Building Safety Integrity Act

Drafting status. A complete local law draft with a sponsor’s statement. No introduction number is assigned and no Council Member has agreed to sponsor it. Every citation was verified against a primary source on 2026-07-27; see Part V.

This is a city bill. It does not wait on Albany.

PART I — SPONSOR’S STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION NUMBER: to be assigned

TITLE: A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the independence of qualified exterior wall inspectors, an appeal from an unsafe condition designation, consolidated filing of periodic inspection cycles, reporting of elevator outage duration, and disclosure of sidewalk vault conditions.

PURPOSE:

The person who decides how much facade work your building needs should not be paid by the company that does the work.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1 requires an independence certification from the qualified exterior wall inspector filing a critical examination report, and prohibits a financial relationship between that inspector and the contractor performing the resulting repair.

Section 2 creates an administrative appeal from an unsafe condition designation and requires the public record to reflect current status.

Section 3 permits consolidated filing where a building is subject to more than one periodic inspection cycle.

Section 4 requires reporting and publication of elevator outage duration.

Section 5 requires disclosure of known sidewalk vault conditions on transfer.

Sections 6 and 7 provide severability and effective dates.

JUSTIFICATION:

Section 28-302 of the administrative code requires the owner of a building greater than six stories to have the exterior walls and appurtenances examined at intervals set by rule but at least once every five years, by a licensed architect or engineer, with unsafe conditions corrected within thirty days of the report being filed. Verified 2026-07-27.

The examination determines the scope of the repair. The scope determines the price. Nothing in the code requires the person who determines the scope to be independent of the person who is paid for the work.

That is the whole mechanism. It does not require anyone to lie. An engineer with a relationship to a repair contractor, examining a wall in a discipline where judgment is genuinely contestable, will resolve close questions toward more work — and every individual determination will be defensible. The aggregate is a facade program that costs New York City buildings more than the underlying condition requires, and the buildings paying it have no way to see the arrangement, because it exists between two parties neither of whom answers to them.

Independence bars are ordinary in every other inspection regime. An auditor may not audit a company it has a financial interest in. The bar is on the relationship, not on the profession: an engineer who wishes to bid the repair may decline the inspection, and vice versa.

The three provisions that follow from the same premise. An unsafe designation prices a building in lending, insurance, and resale, and under present practice it lifts only when the same private engineer files again — which gives the party that made the designation continuing leverage over the building. Section 2 supplies an appeal and requires the public record to show current status rather than the original filing.

Sections 3 and 4 address adjacent failures the same buildings report. A building may be subject to the facade cycle under section 28-302, the annual parapet observation under section 28-301.1.1 added by Local Law 126 of 2021, the gas piping cycle under section 28-318 added by Local Law 152 of 2016, and elevator inspection under section 28-304 — four regimes, four clocks, four mobilizations. All verified 2026-07-27. Section 3 permits one consolidated filing without altering any underlying standard.

Section 28-304 requires elevator inspection and testing per the schedule in Table N1 of ASME A17.1 as referenced in the building code, with defects corrected within forty-five days of filing except where hazardous. Verified 2026-07-27. Nothing in it records how long anyone was without a working elevator. In a building of any height that is a habitability failure and an accessibility failure at once, and the city holds no data on it. Section 4 requires the duration to be reported and published.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Administrable within the department’s existing fee structure. The consolidated filing provision reduces cost for regulated owners. No new inspection regime is created.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

Sections 1, 3 and 5 take effect one hundred eighty days after enactment. Sections 2 and 4 take effect three hundred sixty-five days after enactment, to permit the department to promulgate rules and to build the reporting mechanism.

PART II — THE LOCAL LAW

                        THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

                                              [INT. NO. TO BE ASSIGNED]

    By Council Member ____

    A LOCAL LAW

    To amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to
    the independence of qualified exterior wall inspectors and related
    building safety reporting.

    Be it enacted by the Council as follows:

§ 1. Independence of the qualified exterior wall inspector.

Article 302 of chapter 3 of title 28 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new section 28-302.6 to read as follows:

§ 28-302.6 Independence of the inspector.

a. For the purposes of this section, “owner” has the meaning ascribed to it by this code; “inspector” means the registered design professional who performs or supervises a critical examination required by this article and files the report of that examination, and any firm employing or retaining such professional. “Repair contractor” means a person that contracts to perform work to remedy a condition identified in such report.

b. An inspector shall not, with respect to the building examined:

  1. hold an ownership interest in a repair contractor, or share common ownership with a repair contractor;

  2. receive any commission, referral fee, rebate, or other compensation from a repair contractor; or

  3. perform, or bid to perform, the repair work identified in the report, whether directly or through an affiliate.

c. Each report filed under this article shall be accompanied by a certification, signed by the inspector, that no relationship prohibited by subdivision b of this section exists. The certification shall be a public record.

d. The prohibition in subdivision b of this section applies from the date of the examination until three years after the report is filed.

e. This section does not prohibit an inspector from performing subsequent examinations of the same building, from observing or certifying the completion of repair work performed by an unaffiliated contractor, or from acting as the owner’s representative in procuring repair work, provided no compensation is received from any repair contractor.

f. A report filed without the certification required by subdivision c of this section shall not be deemed filed. A false certification shall be a violation of this code and shall be referred by the department to the state board that licenses the professional.

§ 2. Appeal from an unsafe condition designation.

Article 302 of chapter 3 of title 28 of the administrative code is amended by adding a new section 28-302.7 to read as follows:

§ 28-302.7 Review of a designation.

a. An owner may apply to the department for review of a report classifying a condition of the building as unsafe. The application shall be made within sixty days after the report is filed and shall be accompanied by a report of a second registered design professional who satisfies section 28-302.6.

b. The department shall determine the application within sixty days. Pending determination, the owner’s obligations with respect to public safety, including any obligation to install and maintain protective measures, are not stayed.

c. Where a condition classified as unsafe has been remedied, the owner may file a report to that effect, and the department shall update the public record of the building to reflect the current classification within thirty days. The department shall maintain and publish both the current classification and the filing history.

d. The department shall promulgate rules establishing the form of an application under this section and the standard of review.

§ 3. Consolidated filing.

Chapter 3 of title 28 of the administrative code is amended by adding a new section 28-301.4 to read as follows:

§ 28-301.4 Consolidated filing of periodic inspections.

a. Where a building is subject to more than one periodic inspection or observation requirement of this chapter, the owner may file the reports required by those requirements in a single consolidated filing on a form prescribed by the department.

b. A consolidated filing does not alter the substance, the qualifications of the person required to perform any inspection or observation, or the frequency required by any individual provision. Where the applicable cycles differ in length, the consolidated filing shall be made on the shortest applicable cycle, and each report shall satisfy the requirement to which it relates.

c. The department may by rule prescribe the form of a consolidated filing and may reduce the aggregate filing fee to reflect the reduced administrative cost.

§ 4. Elevator outage reporting.

Article 304 of chapter 3 of title 28 of the administrative code is amended by adding a new section 28-304.4 to read as follows:

§ 28-304.4 Outage reporting.

a. The owner of a building containing an elevator serving residential occupancies shall report to the department any period during which such elevator is out of service for more than forty-eight consecutive hours, other than for scheduled work of which residents received not less than seven days’ notice.

b. A report under subdivision a of this section shall state the date and time service was interrupted, the date and time service was restored or, where service has not been restored, that fact, and the cause of the interruption.

c. The owner shall post notice of an interruption reportable under subdivision a of this section in a conspicuous location in the building lobby, stating the expected date of restoration and a contact for further information, and shall update such notice not less than weekly.

d. Where a building has only one elevator serving a residential occupancy and service is interrupted for more than forty-eight consecutive hours, the owner shall make reasonable accommodation for residents who cannot use the stairs, which may include assistance with deliveries or relocation, and shall record the accommodation offered.

e. The department shall publish, at building level and not less than annually, the number and aggregate duration of interruptions reported under this section.

§ 5. Sidewalk vault disclosure.

a. Where a building abuts a sidewalk beneath which a vault, cellar extension, or other underground structure connected to the building is located, the owner shall, upon a written request made in connection with a proposed transfer of the building or of a unit therein, furnish a statement identifying the existence of such structure and any condition of it known to the owner, and any revocable consent relating to it.

b. This section does not create any duty to inspect and does not alter the allocation of responsibility for repair established by section 19-152 of this code or by any revocable consent.

§ 6. Severability.

If any provision of this local law is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision, and to this end the provisions of this local law are severable.

§ 7. Effective dates.

Sections one, three and five of this local law take effect one hundred eighty days after it becomes law. Sections two and four take effect three hundred sixty-five days after it becomes law. The department of buildings may take such measures as are necessary for implementation, including the promulgation of rules, before such dates.

PART III — WHAT THIS LOCAL LAW DOES NOT DO

It does not reduce any safety requirement. Section 3 expressly preserves the substance, the qualifications, and the frequency of every underlying inspection, and requires the shortest applicable cycle where cycles differ. The consolidation is administrative.

It does not stay the safety obligation during an appeal. Section 2(b) says so in terms. A sidewalk shed stays up while an owner contests a classification. Any appeal provision that stayed the protective obligation would be indefensible and would deserve to fail.

It does not address the cost of legitimately scoped facade work. That cost is real, it is driven by the age of the building stock, and nothing in this local law reduces it. This bill addresses the conflicted scoping of that work and nothing else. A sponsor should not be put in the position of having promised savings this instrument cannot deliver.

It does not license or register facade inspectors. They are already licensed as architects or engineers by the State. Section 1(f) refers a false certification to the state licensing board rather than creating a parallel city credential.

It does not resolve who pays for vault repair. Section 5 is a disclosure provision and says expressly that it does not alter the allocation under section 19-152. Reallocating that responsibility is a larger question with a fiscal impact on the city, and it is not attempted here.

PART IV — OPEN DRAFTING QUESTIONS

1. Section numbering. 28-302.6, 28-302.7, 28-301.4 and 28-304.4 are placeholders. Council drafters assign actual numbers, and the existing numbering within articles 301, 302 and 304 was not enumerated.

2. The three-year tail in section 1(d) is a judgment. It is long enough to prevent an inspector from taking the repair contract in the next cycle and short enough not to bar a professional from the market permanently. It has no precedent behind it and should be tested against practitioner comment.

3. Enforcement venue is not specified. A violation of section 1 is stated to be a violation of the code; which tribunal adjudicates it, and what penalty schedule applies, is left to the existing enforcement framework. The specific adjudicative body and penalty provisions were not verified and are deliberately not cited. They must be settled before introduction.

4. The forty-eight hour outage threshold is a judgment, as is the seven-day scheduled-work notice. Neither is drawn from an existing provision.

5. Section 4(d) creates an accommodation duty without defining “reasonable.” In a single-elevator building with a resident who cannot use stairs, the realistic accommodation may be relocation at the owner’s expense, which is a significant obligation. This is the provision most likely to draw opposition and it needs either a cost cap, a defined menu, or removal.

6. Consolidated filing may not be administrable as drafted. Different cycles are filed with different units of the department against different rule sets. Whether a single form is achievable, or whether the provision should instead require the department to study consolidation, should be discussed with the department before introduction.

7. Preemption. Facade and elevator safety are governed by the New York City construction codes, which the city administers, but the professionals are licensed by the State. Section 1 regulates the conduct of a state-licensed professional in the city. Whether that is within the city’s authority, or trenches on the State’s exclusive regulation of professional licensure, is a genuine question that was not researched and must be before this is introduced.

PART V — CITATION APPENDIX

Verified 2026-07-27 against the source shown.

Claims deliberately not made

PATH TO PASSAGE

Choke-point analysis: the choke-point analysis. In the 2025 session 16,794 bills were introduced and roughly 800 reached the Governor — about 4.8%. Verified 2026-07-27.

Route: New York City Council, standalone. This one does not wait on Albany.

None of C1, C4, or C6 apply in the same form — there is no companion-bill requirement between two houses, no Finance referral, and the sponsor risk is ordinary. That makes this the fastest of the ten, and it is the reason to carry it first even though it is not the highest-reach.

Learn the COPA lesson before introducing. Council Int. 902 passed on 2025-12-18 with 31 votes — three short of the 34 required to override a veto — was vetoed 2025-12-31, and the Speaker did not bring it for an override. Verified 2026-07-27. A Council majority is not enough. Count to 34 before introducing, not after passing.

What has to be resolved first. Two provisions are not ready. Section 4(d)‘s accommodation duty in single-elevator buildings has no cost cap and is the provision most likely to draw organized opposition. And whether the city may regulate the conduct of a state-licensed engineer was not researched — that is a preemption question that belongs in front of Council counsel before introduction, not after.

Related: LEGISLATIVE_MODEL.md · solutions S09, S28, S29, S30, S52 in 01_Database/condoscoop.db