Restaino Holds Special Meeting In Violation of City Charter to Pass $4 Million Centennial Park Land Payment to Niagara Falls Redevelopment – But it Failed (Again)
How a Procedurally Defective Special Meeting Tried — and Failed — to Reshape Niagara Falls in 48 Hours. The meeting happened 21 hours and 21 minutes before it was legally permitted to be held and continued after a formal objection was filed with the City Clerk.
By: John Karcz
Investigative Reporter
Let me be clear about who I am, because it matters to what you are about to read.
I am a City of Niagara Falls employee. I work for this city. That makes me a member of United Steelworkers Local 9436 — the same union whose members were directly on the line at the meeting you are about to read about. I am not an outside agitator. I am not a political operative. I am not a hired gun brought in by anybody’s campaign or anybody’s lawyers. I am a city worker.
I also write. That is my second job. Journalism is not how I pay my mortgage — working for this city is. But when I see something that needs to be said in print, I say it. That combination — city worker, union member, and someone who knows how to put words on paper — is exactly why I was the one who filed the objection you will find with this report.
I am not somebody else. This is my city. And that charter is the law.
What follows is not my opinion. It is the public record — documented, sourced, and verifiable. I put my name on the objection because I stand behind every word of it. I put my name on this report for the same reason.
NIAGARA FALLS, JULY 17, 2026 AT 4:59PM
The mist was rising off the falls the way it always does in July — indifferent to what men were doing a few blocks west, in the municipal building on Main Street, where the clocks were moving toward five o’clock and the air conditioning was fighting a losing battle against the heat. It was the kind of afternoon that makes Niagara Falls feel both eternal and exhausted at the same time. The water has always fallen. The city has always struggled. Both facts were true on July 17, 2026.
On the residential streets, the city-owned vacant lots stood unmown — their weeds chest-high in places, their chain-link fences rusting at the corners, neighbors long past the point of phoning in complaints that went nowhere. The roads hadn’t been paved in years on some blocks. Pothole season is technically spring, but in Niagara Falls it never entirely ends; it just becomes background noise, the way the thunder of the falls becomes background noise — something you stop hearing until the day you can’t ignore it anymore.
Council Chair Brian Archie was not there. He was home. His daughter, Bria Shardae Archie, had died. The city knew it. The administration knew it. The mayor’s own administrator would acknowledge, from the dais, that the meeting had been rescheduled “out of deference” to the grieving chair — moved from Tuesday to Friday. And yet there they were, on Friday, without him in violation of the City Charter.
CITY CHARTER §3.9: THE 72-HOUR RULE
“Special meetings may be held at any time on the call of the Chairman or any three members of the Council. The Mayor may also call a special meeting provided that the Mayor shall be present at such meeting. The notice of any special meeting shall be served personally upon each member of the Council or delivered to his or her residence or place of business not less than seventy-two (72) hours before the time fixed for such special meeting and shall contain a statement of the specific items of business to be transacted. No other business shall be conducted at such meeting. Special meetings on less than seventy-two (72) hours’ notice may only be held with the written consent of all Council members.” — Niagara Falls City Charter, Section 3.9
The charter is explicit on three points. First: notice must be delivered personally or to a council member’s residence or place of business — not by email, not by phone, not by any other method. Second: notice must arrive not less than 72 hours before the meeting. Third: the only exception is written consent from every council member, filed with the City Clerk.
The official notice for the July 17, 2026 special meeting was stamped received by the City Clerk’s office at 2:21 PM on Wednesday, July 15, 2026. The meeting was held at 5:00 PM on Thursday, July 17 — approximately 50 hours and 39 minutes later. The 72-hour legal window would not close until 2:21 PM on Saturday, July 18.
No written consent of all council members appears in the public record. The meeting proceeded anyway.
WHAT WAS ON THE TABLE: FIVE ITEMS, THREE CONTROVERSIES, AND ONE SLUSH FUND AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE
ITEM 1: The Paving Contract: Occhino Corp.
Contract Value: $3,900,000
Contractor: Occhino Corp., West Seneca, NY (out-of-town firm)
Funding: 100% reimbursed under New York State CHIPS program
History: The City Council voted July 9 to postpone after union objection. Mayor called the special meeting one week later to bring it back.
Union Position: United Steelworkers Local 9436 President Tim Huether told the council at the July 9 meeting: “This work, my members have always done.” He stated that paving delays were caused by the city’s own failure to timely award a catch-basin/drainage contract — not union incapacity. Huether said the DPW crew leader had “no right” to represent what city crews could or could not accomplish.
Mayor’s Position: A DPW crew leader told administrators city workers could only complete approximately 10 roads. Occhino would expand capacity.
Result at Special Meeting: Council Member Perry moved to approve. Cauley, Zajac, and Myles all refused to second. Motion died without a vote.
ITEM 2 — The Mowing Contract: K.J. Smith Enterprises
Contractor: K.J. Smith Enterprises — described in public documents only as “a Niagara Falls landscaper”
Purpose: Cutting overgrown and neglected city-owned lots
Rate Structure: $150 per standard parcel (50×175 ft); $175 per parcel (51×175 ft or larger); $200/acre for larger parcels
Critical Finding: The contract contains NO maximum dollar value and NO cap on the number of lots to be cut — an open-ended public contract with no ceiling.
Procurement Status: Unlike the Occhino item, the meeting notice did NOT identify K.J. Smith as the result of a competitive bid process.
Corporate Standing: Active legal status of K.J. Smith Enterprises has not been confirmed in available public records.
Result: Failed on 2-2 deadlock.
ITEM 3 — The $4.029 Million NFR Payment
Parties: City of Niagara Falls vs. Niagara Falls Redevelopment LLC (NFR)
Background: NFR purchased two South End parcels (“Parcel 0”) at Falls and 10th Streets for approximately $1.43 million. The city initiated eminent domain proceedings to acquire the 10 acres for the proposed Centennial Park — a $210 million, 6,000-seat events arena.
Settlement Terms: Court-approved settlement requires the city to pay NFR $4.029 million as reimbursement of costs and expenses. NFR transfers 10 acres for Centennial Park and deeds a separate 5-acre former 10th Street Park to the city for $1. The city also commits to approve zoning for NFR’s proposed $1.5 billion Niagara Digital Campus.
Funding Dispute: Mayor wants to use the General Fund balance (approximately $22 million, with $15.5 million in reserve). Council prefers Tribal Revenue funds. City Controller’s memo backs General Fund use.
NFR’s Development Record: NFR has held South End land for decades. No major completed project appears in the public record.
Legal Exposure: Mayor Restaino stated directly at the meeting: “After the settlement is signed by the judge, without a payment, NFR can move for a contempt order and demand enforcement.”
Prior Council Action: On July 8, council voted 4-1 to postpone — Archie, Zajac, Cauley, and Myles all voted to delay. Only Perry voted to proceed.
Result at Special Meeting: 2-2 deadlock (Archie absent). Payment stalled again.
Resident Quote: Marybeth Nugent of Gadawski’s Restaurant: “It’s super sad they can own this property and do not a darn thing… maybe they just made $4 million off of us.”
Item 4 — Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper Grant ($313,000)
Source: Niagara River Greenway Commission
Purpose: Gill Creek Healthy Waters Plan — environmental study
History: Council approved the grant application in February 2026; Commission approved in March 2026. The Friday vote was to formally disperse funds already approved.
Result: PASSED unanimously. The only substantive item to clear the meeting without controversy.
Item 5 — DeVeaux Student Housing Zoning Hearing
Purpose: Schedule a public hearing on a zoning code amendment to regulate student housing in residential neighborhoods near the Main Street corridor.
Result: PASSED — scheduling of public hearing approved.
DAY BY DAY – HOUR BY HOUR
June 1–4, 2026
NFR settlement approved by council. NFR agrees to transfer land; city agrees to pay $4.029M and approve Digital Campus zoning. Settlement submitted to court for signature.
July 8, 2026 — Regular Council Meeting
Council votes 4-1 to postpone $4.029M NFR payment. Council also unanimously blocks proposed Local Development Corporation (LDC) — Restaino’s proposed shadow nonprofit to build Centennial Park. Only Council Member Perry votes to proceed on NFR payment.
July 9, 2026 — Regular Council Meeting
Council votes to postpone $3.9M Occhino paving contract amid union dispute. Tim Huether (USW Local 9436) addresses council: “This work, my members have always done.”
July 10, 2026
Huether speaks publicly. Paving delay caused by city’s own failure to award catch-basin drainage contract first. Crew leader “had no right” to limit what city workers could accomplish.
July 14, 2026
Mayor Restaino signs the special meeting notice — dated July 14. Administration claims email notification was sent to council members on this date.
July 15, 2026 — 2:21 PM
The City Clerk’s office receives and stamps the official special meeting notice: 2:21 PM, Wednesday, July 15, 2026. This is the first moment the official charter-required notice — containing the specific enumerated agenda items — legally exists. SEVENTY-TWO HOURS FROM THIS STAMP: 2:21 PM, SATURDAY, JULY 18, 2026.
July 15, 2026 — Evening
Notice circulated. Meeting set for July 17, 5:00 PM. Elapsed time from clerk’s stamp to meeting: approximately 50 hours and 39 minutes. Shortfall: 21 hours and 21 minutes.
July 16, 2026 — Morning
Union President Tim Huether contacts council members and community figures. Describes the agenda as unacceptable. The union does not support outsourcing paving work.
July 16, 2026 — Afternoon
Niagara Falls resident and city employee John Karcz — a member of USW Local 9436 — submits a formal written legal objection to Mayor Robert M. Restaino. The objection cites: (1) defective notice under Charter §3.9; (2) the 2:21 PM clerk’s stamp and the 72-hour arithmetic; (3) the email argument and its two independent legal failures; (4) GML §103 competitive bidding requirements for both the Occhino and K.J. Smith contracts. The objection formally demands cancellation or adjournment and places the administration on written notice that votes taken over this objection could be declared void as a matter of law.
July 17, 2026 — All Day
The City of Niagara Falls mourns. Bria Shardae Archie, daughter of Council Chair Brian Archie (D), has died. Archie is excused from the special meeting.
July 17, 2026 — 4:59 PM
The Karcz formal written objection — a notice of illegality — is served prior to the opening gavel.
July 17, 2026 — 5:00 PM
Mayor Robert Restaino calls the special meeting to order. City Administrator Anthony Restaino present. Four of five council members present: Perry, Zajac, Cauley, Myles. Chair Archie excused.
July 17, 2026 — 5:05 PM
City Administrator states the meeting was moved from Tuesday to Friday “out of deference” to Chair Archie. This statement documents that the original intended meeting date was different — and reveals something more significant: the mayor’s official notice is dated Tuesday, July 14 — the same Tuesday from which the meeting was moved. If the original meeting was planned for Tuesday, July 14, the notice was created on the day the meeting was supposed to be held. That is not insufficient notice. That is zero notice. The move to Friday was framed as a courtesy to a grieving family. What it actually produced was a meeting held 50 hours and 39 minutes after the clerk’s stamp — still 21 hours and 21 minutes short of the charter requirement.
July 17, 2026 — 5:10 PM
Council Member Cauley moves to postpone all major items. Myles seconds. Perry and Zajac oppose. All postponement motions fail 2-2.
July 17, 2026 — 5:10–6:00 PM
Items considered individually:
— Occhino paving contract: Perry moves to approve. No second from Cauley, Zajac, or Myles. Motion dies.
— K.J. Smith mowing contract: 2-2 deadlock. Fails.
— NFR $4.029M payment: 2-2 deadlock. Fails.
— Waterkeeper grant ($313K): Passes unanimously.
— DeVeaux zoning hearing: Passes.
July 17, 2026 — 6:00 PM
Meeting adjourns. Three major items unresolved. City remains exposed to contempt-of-court proceedings on NFR settlement. Paving season window narrows further.
July 18, 2026 — 2:21 PM — THE LEGAL DEADLINE
The 72-hour charter window closes. This is the earliest moment at which a special meeting noticed at 2:21 PM on July 15 could have legally been held. The actual meeting occurred approximately 21 hours and 21 minutes before this moment.
July 29, 2026
Next regularly scheduled council meeting. All failed items expected to reappear.
THE PROCEDURAL RECORD: THREE REQUIREMENTS, THREE FAILURES
Requirement 1 — 72-Hour Notice
Charter: “not less than seventy-two (72) hours before the time fixed”
Record: Clerk’s stamp 2:21 PM July 15. Meeting 5:00 PM July 17. Elapsed: approximately 50 hours 39 minutes.
FINDING: The 72-hour requirement was not met on the face of the official public record.
Requirement 2 — Personal Service or Residence/Business Delivery
Charter: “served personally upon each member of the Council or delivered to his or her residence or place of business”
Record: Administration claims email on July 14. Email is not personal service. Email is not delivery to a residence or place of business. Charter §3.9 specifies the method of service; New York courts require strict compliance where a charter specifies service method. No council member provided documented written consent to accept electronic service.
FINDING: Email does not constitute valid service under Charter §3.9. Claimed email transmission does not satisfy the requirement.
Requirement 3 — Written Consent Waiver
Charter: “Special meetings on less than seventy-two (72) hours’ notice may only be held with the written consent of all Council members.”
Record: No written consent of all members appears in the available public record. None was filed with the City Clerk. None was produced at the meeting.
FINDING: No valid exception to the 72-hour rule was invoked.
THE DOCUMENT THAT PUT THE CITY ON NOTICE
Before the gavel fell on July 17, a piece of paper was already waiting. Filed the day before, on July 16, 2026, Niagara Falls resident and city employee John Karcz — a member of United Steelworkers Local 9436 — submitted a formal written legal objection to Mayor Robert M. Restaino. Signed, dated, and grounded in the text of the charter and New York State law, it is the most precise legal document in the public record of this meeting. It named the specific defects. It demanded specific remedies. It warned, explicitly, that votes taken over this documented objection could be declared void as a matter of law. The administration proceeded anyway.
THE EMAIL PROBLEM – TWO INDEPENDENT DEFECTS
The administration’s fallback position is that email notification was sent July 14. The Karcz objection identifies two independent legal reasons why this argument fails — either one of which is sufficient on its own:
Defect 1 — Email is Not Authorized Service
Charter §3.9 specifies: personally served or delivered to residence or place of business. These are physical acts. Email is neither. Where a city charter specifies the method of service, New York courts have required strict compliance — not substantial compliance. Email is not among the authorized methods. No council member produced documented written consent to accept electronic service.
Defect Service — The Official Notice Did not Exist On July 14
Charter §3.9 requires the notice to “contain a statement of the specific items of business to be transacted.” The official notice bearing those specific agenda items was not stamped by the City Clerk until 2:21 PM on July 15. Whatever was communicated on July 14 was not the official charter-required notice — because that document did not yet legally exist.
THE FORMAL DEMAND AND ITS LEGAL WEIGHT
The Karcz objection demanded cancellation or adjournment of the special meeting pending four conditions:
- Proper charter-compliant notice and full 72-hour elapsed time, or written consent of all council members filed with the City Clerk
- Competitive bid documentation for the Occhino Corp. road resurfacing contract
- Full settlement agreement, Corporation Counsel legal opinion confirming the city’s payment obligation, and independent expense accounting for the NFR payment
- Competitive bid confirmation or identification of a lawful procurement exception for the K.J. Smith grass cutting contract
None of the four conditions were satisfied before the meeting was called to order.
The objection is now part of the official public record of the City of Niagara Falls, New York — submitted for exactly that purpose. The defect was identified before the gavel. The warning was given. The city was placed on formal written notice that votes taken over this objection could be declared void. The council voted anyway. What the administration does with that record is, at this point, a legal and political question. What the public does with it is a civic one.
THE GRASS IS ALWAYS GREENER WHEN NIAGARA FALLS TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING
Among the three failed agenda items, the K.J. Smith mowing contract attracted the least attention. It was the smallest item — or so it appeared. Look at the rate structure, and a different picture emerges. For a contract with no dollar cap, no competitive bid, and unconfirmed corporate standing, the city’s proposed vendor was charging six times the going market rate. Per square foot.
- K.J. Smith: $175 ÷ 8,925 sq ft = $0.0196 per square foot
- Local private contractor: $60 ÷ 19,500 sq ft = $0.0031 per square foot.
- K.J. SMITH CHARGES 6.4 TIMES MORE PER SQUARE FOOT — FOR A LOT HALF THE SIZE
- At that rate, the city pays $1.96 per 100 square feet. The private market charges $0.31 per 100 square feet.
The K.J. Smith contract contains no maximum dollar value and no cap on the number of lots to be mowed. Niagara Falls has hundreds of city-owned vacant and tax-delinquent parcels, many of them overgrown. There is no publicly available limit on how many times K.J. Smith could mow, or how many parcels would be included in the contract.
At $175 per lot: 200 lots = $35,000 — the exact GML §103 competitive bidding threshold 500 lots = $87,500 1,000 lots = $175,000 THE CONTRACT AS WRITTEN HAS NO CEILING. THE CITY’S TAXPAYER EXPOSURE IS UNLIMITED.
GML §103 requires competitive sealed bidding for public works contracts exceeding $35,000. A contract with no dollar cap cannot, by definition, be certified to fall below that threshold. The Karcz objection demanded confirmation of whether competitive bidding occurred. No documentation was produced.
K.J. Smith Enterprises is described in publicly available documents only as “a Niagara Falls landscaper.” No public documentation confirms the firm’s active legal standing in New York State. Standard procurement practice requires verification of corporate standing through the Division of Corporations database before any public contract is awarded. The Niagara Action has noted this item for verification at apps.dos.ny.gov/publicInquiry.
The mowing contract was the smallest item on a $4 million Friday agenda. It was also, per square foot, the most expensive — more than six times market rate, on a contract with no cap, for a vendor with unconfirmed corporate standing, awarded through an undocumented procurement process. For a special meeting held on defective notice on a Friday afternoon while the council chair was home grieving, that is a remarkable combination of red flags packed into a single line item. It deserved scrutiny. It got a deadlock instead.
CONCLUSION
On the face of the public record, the July 17 special meeting did not meet the charter’s requirements on any of the three criteria the charter specifies. A formal written notice of illegality was served before the opening gavel. The meeting proceeded anyway. Whether votes taken under these circumstances are subject to legal challenge is a question for the Corporation Counsel — and potentially the courts.
The administrator stated on the record that the meeting was moved from Tuesday to Friday “out of deference” to Chair Archie. The mayor’s official notice bears a date of Tuesday, July 14 — the same Tuesday from which the meeting was moved. If the original meeting was planned for Tuesday, July 14, the official notice was created on the day the meeting was supposed to be held. That is not insufficient notice. That is zero notice.
The “deference” move to Friday did not cure the defect. It moved the city from zero notice to 50 hours and 39 minutes of notice — still 21 hours and 21 minutes short of what the charter requires. The administrator’s on-the-record statement is the most consequential unforced disclosure of the evening: it reveals that the original plan, as described by the city’s own official, would have produced a meeting held the same day its notice was dated. The public record cannot currently determine whether the administration understood this when it made the reschedule. What the record does show is that it happened — and that the administration said so itself, from the dais, on the record.
Editors Note
This report was assembled from publicly available documents, official city charter text, verified news accounts, and statements made at open public meetings. The author of the formal written objection is also a contributor to this publication and a member of the Amalgamated Union representing Niagara Falls city workers. That dual identity — resident, city employee, union member, and civic objector — is disclosed here in full and is material to the story.
The Niagara Action has submitted records requests for the official special meeting notice, documented proof of service on council members, and the complete meeting minutes for July 17, 2026. Readers with additional documentation — including the complete K.J. Smith contract, the Occhino bid tabulation, or the NFR stipulated settlement order — are encouraged to contact the Niagara Action.
This report does not advocate for or against any public official. It documents what the public record shows — and what it does not.
All facts are drawn from the public record. Where facts are in dispute, both positions are documented. Where documentation is absent, that absence is the finding.
Niagara Falls deserves a government that can be examined in the light of day.
That light is what this report is for. — The Editors, Niagara Action, July 18, 2026
