NYC Council is preparing to quash Mayor Adams’ veto. But the fight could drag on for months.

It’s high noon at City Hall.

Mayor Eric Adams’ decision last month to veto a package of bills that would expand rental assistance was a striking break from a recent trend in which the two branches of city government have mostly managed to negotiate resolutions over contested policies. Adams’ veto was only his second after 18 months in office. His predecessor Bill de Blasio, by contrast, never once invoked the power during his eight years as mayor.

Now, with the Council expected to override Adams’ veto on Thursday, both sides appear to be headed on a collision course that could wind up in court. At stake is how the city should address a worsening affordable housing crisis and record levels of homelessness that have stretched the city's shelter system amid the arrival of tens of thousands of migrants.

If he is overridden, the mayor could sue the Council to overturn the laws, which would go into effect in 180 days. And should the mayor refuse to enforce them, the Council could sue his administration to force the city to comply.

The fight signals a potential return to a more adversarial and, according to some, more normal relationship between the mayor and the Council — something not seen in New York City since the tenure of Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

“Every mayor comes into office thinking they're all powerful, but suddenly they realize they have to talk to the Council,” said Peter Vallone, who served 16 years as City Council speaker. ”I fought with four different mayors. Every one of them is a long and good friend of mine.”

The package of bills would expand the number of low-income New Yorkers eligible for city-funded housing vouchers.

The mayor has said the legislation is too expensive to administer and “clearly exceeds the Council’s legal authority.” He has shown little sign of backing down to the more left-leaning legislative body, whose members have sharply criticized him on policies around homelessness as well as budget cuts to social services.

Pressure from the Council has led the mayor to take some significant policy action. Last month, he signed an executive order that put one of the Council’s proposals into effect, eliminating a rule that requires people to stay in a shelter for 90 days before being eligible for rental assistance.

City officials initially said they would end the requirement last summer.

During a news conference on Tuesday, Adams took a victory lap for the policy, saying that 500 households had qualified to receive housing vouchers and were now working with city officials to get into permanent housing.

But he also pointed to the large number of New Yorkers with housing vouchers who are unable to find housing — a function of both limited supply and the illegal refusal of many landlords to accept the vouchers.

“The worst thing we can do is add more to that population,” Adams told reporters this week.

He has said the Council should instead focus on overturning overly restrictive zoning regulations that inhibit the development of affordable housing.

Councilmembers say that, given the scale of the crisis, the administration needs to be willing to use an array of tools to reduce the risk of homelessness.

There is also the issue of dueling cost estimates. Administration officials estimate the net cost of the bills will total $17 billion over five years. The number was one of several cited by city officials on Wednesday during a background briefing to reporters.

The Council says the cost of funding them is closer to $11 billion, an amount homeless advocates say would be dwarfed by the cost of allowing more people to become homeless.

Two separate reports — one from the nonprofit shelter agency WIN and another from the policy research organization Community Service Society of New York — conclude that the potential savings to the city would be even greater.

“The mayor's position on many of the provisions of the bills is unfortunately wrong,” said Christine Quinn, a former Council speaker who now heads WIN.

WIN’s report estimates the legislation could save the city as much as $730 million annually and help 92,000 New Yorkers stay in their homes.

The Adams administration has refuted the two analyses, saying that the shelter savings are inaccurate and overstate the number of those who enter shelters due to eviction.

“Both estimates claim savings far in excess of the entire population in our system due to eviction,” said Kate Smart, a spokesperson for the mayor.

Quinn herself is no stranger to policy disagreements in City Hall. As speaker, she oversaw several court battles with the Bloomberg administration. In 2011, the Council successfully sued the administration over new eligibility requirements for those entering homeless shelters.

Bloomberg, in turn, waged several court battles with the Council. In 2013, he won a lawsuit that sought to overturn legislation requiring certain employers to pay construction and service workers the prevailing wage.

Like Vallone, Quinn said disagreements are part and parcel of the relationship between the 51-member Council and the mayor. She views the relative comity between de Blasio and the Council as an outlier.

“How, in the city of New York, did 52 people get along so much?” she asked.

However, a protracted court battle could be costly for taxpayers and leave those who could benefit from the legislation in limbo.

Other parties may also get involved. The Legal Aid Society, which represents homeless New Yorkers, said it would explore intervening in any eventual lawsuit that seeks to stop the legislation.

“We’re only seeing an increase in the amount of people in shelters,” said Rob Desir, a Legal AId attorney. There are now over 100,000 people staying in the city’s shelter system.

Gale Brewer, a councilmember representing Manhattan, said she fully supports the Council’s legislation.

Brewer, who sat on the Council during the Bloomberg era, said she witnessed both fractious and more amicable relationships between the Council and mayor.

While policy disagreements are to be expected, she said she hoped the two parties would not wind up in court.

“At least try to sit down first because it is expensive,” she said.