Meeting Attendees:

Pat Barbaree
Jack Brown	Task Force Member
Ellen Denny
Lamar Dice
Trey Howard
Dr. Ken Hutchins	Committee Co-Chair
Kevin Kidd	Task Force Member
Mack Mangum	Task Force Member
Travis McCoy
Rhoda Moehring	Task Force Member
Stanley Ridgeway
Auley Rowell	Task Force Chair
Dan Simmons	Committee Chair, Task Force Member
Karl Stoyer
Janice Tedder
Pam Wessels	Committee Scribe
Richard Unger	MSCW
Curt Ostrodka	MSCW

Mr. Dan Simmons, Development Patterns Committee Chair, welcomed the group and thanked them for their participation. Mr. Unger and Mr. Ostrodka gave a brief review of the Trend Analysis and the assumptions that were made to create the trend map. The committee agreed that land with proximity to water will develop first. However, they did not agree that new development will occur along river corridors because most river frontage is owned by the state. The river frontage that is privately held is either “a small trickle” or in a degraded habitat (the Fenholloway river corridor). The Committee did not think that it is feasible to develop along the Fenholloway because of the presence of wetlands. The Committee also disagreed that new marinas would be built near Steinhatchee, Dekle Beach, and Keaton Beach, noting that the cost of operating a marina is very high, and a property owner could make more money by developing waterfront condos.

The Committee agreed that growth around the City of Perry will be concentrated along US 221 and US 19, oriented towards Tallahassee and Interstate-10. They agreed that a new development node could occur near the Hampton Springs area, specifically near the Blue Spring Creek. The committee agreed that publicly owned conservation lands will not be developed, but the preserved natural amenities will attract development outside of the conservation lands. They agreed that new development will occur near the existing road network, and areas close to the beaches will develop first. The Committee stated that Steinhatchee could attract more growth and development than shown on the Trend Analysis map.

The Committee stated that the following issues should be considered for the Shared Vision Plan Alternatives:

¾ Partner with the State to enhance public access and amenities on the Public lands; pressure the state for recreational planning funds;

¾ Designate an industrial park for non-residential land use;

¾ Designate an area for higher educational and/or non-profit organization use. A location for a community college should be considered;

¾ Promote eco-tourism opportunities in the public lands;

¾ Consider a Rural Land Stewardship or Transfer of Development Rights program to create “sending areas” designated for conservation and “receiving areas” designated for development.

Taylor Vision 2060 -July 19, 2007 meeting Trend Analysis Part 1 Notes from Pam Wessels, Development Patterns committee scribe

In the general meeting before breaking into groups we learned that the “trends of growth” in FL as a whole have well exceeded that of the state by 4-15 times of the projections in the 5 counties that were compared to Taylor County. Some of them had planned for that growth, but most had not. The Seaside development of Walton County and the Villages of Sumter seem to have the best sense of “community” that the folks of Taylor want most to preserve. Most in attendance seem to agree that the trend is to settle near the water (Steinhatchee or Keaton) or main roads.

We also learned that right now we have 7611 permanent homes and 3178 2^nd homes in Taylor. If we continue on the same pattern of growth, in 2020 it is expected we have 10,700 perm and 6,400 2^nd, in 2040 21K perm homes and 14,700 2^nd, and in 2060 we’ll have 40K perm and 32K 2^nd.

The question was asked “What issues do Taylor County face if we continue on this trend?” We then broke into our sub-groups and continued the discussions in our different patterns committees.

The Top 3 List of Issues/Concerns we made at our last meeting was revealed in order of priority with Retaining & Maintaining Hunting/Fishing topping the list. Hiring a professional planner was next and zoning mapped out third. Other main areas of concern were: Keeping Perry as the urban center, Keep parts of Taylor rural, Impact fees to provide necessary infrastructure, Public access to the water and Can lot density provide the tax dollars necessary to maintain necessities such as hospitals, fire, emergency services, social programs and schools.

A list of “Trend Analysis Assumptions” provided by MSCW which we addressed one by one:

1. Growth would be close to water -All agreed “Yes”
2. New development along river corridors -possibly along the Fenholloway since it is privately owned, but in other areas the state has purchased any properties of any size that could have been developed.
3. New marinas would pop up along Steinhatchee, Keaton & Dekle -“NO” it is not cost effective unless government subsidized. Properties in these areas are too expensive for the profit to be seen. That’s way they’re being sold in the first place. The owner could make more $ in a single sale than he could make in a life time working the marina. The taxes and insurance are prohibitive.
4. Growth in Perry would be along 221 -We added US 19 to that
5. Development would happen near Hampton Springs -“No” there are more appealing areas, except maybe between the Springs and the coast
6. State owned land could be developed - All agreed that would not likely happen
7. Growth would be close to current roadways -“Yes”
8. Wetlands would be avoided -“Yes”
9. Bedroom Communities -“Yes” between US 19 and 221 (both have direct access to Tallahassee
10. Area in the “Loop” would develop first -“Yes” because it’s closer to coast

We further discussed the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd “Waves” (development goals in 2020, 2040 and 2060. We also talked about Magnolia Bay and the impact it would have if it does not happen – future developers would use it as a guideline for what not to try or to what to approach in a little different manner.

More Issues of Concern:

Development south of Hampton Springs

Undeveloped areas along the Fenholloway are very wet – not good for development

Steinhatchee needs more or better public access to water to maintain or increase growth there

Blue Springs Lake would be a likely area for growth – may bubble there

90% of Taylor County is owned by 1 owner – that could be good or bad Added to this list later in the evening were:

1. Jack Brown suggested a partnership with the state for enhancing public lands to include public access to the water.
2. Designate Industrial Park areas to arrest industry in certain areas and maintain our quality of life in the rest of the county
3. Develop Eco-tourism possibly state parks with camping and water access. When FL bought Buckeye land it was to be understood that they would preserve the land but increase our economic stability. That has not happened.
4. Land Bank -We should receive credit for wetlands preserved and be able to trade those credits for development rights (private lands along the coast)

STILL SERIOUS ISSUES

NO County Planner

NO Impact fees to reduce cost of development to county

NO Zoning to select preferred location for businesses

NO Utility plan to guide development

NO transfer of development rights to preserve agricultural land

NO regulations to protect historical character

NO development standards to regulate appearance – How will random development affect us? Low densities require extended utilities and that is very costly.

Downtown Perry -Will the city remain economic center and retain its historical character?

Schools?

Lastly, the big question is “Are we ready to manage growth?”