City staff and residents addressed the Whiteville City Council about recent intense rainfall, recurring downtown flooding, and the status of grant-funded stormwater projects. The discussion described roughly 7–8 inches of rain during the weekend event, ongoing and planned infrastructure work—including Mollie’s Branch, Canal Street and Call Street projects—and limits that accompany state and federal grants.

The exchange matters because downtown flooding and stormwater management affect public safety, road access and property in Whiteville’s central neighborhoods, and because several major projects rely on outside grants that specify how money may be used. A staff presenter emphasized that grant awards and engineered scopes of work generally must be spent only on the projects for which they were awarded, and that any reallocation requires approval from the grantor agency.

A presenter identified in the meeting as a staff member said the weekend event deposited about “8 inches of rain,” which staff characterized as roughly a 25-year storm for the city based on local recurrence data presented. The presenter showed historic maps of Whiteville from the 1950s through the 1970s and current tax-mapping images to explain how infill and removal of swamp and wetlands around Madison Street and downtown have increased impervious surface and altered runoff patterns.

Staff listed recent and planned projects and their funding status. Work completed or funded includes a Main Street/Todd Avenue ditch and driveway correction, a Call Street project tying to a North Carolina Department of Transportation outfall, and Canal Street work at the rail underpass that is expected to go to bid within about a month. The presenter said the city applied to Golden Leaf for multiple projects; one request for $1.4 million resulted in a $400,000 award, and the Canal Street project was noted as funded. The presenter said the city has spent or committed funds on a stormwater study ($150,000) and subsequent projects including one of roughly $400,000, and had previously spent about $2.95 million on another project area, and that the city maintains about $300,000 per year for a stormwater function.

Mollie’s Branch was singled out as a large project. Staff said the city lost about $3,700,000 in BRIC program funding when that federal allocation was withdrawn, and that the city is reapplying for similar federal funding through a program referred to in the meeting as HNGP. Staff said they felt “really good” about the new application but noted that moving a project forward depends on securing that or comparable funding.

On grant restrictions, staff explained that some grants are specific to parks or to water resources and that the corresponding funding must be spent in accordance with the approved, engineer-sealed plans and the grant scope. As an example, staff referenced a Land and Water Conservation Fund award used to convert a parcel back to open space and noted that Parks and Recreation Trust Fund and similar awards can be used only for the projects and purposes described in the grant documents. Staff said that if the city wishes to apply leftover funds to a different feature, it must request a formal amendment from the grant agency before spending those dollars.

Staff also described technical and equipment issues that affected monitoring and response. A river/stream radar gauge used to measure water levels experienced an electronics failure and replacement parts were delayed; staff said they would revert to an analog gauge if the radar replacement did not arrive promptly. Staff and speakers praised first responders and public works crews for rescue and cleanup actions during the storm and noted scouring on a bridge that staff said has been inspected and remains safe.

Speakers also discussed larger watershed dynamics. Staff presented maps showing the White Marsh watershed and explained that much channelization and creek routing directs water into local swamps and then downstream to the Waccamaw River. They cautioned that dredging only inside city limits would be limited in effect if downstream channels and rivers remain constrained.

Residents and presenters raised long-term concerns about development, impervious surfaces and historical filling of wetlands. One speaker urged “depaving” and returning certain parcels to a more natural state — a solution the presenter said aligns with funding from conservation-oriented grants when those funds are available and used for their intended project scope.

The presentation described near-term and planned work: expansion of cleaning and maintenance in branches such as Bobleys and efforts to bid Canal Street work; staff said they expected permitting to be in hand soon to permit bidding within roughly a month. Staff urged residents to contact city offices with questions and said much of the grant documentation and project detail is available on the city website or by request.

The council did not record a formal vote on the projects during the portion of the transcript provided. No formal reallocation of grant funds or final approvals were recorded in the available transcript. The meeting record available to reporters indicates continued planning and grant pursuit rather than final city-funded spending decisions.

Looking ahead, staff said continued grant applications and coordination with state and federal agencies will determine the timing and scope of major projects, and that some solutions will require action and coordination beyond the city’s jurisdiction because of downstream channels and river capacity.