March 18, 2026 · Housing, Construction and Community Development · 4,563 words · 5 speakers · 92 segments
Great, thank you. Welcome to this meeting of the New York State Senate Committee on Housing Construction Community Development. For those who might be seeing this at some later time online, this is Wednesday, March 18, 2026 at 11:00am State Senator Brian Chavanal, the chair of the committee. I'm joined by Senator Zellner, Martins, Helming, Jackson, Clear May and Brisport. And we have a. Sorry, how did I do that? And also it being Wednesday, we're especially pleased to have Dr. Wolfman here. And so I'll send her to Salazar. And we do have a quorum by virtue of those present and we do have a vote sheet or two that also comprise the quorum. So we are, you know, a few weeks from the budget deadline. We know that the Senate has released our one House budget resolution which proposes about $1.9 billion in new capital funding for construction and preservation of existing housing, including very substantial investments for public housing and Mitchell Lama housing and distressed affordable housing as well as vacant repair, the vacant repair program in the big five upstate cities and the block by block program. And very substantial investments in protecting homeowners as well as renters with rental assistance and assistance with paying mortgage arrears as well as legal representation and other services both for homeowners and renters. We look forward to an ongoing conversation about those issues and hopefully an on time budget 13 days from today. Today we have a solid agenda, but before we get to that, just any comments or questions. Opening comments from our ranker Senator Williams. Okay, great. Okay, so let's get to the agenda then. If the court could read the first bill.
Senate bill number 2091 by Senator Kavanaugh. An act to amend the executive law in relation to establishing standards for the reuse of deconstructed building material.
There's a bill we've seen several times before passed the senate in both 2025 and 2024. Will take a motion to the floor. Got a motion. Senator Oliver. Senator a second from Senator Clear. Any negative votes? Any votes to advance without recommendation?
Awr.
Awr Senator Helming bill is reported next bill please.
Senate bill number 2117 by Senator Fahey. Enact to amend the real property actions and proceedings law in relation to prosecution by the Department of Financial services and municipalities of state certain violations regarding residential real properties.
This is again a bill that passed the Senate in 2025. We'll once again be looking for a motion to report to the floor any questions or discussion. Move to bill. Got a motion from Senator Jackson. Senate second from Senator May. Any negative votes? Krypto Minari in the negative. Any votes to advance without recommendation? The bill is reported. Next bill, please.
Senate bill number 2122A by Senator Fahey. An act to amend the real property actions and proceedings law in relation to authorizing municipalities and the Department of Financial Services to seek civil penalties for violations of the duty to maintain a foreclosed property.
There's also a bill that passed the Senate in 2025. We'll be looking for a motion to report to the floor again. Any questions or discussion? Got a motion from Senator Martin and second. Second for Senator Princip. Lots of bipartisan support for motions today.
Any.
Any negative votes? Any votes to advance? All recommendations awr from Senator Helming. The bill is reported. Next bill, please.
Senate bill number 2134A by Senator Krueger. An act to amend the administrative code of the city of New York in relation to requirements for a building owner to refuse to renew a lease when the building is to be demolished.
This. This patent bill passed the Senate in 2025 and was reported to cities previously in 2024. We will be looking for a motion to report this bill to the floor. Any questions or discussions? Move the bill. Got a motion from Senator Jackson. Seconded by Senator Salazar. Any negative votes? I bet. Minority in the negative. Any votes to advance with our recommendation? The bill is reported Next bill, please.
Senate bill number 2291 by Senator Harcom. An act to amend the real property tax law in relation to expanding the applicability of the assessment exemption for living quarters for parent or grandparents.
This is a bill that also passed the Senate last year. We'll be looking for a motion to report to the floor. Once again. Any questions or discussion?
Move the bill.
Okay, great. Thanks. I've got a motion from Senator Jackson. Second from Senator Salazar. Any negative votes? Any votes to advance with our recommendation. The bill is reported next bill, please.
Second Senate bill number 3886 by Senator Gennaros. An act to amend the administrative code of the city of New York in relation to protecting tenants displaced due to a fire.
This is a bill that passed the Senate last year. We'll be looking for a motion to report to finance. Any questions or discussions. Move the bill. A motion from Senator Clear. Second from Senator Jackson. Any negative votes? Senator Waltik in the negative. Any votes advance of that recommendation? Senator Helming. The bill is reported. Next bill, please.
Senate bill number 5662A by Senator Kavanaugh. An act to amend the private housing finance law in relation to authorizing a Reduction of taxes pursuant to shelter run.
This is a. Was a new bill in 2025 and it was reported to finance. We did take action on this issue in the budget last year, basically cutting these taxes that are imposed on our Michellama developments in half and author in New York City and authorizing localities throughout the state to take that action as well. This is a bill that would eliminate that tax in New York City, consistent with our practice of not taxing many other affordable housing developments. And again would authorize localities and the rest of the state to take the same action. And we'll be looking for a motion to report to finance.
Do we have a sense of what the fiscal is on this? I don't have the City of New York.
Again, it doesn't have any fiscal impact. It doesn't have any fiscal impact on any locality outside New York City. It was done last year with the approval of the support of the City of New York. But I don't have the number. Obviously I had the number for individual developments in my district. I don't have it handy, but we can get it to you and it's going to finance. So there'll be.
The concern I have is that obviously with reports of Moody's downgrading the city's bond status, concerns that the mayor has had with regard to the fiscal state of the city, anything we do that deprives the city of revenue, even if it is at a displaced rate, we did cut it last year. Obviously this year we're going even further. I just want to make sure we're not creating an issue for the mayor.
And I would say, I will say on the record here, it's a very minor amount relative to the city's overall budget and it is consistent with our efforts to promote affordability, which is also obviously a goal of the administration. But we'll get to the number maintaining
fiscal integrity of the city without having to raise taxes on everyone else. Right.
I respect that. And our Mission 11 developments are many of them struggling with the basic ability to maintain the property. And we also, in and outside of New York City, and we also do, including in this budget, we propose to spend a lot of state capital dollars that taxpayers also ultimately pay for supporting these developments. So there's a lot of money flowing to ensure these developments are stable financially and otherwise. So this is a step in that direction. But it's a good question and we'll get to the number.
And the missing part is now we need to hold them accountable for making sure that that funding from the taxpayers is used in a responsible manner.
Right. And you know, there was just, there was an audit by the comptroller that raised some concerns. And I think it's also the Michelamas are supervised in New York City, about half of them by the city Department of Housing, Presidential Development, and half of them by each year directly and or supervised elements. But yes, it's also important that we maintain that, that we maintain proper oversight and that these, these are the co ops in particular are boards elected by the shareholders independently of the government. But obviously with this kind of public support. That, that's a very important point.
But those, the rates that the tenants pay their rent is set by those boards as well. And so if we're removing an expense that they otherwise have, will there be a reduction in those rents as well?
No, I think the shelter rent, I think in many cases the shelter rent was a direct portion of people's bills. So it was people did. I believe in the co ops, it was generally the case that people saw an immediate savings
if it's translated into also further savings for people. Sure. But again, I just want to make sure we're not creating anything, a hardship for the municipality while not having that benefit translated.
Right. It's a fair one again. But again, the buildings are collectively owned by the residents of the building. So as a general who also elect the board that is making these choices on their behalf. So there is a little bit of, obviously we want to do oversight to make sure that, you know, money is not being spent improperly. But at the same time, you know, co ops are a form of housing that we have chosen to authorize and support in the state, both in the nonprofit sector and the for profit sector, where co op board, you know, co op boards are a form of local democracy as well. But I appreciate the point, Chairman.
I don't disagree and I understand. Mitchell Lamas. I understand that we already provide and the state provides mechanisms, but whereby they have access to capital that no one else has in regard to their, the equity that they have in the building. And therefore that translates into the affordability. We're providing another element of that at the expense of somebody else. And I just want to make sure that that balance is there as well.
That's a fair point. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Discussion?
I just want to say how grateful I am for this bill. I have some Michelamas in my district. One is Newark now. So these are seniors mostly living in this. They're finding it very hard to stay there. And it is one of the few forms of real affordable housing that we have. So I'm just really happy that we're moving this forward to help them out.
Great.
Appreciate that.
Get a question, Quick question.
Yes, it says, I'm reading this statement here.
Injunction of taxes pursuant to a shelter rent.
What is the shelter rent? Shelter rent is an odd term. Shelter rent is. It's, it's, it's a rough. Again, this, this was, this was put in place a very long time ago when the Mitchell ARM program was created. It is basically, it is roughly like property tax, but because it's a tax on the building. But it is the difference between the revenue that comes in from the, from the residence and certain deductible, certain expenses that get deducted and then a percentage tax is applied to that, to that amount of money. So it's not. So they're not. These, these buildings are exempt from property taxes, but the shelter rent is kind of a substitute for a property tax and it functions roughly like a property tax.
Like a pilot.
Yeah, similar. Yeah.
Did you say like a pilot? Like a payment of l taxes.
Okay.
Okay.
Except it, except it is an. It is actually a tax. I mean, it's actually, it's a, it's a, it's a tax. It's just a tax that's, that's calculated in a way that's different than a typical, typical property tax.
Okay.
And then again, it's our practice generally not to tax 100% affordable developments that have income restrictions and other things that Mitchell Almas have. So this would be consistent with our practice in many other affordable housing contexts. Okay. Okay, good. I got a motion. Clear. Second from Senator Salazar. Any negative votes, Any votes to advance with our foundation? I got a negative from Senator Walsik and without rec from Senator Martin, a bill is awr. Also from Senator humming bill is reported. Next bill, please.
Senate bill number 5940 by Senator Scoufus. An act to amend the executive law in relation to permitting unvented attics and unvented enclosed rafter assemblies to be sealed with air impermeable insulation in order to help attain building decarbonization goals.
And this bill passed the Senate last year. We'll be looking for a motion to report to the floor again this year. Any questions or discussion?
Just a concern. And you know, I had similar concern in the past. Anytime we legislate something that is otherwise produced by a board and we entrust a board with regard to putting together standards, these are tradespeople, people in the industry, professionals otherwise engaged. So we have a new York State energy conservation construction code that is put together by a group and they analyze these things, they actually work through it. And this would allow that to be short circuited and in some way with regard to a specific product. The optics are a little concerned. Why are we allowing for a certain product, in this case foam, which is a petroleum based product, to take precedence over what otherwise would be used in the industry and the decisions that are made by our own code. So it's a little odd. I'm concerned about it and that's why I'll be voting no today.
I respect that. Again, this bill did pass with Brock's effect in both parties in the Senate last year. But we have heard concerns recently from a particular. From certain, from producers of certain kinds of insulation. And there's been a bit of a back and forth that I'm sure some of you have seen. Just to state the overall purpose of this bill is to ensure that unvented attics that meet certain insulation standards are, are permitted. With the idea that allowing that. Making it clear that these standards are in place and that you can have and very basically dramatically improve the energy efficiency you're building and save money on your energy bills.
I'm not sure it says that, Jerry. Dramatically improve the actual. The R values.
Right. I said that was the goal of the bill. I didn't say that we can't legislate dramatic, but just to say, to say we. Again, obviously the goal. The goal. Well, we can have drama, but there's
nothing stopping that right now from happening. Or I guess a better way to ask the question is what is, why
not wait a few years for the Coats Council to do this?
No where in the energy code does it say that you can't do this? Now, I don't think this is accurate. In the bill it says to permit the use of spray polyurethane foam insulation in the construction of unvented attics as an additional option to meet code requirements in the energy code. Currently there's nothing that restricts using the foam.
It is the perception of the sponsor and our council's office that this bill, by clarifying this standard and it is supported by the foam insulation industry who have a product to sell. And it is. Currently we've gotten concerns from the fiberglass insulation industry that this standard is not something that they think is the right standard. I think it's reasonable to have. It's a very technical debate. We've gotten written material from both sides. I'm sure the sponsor has as well. But the goal of the bill is to make it clear, without waiting for the coats. Without waiting for the Coats Council act, that unvented attics that are insulated in a particular way are legal and appropriate in the state. And it is the case that in most matters that are within the jurisdiction of our coats councils, we allow the Codes councils to act and adopt standards that, you know, reflect advances in industry, advances in other places. But it is also not so unusual that the legislature decides that something is important and timely and directs the Coast Counsel to take standards. I'm sorry.
And does something this technical. Yes, this is very.
I mean, for example, something that I think you did not think we should do. We directed the Codes Council to adopt all electric building, which is quite technical and complex. And again, I know you're not, but
did we get into that legislation, the actual technical pieces of what that means?
This bill does, this bill, this bill sets a standard. And again, there are other. But we, there's. We've had bills about sustainable materials which necessarily have to be technical. But I am not. The Allocated Building act, the sustainable building
bill that we had today, I don't think it's into the technical like this talks about. This is really technical.
It is. It is indeed technical.
We're replacing. And look, we're gonna, we're gonna vote chair, right?
We're.
We're replacing our codes Committee with a very specific standard that they have not found to be appropriate at this time. Maybe they'll incorporate it in the future. Maybe there's a way.
And we know that process.
But, but for some reason, for some reason, if the majority feels that this is so important for the environment and for the carbon footprint, even though it does reduce the R values and does actually force homeowners, if they choose to go this route, to spend more on energy costs, then vote yes.
I would note that nearly all members of the Senate of both parties voted yes on this bill last year because I think most of us understood that this, this was about allowing homeowners to make their buildings more efficient and lower their energy costs. Having said that, there are complex technical questions. This bill resolves some of those in a particular way. But there's nothing in this bill that will force homeowners to increase their energy costs or do any other such thing. But having said that, like, if this bill sets a standard and says that standard is permissible, obviously homeowners and insulators and contractors are perfectly able and authorized to exceed those standards that they choose to. But there's nothing about this bill, there's nothing about this bill that is imposing additional energy costs on homeowners in our state. And so, you know, that's, that's the premise. Again, we will also, we've had, we are having ongoing conversations because we're always open to, you know, technical input and otherwise input about our bills. And we will be talking to the sponsor about this and we will be, you know, talking, we'll be reviewing the materials that we've gotten as recently as today on this matter and we'll continue to have a conversation. But it's on our agenda and we think it's important that we move forward with this kind of thing. And the codes council, as you know, has a multi year cycle of making changes to the code. And so the sponsor and this committee in the past have thought that was important to take action. Please.
The, the building officials conference have a memo in opposition outlining a number of concerns that I'd like you and others to take a look at. I know it's available polyurethane spray foam. That's a petroleum product, isn't it?
I believe that polyurethane is a plastic
like many of the plastics that sync up with the. Not wanting to use any carbon based products and materials. I voted for your, your first bill on construction materials, which was a good one.
Well, it's about wood, right? It's like, so it's about, it's about reusing wood. There's a, there's no, there's no current state like we, our world. If we, if we banned all petroleum products in short term, we would like, you know, we would build very few things and we would also, you know, not have, you know, covers for our coffee and other things. I mean, there are concerns about certain Portola based products and certain chemicals. But, you know, there's a lot of, there's, I think we're, I think it's fair to say we're gonna. Ongoing list of plastic in our world and you know, fiberglass insulation, other forms of insulation also have. There are all kinds of, you know, trade offs we make when we choose building materials. We are insulating, insulating our homes and reducing the amount of oil and gas were burning to heat them is a trade off. Right. So the goal here is to, the goal is to increase the ability of New Yorkers to properly insulate their homes in a way that's efficient and reduce their energy bills.
We are promoting, with the bill that's before us now, we're promoting a polyurethane product that is petroleum based over other products.
I believe we are Permitting a protection, particular kind of insulation that meets particular standards. And that's what the bill doesn't tell anybody to use that product. And it doesn't materially affect other kinds of insulations, except perhaps, you know, maybe there are kinds of insulation that would meet the standard that this bill would impose.
I think foam board as well, which is a polyurethane foam. Part of his bill talks about the decking above, right. And getting a certain R value there that's also a controlling price.
There's a lot. And so are. So are, you know, shingles, old school shingles that have, you know, very. They have more direct, you know, tar in them. And there's a lot. Our whole world is our whole world for this. This table is no doubt coated with a petroleum product. There's a lot of petroleum products in our world. That's just a fact.
So.
Yeah, a good fact. Thank you. Okay. You're welcome. Thank you. Got lots of good, deep conversations today. Any further discussion or questions about this bill move to do. I got a motion from Senator Jackson, second by Senator. Nay. Any negative votes? I've got nay from Senator Walzick and Senator Martins. Any votes to advance with our foundation
awr, consistent with my vote last year.
We appreciate that. All right. And we, again, we, as has been noted, we have gotten input on this. We're aware of it. We'll discuss it with the sponsor and continue to have the conversation. But thank you for all your discussion. And the bill is reported. Next bill, please.
Senate bill number 8170A by Senator Kavanaugh. An act to amend the real property tax law in relation to authorizing a tax abatement for alterations and improvements to multiple dwellings for purposes of preserving habitability in affordable housing.
So we passed a much narrower version of this bill last year in the Senate. This is a bill that authorizes the J51 program in New York City to continue past it is currently it will expire for any construction that is not completed by June of this year, which means functionally for any project that might be considering starting now, it is dead. This is a bill that extends that about 10 years and also enhances the program in various ways. It is also the subject of a proposal in the executive budget. And this bill borrows some ideas from that and goes further in certain ways. And I'm happy to discuss, if we
want to, I think to the extent that it provides an incentive for property owners to maintain and make improvements to apartments with an eye towards bringing them back to the market and providing them to Those who qualify for them based on means testing and their affordability. I think it's a step in the right direction. Obviously I don't think it goes far enough, but I do appreciate the effort in terms of prioritizing allowing the property owner to have the incentive to actually make the investments that we're asking them to make.
I will just note that it goes further than this program has been around for about 70 some odd years and this bill goes further than probably the program has gone in any point in that history.
I think you're recognizing the fact that there are a lot of apartments that are warehoused in New York City and we're hoping that this bill and others perhaps will actually incentivize property owners to make the investment necessary to actually get them back online.
And I think you are asserting that there are, there are such warehouse departments and large numbers. And you're also this bill does not reflect a belief that there are large numbers of warehouse departments. This J51 program has been around for many decades and it is a program that allows investments in rent stabilized housing regardless of warehousing or otherwise, which Data suggests happens to in a very small number of circumstances. It also, I should note, also allows investments in other multifamily properties, including co op properties, and it greatly expands the range of co ops that would be eligible for the program. But it's, you know, as you know, we took steps last year to increase the ability of property owners to do investments through the IAI program in individual apartments that may be vacant for a long time and in need of major work. And so this bill is not a response to that or reflection of any particular point of view on that issue.
Well, I'm going to assume it is and so I'm going to move the bill.
I will stipulate that your desire to move the bill is related to that issue and I respect that. So we have a motion from Senator Martin, second from Senator Salazar. Any negative votes, any votes that that's the bill without recommendation, without rec from Helming from Senators Helming and Waltik, the bill is reported and that is the end of our agenda today. Thank you very much for the lively conversation today.