Committee approves updates to Buffalo’s living-wage ordinance and sends filing on related item

5505327 · July 29, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Committee on Legislation voted July 29 to approve proposed updates to Chapter 96 (the City of Buffalo living-wage ordinance). Committee members described the changes as minor, ‘‘common-sense’’ updates; minutes do not include specifics of the ordinance text in the public discussion.

The Committee on Legislation on July 29 approved proposed amendments to Chapter 96, the City of Buffalo living-wage ordinance, and later recorded a related agenda entry as received and filed. A council member described the proposal as a set of “common sense, updates” to the living-wage law first adopted in February 2002 and said staff and members had met with stakeholders during drafting. The speaker said, “I believe Sam McGavin, throughout the course of the last couple years, has met with members and the administration...to discuss some of these specific updates, all common sense and, minor.” The speaker did not read text of the ordinance or list wage levels or employer thresholds during the committee discussion on the record. The committee opened the item for brief discussion, closed discussion on a motion, and then approved the ordinance amendment; the motion to approve was seconded by Council Member Galambique. Later on the agenda a related item listed as “amending and strengthening Buffalo’s Living Wage Ordinance” was recorded as “motion received and filed,” seconded by Council Member Rivera. The committee record as provided does not include the ordinance’s detailed provisions, any fiscal analysis, or a vote tally in the transcript excerpt. Committee discussion on the record emphasized that the living-wage law dates to February 2002, that staff had engaged stakeholders, and that the draft ordinance came from the law department. The committee approved the amendment at this meeting; the transcript did not show the specific ordinance language on the committee floor. Next steps: the approved amendment will proceed per the council’s legislative process; the committee transcript did not specify a calendar date for final council consideration or include detailed provisions in the public comment excerpt.