Review Committee
Mr. Uher,
Thank you for sharing your wealth of information and experience. I wouldn?’t have known whom else to ask. I understood the committee took into consideration all potential growth estimates as I have a copy of the study that I have been studying, however the question is: ?“Has the PLSD made the necessary adjustments to accommodate the actual growth to date and today?’s estimates to the end of the period studied??” Another form of this question might be ?“Given that the current rate of growth far exceeds the estimates of the initial study, has PLAD made plans to convene a new Facilities Review Committee to reassess the first study??”
My questions are not a reflection on the initial committee. I think it is a fine report and the recommendations made were the best possible given the information they had at the time. Your second paragraph defines the scope. Do you believe that 15 years (or actually 11 if you deduct the time lapsed since the study) is still a reasonable estimate for what developers usually refer to as ?‘build out?’ of the district? Is it your hope as a representative of PLSD that more commercial, less residential and very few apartments still holds true and is PLSD or you, as their agent, willing to press the matter publicly at Council meetings? The reason I ask that question is that your hopes are being dashed as we speak. Tonight?’s Council meeting will approve a great deal of non-commercial annexation and rezoning and you might want to attend to voice the potential impact on PLSD.
What you have written here ?“However, we must develop our land wisely. Currently, apartment complexes primarily in the Tussing area within our district house 758 of our district's student population compared to 736 students in all of Summerfield.
Smart development is the key.?” is a fantastic start. Not that you want to hear this Mr. Uher, but you now are in complete agreement with what I have read that PATA believes. Perhaps it is time to put the past differences behind and unite to serve the community.
Mr. Uher,
Thank you for sharing your wealth of information and experience. I wouldn?’t have known whom else to ask. I understood the committee took into consideration all potential growth estimates as I have a copy of the study that I have been studying, however the question is: ?“Has the PLSD made the necessary adjustments to accommodate the actual growth to date and today?’s estimates to the end of the period studied??” Another form of this question might be ?“Given that the current rate of growth far exceeds the estimates of the initial study, has PLAD made plans to convene a new Facilities Review Committee to reassess the first study??”
My questions are not a reflection on the initial committee. I think it is a fine report and the recommendations made were the best possible given the information they had at the time. Your second paragraph defines the scope. Do you believe that 15 years (or actually 11 if you deduct the time lapsed since the study) is still a reasonable estimate for what developers usually refer to as ?‘build out?’ of the district? Is it your hope as a representative of PLSD that more commercial, less residential and very few apartments still holds true and is PLSD or you, as their agent, willing to press the matter publicly at Council meetings? The reason I ask that question is that your hopes are being dashed as we speak. Tonight?’s Council meeting will approve a great deal of non-commercial annexation and rezoning and you might want to attend to voice the potential impact on PLSD.
What you have written here ?“However, we must develop our land wisely. Currently, apartment complexes primarily in the Tussing area within our district house 758 of our district's student population compared to 736 students in all of Summerfield.
Smart development is the key.?” is a fantastic start. Not that you want to hear this Mr. Uher, but you now are in complete agreement with what I have read that PATA believes. Perhaps it is time to put the past differences behind and unite to serve the community.
