Tuesday, August 18, 2026, 1 p.m. (New York City time), Council Chambers - City Hall
Committee: Committee on Governmental Operations, State & Federal Legislation
The Committee on Governmental Operations, State & Federal Legislation held a joint oversight hearing with the Finance Committee on the rollout of the pied-à-terre tax (the surcharge on non-primary-residence high-value properties enacted in the FY 2026-27 state budget). The administration declined to appear, citing pending litigation, so the chairs read Department of Finance Commissioner Richard Lee's written testimony into the record and later read the questions they would have asked, committing to submit them in writing. Council members criticized the Department of Finance's publication of a roughly 900,000-property supplemental roll, the 17,000 initial determination notices, the burden placed on homeowners to prove primary residency, and the administration's absence. Public testimony was mixed: several co-op, condo, and real estate representatives criticized the rollout and the co-op collection mandate, while many other speakers urged support for the tax to fund schools, child care, CUNY, and disability services.
0:04 Shortly. Okay. You
0:04 . Good afternoon. Good and
0:13 welcome to the New York City
0:15 council hearing on the
0:16 committee on governmental
0:17 operation state and federal
0:18 legislation joint with finance
0:19 at this time, please. Sounds
0:21 all electronics and do not
0:22 approach the dais. If you
0:24 planning on on testifying,
0:25 please ensure you fill out of
0:27 testimony slip with the
0:28 sergeants at the back you do
0:29 so online at testimony at
0:31 council the that girl that his
0:33 testimony at council dot gov.
0:35 Thank you for your cooperation
0:37 shares, you begin,
0:40 thank you very much. I am
0:41 Gale Brewer, the chair of the
0:43 committee and governmental
0:43 operation state and local I
0:46 fit's state and federal
0:47 legislation I want to thank
0:48 all the members of the public
0:50 who have have joined us today
0:53 as well as colleagues, the
0:56 indomitable fabulous chair of
1:00 finance.
1:00 The Linda Lee
1:02 Carr, murano, I think on we
1:10 have Paladino
1:11 . Uh, today it's a ver
1:11 ystrange sort of hearing, but
1:12 we we we will conduct
1:14 oversight of the rollout of
1:16 the predator tax the most
1:18 recent state budget included a
1:20 surcharge on property that
1:21 does not serve as a primary
1:25 residents, but it is more
1:25 commonly referred to as a pet
1:27 tear there has been.
1:28 A lot of confusion around
1:30 the city's roll out of the p
1:34 editor tax first, the
1:35 department of finance
1:35 published on its
1:36 . Website a list of around
1:39 900000 residents that it said
1:41 could potentially be subject
1:45 to the tax, even though the
1:46 controller estimated in that
1:49 less than 14000 propertie
1:50 swould be subject to the tax.
1:53 No estimate of the number of
1:54 predators in the City comes
1:56 even close to 900000.
1:59 Yet the City still publish
2:02 the list with the small caveat
2:03 that the properties on the
2:05 list be subject to the charge
2:08 the list published by the
2:10 department of finance was so
2:11 overbroad that it eve
2:12 nincluded my name and I don't
2:14 mind my name and my home
2:17 address,
2:17 but I've been in that damn
2:18 home for 365 days a year since
2:22 19 94. I don't leave the City
2:23 and I don't have a second
2:24 . Home we want to know today
2:27 how all those names ended up
2:29 on the list and why the
2:30 department of finance
2:31 published a list of property
2:34 owners when admittedly they
2:35 knew that the vast majority of
2:36 the properties on the list.
2:38 We're not, in fact, used as a
2:43 predator finance ultimately
2:44 only step notifications t
2:46 oaround 17000 property owners
2:47 notifying them that they would
2:48 be subject to the tax. That
2:52 number is still larger than
2:55 most estimates, my office and
2:56 other council members. We have
2:58 received a from constituents
3:00 who received these letters.
3:02 Even though the property
3:04 listed as their primary
3:05 residence and has been for
3:08 many years, homeowners who
3:09 believe that they received the
3:10 letters in error, initially
3:11 had only a short window t
3:13 ocontest the surcharge,
3:16 although the deadline was
3:16 ultimately extended by fou
3:18 rweeks. This still puts a
3:19 burden on property owners with
3:21 upset people tremendously.
3:23 They have to prove not the
3:26 City that the property in
3:26 question is their primary
3:29 residence rather than as I
3:29 said the onus beam on the City
3:32 to ensure that only properties
3:33 being used as the predator of
3:34 subject to the tax City
3:40 already has plenty of records
3:42 showing which taxpayers are
3:45 City residents. For example
3:46 ,the co op and condo abatement
3:48 already requires that property
3:49 owners submit documentation
3:52 showing that the units are
3:55 owner occupied, so shoul
3:55 dalready know that these units
3:57 are not pure to tears
4:00 . Should have used of the
4:02 information they are had
4:04 before publishing people's
4:05 names and addresses and
4:06 requiring them t
4:07 oaffirmatively prove again that
4:10 they reside in the City, not
4:11 only does this create a burden
4:12 for tech spain New yorkers
4:15 ,but now finance needs to spend
4:17 time and resources processing
4:19 every application for an
4:20 abatement and collecting and
4:22 verifying documentation tha
4:23 talready has collected and
4:26 verifying in my opinion
4:30 wasting public resources so
4:31 far nearly 42000 propert
4:33 yowners have applied for or in
4:35 the process of applying for an
4:36 exemption to tax
4:40 . Because either they are
4:40 using the property as a
4:41 primary residence or because
4:44 they are eligible sports, some
4:47 other exemption
4:48 . Both the Mayor and finance
4:49 commissioner ritually for whom
4:50 we have great respect have
4:52 already acknowledged that the
4:54 records that they were using.
4:56 To identify property subject
4:57 to the tax were outdated and
5:00 that they knew when they
5:01 posted the initial list that
5:03 included a large number o
5:03 fproperties that would not b
5:04 esubject to the tax. I think we
5:08 all want to know why the City
5:08 published a list that it knew
5:11 was not accurate. Like.
5:12 Many of my constituents. I
5:13 have a lot of questions about
5:14 this tact that we were hoping
5:15 to get answers to. I do want
5:19 to thank the council staff
5:20 members who made this possible
5:22 from government operations
5:24 committee joe harry frazier,
5:26 erica cohen and sigma how mead
5:28 and from the finance committee
5:30 , brian sorrow and owen
5:33 gutowski and cynthia hornig
5:33 for my office and everybody
5:37 else. I do want to also say I
5:38 do thank the department of
5:39 finance because they have been
5:40 helpful for those constituents
5:41 who need help. I don't want
5:43 people to think that has not
5:45 happened because it has now.
5:46 I'm going
5:46 . To turn to the wonderful
5:50 cheerily
5:51 . Gray. Thank you so much
5:51 chair.
5:51 Brewer and good afternoon
5:53 ,everyone welcoming into
5:54 today's oversight hearing on
5:55 the implementation and roll
5:56 out of the cities, pettitte
5:58 added to your tax, also known
5:59 as the non primary residents
6:03 property. The p editor tax was
6:03 enacted as part of the state's
6:04 fiscal year 20 26 27 budget
6:06 and took effect on July 1 2026
6:10 the surcharge applies to 1 2
6:11 3family homes valued at 5
6:15 million or more, as well as
6:15 condominium and cooperative
6:16 units valued at 1 million o
6:17 rmore that do not serve as the
6:20 owner's primary residents
6:21 properties that serve as the
6:23 primary residents of the owner
6:24 and immediate family member or
6:26 a qualifying a ton of it are
6:27 subject to the surcharge
6:31 since implementation began.
6:32 Department of finance has
6:33 mailed notices t
6:34 oapproximately 17000 propert
6:35 yowners identified as
6:37 potentially subject to the
6:38 surcharge and has published a
6:40 supplemental roll listing mor
6:41 ethan 900000 properties that
6:42 make fall within the texas
6:45 scope. Given the scale. Thi
6:46 srollout of the number of New
6:47 yorkers who have been affecte
6:48 d. It is crucial that this
6:50 council conduct oversight o
6:51 fhow the administration is
6:52 planning on implementing this
6:54 New tax following litigation
6:56 initiated by a group of City
6:58 homeowners, the administration
6:59 extended the deadline for
7:00 property owners to file
7:03 exemptions from late August t
7:05 oseptember 18 still, even with
7:06 the extension we seek greater
7:08 guidance for those impacted to
7:09 ensure that this rollout is
7:11 smooth given this ongoing
7:13 litigation. I want to not
7:13 eagain for the record that the
7:15 administration will not be
7:16 participating in today's
7:18 hearing and we understand the
7:20 sensitivity of testifying
7:21 while this matter is before
7:22 the courts and we look forward
7:26 to continue engagement with
7:26 the administration once the
7:27 litigation is resolved and t
7:29 oproviding answers to City
7:30 homeowners directly impacte
7:31 dby the rollout of the tax in.
7:33 The meantime, today's
7:35 hearing will afford us an
7:36 opportunity to hear from
7:38 advocates affected property
7:39 owners and other stakeholders
7:40 about the impact of this
7:41 rollout to date and how to
7:43 ensure that the department of
7:44 finance is implementation of
7:45 the surcharges fair
7:48 ,transparent and legally sound
7:49 going forward, we intend to
7:50 send the administratio
7:52 nwritten questions for follow
7:53 up in response to test shared
7:55 by the public and questions
7:56 prepared by myself and my
7:58 colleagues and I want to thank
7:58 all the stuff who helped make
8:01 this hearing possible,
8:01 especially the council's
8:02 committee on finance and
8:04 committee on governmental
8:05 to chair. Brewer, thank yo
8:11 uvery much Shirley and what
8:12 will happen now is I'm going
8:14 to read the testimony from the
8:16 finance department. They're
8:18 not here. Then we'll hear from
8:19 the constituents as you heard
8:21 and then charlie and I will
8:22 read the questions that we
8:24 would have asked, but we will
8:26 be sending
8:26 . For answers to every single
8:29 one of them, can you
8:33 acknowledge.
8:33 Go up. Sorry, councilmember
8:34 dinner with is here. Thank you
8:34 . And on Feliz and Maloney.
8:40 Dear Gale Brewer chair Linda
8:42 Lee members of the City
8:43 council. My name is richard
8:44 Lee and I am the commissioner
8:45 of New York City department of
8:47 finance. Thank you for
8:48 . The opportunity to submi
8:50 ttestimony regarding the
8:52 implementation of the
8:54 surcharge, a non primary
8:57 resident properties. Commonly,
8:57 we're third to as pure. I
9:01 understand the council's
9:01 interest in holding this
9:02 hearing to discuss the
9:03 implementation of this
9:06 surcharge the public
9:07 understandably has a range of
9:09 questions about this surcharge
9:09 and the manner in which has
9:14 been implemented. I have bee
9:14 nengaged with members of your
9:15 team and directly with many of
9:17 you. He has absolutely.
9:19 To ensure that New yorkers
9:21 have the information that the
9:23 yneed, I would have welcomed
9:25 the opportunity to appear in
9:26 person and field your
9:29 questions directly, but
9:30 depending and activel
9:31 ylitigation precludes me from
9:34 doing so, the administration
9:35 requested that the City
9:36 council, postpone the hearing
9:38 to the near future, but the
9:40 council declined in the
9:42 meantime, I appreciate the
9:43 opportunity to address some of
9:45 those questions in my written
9:49 testimony first, let me walk
9:51 the route of the steps that
9:53 led to implementation of the
9:55 surcharge from the passage of
9:57 the state legislation
9:58 authorizing the surcharge, the
10:00 rule, the rule making process
10:04 . To the posting of a
10:07 supplemental role and
10:07 transmission of initial
10:11 determination letters on May
10:13 28 2026 as part of states to 6
10:19 2 7 budget legislation, the
10:20 state enacted part h h of
10:21 chapter 59 of 20 26, which
10:25 authorized this surcharge on
10:26 certain high value New York
10:29 City residential properties
10:30 that are not used as a primary
10:35 residence,
10:35 the law was enacted with
10:36 support from the Mayor and his
10:37 administration to help close a
10:38 significant budget gap
10:42 . The statutory provisions
10:43 relating to the surcharge can
10:44 be found in article 30 death
10:48 sof the New York state tax law
10:51 and chapter 32 are 11 of the
10:53 city's admitted code.
10:57 As with all revenue
10:58 collected by the department of
11:00 finance these funds keep help
11:02 the City running the revenue
11:05 deal with collects, supports
11:08 essential services
11:09 . That New yorkers rely on
11:10 every day from educating our
11:11 children in pubc slichools and
11:14 maintaining our parks t
11:15 oensuring our streets are clean
11:16 or not, tres is collected
11:20 . The department of finance
11:21 took steps to ensure the
11:23 surcharge would be implemented
11:25 through a transparent,
11:27 consistent and fair process
11:28 that is legally compliant
11:31 . On June 9 2026, the
11:33 department of finance
11:35 published proposed rules.
11:36 Outlining how the New
11:37 surcharge would be
11:39 administered and applied as
11:40 part of the rulemaking process
11:43 property owners and other
11:45 members of the public had an
11:47 opportunity to submit written
11:51 feedback
11:51 . Provide testimony and raised
11:54 questions or concerns at a
11:55 public hearing held on July 9
12:00 2026
12:00 . The department of finance
12:01 reviewed the feedback that it
12:03 received the rule. The notice
12:04 and comment process made
12:08 appropriate adjustments to the
12:09 rule text and promise the
12:11 final rules necessary to
12:12 implement the surcharge. These
12:16 rules were there adopted on
12:19 July 14 2026 and took effect
12:22 immediately.
12:23 After adopting these rules.
12:24 The department of finance
12:25 move forward with implementing
12:29 the surcharge and as required
12:30 by law published a
12:32 supplemental roll on its
12:34 website each year, the City
12:38 publishes real property market
12:38 values and assessed values for
12:41 all taxable property through
12:45 its annual assessment roll
12:48 . The purpose of the
12:48 assessment role is to provide
12:49 the public with notice about
12:51 every property subject to rea
12:53 lproperty taxation throughout
12:54 the five boroughs, the
12:56 assessed and market values
12:58 associated with such propert
13:01 yand certain information
13:02 . Necessary to identify the
13:04 property and its ownership
13:07 both the real property text
13:08 law and the City charter
13:10 required the City to publish
13:12 an assessment roll of taxable
13:13 property in this manner an
13:17 assessment. Roles have been
13:18 required to be published
13:20 . Annually well over a century
13:23 in accordance with the City
13:25 charter finance publishes a
13:27 tentative assessment roll for
13:28 the upcoming fiscal year every
13:35 January January 15 to to be
13:36 exact.
13:36 Apart publication of this
13:37 tentative assessment roll.
13:38 Property owners challenge
13:40 certain assessment related
13:42 matters, including by making a
13:43 filing with the city's
13:44 independent tax commission on
13:48 the date the tax commission is
13:50 required to render final
13:52 determinations on these
13:54 challenges May 25 of each yea
13:58 r, finance releases its final
14:02 assessment roll the city's
14:03 assessment roll is highly
14:04 accessible to the public, and
14:05 it has.
14:06 Been for many years
14:09 . Any suggestion to the