Submitted photo Dunkirk Common Council members are pictured at a meeting earlier this year. From left are Don Williams Jr., Martin Bamonto, James Stoyle and Nancy Nichols.

Dunkirk’s Common Council has signaled to the state that it would like to be considered for a marijuana dispensary, using a process that differed markedly from neighboring Fredonia’s –though the end result will be the same.

Every municipality in New York must decide by Dec. 31 whether to “opt out” of plans for placement of state-run cannabis sales sites. In Dunkirk, the council decided Tuesday to pass an optional “opt in” resolution to signal city interest in a store or smoking lounge. This was not legally necessary, as failure to pass an “opt out” resolution by Dec. 31 is basically the same as an “opt in.”

The council’s vote Tuesday was 4-1, with Jim Stoyle voting “no.” Marty Bamonto, Nancy Nichols, Paul VanDenVouver and Don Williams voted “yes.”

The resolution, sponsored by Nichols and Williams, notes the council only has to “opt out” if it wants to. “However,” the resolution states, “after reviewing the pros and cons of potential marijuana business-related tax revenues, and the city having the ability to pass local laws and regulations governing the time, place and manner of the operation of licensed adult use cannabis retail dispensaries and/or on-site consumption sites with the city administration, this council would like to affirmatively state its decision to opt in.”

The resolution also states the regulatory framework created by New York for cannabis will be similar to the state’s current handling of alcohol, which includes a Liquor Authority and an Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.

Dunkirk’s handling of the legalized cannabis issue was markedly different from Fredonia’s. There were no public hearings and little comment about it from citizens during council meetings in Dunkirk. In Fredonia, the issue was debated much more, with a well-attended community forum and a Board of Trustees hearing.

Fredonia’s trustees wound up considering an “opt out” resolution, which they rejected last month. They decided not to do any “opt in” statement, because rejection of the “opt out” is essentially the same thing.