Common Council - Regular Meeting

On same day as that, so.

Now call to order this public hearing of the Dunkirk Common Council for Tuesday, September 15th, 2026. The time is 5.30 p.m. This public hearing has been duly noticed for the following matter. Clerk, please read the public hearing notice.

Notice for a public hearing held by the Common Council on Tuesday, September 15th at 5.30 p.m. in the Dunkirk City Court for intro to local law number 6, 2026, a local law amending the city code and to repeal and replace local law number six of 1992 to change the water billing structure.

Thank you. This public hearing relates to local law number six of 2026 and I'd like to remind everyone the comments during this hearing should pertain specifically to this local law and its contents. If you have questions or concerns about other matters, Please reserve those for the privilege of the floor portion of tonight's Common Council meeting. We'll also observe the same rules as our standard privilege of the floor. So I'd like to keep remarks to less than three minutes per person. With that, if you wish to speak, please approach the podium, state your name and address for the record, and keep your remarks concise and relevant to the subject at hand. We'll now open the floor for public comment. Okay, seeing no public comment at this time, I will now close this public hearing on Local Law Number 6 of 2026. Clerk Dobek, please record that the public hearing has been completed. I'll now adjourn the hearing and we will move forward with tonight's Common Council meeting. Okay, the regular meeting of the Common Council of the City of Dunkirk is now in session on this 15th day of September 2026 at 5.32 p.m. Clerk, please conduct the roll call.

Council Member Leskowiak. Here. Council Member Terrain.

Here.

Council Member Fredrickson.

Here.

Council Member Civiletto. Here. Council Member at Large Weiser.

Here. Thank you, Clerk. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you again for joining us tonight. Next, we have the certification of prior meetings.

This is to certify that an official copy of the minutes of the regular common council meeting of Tuesday, September 1st, 2026 was presented to the mayor on Friday, September 11th, 2026. Pursuant to section 3.03 of the Dunkirk City Charter, all items presented to the mayor are now in full force in effect. In witness whereof, I appear to set my hand and seal of the City of Dunkirk, New York, this 15th day of September, 2026.

Is there a motion to dispense with the reading of the minutes and approve them as presented? Moved by Council Member Fredrickson, seconded by Council Member Laskowiak. Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Laskowiak. Aye. Council Member Terrain. Aye. Council Member Fredrickson.

Aye.

Council Member Civiletto.

Aye.

Council Member at large, Weiser.

Aye. The minutes are approved as presented. We now move to privilege of the floor.

The privilege of the floor shall be extended to any person appearing for themselves, in which case each individual appearing shall be limited to three minutes, and to any person representing any group who shall be limited to a maximum time of five minutes. The privilege of the floor is reserved for members of the public to speak on any subject pertinent to the affairs of city government. The city clerk shall have the duty of maintaining such time limits. The chair may determine in their discretion whether individuals are speaking for themselves or representing groups. The chair shall maintain good order and may require any speaker to cease speaking if remarks are made in bad taste or are slanderous or not germane. The time limit specified shall be adhered to except that the chair may allow any person speaking to complete a statement or a thought started before such time expires. And a longer time may be allowed by the chair with the approval of the majority of the council.

The privilege of the floor is now open. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak? Please step forward, state your name and address, and address the council.

Good evening, everyone. Nancy Nichols, 212 Lincoln Avenue. First of all, I'd like to say my hats off to Johnny Romanek for all his hard work and dedication on keeping our city beaches in the pristine condition that they've been for this whole summer long. It's been a very hot summer. The beaches were immaculate. He's an outstanding DPW worker. Second of all, this is not so nice, but I'm not going to be mean about it. But before our current elected council throws past councils under the bus, I just want to ask, where were you when we had all our budget workshops? They were open to the public. We asked questions, sometimes we got answers, sometimes we didn't. We shaved from, two years ago we shaved approximately 23% off of the current, when it was 24% increase. It's just very hard for me to sit back after six years and listen to getting bashed now. I just hope you have faith, you have patience and understanding when you go to review a budget because it is not like anything that you would ever imagine. Sometimes you have to question yourself, what am I looking at? What is this for? I don't know what the new, um, gov sense will be in effect so that everything is itemized better for you than it was for us. And as far as Mike, as far as the fireworks were concerned, I did not say no. I said no as to what the $45,000 was for because there was no explanation. A week and a half later, it was explained it was for the fireworks. So it was not fireworks I was against. It was the 45,000 that nobody could say what it was for.

Thank you.

Oh, by the way, Mike, you've got an unplated vehicle in your yard.

You're not exempt.

Thank you, Ms. Nichols. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak this evening? Going once.

Good evening. Erica Munson, 79 West four street. I'm speaking in my individual capacity regarding several items on tonight's agenda. I'm asking that these questions be clarified on record before council votes. First, the resolution numbering appears inaccurate. There appears to be different resolutions number 71-2026, which would make the paving resolution currently labeled 72-2026 actually 73. Can the clerk clarify and correct the official numbering before action is taken? Second, at the last meeting, council transferred $7,353 from contingency into the clerk treasurer salary line. What council action originally authorized the salary increase? that required that transfer, and when did that increase become effective? Third, Local Law 2 of 2026 concerns the same elected official fringe benefits recently addressed by Supreme Court. Before counsel asks, I ask corporate counsel to clarify whether this law is intended to affect current elected terms or only future terms. If it applies to current terms, how is that consistent with the court's decision and the charters provisions governing when elected official compensation and fringe benefits are fixed. I would also ask who formally introduced this version when the final text was delivered to common council and what formal action brought it back after it had been indefinitely postponed. Fourth, local law number five of 2026 was postponed August 3rd specifically to August 18th. It appeared on the August 18th agenda under unfinished business, was absent September 1st and is back tonight. What action did council take on August 18th that brought it back this evening? And is tonight's text identical to the version presented at the public hearing? Fifth, the paving resolution identifies no streets. Before voting, can DPW identify the streets and the limits of work including the bid or including the bid in, sorry, including the bid Explain how those locations were selected the resolution cites an approximate bid of one hundred thirty five thousand eight hundred thirteen dollars and fifty cents But authorizes payment by unit cost is that the maximum authorized expense expenditure if not what is Finally on the proposed water rate change what documented cost of service or rate analysis? supports the proposed rates and increases for late fees a Has that analysis been provided to the council and the public? These are basic questions about authority, procedure, spending, and the public record. I respectfully ask the council have clear answers before acting this evening. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Munson. Anyone else who wishes to speak this evening? Going once, twice. privilege of the floor is now closed. Next, we move to communications from the mayor, including disapproval messages. Mayor Dovias. Okay. Next, we'll address communications from the public and petitions.

Requests from the City of Dunkirk Planning Board requesting the City Council consider a short-term moratorium prohibiting the review and approval of any application to for battery storage systems until the city completes its final review and adoption of the city's updated zoning code.

Okay.

I'll mark this as received and filed requests from Caitlin less on behalf of the Alzheimer's association to use the pavilions at point Gratiot park on Saturday, October 3rd, 2026 for their walk to end Alzheimer's event.

Any discussion council? Hearing none, do I have a motion to refer to the appropriate departments as well as approved subject to appropriate insurances and usual conditions? Moved by Council Member Laskowiak, seconded by Council Member Fredrickson. Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Laskowiak. Aye. Council Member Terrain.

Aye.

Council Member Fredrickson.

Aye.

Council Member Civiletto.

Aye.

Council Member at large, Weiser.

Aye. Motion carried.

Request from the Lakeshore Humane Society to hold their annual Pat McGee Memorial Dog Walk on Saturday, October 3rd, 2026. The walk will begin at 10.30 a.m. and last an hour.

Any discussion, council? Okay, hearing none, do I have a motion to refer to the appropriate departments as well as approve subject to appropriate insurances and usual conditions? Moved by Council Member Laskowiak, seconded by Councilman Terrain. Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Laskowiak. Aye. Council Member Terrain.

Aye.

Council Member Fredrickson.

Aye.

Council Member Civiletto. Aye. Council Member Large-Weiser.

Aye. Motion carried.

Notice of claim from Jeff Morris of Bemis Point, New York, for injuries to his son's nose allegedly due to metal pole with a piece of steel that was sticking out at Wright Park Playground.

Okay, I need a motion to refer this to the Law Department and Department of Public Works. Moved by Council Member Fredrickson, seconded by Councilman Civiletto. Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Leskowiak. Aye. Council Member Terrain.

Aye.

Council Member Fredrickson. Aye. Council Member Civiletto. Aye. Council Member at Large, Weiser.

Aye. Motion carried.

Notice of claim from Nyshailey Rodriguez-Hernandez of Deer Street for damages done to her vehicle allegedly due to hitting a sewer cap on Lakeshore Drive during road work.

Okay. Again, I need a motion to refer this to the Law Department and Department of Public Works. Moved by Council Member Luskoviak, seconded by Councilman Terrain. Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilmember Laskowiak. Aye. Councilmember Terrain.

Aye.

Councilmember Fredrickson.

Aye.

Councilmember Civiletto. Aye. Councilmember at-large Weiser.

Aye. Motion carried. We'll now move to reports of standing committees, boards, and commissions. Councilmember Laskowiak.

Yes, there is a Department of Public Works meeting this Thursday, the 17th, at 1 p.m. in the Mayor's Conference Room, which is on the first floor of the Stearns Building next door. That's all.

Thank you. Council Member Terrain.

I've got a couple of things that I'd like to discuss tonight. First of all, the next personnel committee meeting is on October 7th at 11 o'clock. I'd like to discuss, or at least inquire, a little bit more information about the Clerk Treasurer's pay increase slash stipend. The clerk treasurer's pay increase was discussed unofficially at some time earlier during the year. It was the opinion that combining both offices warranted an increase in pay because of extra hours that could result with the additional duties of the newly formed position. It was brought to the council's attention that this increase had not been approved by council. After investigation of the council meeting minutes and agenda, it was discovered that no resolution had been brought to or taken up by council approving a pay increase for the city clerk treasurer in an effort to correct this oversight council took up and approved the budget budget modification on September 1st. I also requested an internal audit to discover if the clerk treasurer was already receiving compensation in any form of a pay increase. Records indicate that the clerk treasurer had been compensated with the increase since January 26th, uh, in 2026. Council did not vote on any resolution approving such conversation until September 1st, 2026. Therefore, the question is, who authorized the payments? Such authorization skirts the authority of the city councils who watch and take care of taxpayer money and is the very reckless type of practice that got us into the financial mess we find ourselves attempting to overcome. These issues being discussed tonight, the ones that we're going to discuss tonight, could easily be handled through effective communication. I liken it to Josh Allen throwing a football. If he throws a football to a receiver and they're not on the same page and the receiver misses it, that's ineffective communication. Communications start with one person and end with somebody else hearing and acknowledging that they received it. This council has expressed a will to communicate with the administration. However, the mayor must be willing to share information, talk to the council, and not at the council. The mayor has to be willing to cease blaming the council for inaction because we disagree on two actions which does not move the needle forward or take responsibility for actions that she created that has contributed to a negative climate throughout City Hall. So first of all, I'd like to answer to the question, who authorized that payment because it was irregular without approval of the council?

That's all I have. Thank you. Councilman Fredrickson? I'm good. Thank you. Councilmember Civiletto?

Just to announce that we've had a Department of Economic Development meeting on the 22nd at 4, on the second floor at the start.

Thank you. Before I issue my statement, Randy, I understand there's something you'd like to offer.

Thanks, Councilman. We had an issue that... The United States Environmental Protection Agency wants us to inventory all service lines from our water mains into the houses of all 5,000 residential dwellings within the city of Dunkirk. It's taken several years. That leadership in that inventory was done under the direction of Deputy Provision and Engineer Bone and Chief Operator Schuster and lab director Dillenberg. Um, it took several years to enter more than 5,000 houses. And then with Rob Curry's crew at water maintenance, when they change a meter, we've been able to take a test on the pipes to see what we have. Some of those answers that we have that were unknown, we haven't been in the house. So we're asking residents to go to the city website, cityofdunkirknewyork.com, all one word, cityofdunkirkny.gov. And on the news thing, you click on the lead service line survey. That will get you to a link that will take you to a couple of pages where you have to fill out your name, if you would please, and your address. And then take a test. Take a magnet off your refrigerator and see if the pipe coming into your house is magnetic. If it is, it's made out of steel and you'll tell us that. If it doesn't stick but it looks like steel, it's probably lead. And we have to know that. If it's copper, you're going to know that it's copper. If it's plastic, you're going to know that it's plastic. So go to the city website, fill out this form so we can complete. The inventory that we have is a living inventory. We have 10 years to keep it up to date. We may have to start removing some of these things. The nice news is that city of Dunkirk water is not corrosive. Um, it has a pH. It's placed slightly alkaline of about 7.6. Uh, Lake Erie is so big that that PJ pH stays at the non corrosive level. No matter what happens storm wise, it's been sometimes 7.59, 7.61, but it's so, so consistent. that our operators are able to make excellent water all the time regardless of storm conditions, things like that. So a smaller body of water will oscillate and sometimes become corrosive. So our pipes, the lead pipes, are not going to dissolve like the city of Michigan where they did. Our water doesn't do that to lead pipes. But it's still, any amount of lead is not good for you. We didn't know that. until the 1970s. Everybody's got lead in their automobile with a lead battery and things like that. Lead's all around us. We probably can't do without it, but you don't want to have any inside you. The walls used to be painted with lead paint because the paint needs to have some kind of metal in it to make it strong. That lead now has been replaced with titanium. because some people have titanium parts in their body. So we've gone from something that's dangerous and neurotoxin to something that's inert. So just wanted to educate the public on helping us with the survey. Wanted to thank the city and we had a conference with the EPA officials, uh, attorney for the city. Raimondo was on the line. The mayor helped. Um, it was a very productive meeting. Uh, we're going to get, um, a letter that gives us a deadline to do certain things. But again, We asked the public's help to give us the inventory so we can get up to speed and we'll keep you up to date as, as we learn more. Thank you, councilman.

Thank you, director Woodbury. I'd like to take a few minutes during my report to address some of the comments made at our last meeting, because I think there are several things that deserve clarification for the public record. I don't think it's productive for this council to engage in a back and forth with the mayor every time we disagree. But I also don't think we should allow an inaccurate impression of how this council has approached the city's finances to go unchallenged. The suggestion that this council has simply chosen to underfund the city or that we have arbitrarily set the city's budget without regard for its actual needs is not an accurate description of what has happened. As I've said before, the council's budget work does not happen in a vacuum. We begin with a proposed budget from the mayor, We receive information from the administration and from department heads, and we've relied extensively on guidance from the state comptroller's office in establishing personnel services, fringe benefits, and other budget lines. When the council has made substantive changes to the mayor's proposed budget, those changes have been made deliberately based on the information available to us and where appropriate in consultation with the mayor and department heads. We have not simply gone through the budget and arbitrarily cut funding because we wanted to reduce spending. Quite the opposite. We have been trying to thread a very difficult needle, maintaining essential services while dealing with a structural fiscal problem that has been developing for years and that was dramatically worsened by the loss of NRG revenue. And I think it's important to remember that three of the five members of this council were not members of the council that adopted the previous budget. The fiscal problems we are dealing with did not begin with this council, and it is not fair or accurate to suggest that members sitting here today created all of the conditions we inherited, or for that matter, the previous council. There is another part of this history that I believe needs to be stated plainly. The Dunkirk Fiscal Recovery Act was enacted specifically to give this city a mechanism to address its accumulated deficits. Under that act, the state comptroller certified the city's ability to issue substantially more deficit financing than the approximately 13 million temporary assistance loan that the city ultimately received. The amount certified for deficit financing was more than $17 million. Previous council took the necessary steps to put the city in a position to access that deficit financing. But the mayor ultimately made the decision not to pursue it. That is not an inference or a characterization by the council. The mayor said so publicly herself. In her January 7th interview on WDOE, the mayor acknowledged that the city had not taken advantage of the deficit financing offers that was available. She explained that she and the city attorney believed the terms were not favorable enough for Dunkirk, and she said that, rather proceed with the deficit financing, she intended to go back to the state legislature and seek a one-year extension. That extension did not happen. The mayor was entitled to make that judgment, but she also has to accept responsibility for the financial consequences of that decision. We cannot now pretend that the resulting financial constraints are solely the product of council decisions or council inaction. The difference between having access to more than $17 million in deficit financing and having approximately $13 million in temporary assistance was not insignificant. Those were millions of dollars in additional financial capacity that could have been used to address obligations the city was already carrying. That decision belongs in the public discussion when we talk about why the city remains under such extraordinary financial pressure today. There are other examples as well. Mayor and her administration have made decisions regarding employee benefits and personal matters that have resulted in grievances and litigation against the city. Those decisions have financial consequences. Some of those matters have already resulted in costs to the city and others continue to carry financial exposure. Again, I'm not saying that every executive decision is wrong, nor am I saying that the council has no responsibility for the city's financial condition. We absolutely do. The council is responsible for the budget, and we have to own the decisions we make. But the same standard of accountability has to apply to the executive branch. If the council makes a budget decision that has consequences, we should own that decision. If the mayor makes an administrative or personnel decision that has financial consequences, the mayor should own that decision. It is not reasonable to attribute every staffing problem, every grievance, every service reduction, and every financial challenge in city government to the council simply because the council adopts the budget. The mayor is responsible for the administration and day-to-day operation of city government. The council is responsible for legislation, appropriations, and the budget. Those responsibilities are different and both come with accountability. So when the public hears that the city is, quote, underfunded because of council inaction, I think it is important that they also understand the full picture. The council has been working within an extremely difficult fiscal environment using the information and guidance available to us. We have made budget decisions deliberately rather than arbitrarily. The current council inherited many of these problems, and there have been significant executive decisions that have also affected the city's financial position. I'm not interested in assigning blame for the sake of assigning blame. I am interested in making sure that when we talk about the city's financial condition, we talk about it honestly and completely. The city has a serious fiscal problem. We all know that. Solving it is going to require difficult decisions from the mayor, from the council, and from the administration as a whole. But we are not going to solve it by pretending that responsibility runs in only one direction. With that, I'd like to point out that the next Finance Committee meeting will be held this coming Monday, September 21st at 9 a.m. in the Stearns Building first floor conference room. Looking at unfinished business, I'd like to clarify something for the record. Local laws 2 and 5 of 2026 were previously postponed indefinitely by this council. Neither, to my knowledge, has been reintroduced by a council member. Is that correct, council?

Correct. Correct.

Clerk Dobeck, could you please explain how those two items came to appear on tonight's agenda under unfinished business and under what provision of our rules or procedures they were placed there?

Anything... POSTPONED INDEFINITELY SHOULD BE REINTRODUCED IN UNFINISHED BUSINESS AT EVERY MEETING, AND IT WAS OUR OVERSIGHT THAT WE DID NOT PUT IT ON THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS.

AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION AND PROPER PROCEDURE PER ROBERT'S RULES, POSTPONEMENT INDEFINITELY DOES NOT CALL UP AN ITEM OF BUSINESS AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. POSTPONEMENT TO A CERTAIN DATE DOES, SO ANYTHING THAT IS postponed indefinitely by the council, would not return to a subsequent meeting, per Robert's Rules of Order. Because no member of the council has requested that it be brought back for consideration, we will not take either local law up tonight. Is there any objection to that, council?

No. Can I make a point? Go ahead. Not only did we not take this up, the one local law is not sponsored by any member of the council. And the other one says entire council. I don't recall having any conversation at all sponsoring that when it first came up. So council should not have even entertained it when it first came up because we did not, I don't recall ever being asked to sponsor that. and it said entire council, so I think that was inappropriate. Error on the council's part, I'll take that, because it should have never been approved to be on the agenda in the first place. So having it come back the same as it was before when it was postponed indefinitely is definitely inappropriate.

Thank you. And just to clarify, if any member of council wants to bring A LAW OR A RESOLUTION THAT HAS BEEN POSTPONED INDEFINITELY FORWARD THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE PROCESS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT MOVING FORWARD. LIKE I SAID, THESE APPEARED ON THE AGENDA WITHOUT THAT PROPER PROCESS. SO WITH THAT, WE WILL NOW PROCEED WITH THE PREFILED RESOLUTIONS. CLERK, PLEASE INTRODUCE THE FIRST RESOLUTION.

RESOLUTION 71-2026, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING execution of animal control slash dog control contract with SPCA serving Erie County.

Okay, I do understand that the last resolution addressed by this body was walk-in resolution number 71, so I believe this requires a motion to amend resolution 71-2026 to read resolution number 72-2026. Is there a motion toward that end? Moved by Council Member Laskowiak, seconded by Councilman Fredrickson. Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Laskowiak. Aye. Council Member Terrain.

Aye.

Council Member Fredrickson. Aye. Council Member Civiletto. Aye. Council Member at-large Weiser.

Aye. Motion carries. Is there any discussion on resolution as amended?

Okay.

Seeing no further discussion, please call the roll for the vote on newly amended resolution 72-2026.

Council Member Laskowiak. Aye. Council Member Terrain.

Aye.

Council Member Fredrickson.

Aye.

Council Member Civiletto.

Aye.

Council Member at large, Weiser.

Aye. The resolution is hereby adopted.

Resolution 72-2026. Resolution accepting low bid for 2026 citywide paving and drainage.

Okay, the same provision will apply here. Council, I would need a motion to amend resolution number 72-2026 to read resolution number 73-2026. Moved by Council Member Terrain, seconded by Council Member Laskowiak. Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Laskowiak. Aye. Council Member Terrain. Aye. Council Member Fredrickson. Aye. Council Member Civilletto. Aye. Council Member Atlarge-Weiser.

Aye. The motion to amend carries. Any discussion on the newly amended resolution, Council? Are we prepared to vote on this resolution this evening, council? Yeah. Okay. In that case, clerk, please call the roll for the vote on resolution number 73-2026.

Council Member Laskowiak. Aye. Council Member Terrain.

Aye.

Council Member Fredrickson.

Aye.

Council Member Civilletto.

Aye.

Council Member Atlarge-Weiser.

Aye. Motion carries, and the resolution is hereby adopted. Is there any new business to be discussed this evening?

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to accept the walk-in resolution imposing a temporary moratorium on battery energy storage systems in the city of Dunkirk, New York, which needs to be changed to 74-2026. Okay.

There's a motion to accept walk-in resolution presently numbered 73-2026. The motion has been made. Is there a second? Okay, seconded by Council Member Terrain. Clerk, please call the roll.

Council Member Laskowiak. Aye. Council Member Terrain.

Aye.

Council Member Fredrickson.

Aye.

Council Member Civiletto.

Aye.

Council Member at-large Weiser.

Aye. Motion carried. Same provision applies here. We'll need a motion to amend walk-in resolution number 73-2026 to read walk-in resolution number 74-2026. Is there a motion toward that end? Moved by Council Member Laskowiak. Seconded by Council Member Fredrickson. Clerk, please call the roll to amend.

Council Member Laskowiak. Aye. Council Member Terrain.

Aye.

Council Member Fredrickson. Aye. Council Member Civilletto. Aye. Council Member at-large Weiser.

Aye. Motion carries. Any discussion on the walk-in resolution as amended? Councilmember Lescovia?

Yes, this resolution was to be on the agenda. It was given to the clerk in due and diligent time, but the request was not respected. Mayor, clerk, and everyone, please be aware that it is a council meeting and requests need to be taken seriously. The resolution was sent to Attorney Raimondo on September 5th with no response. The attorney is tasked with reviewing resolutions, and he did not. In the absence of comments, we can move for its adoption. The attorney role is advisory and review, not gatekeeping. Nowhere in the charter does it state that no resolution shall be voted on until reviewed by the attorney. The legislative power sits with the council. Council agrees with the planning board regarding their concerns for safety and standards and chair. Kindly can I read the resolution?

Before you do that, I have a comment. Okay, go ahead. I have a comment based on this resolution. First of all, this resolution is asking for a moratorium until our zoning laws are, until they have finished, completed, updating the zoning laws, which was in the process prior to the current application that's been forwarded. So since they were already in that process, it's not intended to stop the process that they entered into, but to make sure that we have our ducks in a row and make sure that they are able to complete the update of the zoning laws before we accept any other projects to come through. I think we talked about this when we approved the last. We were in the process of approving the first battery storage, which is off Brigham Road. And we had some extensive conversations about the zoning laws, which at that point they had just started to talk about and get into conversations about updating the zoning laws. And so right at the point when this one came in, that process had begun. So, again, it's not in an attempt. to stall them or keep them from doing their project, but we need to make sure that the zoning laws are completed before we enter into any other projects.

Okay, Resolution 74-2026, a resolution imposing a temporary moratorium on battery energy storage systems in the City of Dunkirk, New York. Whereas the Common Council of the City of Dunkirk recognizes that battery energy storage systems, otherwise known as BES, present unique land use, fire safety, and environmental considerations that are not adequately addressed in the city's current zoning code. And whereas the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, otherwise known as NYSERDA, has published a best model law for responsible battery energy storage system development to provide municipalities with guidance on siting, permitting, and safety standards for such facilities. And whereas the city desires to review and consider adoption of the NYSERDA best model law and to integrate appropriate standards into its zoning law code to ensure the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, and whereas the Common Council finds that a temporary moratorium is necessary to allow time for such review without the pressure of pending applications. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Common Council of the City of Dunkirk, New York, as follows. Section 1, moratorium imposed during the effective period of this resolution. No city officer, board, or agency shall accept, process, or approve any application for a permit, site plan, special use permit, variance, or other approval for the construction, installation, or operation of any... BESTS WITHIN THE CITY OF JUNKERK. SECTION 2 EXEMPTIONS, THE MORATORIUM SHALL NOT APPLY TO BESTS THAT RECEIVED ALL REQUIRED APPROVALS PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION OR RESIDENTIAL BATTERY SYSTEMS LESS THAN 20 KILOWATTS INSTALLED AS PART OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. SECTION 3, DURATION, THIS MORATORIUM SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON ADOPTION AND SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL THE EARLIER OF THE ADOPTION OF UPDATED ZONING CODE PROVISIONS SPECIFICALLY REGULATING BESTS AND THE ADOPTION OF THE NYSERDA BESTS MODEL LAW OR SUBSTANTIAL SIMILAR REGULATIONS. BUT IN NO EVENT SHALL THIS MORATORIUM EXTEND BEYOND SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ADOPTION UNLESS EXTENDED BY SUBSEQUENT resolution of the Common Council Section 4 directed the city clerk city attorney code enforcement Officer Planning Board and zoning Board of Appeals are hereby directed to comply with this resolution Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on the walk-in? Seeing none clerk, please call the roll for the vote on walk-in resolution number 74 of 2026 I

Councilmember Leskowiak. Aye. Councilmember Terrain.

Aye.

Councilmember Fredrickson. Aye. Councilmember Civilletto. Aye. Councilmember Lars Weiser.

Aye. The resolution has received sufficient support and is hereby adopted. Is there any further new business to be discussed this evening, Council? Okay, I understand that as we near the conclusion of tonight's meeting, there is a need for an executive session to discuss matters of litigation. Is that correct, Attorney Raimondo?

It is. And Council President Weiser, I just want to state a fact. With respect to the Dunkirk Fiscal Recovery Act, one of the weaknesses of the act was it required us to refinance our debt via private bankers. If the council and the public recalls, in speaking with private bankers and trying to get a good interest rate for the city, the city treasurer's office was raided in March of 2025, and the city treasurer was subsequently indicted in January of 2026. Unfortunately, that made getting a good interest rate through private bankers in the Dunkirk Fiscal Recovery Act almost impossible because we were fined for a loan while the treasurer was under criminal investigation. And that is what I have to say on that.

Thank you. Okay, before we proceed, I'd just like to point out that No public action will be taken at the conclusion of the executive session, so there's no need to stay unless you'd like to. With that, is there a motion to enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing matters of litigation? Moved by Council Member Fredrickson, seconded by Council Member Laskowiak. Please call the roll.

Council Member Laskowiak. Aye. Council Member Terrain. Aye. Council Member Fredrickson.

Aye.

Council Member Civiletto. Aye. Council Member at large, Weiser.

Aye. Motion carries, and we will now enter into executive session. For the record, the time is 6.11 p.m. And we kindly ask that the public.