Action regarding a 108% tax hike in the city of Dunkirk’s 2025 budget has been as quiet as the Dunkirk Pier on a dreary day.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article has been updated with a correction to the cost of pumpers and the rescue boat.

DUNKIRK — Shortly after Dunkirk Mayor Kate Wdowiaz dropped the 108% tax-increase torpedo in her first budget proposal in late September, Common Council members have offered a consistent theme. This was only the beginning, they said, work would be done to whittle that burden on property owners.

Some of that collective response included:

— Natalie Luczkowiak, First Ward councilwoman — “I have received much shocked feedback (from residents), and I hear you.”

— Nancy Nichols, Fourth Ward councilwoman — “That’s one thing we need to make perfectly clear, that it is not set in stone.”

— Nick Weiser, councilman at-large — “I recognize how much time and effort goes into preparing a budget, especially in these challenging circumstances. … That said, in a community where more than a quarter of our residents live in poverty, a 108% tax increase is simply not viable.”

Words do not always lead to action. More than 50 days since these statements, that 108% tax-increase figure shows no signs of deflating. That is because no one wants to be put in the position of making difficult, gut-wrenching choices.

Council, including the three of Luczkowiak, Nichols and James Stoyle who have presided over this mess before it became apparent, does not hide behind the fact it does not consider itself a fiscal watchdog. It, instead, follows the lead of so many other local boards that focus on issues other than money. Those include noise ordinances, streetlights that need repair and potholes that need filling.

All are quality of life issues that are bound to improve if a municipality has solid cash flow.

But no one wants to touch the fiscal crater or responsibility that comes with a city that costs more than $26 million this year to run. About 60% of that amount goes to the public-sector salaries and generous benefits.

Elected officials across the region talk tough when it comes to reining in spending, but personnel costs are just about untouchable. The locally negotiated and approved contracts are ironclad. That is what is keeping the clamps on that massive proposed tax increase.

If the city has no money, that is someone else’s problem. Property owners will be forced to bail them out.

Never mind that longtime Treasurer Mark Woods downplayed the seriousness of the first 2023 Revenue Anticipation Note that totaled $5.5 million. At that time, he said “the repayment will come from the receipt of the revenues. … We do not have to waste 12 months to repay it.”

But it was never repaid — and the city’s debt went deeper. The elected Woods has avoided the wrath of the longest tenured council members because he’s a good soldier. He attends nearly every council meeting but rarely speaks about finances or a balance sheet.

That is an indication he’s in the dark — though he’s the one elected to account for the multi-million dollar funded operation.

Let’s also not forget, one current and two former council members who gave themselves and city workers bonuses from COVID money in November 2021. That action was approved by Nichols, Paul VanDenVouver and Don Williams. It was arrogant then — and speaks to the level of previous carelessness today.

Council later purchased two unneeded pumpers for the city Fire Department that cost more than $1.7 million. They also purchased a rescue boat for another $321,408 while quickly burning through millions in American Rescue Plan Act funding.

Since the crisis became public in March, these same big spenders have played ignorant on how the dollars vanished leading to the current deficit that’s nearly $18 million. More troubling is the municipality’s current bond standing — it’s worse than junk.

All city activities are currently being subsidized by a $16.5 million New York state loan that is supposed to be paid back with no interest. No other lending institution would even consider taking a chance on this negligent entity.

Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli’s office has been highly involved in working with the city, but the finances — overseen for more than two decades by an elected treasurer in Woods — remain a mess. If council and administrators, including former Mayor Wilfred Rosas, were not seeing regular monthly financial updates, what was driving their poor choices that allowed spending to increase so much they ran out of cash three months into the fiscal year of 2024?

Without drastic changes to contracts and staffing levels, there is no way to begin to fix the expense woes without more revenues. Those are the rising taxes and fees for a city already struggling with a high percentage of residents who fall into the low-income bracket.

A control board of non-elected officials to take a hard look at contracts and finances would have been the best solution. That takes the uncomfortable situation out of the often-chummy council members’ hands.

That did not happen. State officials, instead, told the inexperienced first-year Mayor Wdowiasz and a highly incapable council to fix the problem it created through a lack of checks and balances.

How did they not expect the current result?

As for the future, some residents this week indicated they are worried about what the future holds when it comes to the swelling costs. Some even hinted at leaving.

Out-of-area investors, knowing a big tax hike is coming, are backing away. Why would they take a risk on an unstable market?

Chautauqua County government — fully embracing its see no evil mode — also continues to avoid offering any help to the second-largest municipality here though it has $40 million in its slush fund. That is decisive and inexcusable neglect.

If Dunkirk suffers, so will the north county. That situation will lead to a ripple effect that has negative consequences for all of us who live here.

John D’Agostino is the editor of The Post-Journal, OBSERVER and Times Observer in Warren, Pa. Send comments to jdagostino@observertoday.com or call 716-487-1111, ext. 253.