City Council committee members pressed the Department of Finance over why it posted a supplemental “pied‑à‑terre” property roll listing roughly 900,000 residential properties — many far below the state’s $5 million/$1 million value thresholds — instead of publishing a shorter public list limited to properties that meet the statutory market‑value tests.
# What’s happening
– Council held an oversight hearing on the pied‑à‑terre tax rollout and DOF’s published roll.
– Department of Finance published a supplemental residential roll of about 900,000 properties.
– Department of Finance mailed “you may be subject” notices to roughly 17,000 property owners.
# Why it matters
– Millions of New Yorkers saw their names or addresses compiled publicly, raising safety and privacy concerns.
– Thousands of homeowners faced a short deadline to prove primary residence or file exemptions.
# Key details
– Supplemental roll size: about 900,000 residential properties.
– Notices mailed: roughly 17,000 property owners received “you may be subject” letters.
– Filtered universe: analysis filtering by statutory market‑value thresholds leaves roughly 24,000 properties.
– Deadline extended: city extended exemption/appeal deadlines to September 18, 2026.
– City staffing: the city hired additional civil‑service staff to handle outreach and appeals.
– Published variables: DOF’s roll included owner names and multiple property data fields.
City Council members opened the oversight hearing to examine how the Department of Finance (DOF) implemented the new non‑primary‑residence surcharge, commonly called the pied‑à‑terre tax, and why DOF posted a broad supplemental property roll online. Source: https://youtu.be/mQJHP1h1dMo&t=0
**Department of Finance (DOF)**
– Role or jurisdiction: City agency that administers property assessments and tax notices.
– Action taken or responsibility: Published a supplemental residential property roll and mailed outreach letters.
– Relevant numbers or dates: Supplemental roll ~900,000 properties; ~17,000 mailed notices; outreach deadlines extended.
Source: https://youtu.be/mQJHP1h1dMo&t=328
Council members said the supplemental roll included many properties with market values far below the statutory thresholds for the surcharge and asked why DOF did not apply those thresholds before publishing a public list. Source: https://youtu.be/mQJHP1h1dMo&t=9255
Witnesses and council members pointed to an independent filter analysis that, when applied to DOF’s published list, reduced the universe to about 24,000 properties that meet the statutory market‑value cutoffs. They asked why DOF published a list that did not clearly distinguish those properties from the larger set. Source: https://youtu.be/mQJHP1h1dMo&t=9255
Council members and witnesses raised privacy and security concerns, saying the public, downloadable compilation made it easy to identify owners and could be misinterpreted as a list of people who owe the surcharge. They said the city historically published fewer details for comparable public records. Source: https://youtu.be/mQJHP1h1dMo&t=2644
DOF and the administration have said the published supplemental roll reflects the property tax roll the city is required to make available under the state statute and that the roll lists market values of covered properties for public inspection; DOF also described the publicly posted roll as broader than the set of properties that will actually be subject to the surcharge. Source: https://youtu.be/mQJHP1h1dMo&t=3341
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s office told reporters the published roll is the city’s property tax roll of residential properties and that the mailed “you may be subject” letters represent a much smaller subset — about 17,000 households — whom the city believes may be subject to the surcharge. The mayor said the city extended the documentation deadline to September 18, 2026, and hired additional staff to help with outreach and appeals. Source (mayoral remarks): https://youtu.be/0dBBgQYwzHg?t=1764 Source (deadline extension): https://youtu.be/J-1NvB-hapg?t=2553
Council members asked whether DOF estimated the “false positive” rate — the share of properties on the published roll that would ultimately not be subject to the surcharge — and whether quality‑assurance checks were performed before posting. Council members also noted a discrepancy between a reported 24,000 properties after filtering and the approximately 17,000 notices actually mailed, and asked what explains that difference. Source: https://youtu.be/mQJHP1h1dMo&t=9426
Several witnesses and council members argued the city could have limited the public‑facing list to properties that met the statutory market‑value thresholds or at least flagged which properties met those tests before posting owner names and addresses. They said the process shifted the initial burden of proof onto homeowners, who must now submit documentation or appeal. Source: https://youtu.be/mQJHP1h1dMo&t=87
DOF told the mayoral press conference and reporters that the supplemental roll was posted to comply with the law’s requirement to open market‑value records for public inspection, and that the agency would engage with homeowners who receive mailed notices to resolve edge cases such as properties held in trusts or LLCs. Source: https://youtu.be/0dBBgQYwzHg?t=2311
Council leaders said the administration declined to send agency officials to testify at the committee hearing while litigation over the law is pending, and they sent written questions to DOF for follow‑up. Source: https://youtu.be/mQJHP1h1dMo&t=328
For homeowners who received a mailed notice, the city provided a short outreach window for submitting documentation and appeal options; the administration said appeals to the tax commission continue into next March 2027. Source (mayoral remarks): https://youtu.be/0dBBgQYwzHg?t=2386
GetLocalPost 
Leave a comment