Includes positive rental payment information reporting as a preference in the evaluation of project applications in the New York state low income housing tax credit program; requires landlords to offer tenants the option of positive rental payment information reporting; creates notice requirements for the election of positive rental payment information reporting.
S10478 would add “positive rental payment information reporting” to New York’s low-income housing tax credit framework and create a new tenant-facing reporting option in the real property law. In the housing tax credit program, the bill directs the commissioner to include positive rental payment information reporting as a preference factor under community impact/revitalization when scoring and ranking project applications. This means projects could receive favorable consideration if they incorporate reporting of on-time rent payments.
The bill also requires landlords who receive low-income housing tax credits for covered buildings to offer tenants the option to have their timely rent payments reported to at least one nationwide consumer reporting agency, but only with the tenant’s written authorization. Landlords must provide notice at lease signing, annually, and at renewal, and the notice must explain the optional nature of reporting, the agencies involved, what information will be reported, the tenant’s right to opt in later or opt out, and any fee charged. The bill allows landlords to charge a fee capped at the lesser of actual cost or $5 per month, but nonpayment of that fee cannot be used to terminate the tenancy or deducted from the security deposit. Tenants who opt in retain all existing tenant rights, including the ability to withhold rent or make repair-and-deduct claims without those actions being treated as late payment reporting.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to amend the public housing law and real property law to create a formal pathway for rent-reporting participation in subsidized housing. It would affect landlords receiving low-income housing tax credits, tenants in those properties, consumer reporting agencies, and the state agency administering the tax credit program. The measure is designed to help tenants build credit histories through consistent rent payments while also setting procedural safeguards around consent, notice, opt-out rights, and limits on fees.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is supportive of credit-building and housing stability, with the policy framed as an optional benefit rather than a mandate. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. The structure of the bill suggests an effort to balance tenant access to credit-reporting benefits with protections against coercion and unintended penalties.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the landlord fee, the administrative burden of notices and reporting, and privacy/consumer-reporting concerns. Tenant advocates may focus on ensuring the option remains truly voluntary and that opting in does not create pressure on low-income renters, while landlords may object to the compliance costs and operational complexity. Another possible issue is the six-month waiting period after opting out or after nonpayment of the fee, which could be viewed as limiting tenant flexibility.
Amends the public housing law and real property law to require the state’s low-income housing tax credit scoring rules to consider positive rental payment reporting and to require covered landlords to offer tenants optional reporting of timely rent payments to consumer reporting agencies, subject to written consent, notice, fee limits, opt-out rights, and tenant protections.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative support or opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s design indicates a generally pro-credit-building, pro-tenant-access approach, while also trying to address privacy and coercion concerns through consent and notice requirements.
Likely areas of contention include whether landlords should be required to offer the service, the administrative and compliance burden of annual notices and reporting, the permissibility of charging up to $5 per month, and the privacy implications of reporting rent data to consumer reporting agencies. Tenant advocates may scrutinize the six-month re-enrollment limits and whether low-income renters could feel pressured to opt in, while landlords may object to added costs and operational complexity.