Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
> Delaware Public Forums > Dover Public Issues Forum > News from Capital School District

News from Capital School District
 Moderated by: webteam
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2010 04:23 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
at3
Member
 

Joined: Wed Nov 26th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 40
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

Capital district referendum postponed

Vote now March 31 on $132 million plan

By Bruce Pringle


Delaware State News DOVER — Capital School District’s $132 million referendum has been post­poned until March 31.

District Superintendent Michael D. Thomas said Tuesday the vote, origi­nally set for March 2, must be delayed in order to meet public- notice require­ments of a state law enacted after the Capital referendum was scheduled. House Bill 244, signed by Gov. Jack A. Markell on Feb. 1, established new deadlines the district did not have time to meet, Dr. Thomas said.

The situation was disconcerting, he said, but does allow ad­ditional opportunities to promote plans for a new Dover High School and several other projects. He said that promotion was slowed by recent snow­storms.

District residents al­ready have agreed to move the high school from Walker Road to Del. 8. They approved a $ 46.7 million referendum in 2007 that included $ 8.9 million to purchase the 106- acre Car­ey Farm for use as a high school campus.

While the economy has soured since then, the need to build has not diminished, Dr. Thomas said. “ The longer we wait to build, the more expensive it will be.”

Passage of the March referendum would result in an immediate tax hike fol­lowed by smaller ones in each of the next three years. For each $ 100,000 of a proper­ty’s market value, the district estimates, a tax bill would rise by about $ 54 in the fi rst year, followed by increases of roughly $ 17, $ 18 and $ 5.

Those calculations are based on pas­sage of both parts of the planned two- part referendum. One part seeks approval for most of the work, of which state funds would cover 70 percent. The second part seeks $ 27 million for work ineligible for state assistance.

The latter includes $ 15 million at the high school, $ 8.4 million for a new district offi ce/ teacher training center and $ 3.9 mil­lion for a new maintenance garage and receiving facility.

The $ 15 million for the high school would ensure a better auditorium, gym, technology labs and parking, Dr. Thomas said. The new district offi ce, garage and receiving center would replace dilapi­dated ones, and the training center would provide something the district currently lacks, he said.

Staff writer Bruce Pringle can be reached at 741-8233 or bpringle@newszap.com.

 



 Posted: Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 06:58 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
tspong
Member
 

Joined: Fri Aug 24th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4244
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted ot the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."

Give us world-class education and we will give you world-class facilities. The public education we now have is Third World, not world-class.

At a time, place and date of their choosing and most convenient to them (Tuesday, March 2), the Capital School District will hold a $132 million referendum. This figure is 13 percent of our total annual statewide education budget. There will be no fairness to be found in this process, and integrity will hide from view.

Everyone supports great teachers, even good ones; however, bad teachers only exist to pay dues to the corrupt D.S.E.A. – they serve no other purpose.

Our nation’s future depends on quality education and quality teachers. We cannot have one without the other. Twenty percent of children receive non-public schooling, prompting the D.S.E.A. to have the General Assembly pass a law placing a moratorium on new charter schools – this is political power.

Let’s be honest: This is not about good teachers and it is not about “the children”; this is all about those who run our failed public education system. And, as to the money, a few hundred dollars extra in taxes is pocket change for me, but I am not willing to pay one thin dime, or even one red cent, for a new $8 million administration building (100 percent of this cost to be paid by Capital District property owners). I did the math in my head. This comes to one quarter million dollars per administrator. That’s the cost of a house. Now, how many of you folks out there are living in a $250,000 home? And, for those who are, how many of you get to go to work each day in a quarter-million-dollar office?

This is arrogance of power personified to even attempt to leech this self-serving benefit from the rest of us by six-figure public school administrators in the light of the public education mess that they have created.

With that said, I deem it only fair to say this: I have never met Capital School District superintendent Dr. Michael Thomas, but I did have an opportunity to speak with him recently. He returned my call. I found Dr. Thomas to be gracious, thoughtful, engaged, forward-thinking and, of course, certainly intelligent.

Dr. Thomas has a daunting, if not monumental, task to restore public trust and confidence in our public education system. In this regard, I (sincerely) wish him well.

Fred Allen Bass

Dover

 



 Posted: Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 05:57 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
58chief
Member
 

Joined: Wed Feb 3rd, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 1
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

I don't think it is wise to hope that the CSD is fiscally responsible. They spend our money like it's a never-ending supply. For example, when everyone else in the state is taking pay-cuts, or losing benefits, or possibly a job, they decide to give the teachers a retroactive pay raise and one going forward. What the heck, they'll just have another referendum and squeeze us some more. And if the referendum fails, they'll wait a few weeks and try again.  They did this a few years ago, and magically it passed the second time around...



 Posted: Tue Jan 26th, 2010 04:26 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
gov2mod
Member
 

Joined: Sat Dec 13th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 59
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

    While the City of Dover may own the Garrison farm and the Capital School district owns the Carey farm, the citizens of Dover are the Capital school district. I'm sure if given a choice of spending an addition 8.9 million dollars on the Carey farm and have their property tax increase or use the Garrison farm which was already paid for, the citizens of Dover would have gladly approved of giving a small portion of the 380 acre Garrison farm to the Capital School District.


    The Garrison farm has become a huge, zero profit, white elephant to the taxpayers of Dover. This property was pushed on the people of Dover as it would be “Dover's Garrison Oak Technology Park” and thousands of local people would be employed at all of these high tech firms.

The people of Dover have had absolutely no benefit from the acquisition of this farm 10 years ago other than it didn't become another housing development we didn’t need. This property is so large it could have been used for a new school location in addition to a high tech industrial park, which of course the later never occurred and may never happen.

    I am not against paying for or building new schools. I’m just for financial responsibility in local government spending when there are other options available that would not have cost the taxpayers this additional 8.9 million dollars. The Garrison farm is probably one of the largest single pieces of property in Kent County and certainly could have been used for a new school with plenty of room to spare.

     Perhaps those of you arguing for the Carey farm location have a financial stake in this matter.


Last edited on Wed Jan 27th, 2010 02:33 am by gov2mod



 Posted: Tue Jan 26th, 2010 02:11 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
gov2mod
Member
 

Joined: Sat Dec 13th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 59
Status: 
Offline

  back to top


Aren't those same school buses going to be crossing Rt13 going the opposite direction? Aren't the same school buses going to be going all the way through Dover, down Division St going out to the school on Rt8 just the same as they would be going the opposite direction out to White Oak Rd? The point wasn't concerning the school bus traffic through Dover but the impact of the traffic AT the school site on Rt8 that will be affecting the multitude of commuter and truck traffic on Rt8 at rush hour morning and afternoon. There isn't 1/10 of that same amount of traffic on White Oak Rd at those times of the day compared to Rt8 which is the only major artery for traffic to and from the west.   
    Plus, the other point was that the citizens of Dover have already paid for the Garrison farm 10 years ago and would have saved 8.9 million dollars had that unused property been selected for the school site instead of the Carey farm. Is anybody home in the finance department, we are in a recession, aren’t we? Of course compared to the 132 million of our money they are gong to spend on the current projects what's another 8.9 million? Especially when they can help one of their cronies out of a financial slump by stuffing 8.9 million in their pockets. Of course this school site will only lead to several years of complaints concerning the horrible traffic situation at the Rt8 site every day. They will have to install traffic signals at the school, the entrance to Cranberry Run, at Sharon Hill Rd, and the Chesnut Grove/Nault Rd intersection which will further impede the flow of traffic. 
     That is until the powers that be decide that next we will need an east-west bypass around Dover due to the traffic situation. Then the same cronies will be able to sell their property in the affected area at three times its market value as well. I certainly wish I could get three times the market value of my property in Dover. Maybe the Capital School district would like to buy it to put an office building where my house is located, I’ll let it go for a mere 3 million.

Last edited on Tue Jan 26th, 2010 02:34 am by gov2mod



 Posted: Mon Jan 25th, 2010 09:15 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
Playing the Game
Member


Joined: Wed Jan 30th, 2008
Location: Delaware USA
Posts: 5911
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

Let's see now, who benefitted from the sale to the City for that property?  Who is that Good Ole Boy who made millions off a piece of property?  All of the other developers were going bankrupt with housing developments but not this one.



 Posted: Mon Jan 25th, 2010 07:07 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
tspong
Member
 

Joined: Fri Aug 24th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4244
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Delaware State News. 

 
In the Public Forum section of today's edition of the State News (Jan. 13, 2010) appears an anonymous comment questioning the Capital School District's acquisition of the Carey property for a new Dover High School, while claiming the district should have used the city of Dover's "Garrison Tract," thereby saving the cost of purchasing the west Dover location.

Additionally, the commenter seems to think that school buses crossing U.S. 13 to access substandard White Oak Road would be preferable to the Del. 8-Forrest Avenue corridor.

In 2007 there were similar questions and complaints from anonymous commentators and opponents, as well as concerns from nearby resident Mr. Richard Ornauer, whom I understand is now deceased. In a rather long Letter to the Editor of the DSN, I, at the time a member of the Capital District Board of Education, responded to those claims and suppositions with an explanation of the various steps followed, culminating with the purchase of the Carey lands, including our overture to the city of Dover for a portion of the Garrison site, and their rejection of our inquiry.

The contents of that published letter would still apply today and to the dissenting claims of anonymous critics. Therefore, I respectfully request that the State News rerun that April 2007 letter in order to clarify, once again, the chronology and actions taken leading to the successful conveyance of the site for the new and needed Dover High School, which will become a source of community and distrcitr pride and academic achievenment, hopefully in the near future.

My condolences to Mrs. Ornauer. Richard was a good man.

Doug Van Sant,

Former member, Capital School District Board of Education

Dover

 


Search for Dover High site a lengthy process

Guest Commentary

Thursday, April 19, 2007
 
Editor's note: This is part one of a two-part series.

Douglas A. Van Sant

Recently, several comments have appeared within State News Sound Off and Letters to the Editor columns pertaining to the acquisition by the Capital School District of a site for a new Dover High School, and a comment directed at the Caesar Rodney District but related to our action. This is to respond to those comments.

First, I will say that I could go on at length and into a detailed chronology, but that would likely become tedious reading and occupy more space than the State News would want to grant. So I'll try to be as concise as I can.

A Sound Off caller (April 5) claimed that the Capital School District, for the location of a new Dover High, "found land all of a sudden" following passage of our most recent referendum. Further, the caller suggested that it "couldn't have been too much of a challenge" to locate an acceptable property.

Our search for a suitable site for a new high school began more than a year and a half ago, following a decision to realign grades, and a study of all existing school buildings in the district — their capacities, current and future utilization and physical condition. Realizing the current Dover High School was not capable of supporting growth, criteria for a site was established — at least a hundred acres, a substantial road, be readily accessible, have available public utilities (sanitary sewer, water) and, ideally, it would be west of Dover.

We began by reviewing aerial photos and tax maps, enlisting the assistance of the state Planning Office to identify possible sites, and requesting the advice of certain local real estate offices.

An early site considered was the Carey farm that was for sale, but we felt the listing price was a bit much for us to meet. Not knowing what else might be available, we essentially searched other potential sites within the district's boundaries. That meant lands along Hazlettville Road, Hartly Road (Del. 8), Chestnut Grove Road, McKee Road, Del. 42 and other roads connecting these routes. We took "road trips" a couple of board members (no more than two at a time) and other administration personnel piled into a van and simply rode the roads looking for attractive sites. Let me briefly divert here.

Another Sound Off caller (April 6) referring to the coming Caesar Rodney referendum stated: "The City of Dover owns a couple of farms" and asked why the Capital and CR districts couldn't "build their school on that property instead of buying new property?" It should go without saying that nothing, even a school, can be placed on someone else's lands without permission, or a conveyance.

As I mentioned above, we really desired a site on the west side of Dover that would be more central within our district, but we were willing to look east. We were also aware that zoning codes, Dover Air Force Base flight patterns and the state's restriction on development east of Del. 1 may have resulted in disapproval by the state planner and the state Department of Education, and other jurisdictions.

However, even with that facing us, the Capital District search group did, in fact, inquire of the city of Dover about their willingness to convey to us 100 of the 389-acre Garrison Tract on White Oak Road. The city said no. They wish to keep the tract intact.

Other tracts east of Dover were considered but owners were not willing to sell, or parcels were found to be in "agricultural preservation" status.

Back to the west of Dover. Owners along Hazlettville Road were contacted. Responses and findings were: rejection, agricultural preservation, or "perhaps in the future but not now," or were of insufficient acreage. The same results came along the other main roads to our west and northwest. We did find one farm on a side road that might work, but it was on a substandard road, had drainage, wetland, and tree preservation issues, and no public utilities. Another, at an intersection of Del. 8, close to Pearson's Corner, contained only about 65 acres.

We were running out of ideas, and getting discouraged. We knew that if it were tough now, it would only get tougher as years went by.

(Next: How we finally settled on the Carey Farm property for a new Dover High School)
Editor's Note: Douglas A. Van Sant resides in Dover and is a member of the Capital School District Board of Education. He can be reached at (302) 736-6096.
 
Caption: "Our search for a suitable site for a new high school began more than a year and a half ago, following a decision to realign grades, and a study of all existing school buildings in the district — their capacities, current and future utilization and physical condition." — Douglas A. VanSant

 

New School Will Make Community Proud

Guest Commentary


Editor's note: This is part two of a two-part series.


April 20, 2007


Douglas A Van Sant

Near the end of last August a contact was made with the Carey family about their interest in talking to us about their farm. I had been a co-worker with Donald Carey in the City Engineer's Office of the City of Dover so I was acquainted with him. In my letter to Donald I explained our financial constraints, and stressed we were not trying to go around his broker and were willing to work with them. Mr. Carey responded favorably and agreed to meet with us, and in early September we had our first meeting. That was seven months before final agreement was reached.

Purchase price was discussed and a first sales agreement was prepared. For those seven months it was back and forth. An offer was discussed by the board and presented. Clauses in the agreement were changed by both parties. The necessity of referendum approval was understood. We reached a "gentleman's agreement" but even then more revisions were needed. I think at least one tree gave its life for the numerous proposed agreements.

We found ourselves dealing with very rare people in the Carey family, and it is truly fortunate for us that we were. They seemed to desire that a school, an educational facility, be built on their land rather than, as was mentioned, "300 or 400 rooftops." This would be a proud legacy and memorial to their parents, and themselves, even if it meant selling at a price lower than they knew might come from a commercial developer. Rare, very good people.

We proceeded knowing that this opportunity would probably never come again. Finally, on March 22, an agreement was signed. Seven months of negotiations and a year of searching had passed. A year and a half from the start of the project.

A Sound Off caller in the Delaware State News thinks that is "all of a sudden." I prefer "arduous."

To wrap up, Mr. Richard Ornauer, by his April 14 letter to the State News, praised our selection, and successful agreement for acquisition, of the Carey property, and we thank him for that.

He did, however, question whether the Capital Board had considered the traffic impact on Del. 8-Hartly Road/Forrest Street.

The quick answer is yes.

We know that additional traffic will be placed on that road. Any development of any kind will add vehicles. We know certain improvements may be required particularly at wherever the entrance will be -- bypass and turning lanes, perhaps signalization -- and we are certainly aware of the costs involved.

But as to adding to traffic counts, we also know that this would be the case no matter where such a school might be built. And if we might point out an advantage, it would be that, as he mentioned, the additional traffic will be during 180 days (actually a little more due to activities). Consider it would basically be five days a week, little or no traffic on weekends, holidays and during the summer, as compared to traffic generated by some 300-plus homes or a commercial facility seven days a week, 12 months a year.

On infrastructure what made the Carey farm especially attractive is its closeness to public utilities. Site engineers will design a sanitary sewer plan and a water loop to reach the nearby existing Del. 8 sanitary and water mains, as well as onsite storm water management. A power line on the property will require relocation. We trust the City of Dover will work with us in providing access to their systems.

I can understand the concern of Mr. Ornauer. Few of us want additional traffic or growth intruding into our neighborhoods. We intend to be as good a neighbor as we can be. It is true, as he put it, Hartly Road/Del. 8, is a "gateway" to Dover.

We expect to work with all the residents nearby, with all governing authorities, and everyone in the Capital School District to make the new high school edifice and its grounds and athletic fields a source of genuine pride for our students, faculty, its future alumni, our whole community and especially the payers of the taxes necessary to build it.

To continue to be the best, we want our facilities to be the best. And to be accepted. 


Last edited on Mon Jan 25th, 2010 07:13 pm by tspong



 Posted: Thu Jan 21st, 2010 04:04 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
tspong
Member
 

Joined: Fri Aug 24th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4244
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

What do you think?

From the Delaware State News:

Capital district to hold referendum March 2


Bulk of $132 million plan would fund new high school


By Jamie-Leigh Bissett


Delaware State News


DOVER — Capital School District residents will be asked to approve a $132 million referendum on March 2 after the school board unanimously approved a motion to move forward with it during Wednesday’s meeting.


"The emotion I feel for the opportunity to move forth and convince our citizens that we need a new high school now ... I’m incredibly excited for the opportunity ... and I want to thank you deeply and sincerely," district superintendent Dr. Michael D. Thomas said to the board after their approval.


"Of course there are other aspects to the referendum, but the high school is the overwhelming majority of the funding and it will be the cornerstone of the district and the community."


If approved, the referendum would fund the construction of a new Dover High School, site renovations at William Henry Middle, Booker T. Washington Elementary and Central Middle, the purchase or construction of a professional development office and the purchase or construction of a new maintenance building and receiving facility for the district.


Dr. Thomas said the referendum will ask voters for additional local funds to go towards the new high school, which he called "critical."


"The funding determined by the state formula (for referendums) will build the basic structure, but high schools have several special areas that require additional local dollars," he said.


"We want people decades from now to say ‘You put a lot of thought into this high school.’"


The need in the community for a state-of-the-art high school was one of several reasons Dr. Thomas gave for why Capital residents should support the referendum.


Four voting sights for the referendum were also approved by the board on Wednesday, including Hartly Elementary, South Dover Elementary, Towne Point Elementary and William Henry Middle.


Project breakdown


The referendum will fund four main projects, though the bulk of the money will be used for the new high school.


According to the district, the total amount being sought for the high school is about $114 million, which includes nearly $70 million from the state, and $45 million from local funds, $15 million of which are "additional" local funds.


The site renovations for William Henry Middle, Booker T. Washington Elementary and Central Middle will cost $5.5 million total, about $3.9 million from the state and $1.7 from local funds.


The professional development and district office center will cost about $8.4 million, all of which will come from local funds. The maintenance and receiving facility for the district will also come strictly from local funds and will cost about $3.9 million.


Tax report


District business manager Sean Sokolowski provided board members with a report on projected tax rates residents can expect if they approve the referendum.


The numbers are based on the assumption that voters approve the referendum in its entirety and therefore would be asked to fund about $59 million, while the state would provide about $73 million.


For instance, for fiscal year 2011, if the approximate market value for a home is $50,000, there would be a $27.19 increase per year in taxes.


For a home worth about $100,000, residents would see a $54.38 per year increase.


A home worth about $200,000 would see a $108.73 tax increase per year.


Homes worth about $300,000 would see an increase of $163.11 per year in taxes.


Mr. Sokolowski said the increases would generally decrease every fiscal year thereafter.


Dr. Thomas said if homeowners are interested in knowing how their tax rates would be affected by the referendum, they can contact Mr. Sokolowski at 672-1556.


Staff writer Jamie-Leigh Bissett can be reached at 741-8250 or jlhughes@newszap.com.



 Posted: Sun Jan 17th, 2010 01:59 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
Disgusted
Member
 

Joined: Thu Sep 29th, 2005
Location: Dover
Posts: 796
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

Kirk, to repeat, I, and others, have seen WC and DSU students who live in on-campus housing voting in CSD referendums. I don't care if they vote pro or con, although I'm on the NO side - the vote has to be honest.

I agree with your recitation of the law, but it's much different in actual practice.



 Posted: Thu Jan 14th, 2010 01:38 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
gov2mod
Member
 

Joined: Sat Dec 13th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 59
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

You may justify it any way that you please but the simple facts are anyone with a proper ID can vote but only those that own property will pay.



 Posted: Thu Jan 14th, 2010 01:30 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
Kirk
Member
 

Joined: Tue Oct 11th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 526
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

g2m: I have never heard of a landlord that was incapable of raising the rent on their property to recover any property tax changes.  Changes do not take place retroactively - and even if they did happen quickly the owner would raise the rent to recover the cost; leases are generally short term (one year or less).  The only way that a landlord might have to wait a few months to recover their increased property taxes would be if they completely ignored a referendum and its results, chose to not increase their rent (yeah, right), and signed a lease at exactly the right moment so that the tax increase (which they would have to be ignorant of) occurred coincidentally.  If the landlord is both that stupid and uninformed they might, repeat might, need to wait several months before increasing their rent to recover the tax increase.  But notice, the leasee is still paying the property tax through their rent - the landlord will eventually collect the increased tax.

As to those who have the inflated sense of self-importance to believe that large numbers of college students at WC and DSU give a rats-behind what happens in a Dover municipal election - to get a driver's license/ID you need a street address.  Campus addresses are not acceptable.  This precludes any out-of-town students from voting because they cannot get a driver's license.  Of those students that rent an apartment instead of living on campus, very few change their driver's license.  This entails changing their car plates, registration, and insurance as well (just walk around the student rental neighborhoods and you will see very few DE license plates).  Since most are reliant on Mummy and Dahddie for support, they are not going to the effort to increase their insurance bill (among other costs) just so they can vote in a school referendum.  These students (who pay property taxes through increased rents) are not allowed to vote unless they pay all these other costs.  In which case, they have a vested interest in the outcome of the election just like anyone else in the community and should be able to vote.  There are no "part-time" student residents that merely show up and cast their vote and then drive home to Jersey or Ocean City. 

While it may seem like it should be "easy" to vote in a school board referendum, the department of elections guidelines require at minimum a driver's license or state issued ID to be "registered" (eligible - poor word choice in my prior post) to vote. 

For those that think it unfair that some people receive rent-subsidies and therefore pay less of the tax, the reason they have rent subsidies is because they do not make enough income to afford housing and they need to live somewhere.  If you prefer, we could have a "living wage" law in Dover that would require employers to pay high enough wages so that everyone working could reasonably afford housing here.  Given the average rent in Dover, this would require a minimum wage of more than $15.00 per hour.  (Housing costs at no more than 45% of the Gross Income of a full-time hours employed person)  Shall we count on your support for such a measure?

 



 Posted: Wed Jan 13th, 2010 10:38 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
gov2mod
Member
 

Joined: Sat Dec 13th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 59
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

I can't believe that there hasn't been more outrage over the cost of the Carey farm at 8.9 million dollars for the property alone? Maybe at the height of the housing boom but now you could have bought three farms for the almost nine million the Capital School district spent on this one piece of property. It smells very badly of a "fixed" deal before it was ever purchased. Let's see who that did the planning for this one that's driving around in a new car or just built a new house somewhere. As for the comment that landlords can't raise the rent to cover the cost of the tax increase I didn't mean they could never raise it. I meant that many have a lease that prohibits an increase until the lease is up and it could have meant waiting up to another year. What about the section 8 and other low or no cost Government housing? Those residents would never have to pay their fair share for the cost of any school referendum tax increase.

Last edited on Wed Jan 13th, 2010 10:42 am by gov2mod



 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 02:27 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
gov2mod
Member
 

Joined: Sat Dec 13th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 59
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

Plus, why did it cost the taxpayers 8.9 million dollars for the property on Rt 8 for a new school? The road is severely overcrowded with traffic everyday now. Can you imagine what it will be like once a school is built there? Guess what it will be like at 8 am trying to get into Dover on the way to work with the reduced speed limit of a school zone and dozens of school buses in both directions? The city already owned the Garrison farm on White Oak Rd. Why couldn't the school be built there instead? The taxpayers in the Capital School district have already paid for that useless piece of property which was touted as a windfall to the people of Dover as a high tech Business park. It's sat empty for 10 years and it's benefit to the taxpayers of Dover has been absolutely zero to date. This not only would have saved us 8.9 million dollars but there can't be 1/10th the amount of traffic on White Oak Rd at rush hour than on Rt 8. Both of these real estate deals, the Garrison farm and the Carey farm, stink to high heaven. I think that both of these were done deals way before any voter input. As in all politics, someone, somewhere, is making a lot of money on this political chicanery



 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 01:54 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
Disgusted
Member
 

Joined: Thu Sep 29th, 2005
Location: Dover
Posts: 796
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

Kirk, please read what Hartylboy and gov2mod have stated. They're correct. Additionally, I've seen and heard of DSU and Wesley students who do not make Dover their full-time residence being at school board referendums casting votes.

The CSD doesn't need more revenue. Rather, it needs at least a 30% revenue cut, forcing it to do better with less. You see, as long as they can get more money, where's the incentive to be efficient and responsible with their appropriated funds?



 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 01:38 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
15th Post
Hartlyboy
Member
 

Joined: Mon Oct 3rd, 2005
Location:  Kenton, Delaware USA
Posts: 3905
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

Kirk wrote: gov2mod wrote: "The big issue I have with every one of these Capital School District referendums is that no one that votes for it has to pay for it except property owners. Anyone, 18 years or older, can vote for this referendum as long as they "reside" in the Capital School District. The can be teenagers living at home, renters, Dover Air Base personnel, anyone."
Only registered voters are permitted to vote.  The requirements for registering to vote in the State of Delaware are available from the department of elections.


 
Kirk, I don't agree that you have to be a registered voter to vote in referendums. Just have to be over 18 and live in the district. I thought that was one reason why they didn't want to 'confuse voters' by making school board elections part of the general election.



 Posted: Sun Jan 10th, 2010 05:07 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
16th Post
gov2mod
Member
 

Joined: Sat Dec 13th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 59
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE 





Must be a citizen of the United States and Delaware





Must be 18 years of age or older






Must be a resident of the School District



 

You do NOT have to be a registered voter, but you must furnish proof of identification (a valid driver’s license or State of Delaware I.D. card) at the polling place





  • If you are eligible to vote, but unable to go to the polls for a reason defined by law, you may vote by absentee ballot by mail or in person


  • § 1077. Qualified voters.

    Every citizen 18 years of age or over and a resident of the reorganized school district shall be eligible to vote at the school election in the reorganized school district in which that citizen resides, whether or not that citizen is at the time a registered voter for purposes of a general election.

    14 Del. C. 1953, § 1077; 56 Del. Laws, c. 292, § 6; 58 Del. Laws, c. 411; 68 Del. Laws, c. 220, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.;
  • Last edited on Sun Jan 10th, 2010 05:13 am by gov2mod



     Posted: Sat Jan 9th, 2010 11:29 pm
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    17th Post
    Kirk
    Member
     

    Joined: Tue Oct 11th, 2005
    Location:  
    Posts: 526
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    gov2mod wrote: "The big issue I have with every one of these Capital School District referendums is that no one that votes for it has to pay for it except property owners. Anyone, 18 years or older, can vote for this referendum as long as they "reside" in the Capital School District. The can be teenagers living at home, renters, Dover Air Base personnel, anyone."
    Only registered voters are permitted to vote.  The requirements for registering to vote in the State of Delaware are available from the department of elections.

    g2m: "Even students at Delaware State University can vote for it, most of whose parents don’t even live in Delaware let alone the Capital School district."
    Only if they have changed their place of residence by getting a new driver's license and registering to vote.  This also requires a street address, a dormitory room is not a usable address for the DMV.  Very few students ever do anything like this, anywhere.  This is the reason that college students typically do not dominate City Councils in college towns.  Very few students are registered to vote in the town they attend college.

    g2m: "The apartment residents that may have 3 or 4 children or the people that live in free or subsidized Government housing all can vote for it with no fear of losing even a dollar in property tax increase. There are those that say that if it’s a rental or apartment building the owner can just raise the rent to compensate for the tax increase but this simply isn’t true."
    Incorrect.  Few, if any, rental contracts have limitations on what the next lease's rent charges can be.  The apartment that I once lived in wanted to have a 22% increase in the monthly rent when the lease came up for renewal.  Their only reason given for such an increase was the anticipated passage of a referendum that had not even been proposed at the school board.

    g2m: "Most of these rentals have contracts or a lease which would prohibit the increase."
    Again, incorrect.  Once a lease contract is complete (typically one year or less), there is nothing preventing the landlord from demanding significant increases in their rent.

    g2m: "They also need to stop the practice of the teachers and school personnel from trying to brainwash the students into voting yes. Prior to these referendums the teachers are constantly preaching to the students how this has got to pass and trying to influence those 18 year old to vote yes and to pressure their parents to vote yes."
    No more or less than the pressure that their parents exert on them to vote no.  In case you have not observed either at the polls or during news reports, very few young people even bother to register to vote let alone vote.  This is especially the case for local elections.  I agree that the propagandizing that occurs is bothersome, but this is present from both sides.  I have overheard staff at senior facilities inform residents that property tax increases may result in increased residential fees and that there is a bus shuttling anyone registered to vote to the polls.  Talk about undue influence.

    "Every one of these people can vote to increase a tax that they will never have to pay for. Who wouldn’t vote yes for something that will never affect their taxes or their wallet?"
    Incorrect.  Tax hikes on businesses result in higher prices for customers.  Tax hikes on apartment buildings results in higher rental rates.  Tax hikes on homes results in existing and future home owners having to foot the bill.  Property tax hikes hit everyone's wallet.

    "There has to be a better way to make this fair for all of the residents of the school district. Either only allow property owners to vote or find a way to tax every single resident of the school district to pay for these never ending school referendums."
    While there are many problems with this statement, some alternatives might not look any better.  Since everyone pays the tax (either directly or indirectly) your qualifier is satisfied - tax every single resident. 



     Posted: Thu Jan 7th, 2010 05:02 pm
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    18th Post
    Toledo Tom
    Member


    Joined: Thu Jun 25th, 2009
    Location: Dover, Delaware USA
    Posts: 201
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    PTG:  Thank you! Itt is greatly amusing and a clever way to nicely convey a negative!



     Posted: Mon Jan 4th, 2010 12:02 am
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    19th Post
    Disgusted
    Member
     

    Joined: Thu Sep 29th, 2005
    Location: Dover
    Posts: 796
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    gov2mod - Those factors are a BIG problem in CSD referendum-dums. I've heard the same things.

    IMO, it would be a good idea to have all votes for county and local representative, and and school board membership and referendum-dum matters on the same day as the November bi-annual general elections. Then, those rules would apply, meaning proof of permanent residency would be necessary to get on the rolls. The DSU dorm residents would then be eliminated from the vote, and it's up to the property owner to have an adjust clause in rental agreements should property taxes be increased.

    As for Section 8...get rid of that stuff. Too many properties that go that route become criminal infested, along with becoming a dump and lowering everyone's property value. You'd think cities and counties would be championing that, because lower property values = lower property tax revenues.



     Posted: Sun Jan 3rd, 2010 12:52 pm
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    20th Post
    gov2mod
    Member
     

    Joined: Sat Dec 13th, 2008
    Location:  
    Posts: 59
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    The big issue I have with every one of these Capital School District referendums is that no one that votes for it has to pay for it except property owners. Anyone, 18 years or older, can vote for this referendum as long as they "reside" in the Capital School District. The can be teenagers living at home, renters, Dover Air Base personnel, anyone. Even students at Delaware State University can vote for it, most of whose parents don’t even live in Delaware let alone the Capital School district. The apartment residents that may have 3 or 4 children or the people that live in free or subsidized Government housing all can vote for it with no fear of losing even a dollar in property tax increase. There are those that say that if it’s a rental or apartment building the owner can just raise the rent to compensate for the tax increase but this simply isn’t true. Most of these rentals have contracts or a lease which would prohibit the increase. They also need to stop the practice of the teachers and school personnel from trying to brainwash the students into voting yes. Prior to these referendums the teachers are constantly preaching to the students how this has got to pass and trying to influence those 18 year old to vote yes and to pressure their parents to vote yes.

    Every one of these people can vote to increase a tax that they will never have to pay for. Who wouldn’t vote yes for something that will never affect their taxes or their wallet? There has to be a better way to make this fair for all of the residents of the school district. Either only allow property owners to vote or find a way to tax every single resident of the school district to pay for these never ending school referendums.



     Posted: Sat Jan 2nd, 2010 03:56 pm
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    21st Post
    Disgusted
    Member
     

    Joined: Thu Sep 29th, 2005
    Location: Dover
    Posts: 796
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    Hey, Tom, please post that link.



     Posted: Sat Jan 2nd, 2010 03:36 pm
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    22nd Post
    Toledo Tom
    Member


    Joined: Thu Jun 25th, 2009
    Location: Dover, Delaware USA
    Posts: 201
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top


    Stealth taxpayer robbery! 

    The CapSchDis talks about going after MILLIONS then tell you we only half to pay half that because the rest is paid for by the State!!  Well, unless the State paying the other half is say, Ohio, well.....! 

    Of course it is not Ohio but half from CaSchDis and half from State which means ALL of it comes out of your pocket.  Can anyone see anything in the article about Legislative review or control?  They have a site you can go to for further information but YOU can't use it because it wants a user name and password. 

    I didn't try, but typically you can register, then log on.  You know then they know who to track or diddle with!  If you are a senior citizen, look out for you senior tax reduction getting lost or not approved!  

    These antics are typical, you can't find anyone responsible for anything and information sources they provide are not available to you!.  Also you senior citizens have already borne your education cost burden.   When the referendum comes up in the spring, be alert, your ONLY alternative to regain control is vote NO on ALL referendums.

    If you vote NO then maybe they will wake up, change this Victorian stealth robbery and return accountability to the Legislature and more directly to the taxpayer! 



     Posted: Sat Jan 2nd, 2010 01:49 pm
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    23rd Post
    Disgusted
    Member
     

    Joined: Thu Sep 29th, 2005
    Location: Dover
    Posts: 796
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    Keeping this at the front of public consciousness.



     Posted: Mon Dec 28th, 2009 12:15 pm
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    24th Post
    Toledo Tom
    Member


    Joined: Thu Jun 25th, 2009
    Location: Dover, Delaware USA
    Posts: 201
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    You can vote NO on any of the DE education system grabs for more money and power.  They don't seem to have any trouble making themselves heard when they want more. 

    Oh, and remember that they will use your kids to lobby and print an entirely wasteful newsletter which is nothing but unnecessary and high cost propaganda!  They tell the kids just give us a bit more and we will try to do better.  Ask a question or provide input you will hear NOTHING!  At best you'll hear only what they can't do or what they are not responsible for.  Worse you might find the unions and the state-ies on the lookout for you.  Paranoia?  It is paranoia when you IMAGINE they are out to get you. It is NOT paranoia when they are in fact out to rob you.  This whole ed system is the Lucy-Linus football kick; believe it, Lucy will yank away the football!

    Be aware, most new arrivals are retired active adults with no children and our officials say that their goal is to attract many, many, similar.  Certificate of Necessity, who you kidding.  These are ginned up by the same self-serving who run the DE education officials who are wanting more!

    Wake up!  The folks need their options returned to them.  Do the only thing you really can do- VOTE NO on the spring initiatives!

    Hartlyboy wrote:
    They annex farms, invite developers in to throw up more villages and then have to build schools for the kids that come. Those of us who have property in the school district but aren't in the town limits have no say about the expansionist plans of your city fathers but you all sure want us to help you pay for it.



     Posted: Sun Dec 27th, 2009 11:06 pm
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    25th Post
    Hartlyboy
    Member
     

    Joined: Mon Oct 3rd, 2005
    Location:  Kenton, Delaware USA
    Posts: 3905
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    They annex farms, invite developers in to throw up more villages and then have to build schools for the kids that come. Those of us who have property in the school district but aren't in the town limits have no say about the expansionist plans of your city fathers but you all sure want us to help you pay for it.



     Posted: Sun Dec 27th, 2009 10:53 am
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    26th Post
    Toledo Tom
    Member


    Joined: Thu Jun 25th, 2009
    Location: Dover, Delaware USA
    Posts: 201
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    Everyone in the Capital School District must do everything they can to assure that ANY referendum wanting more money be SOUNDLY DEFEATED at the polls. 

    Here's arrogance displayed to the fullest.  I read about initiatives for money for a new high school, yet they already bought a huge chunk of property and mounted a sign "Site of the New Dover High School", like its a done deal!

    Elsewhere there is a story about a contract let to reform the DE standardized testing.  Be assured that this is progressive speak for "dumb down" the test because the folks are getting wise to all the money that is spent per student while test returns get worse and worse.

    A bit more of the story.  They lobby with the school kids to get this stuff past the folks.  Older citizens, should not bear any increased education costs, they've already carried their load!  Voting dates and issues are kept in the dark so the elderly don't have the chance to stop this stuff while those youngsters with children have been lobbied and vote yes. 

    They talk about reducing the number of school districts, but if the school districts are reduced it will be much easier for the folks to figure out what the schools are doing.  There is a reason for the hugely wasteful districts we now have and that reason is to provide cover for scoundrels.  With reduction of districts and all that they waste the folks will better understand what the unions are doing to destroy education in our State and the USA.  

    Get rid of not only all the district overhead the eliminate or greatly reduce union influence.  Maybe then we can get history books which tell the truth or are corrected as these egregious errors are pointed out. Will any of the above happen?  Your legislature washed their hands of their responsibilities in education years ago.  They were replaced by self-serving education "professionals" whose attitude is too independent and out of financial control.  I was astounded to learn that school districts control their own spending and they set tax rates.

    Wake up Delaware!!!  Stop the uncontrolled spending, hiding of issues, truth, and waste.  DO NOT accept what they want you to accept as touted - - our fine educational system.  Truthfully it is under-performing from kindergarten through all levels including the the university system!  

    Last edited on Sun Dec 27th, 2009 11:21 am by Toledo Tom



     Posted: Tue Dec 22nd, 2009 08:00 pm
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    27th Post
    Silance Dogood
    Member


    Joined: Mon Mar 5th, 2007
    Location: Dover, Delaware USA
    Posts: 2
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    Do these people at CSD live in an alternative universe? Do they not know that we are in the Great Recession and it’s not over yet by a long shot? Specially the lack of jobs for the non government education industry folks. Every other government entity is trying to find money by cutting the budget – not CSD. And why should they? They are allowed to run these phony baloney referendums where anyone, including illegals, can vote to raise your taxes. The Soviet style, Marxist socialist government school system of government school systems is, has been and always will be a total failure; that is breaking the bank. To bad our elected leaders owe more to the government education system then to our children. Otherwise, it would be fixed. No more referendums until we have a true Public School system where the parents choose where to send their children, not bureaucrats.

    Last edited on Tue Dec 22nd, 2009 08:02 pm by Silance Dogood



     Posted: Sun Dec 20th, 2009 01:11 am
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    28th Post
    Poltergeist
    Member
     

    Joined: Sat Aug 26th, 2006
    Location:  
    Posts: 195
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    NO..The economic times and the irresponsibility on the part of Thomas, Huff and the rest of the money grubbin' beauracrats!!



     Posted: Sat Dec 19th, 2009 12:54 pm
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    29th Post
    Disgusted
    Member
     

    Joined: Thu Sep 29th, 2005
    Location: Dover
    Posts: 796
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    I understand the projects, but most folks in the CSD are faced with hard economic times, and cannot afford to be paying higher taxes for the schools, especially when we don't know how much the Commies in DC will soak us for their health care scheme.

    Sokolowski needn't bother arranging the figures in an attempt to justify this. Informed voters will vote NO on this, and all other such requests. We can't afford it.



     Posted: Thu Dec 17th, 2009 03:30 pm
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    30th Post
    tspong
    Member
     

    Joined: Fri Aug 24th, 2007
    Location:  
    Posts: 4244
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    What do you think?

    From the Delaware State News:


    Capital moves ahead with referendum plans


    By Jamie-Leigh Bissett


    Delaware State News


    DOVER — The Capital School Board of Education decided Wednesday it will begin the planning process for a proposed $135 million referendum, which could take place as early as the spring.


    Though no action was taken at the meeting on Wednesday, superintendent Dr. Michael Thomas said the item will again appear on January’s agenda where the board could vote on it.


    "Three and a half years ago we put together a facilities master plan, and it is important for the district to carry that plan out over the next decade," he said. "We don’t want to react to growth; we want to act. This is what good planning does for you."


    Dr. Thomas reminded board members that even though the state is facing a huge deficit in its general operating budget, capital projects are a different line item altogether.


    "The state approved (the Certificate of Necessity), so they must have funds available to fund these projects," he said.


    "If we lose our place in line, it could take another decade to get back in line. Somebody is going to get these funds, so we don’t want to lose our place."


    Additionally, Dr. Thomas said, the projects would create jobs in the community, and because of the bidding climate, the district would likely get a good deal.


    "There is no other time we would get a better price on bids than right now," he said.


    Dr. Thomas told board members that district business manager Sean Sokolowski would have numbers prepared in the next several weeks to show the effect the referendum would have on residents’ tax rate.


    The proposed Capital referendum, the Certificate of Necessity for which was approved recently by the state Board of Education and Secretary of Education Lillian Lowery, is broken down into four categories.


    The first certificate is for the construction of a new Dover High School, for which the district has already purchased land off Del. 8, west of the city.


    This certificate also includes an addendum for additional local funds that would be requested of the citizens in addition to the state funding, Dr. Thomas said.


    Generally, referendums are funded with 70 percent state funds, and 30 percent of local funds. The addendum would require more money from the local share.


    Board member Thomas Keitel said Wednesday it is his, and his fellow board members’, intention to clarify to their constituents what they intend to do with the extra local funds prior to referendum vote.


    Dr. Thomas elaborated, saying every new high school built in Delaware over the last three years has asked for money outside the traditional state referendum formula.


    He said the funds would allow the district to address specific needs for a high school, such as the enhancement of an auditorium to accommodate 1,800 students, science lab expansions and additional athletic field space, the needs for which would not be covered using the base referendum formula.


    "We don’t want to build the school for the next five years, but 20-30 years down the road," Dr. Thomas said.


    The second certificate is for the construction or purchase of a professional development center and a new district office.


    The third certificate seeks the construction or purchase of a new maintenance and receiving facility.


    The fourth and final certificate asks for several different items, including renovating the bus drop-off, pickup and parking area at William Henry Middle School.


    This certificate also includes the proposed purchase of 1.9 acres of land on the corner of Saulsbury Road and Clara Street for future expansion, Dr. Thomas said.


    Staff writer Jamie-Leigh Bissett can be reached at 741-8250 or jlhughes@newszap.com.



     Posted: Wed Dec 16th, 2009 03:48 pm
       PM  Quote  Reply 
    31st Post
    tspong
    Member
     

    Joined: Fri Aug 24th, 2007
    Location:  
    Posts: 4244
    Status: 
    Offline

      back to top

    What do you think?

    From the Delaware State News:

    Capital board to discuss referendum


    Possible vote on $135 million package could come in spring


    By Jamie-Leigh Bissett


    Delaware State News


    DOVER — Capital School District board members will discuss whether or not they want to proceed with a $135 million referendum this spring during tonight’s 7:30 p.m. meeting at North Dover Elementary School.


    Superintendent Dr. Michael Thomas said the district recently received approval for the Certificate of Necessity they applied for over the summer from the state Board of Education and Secretary of Education Lillian Lowery.


    He said tonight’s meeting is for "discussion purposes only" and does not expect the board to take any action.


    Dr. Thomas said the discussion will likely carry over into January’s meeting, adding that if and when the board decides to proceed, a referendum would likely follow between 45-90 days after.


    The district’s Certificate of Necessity, Dr. Thomas said, was divided into four sections.


    The first certificate is for the construction of a new Dover High School, for which the district has already purchased land off of Del. 8, west of the city. This certificate also includes an addendum for additional local funds that would be requested of the citizens in addition to the state funding, Dr. Thomas said.


    Generally, referendums are funded with 70 percent state funds, and 30 percent of local funds. The addendum would require more money from the local share.


    "High schools have specialty areas that will require additional funds to augment the building structure itself," he said.


    The second certificate is for the construction or purchase of a professional development center and a new district office.


    The third certificate seeks the construction or purchase of a new maintenance and receiving facility.


    Dr. Thomas said the current district maintenance garage, behind Central Middle School, is old and the district would like to demolish it and relocate it to another parcel of land, possibly behind the site of William Henry Middle School and Booker T. Washington Elementary School.


    Dr. Thomas said this would also provide additional field space for Central.


    The fourth and final certificate asks for several different items, including renovating the bus drop-off, pick-up and parking area at William Henry.


    "It is a very congested area and we think it poses a safety issue," he said. "Part of that would also expand the playground space at Booker T. Washington."


    In addition to expanding the parking area at William Henry, this certificate also includes the proposed purchase of 1.9 acres of land on the corner of Saulsbury Road and Clara Street for future expansion, Dr. Thomas said.


    He said DelDOT has discussed future plans to make Saulsbury Road a four-lane highway, as well as to put up a stop light at the Clara Street-Saulsbury Road intersection.


    Because two Capital schools feed off of that road — William Henry and Booker T. Washington — the purchase of land would allow the district to create a service road for the two schools.


    Dr. Thomas said the breakdown of funding for the four certificates does not fit into the traditional 70-30 state funding structure like most referendums.


    He said some of the funding for the projects, like the extra money for the high school construction, the new professional development and district office, and maintenance garage, would all come strictly at the local level.


    The local-only portion of the referendum totals $30.2 million.


    Dr. Thomas said the funding for the rest of the new high school construction, the renovation of the parking area at William Henry, and the purchase of the land off of Saulsbury Road would be calculated using the 70-30 split state formula.


    The total cost would be $104.85 million, with $31.3 million coming from the local share and $73.39 million coming from the state.


    He said the down economy is "certainly" something the board will have to take into consideration. However, Dr. Thomas added that under the current system in Delaware, the board will have to consider whether it wants to risk losing its spot in the certificate approval process.


    "If the state is willing to give you certificates this year, and you don’t proceed, it could be many years down the road before the certificates are approved again," he said.


    Dr. Thomas also said the district has about a year to approve a referendum or the Certificate of Necessity will expire.


    For more information, call the district office at 672-1500. The Capital school board agenda can be found on the district’s Web site at http://www.rschooltoday.com/se3bin/clientschool.cgi.


    Staff writer Jamie-Leigh Bissett can be reached at 741-8250 or jlhughes@newszap.com.



     Current time is 01:58 am
    > Delaware Public Forums > Dover Public Issues Forum > News from Capital School District
    Top




    UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
    Page processed in 0.4133 seconds (48% database + 52% PHP). 28 queries executed.