Matt Kent, New York Foundation for Fair Contracting, told the Community Development Committee on July 15 that Public Works contractor D and H Paving has “a documented history of wage theft resulting from the employment of unregistered apprentices” on multiple City of Buffalo contracts. Kent said the New York State Department of Labor found the conduct willful and that repeated violations are grounds under the city’s apprenticeship law for determinations of nonresponsibility and for temporary debarment from public works contracting.

The matter drew sustained attention at the committee because council members said they had not seen the records the foundation requested. The committee’s majority leader read a June 23 acknowledgment from the City of Buffalo Department of Public Works and Streets that a Freedom of Information Law request was received and was being processed under New York State Public Officers Law §89.

The issue matters because the Department of Public Works has been recommending awards to D and H Paving while advocates say there has not been a public accounting of the department’s compliance review. “We have requested the Department of Public Works, please describe please provide the records demonstrating the contractor’s apprenticeship compliance review,” Kent told the committee. “The Department of Public Works has been unwilling to provide that documentation thus far.”

Nate Martin, Department of Public Works commissioner, told the committee the department has reviewed eight D and H contracts that were in place since the city’s enforcement penalties took effect. Martin listed contracts the department reviewed and described three outcomes: closed contracts where the department concluded the contractor made a good‑faith effort to meet apprenticeship goals; closed contracts that did not meet the apprenticeship percentage goal; and open contracts that are still being monitored for compliance. “On a contract by contract basis ... the closed contract 1004 ... our review of that closed project was the contractor made good faith efforts at that point in time to meet the goals of apprenticeship,” Martin said.

Martin told the committee the department imposed a fine of $22,214.46 on one contract for failing to meet the city’s 10% apprenticeship requirement and said the contractor paid that fine. He also said some listed contracts remain open and pending closeout, including an item described as site‑specific storm damage work expected to finish this year.

Council members urged clearer, consistent documentation when contracting decisions are brought to the council. Councilmember Rivera recommended a checklist that would accompany bids and recommended awards listing open and closed contracts, any noncompliance findings, and corrective actions. Councilmember Wyatt thanked Kent for advocacy but said the council should improve the process and “be more diligent,” suggesting the council consider ways to expand minority contracting and help apprentices start their own firms.

Committee business concluded with a motion to receive and file the item; the motion was seconded and taken under committee rules. The committee did not adopt new sanctions or change any contracts during the meeting. Several council members said they would pursue process improvements, including working with DPW on potential budgeted staff to assist contract compliance reviews and discussing procedural checklists during recess.

The committee’s discussion combined public comment (Kent), a departmental response, and council direction to seek better documentation before future awards are approved. No new ordinance or suspension of awards was adopted at the July 15 meeting.