The Dunkirk Common Council failed to adopt a “Pro-Housing Communities Pledge” last week. The resolution will be coming up for vote again today at a special meeting at 4 p.m.

The council had a tie vote, 2-2, on adopting a pledge that state officials are encouraging local municipalities to enact. Democrats Martin Bamonto and Natalie Luczkowiak voted for it, while Republicans David Damico and Nancy Nichols voted “no.” Councilman James Stoyle, a Republican, was not at the meeting.

“This is a new directive that came from Gov. (Kathy) Hochul to address the shortage of housing that’s available,” said Vince DeJoy, city planning and development director. “Basically, they go through a certification process and what this would mean is, when there are grant opportunities that have any type of housing component to it, we would be given extra points in grading and a better opportunity to be awarded grant funding.”

DeJoy said the pledge was sent to Mayor Wilfred Rosas and city Attorney Michael Bobseine last week “and they both felt it was a very good idea and we followed our template for a resolution.”

He added that there are developers interested in adding new workforce housing to Dunkirk.

Bobseine said Hochul’s executive order on the housing matter “only came out in mid-July.”

Nichols said she had a heads-up only because she had attended a council committee meeting earlier in the week. Damico and Stoyle just received the information that day, she said, and it would be fair to them to table or postpone the resolution.

“From what I’m hearing, I don’t think anybody is opposed to it,” Damico said. “I know personally, I’d like the opportunity to at least read this, and if I have any questions before I vote, to at least have a night to read it.”

Damico asked if it would cost Dunkirk anything if the resolution was put off. Rosas said, “there may be other communities that have passed this that will be in the forefront” for grants.

In light of that, Bamonto said, the council should vote on the resolution without delay. Nichols sought to table it but no one seconded her motion, so the vote went ahead.

The resolution to pass the pledge spoke of “partnership with New York state … to support housing production of all kinds in our community to bring multiple benefits.”

The pledge would have “endeavor(ed) the city to take the following important steps:

¯ Streamline permitting for multifamily housing, affordable housing, accessible housing, accessory dwelling units, and supportive housing;

¯ Adopt policies that affirmatively further fair housing;

¯ Incorporate regional housing needs into planning decisions;

¯ Increase development capacity for residential uses; and

¯ Enact policies that encourage a broad range of housing development, including multifamily housing, affordable housing, accessible housing, accessory dwelling units, and supportive housing.”

After the tie vote occurred, Nichols reiterated that no one was really against the resolution for the pledge, they just wanted more time to digest it.

Bobseine replied, “I appreciate that, just with all due respect, this was sent out last week as part of the agenda and we did not get any calls on it. I would just ask that that be a consideration going forward.”

Bamonto soon after asked Bobseine what would happen to the resolution moving forward. Bobseine asserted that city officials would have to tell a housing project applicant that it will likely not get credits that were expected. “Unfortunately that could present real problems for a significant housing project in the city,” he said.

The attorney added that Wells Enterprises executives consider housing a primary concern, when eying expansion plans at their plant in the city.

“Can (the resolution) come back? I would tell you that it can come back,” Bobseine said. “I would like to know from council what the issue is with this.”