New York Assembly Bill A08777

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/2/25
• Refer: 6/2/25
• Report Pass: 6/11/25
• Refer: 6/11/25
• Report Pass: 6/17/25

Caption

Extends the authorization to have an occupancy tax in the town of Putnam Valley, in the county of Putnam.

Summary

A08777 extends the existing authorization for the Town of Putnam Valley, in Putnam County, to impose an occupancy tax. The bill amends a 2023 chapter law that originally granted the town this authority, changing the sunset date so the authorization will remain in effect for four years rather than two years after the act’s effective date. In practical terms, the measure does not create a new tax; it preserves the town’s ability to continue levying an occupancy tax on lodging within its jurisdiction. The bill is a narrow local government tax extension affecting the Town of Putnam Valley and the state tax law provisions that authorize municipal occupancy taxes.

Impact

The bill amends chapter 339 of the laws of 2023, which is part of the Tax Law authorization for a local occupancy tax in Putnam Valley. Its effect is to lengthen the expiration period of that authorization, thereby allowing the town to maintain the tax for a longer period without needing new enabling legislation. The primary parties affected are the Town of Putnam Valley, lodging operators, and visitors or occupants subject to the tax.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received. It passed the Assembly Ways and Means Committee by a strong margin and then cleared the Assembly Rules Committee unanimously, indicating broad support and little visible opposition in committee. No committee transcript is available, but the votes point to a routine, noncontroversial local authorization extension.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. The only apparent policy question is whether the town should continue to have the authority to collect an occupancy tax for a longer period, but the committee votes show minimal resistance. The two recorded no votes in Ways and Means suggest some limited concern, possibly about local taxation or the duration of the authorization, but no specific objections are documented.