Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Votes Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whiteville council approves minutes, passes sidewalk resolution and rejects park bid
Summary
At its meeting the council approved prior meeting minutes, approved a resolution for NCDOT US 701 ADA sidewalk/crossing improvements, and rejected a park community space bid because a bidder omitted required bond information; staff will rebid the project.
Get email alerts on the Council Votes Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Whiteville Town Council voted on several routine items including minutes approval, a resolution supporting NCDOT sidewalk and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements on U.S. 701, and rejecting a bid for a community space project at a park.
Council approved the minutes from the May 13 budget workshop in a motion by Miss Houghton, seconded by Council member Clarity. "Any opposed? Minutes are approved," the mayor said.
The council then approved Resolution 2025-R-175, described in the meeting as relating to NCDOT projects for U.S. 701 sidewalk crossing improvements and ADA Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) improvements on state-maintained roads. The motion to approve the resolution was made by Council member Clarity and seconded by Miss Tate; the mayor announced the motion passed.
On the community space project at a town park, staff reported they received three bids but one bidder omitted required bond information. Staff included in the council packet a statute stating that a bid lacking required bond information may lead to rebidding. City staff (Mr. Lewis) recommended rejecting the bids and rebidding the project, and the council voted to do so. The council directed staff to consult the town attorney's office (Withers was named in the packet) and to re-advertise the bid.
The meeting moved on to council comments after the votes. No dollar amounts for the park bid or the resolution were discussed on the record at the meeting; the packet referenced the statute but did not name it in the public discussion.
