0:00During the meeting, a central topic was the proposed zoning changes and potential traffic pattern adjustments in a Perry neighborhood. Residents expressed their worries about increased traffic flow, noise pollution, and potential decreases in property values. A resident emphasized that the neighborhood, with 51 homes, had already seen traffic double in recent years, raising fears that further developments would only worsen the situation. Concerns were also voiced regarding the lack of formal communication from the city about these changes. One speaker noted, “100% of the neighborhood is saying we don’t want anything to do” with the proposed changes.

There was a particular mention of a suggestion by Mr. Jackson, who proposed extending Warner Avenue South to foster economic development. However, this idea was met with strong opposition from the community, who preferred to maintain the current road structure. A resident highlighted the neighborhood’s one-way in and out system, which they argued limited traffic and enhanced safety. They further contended that the neighborhood already had adequate emergency access routes, dismissing the need for additional roads.

Financial implications of the proposed developments were also a concern for residents. One questioned whether developers were attempting to reduce costs by utilizing existing roadways instead of constructing new infrastructure, potentially burdening current residents without offering them financial benefits. Another resident clarified that discussions about extending roads were preliminary and had not yet resulted in formal proposals. This provided the council with time to consider community input before making any decisions.

22:36In a separate discussion, the council addressed the need to replace shingles on the historic train depot roof, with an estimated cost of $20,000. The urgency of the repairs was underscored by the risk of losing project funding if the shingles were not replaced. However, there was debate over whether to address the roof trusses first, as the roof had withstood multiple hurricanes without issue. This led to a broader discussion about insuring the depot, with no insurance company willing to cover it in its current state. Some council members advocated for registering the depot as a historic site to potentially reduce costs.

A council member expressed frustration over the lack of detailed information needed to make an informed decision about the shingles. They stated, “I mean we don’t know what it will cost us,” pointing to the uncertainty surrounding the project. The council also reviewed a Community Development Block Grant agreement for downtown redevelopment, debating the selection process for an engineer without a Request for Proposals (RFP). There was a call for transparency and review of submissions to ensure a fair selection process.

Additionally, discussions turned to a state revolving fund loan application for a water project, with favorable terms including a 0.99% interest rate. The council acknowledged the need to act swiftly to avoid hindering infrastructure improvements. They also reviewed various grants and funding applications, emphasizing the importance of timely reporting and audits to maintain grant funding.