pm

HelloHanalei is a registered user.

And MV, if you mean trust, then say trust. Sanity is an entirely different thing.

On that note, many, many people trust this Board a great deal. You don't, clearly, and that's your prerogative, but please don't present it as a universal condition. The Trustees are honorable, ethical people working extremely hard (witness last night's 6-hour meeting) on an entirely volunteer basis. They deserve more respect that you afford them in your posts.


4 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:25 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Ackerman has voiced his support for a parcel tax in an amount greater than a straight renewal of Measure C, and Lucas has also said she would support a well-structured parcel tax."

Such statements, if correct, jeopardize the validity of any action that the Board might take before Lucas and Ackerman assume office.

As a nominally elected officials they are now subject to the Brown Act and they MUST avoid discussions with more than one other Board member on any specific subject and staff cannot serve as a communicator in a serial meeting between you and other Board members.

The Brown Act would make such a commitment very questionable and could invalidate any action that the Board might take before you are sworn in if that action were based on your input.


First:

"The Brown Act applies to the “legislative bodies” of all local agencies in California, e.g., councils, boards, commissions and committees. (§§ 54951, 54952.) In addition, any person elected to serve as a member of a legislative body who has not assumed the duties of office shall conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the Act, and shall be treated for purposes of enforcement of the Act as if he or she had already assumed office. (§ 54952.1; see, 216 Sutter Bay Associates v. County of Sutter

(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 860.)"

Second,

"The Act specifically prohibits any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries or technological devices that is employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken. (§ 54952.2(b).) Most often this type of meeting is conducted through a series of communications by individual members or less-than-a-quorum groups, ultimately involving a majority of the body’s members. These meetings are called serial meetings."


So if the Board acts on a parcel tax BASED ON INPUT from Lucas or Ackerman before they are sworn in then that decision will violate the Brown Act and the Board's action will be invalidated.


7 people like this
Posted by HelloHanalei
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:39 pm

HelloHanalei is a registered user.

Peter, David Ackerman made his position on a potential parcel tax known during the campaign. That's where I got it. AND, as I said, I'm not a Board member.

The Board would have liked to have David Ackerman and Caroline Lucas participate in last night's *open* discussion, but Ackerman didn't attend the meeting and Lucas left just as the relevant agenda item was reached. So, as much as the Board would have liked to have had their input — again, in an open meeting — they didn't receive it.

You can stand down; no one's committing any Brown Act violations. Sheesh.


1 person likes this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:46 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"MV, I'm not a Board member, just someone who knows the facts."

yeah, ok.

"On that note, many, many people trust this Board a great deal. You don't, clearly, and that's your prerogative, but please don't present it as a universal condition."

clearly enough people distrust this board that you couldn't sneak a pair of parcel taxes through.

"The Trustees are honorable, ethical people working extremely hard (witness last night's 6-hour meeting) on an entirely volunteer basis. They deserve more respect that you afford them in your posts."

Yes, they do deserve respect. But they also need to understand who they work for; ALL of the people of MPCSD, not just people with children in the district. They also need to understand that there are many of us that don't appreciate their opaque and insular operations.

"if you mean trust, then say trust. Sanity is an entirely different thing."

I said sanity and I meant sanity. I considered in insane to give raises and bonuses after losing a vote on two parcel taxes. I consider it insane to base a budget on income from parcel taxes that haven't even passed. I consider it insane to continue the same opaque attitude that helped them lose the parcel tax vote. There are numerous actions taken by the board I consider "insane."


9 people like this
Posted by Barbara Wood
Almanac staff writer
on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:46 pm

Barbara Wood is a registered user.

Actually David Ackerman was at the school board meeting last night, sitting right down the row from me. He stood up at the microphone and shared his view on a parcel tax with the board.
Caroline Lucas was at the meeting, but her husband said she felt ill and had to leave before public comment was taken, which if I remember correctly was after 11 p.m.


7 people like this
Posted by HelloHanalei
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:48 pm

HelloHanalei is a registered user.

Further to my previous comment, Lucas has also said, in several venues, (including, I believe, Town Square), that she would support a parcel tax, provided it's done the "right" way. So that's where I got that information. Again, no Brown Act violations. :-/


7 people like this
Posted by HelloHanalei
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:50 pm

HelloHanalei is a registered user.

Thanks, Barbara. I didn't see David, and I didn't make it through the whole meeting, so I didn't hear him speak. I appreciate the clarification!


9 people like this
Posted by HelloHanalei
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:58 pm

HelloHanalei is a registered user.

' "MV, I'm not a Board member, just someone who knows the facts."

yeah, ok." '

MV, your sarcastic, caustic tone is so off-putting. It's also very ironic that you expect people to take you at face value when you make statements about who you are, yet you're not willing to extend that same courtesy to another person who chooses not to post under their own name.

I assure you I'm not a Board member. I'm a concerned citizen who works very hard to be knowledgeable about what's going on in MPCSD, and who cares enough to stay abreast of the facts.

Believe me, NO Board members post on Town Square. You can choose to believe that or not, but please don't direct your sarcasm at me when I truthfully say that I am not, and never have been, an MPCSD School Board Trustee.


4 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 10, 2016 at 9:20 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"You can stand down; no one's committing any Brown Act violations."

It is important that the staff not serve as intermediaries in sharing the positions of current and elected Board members outside of a properly agendized Board meeting.

The issue is exacerbated by the perception that there is already a lack of transparency by the Board and thus the Board needs to err on the side of caution. If they do not then any decision that they make that appears to have been orchestrated in private can and will be challenged as a Brown Act violation.


12 people like this
Posted by put teachers first
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Nov 11, 2016 at 6:05 am

I was glad to see David Ackerman clearly state at the meeting that he wants to see the District go for a big parcel tax and not listen to the small group of detractors who have always voted against our schools.


5 people like this
Posted by Good for the Community
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Nov 11, 2016 at 6:27 am

No one has won the election yet. Ackerman and Lucas are leading, but it usually takes the county a couple weeks to receive all the ballots and then once that happens they verify the signatures, audit and confirm. The County has up to 30 days after election day to do this upon which they will certify it and release a "Statement of the Vote" which are the official election results.

So technically, none of the candidates are "elected" officials yet and thus subject to the Brown Act.

After the official statement of the vote is released and we know who won, then they are.


4 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 11, 2016 at 8:02 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

If a person has not been elected then there is absolutely no legal basis for an elected body to include that person in their deliberations.

If person has been elected then the statute specifies:  “Any person elected to serve as a member of a legislative body who has not yet assumed the duties of office shall conform his or her conduct to the requirements of [the Brown Act] and shall be treated for purposes of enforcement of [the Brown Act] as if he or she has already assumed office.” (§ 54952.1;  Stats.1993, c. 1137, § 1, operative April 1, 1994, and a 1994 amendment, operative April 1, 1994.)

If there is a doubt about when a person has been elected then my advice is to err on the side of caution. (We have a President-elect and yet the Electoral College does not meet until December - all parties are treating the President not yet "elected" as the President-elect)

In the case of an elected body like MPCSD where serious concerns of transparency have been raised it would be wise to err on the side of caution.

A Board decision that "appeared" to include private conversations with presumptive/elected/no yet sworn in new Board members leading to the "formation of a consensus" establishes a perfect opportunity for anyone to challenge the decision and thereby force the Board to redo the entire process - which would probably delay the hoped for election date.


13 people like this
Posted by School Supporter
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Nov 11, 2016 at 9:08 am

David Ackerman was willing to stand up and tell the Board and public whether or not he supports the Board in going out for a March parcel tax election. Why was Caroline Lucas unwilling to tell us where she stands as well? Is it quite clear that she had to run home to consult with her puppet master, Peter Carpenter, for instructions. Ackerman urged the Board to not listen to the Peter Carpenters as they will find one excuse du jour after the other to pursue their anti-tax agenda. Bravo David for putting the bullies in notice!


8 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 11, 2016 at 9:15 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Note that I have gone on public record in recommending that the Board place a $515 parcel tax on the March ballot:

Web Link

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 24, 2016 at 1:04 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I attended this mornings MPCSD Board outreach meeting and made the following comments:

The three existing permanent parcel taxes were a decision by the tax payers to elevate the MPCSD standard of performance.

The Board and the staff have done an excellent job of delivering on that community commitment.

I recommend March election on a $515 parcel tax that would expire in 6
years to determine if the entire community is supportive of maintaining the current academic programs.

The target audience for the next parcel election is the taxpayers who will have to pay the bill (not the parents of current students or the teachers) and that audience is totally missing from this morning's meeting and that audience is very uninformed about the performance of the school district and the school board.

The success in that vote will depend on:
- making a strong case for maintaining the current status,
- full disclosure of all revenue and expenditure information,
- and a strong program of fiscal discipline.


9 people like this
Posted by School Supporter
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Nov 11, 2016 at 9:30 am

Peter, Since you made that comment in a meeting, you have since made numerous comments on line which make it obvious that you and (therefore Caroline) will find some excuse to not support a March parcel tax. Ackerman is totally against you, and he received way more votes than Lucas as he pointed out when he encouraged the board and public to ignore the likes of you.


14 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 11, 2016 at 9:34 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I am simply making it clear that the parents do not have enough votes to pass any new parcel tax and that the target audience is the non-parent taxpayers.

Convincing those non-parent taxpayers to support a new parcel tax will be difficult.


The Board did not listen to that message last Spring and two parcel taxes were defeated.

I suggest that you quit trying to shoot the messengers and start solving the problem of informing the non-parent taxpayers before the next parcel tax also fails.


7 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 11, 2016 at 9:37 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

BTW - The decision to put a parcel tax on the ballot is very different than getting enough votes to pass that parcel tax. It is easy for the Board to put something on the ballot; it will be much more difficult to get it passed.


5 people like this
Posted by School Supporter
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Nov 11, 2016 at 9:47 am

Peter, You actively worked to endorse and spread the false information in the arguments against to defeat the parcel taxes.


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 11, 2016 at 9:51 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The perfect antidote for "false information" is good information.

The voters were faced with the best information that the opponents could find and no information from MPCSD.

I hope that the Board is not stupid enough to repeat that experience and I am encouraged by the posted FAQs which are a good start but still not sufficient.


4 people like this
Posted by Jenson
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Nov 11, 2016 at 10:16 am

The board figures a couple of months of saying we are being transparent, we learned our lesson. Don't be fooled by the boards rhetoric vote down any talk of a new parcel tax. Don't trust them.


9 people like this
Posted by HelloHanalei
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Nov 11, 2016 at 11:11 am

HelloHanalei is a registered user.

"A Board decision that "appeared" to include private conversations with presumptive/elected/no yet sworn in new Board members leading to the "formation of a consensus" establishes a perfect opportunity for anyone to challenge the decision and thereby force the Board to redo the entire process - which would probably delay the hoped for election date."

Peter, you need to stop making unsubstantiated accusations, i.e. spreading misinformation and lies. What you're talking about HAS NOT HAPPENED, and to imply in a public forum that it has is irresponsible and incendiary.

Why don't you ask your proxy, Caroline Lucas, if any Board member has reached out to her privately. You probably know perfectly well that no one has, and yet you persist in implying here that the School Board is holding side conversations in violation of the Brown Act. This is really vile.


3 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 11, 2016 at 11:52 am

HH- you seem to have a reading comprehension problem:

"It is important that the STAFF not serve as intermediaries in sharing the positions of current and elected Board members outside of a properly agendized Board meeting."


4 people like this
Posted by School Supporter
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Nov 11, 2016 at 12:13 pm

Peter, The MPCSD staff know the Brown Act very well and are highly ethical. Obviously, this is just another of your constant stream of intentional falsehoods.


3 people like this
Posted by Peter F Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 11, 2016 at 12:30 pm

Wow - there IS a big reading comprehension problem when posters cannot understand the difference between a caution and an accusation.

I have raised only cautions and made no accusations.


Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Nov 11, 2016 at 1:40 pm

Jack Hickey is a registered user.

When is a candidate deemed to have been elected? Is it when the results are "official"?

This reminds me of the laws regarding ballot measures. Do parcel taxes ring a bell?
The laws prohibit "electionering", but only "after" a measure is on the ballot. That's why you see all these surveys, a.k.a. "push-polls" before the final measure is placed on the ballot. See Web Link


10 people like this
Posted by Menlo Man
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Nov 11, 2016 at 2:20 pm

I attended all six hours of this board meeting. After Jeff Child indicated that he wanted to hear from incoming board members, Alka Gupta, Scott Saywell, and David Ackerman answered the call and stood in front of the Board and gave their opinion on a future parcel tax.

Where was Caroline Lucas?

She slipped out to the bathroom and then out the door. She was not present give any input on a future parcel tax. Her husband then sheepishly announced that she was "feeling ill".

Suspicious? irresponsible? convenient? I hope this is not the kind of evasive behavior and leadership we can expect from Caroline Lucas in the next four years.


6 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 11, 2016 at 5:58 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Serving in elected office is a responsibility and as long as Childs and Hilton are on the Board they must vote their own conscience.

If Childs and Hilton want the Board to have Ackerman and Lucas's input then they should both resign tonight and the Board could then appoint Ackerman and Lucas to those two vacant seats.


6 people like this
Posted by School Supporter
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Nov 11, 2016 at 9:32 pm

Peter, If the current board were not interested in hearing the opinions of Lucas and Ackerman, you would castigate them for that, so your last comment is completely disingenuous. Your gambit here is so obvious: have Caroline stay nothing about what she will support, and only after the board places something on the ballot have her come up with a whole new set of "transparency" failings that the district has not satisfied you with which you then use as your excuse to campaign against the schools yet again. It's obvious to everyone that you (and therefore Caroline) will never truly support the necessary funding for our schools. Ackerman said as much at the meeting when he urged the board to ignore your little group and move forward.


2 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 12, 2016 at 5:05 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is the League of California Cities guidance:

"Newly-elected members of a legislative body who have not yet assumed office must conform to the requirements of the Brown Act as if already in office.7 Thus, meetings between incumbents and newly-elected members of a legislative body, such as a meeting between two outgoing members and a member-elect of a ve-member body, could violate the Brown Act.

Q. On the morning following the election to a five-member legislative body of a local agency, two successful candidates, neither an incumbent, meet with an incumbent member of the legislative body for a celebratory breakfast. Does this violate the Brown Act?

A. It might, and absolutely would if the conversation turns to agency business. Even though the candidates-elect have not officially been sworn in, the Brown Act applies. If purely a social event, there is no violation but it would be preferable if others were invited to attend to avoid the appearance of impropriety. "


9 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 12, 2016 at 5:17 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"It's obvious to everyone that you (and therefore Caroline) will never truly support the necessary funding for our schools. Ackerman said as much at the meeting when he urged the board to ignore your little group and move forward."

I have repeatedly stated that I WILL support "the necessary funding for our schools" IF
- the Board can make a strong case for maintaining the current status,
- there is full disclosure of all revenue and expenditure information,
- and there is a strong program of fiscal discipline.

I suggest that most non-parent taxpayers would also take the same position and to ignore that "little group" (which represents 60-70% of the voters) would be foolish.


8 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Nov 12, 2016 at 1:49 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The Board's role is to propose a parcel tax, if any, to the voters and then the voters get to decide.

Why not put two different parcel tax proposals on the ballot worded in such a way that only the one that receives the most votes in excess of the required 2/3 super majority would be implemented?

One alternative would be a simple replacement for the expiring parcel tax - same amount and same duration.

The second alternative would be for $515 and with the same duration.

And then the Board would need to spend the next 3 months educating the public and demonstrating fiscal discipline.

Then let the voters/taxpayers decide.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle

on Jun 20, 2017 at 12:01 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

The Last Straw
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 2,084 views

Couples: Do you Really Agree or are you Afraid of not Agreeing?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 887 views

Trying to enjoy the routines again
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 401 views

 

2018 guide to summer camps

Looking for something for the kids to do this summer, learn something new and have fun? The 2018 Summer Camp Guide features local camps for all ages and interests.

Find Camps Here