The Fean Sisters have opposed the project.

SEA ISLE CITY — The city entered a contract with an Absecon construction company to begin renovating and building an addition to the Community Lodge.

In a 3-1 vote, Council gave the nod to Resolution 203, accepting a bid from R. Wilkinson and Sons Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $853,394.81.

“The work to the existing lodge will be completed by the end of February,” said City Administrator George Stavastano. “The disruption should be minimal, but we don’t want to minimize that.”

The Community Lodge currently houses several senior citizen events, including aerobics and AARP meetings.

According to Savastano the new addition will include the 700-square foot welcome center and handicapped accessible rest rooms; a180-square-foot beach tag office; a 230-square-foot conference room; and 540-square-feet of office space, along with a staff restroom.

Some residents have been very vocal of their distaste for placing a Welcome Center at the base of the bridge coming into the city.

Dottie and Eileen Fean, sisters who have adamantly opposed placement of the center asked Council to table the resolution before accepting the bid.

“Could you hold off on your resolution?” asked Dottie Fean. “Eileen and I think we’ve found a perfect place. The New Jersey Title Company. The asking price is $370,000. Since we’re not real estate people, we got them down to $350,000. It’s a nice building and it deserves consideration.”

“We’re in favor of 203,” said Chris Glancey, president of Sea Isle City Chamber of Commerce. “We (Chamber of Commerce) want you to go through with it. No one is going to be displaced and everyone will be back in the building.”

The resolution was one item in a list of 25 items that were presented to Council for its approval. Councilperson Mike McHale asked if Resolutions 203 and 204 could be pulled from the list and voted on separately. Resolution 204 authorized a contract to Blaine Steinman, the Welcome Center’s architect, for contract construction inspection and contract administration.

“I’m going to be voting ‘no’ on 203 and 204,” said McHale. “I was hoping as a community we’d work with the school board. Our seniors need more activities,” he added. “I think we’d get more bang for our buck if we utilized that building.”