OBSERVER Photo by Jo Ward This section of the pier by the boat launch was improved on by Jim Nichols and local businesses in 2011 to give fishermen a location to relax. It has since fallen under scrutiny, after the pier project geared up this spring.

A section of the pier was a point of contention at Dunkirk’s Common Council meeting Tuesday.

Fourth Ward Councilman Mike Civiletto brought up statements made by Nancy Nichols at the last council meeting. The comments were made in regards to a portion of the pier that was improved upon by her husband, the late Jim Nichols and area business owners in 2011.

In those comments Nichols had said “to look there now that wonderful place no longer exists. Instead of working around the area, you chose to destroy what blood, sweat and local money created; because it didn’t fit into your plan.”

“I want to respond to Mrs. Nichols about the area that her husband, her and her family worked so diligently to create, to make sure that there was a green spot by the pier,” Civiletto stated. “Of course the city is very grateful for that, but she talked about how there’s going to be changes. I didn’t make a comment at the time because I wasn’t a 100% sure, but I’ve been to all of the different pier proposals and looked at all the plans earlier and I never remembered anything being changed there.”

Civiletto went on to say that the two concrete pads that were laid by her husband are going to stay, the two trees that were planted are going to stay, the green area is going to stay and that the flagpole is going to have a nautical theme added to it.

“There’s going to be nothing but improvements.” Civiletto added. “I’m a little confused about what the questions were because not only was it talked about during the Common Council meeting, but also in the newspaper. That area will be the same or better than it was before and actually, Mrs. Nichols was told this by our engineer, we’re going to be putting a monument stone there with her husband’s name on it.”

“I was a little confused about what the problem was. I can assure her that everything is going to be the same or better than it was left by Mrs. Nichols and her family.”

Following the meeting, the OBSERVER asked Nichols of her response and was met with appalled shock.

“Where was he in 2011? That was just a slap in my husband’s face,” Nichols stated. “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I have the new plans. He’s not been down there, he wasn’t down there in 2011. Why wait and say it out loud at a normal meeting? Because it’s an election year and he wants a vote? To discredit what we built, that four businesses put money into and was destroyed is terrible. I was down there, they made a sidewalk around there, it’s not better, there’s no picnic tables slotted to be there or anything for the fishermen. That’s not going to happen down there, because it’s not in the plan, I don’t know what he’s looking at. I’m aggravated. He’s not correct. That diamond back there behind the building by the fish cleaning station, granted, is still there, but it’s not the same layout as it was before.”

When the OBSERVER asked Civiletto about his feelings on the matter he reiterated what had been said.

“I told her that we’re making it better. We’re keeping it exactly the same as what it was and we’re making improvements to it. We’re keeping the size, we’re not cutting down the trees, we’re not bringing up the concrete, we’re enhancing what her husband started. How is that a slap in the face?”