New York Senate Bill S10197

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/5/26
• Refer: 5/5/26

Caption

Authorizes municipalities located outside the city of New York to impose a tax on high-value non-primary residences having a five-year average market value threshold as set by the municipality between 2.5 and 5 million dollars or more; provides for authorized rates of taxation, administration and enforcement, and revenue distribution.

Summary

S10197 would authorize cities, towns, and villages outside New York City to adopt local laws imposing an annual tax on certain high-value residential properties that are not used as the owner’s primary residence. The bill applies only to one-, two-, and three-family homes with a five-year average market value at or above a locally chosen threshold between $2.5 million and $5 million, and only where the property is neither occupied by the owner as a primary residence nor rented to a primary-residence tenant or occupied by a family member as a primary residence. The measure gives municipalities broad discretion to set the threshold within the statutory range and to choose a tax rate between 0.5% and 4%, including a graduated rate structure. It also allows local governments to require annual residency certifications and other documentation, and directs the state Department of Taxation and Finance to assist in determining primary-residence status upon request. Revenue would be split evenly: half retained by the municipality and half remitted to the state comptroller for the Aid and Incentives for Municipalities program or a successor fund supporting smaller local governments.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would amend the General Municipal Law to create a new local taxing authority for qualifying municipalities outside New York City, changing state law to permit a targeted tax on high-value second homes and other non-primary residences. It would affect owners of expensive residential property, local governments seeking new revenue sources, and the Department of Taxation and Finance, which would be asked to assist with residency verification. The bill also establishes a state-local revenue sharing mechanism by directing 50% of collections to the state comptroller for municipal aid purposes.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or vote history to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears designed to appeal to municipalities seeking additional revenue and to supporters of taxing luxury or underused housing, while likely drawing concern from property owners and others wary of new local taxes or administrative burdens. The absence of recorded legislative action makes the overall sentiment difficult to assess beyond the bill’s policy framing.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be the new tax burden on owners of high-value second homes, the definition of what counts as a non-primary residence, and the administrative burden of proving residency status. Another likely issue is local discretion: municipalities can set thresholds and rates within broad ranges, which could lead to concerns about uneven treatment across jurisdictions. Supporters would likely emphasize local revenue generation and fairness in taxing luxury properties, while opponents may argue that the bill could discourage investment, complicate property administration, or create disputes over family occupancy and primary-residence determinations.