Proposals on the Ballot in New York City in the 2026 General Election

What you’ll see on the ballot

Simplify process to use public space for uses such as ramps, planters, and cafes, by removing mandatory hearings and Council disapproval of sidewalk cafes, while maintaining community and Council input.

A “yes” vote speeds up process to use public space while maintaining community input.

A “no” vote maintains longer process with mandatory public hearing to use public space and Council review of sidewalk cafes.

League of Women Voter’s Notes:

Property and business owners who want to use public space must get City permission called a “revocable consent.”  

This proposal combines several items that have historically caused considerable delays and expense for small businesses to get their revocable consent applications approved for use of outdoor space for sidewalk cafes.

Pros:  

• Reduces the time frame of eight months by 75% (to two months), for small businesses to get an answer on their application for things like outdoor dining, installing planters on sidewalks or constructing accessibility ramps  
• Combines separate sidewalk cafe and roadway dining applications into one.   
• Reduces costs to the property owner or small businesses by eliminating the cost to advertise public hearings on their applications.  This proposal replaces public hearings with on-line write-in comments.  The public will be notified using another method not yet specified.  
• Eliminates City Council’s ability to “call up” a vote by the whole Council to review an application for a sidewalk cafe – which could take up to 50 days.  No other revocable consent allows for this call up.
• Elected officials and Community Boards will still receive notifications allowing them 15  days to provide input.

Cons:

• Increases the possibility of more impediments to sidewalks or reduced parking spaces.
• Removal of requiring newspaper advertising for public hearings may not be replaced with a method sufficient to notify the public.  The precise method of notification has not been proposed..
• Reduces the City Council Member’s power by removing their right to “call up” for votes by the whole Council to approve sidewalk cafes.  No other revocable consent allows for this call up.

What you’ll see on the ballot

Reduce paperwork for City’s contractors by authorizing Procurement Policy Board to simplify contractor questionnaire. Require quarterly meetings of the Procurement Policy Board.
Remove mandatory hearing for required client services report.

A “yes” vote amends Procurement Policy Board authority, including simplifying contractor questionnaire. Authorizes Mayor to delegate certain contract approvals.

A “no” vote leaves law unchanged, with Mayor and Comptroller maintaining longer questionnaire.

League of Women Voter’s Notes:

The Procurement Policy Board (PPB) was established in 1989 to stop corruption and reform the city’s contracting practices.  It outlines the rules and procedures for soliciting bids from contractors and vendors.  This includes businesses and nonprofits providing services on behalf of the city.   This proposal aims to distinguish the applications by contract value such that smaller applicants are not burdened with as many requirements as large contractors.   

This proposal now requires the Procurement Policy Board to hold quarterly meetings – something that is not currently required in the Charter.

While the PPB sets the rules for contract approval, the approval lies with the specific Agency Chief Contracting Officer (ACCO).  Currently ACCOs have a cap of $5 million for projects they can approve, with anything above that cap needing Mayoral oversight.  In this proposal, that $5 million cap for certain contracts in the bidding process would be waived. 

Pros:

• Small vendors and nonprofits that do business with the city may find it easier for approval of their contracts. 
• Mandates quarterly meetings by the PPB which don’t currently exist.
• Online notice for public comment will become permanent 

Cons:

• These changes to the Charter will affect all future administrations and will provide for less oversight by eliminating the Mayoral oversight of the $5 million cap approval and the open bidding process by ACCO. 
• By eliminating criteria requirements for applicants, information may be removed that could have highlighted incompetency, corruption or poor past performance.
• Could result in less public data regarding a subcontractor.

What you’ll see on the ballot

Simplify review of street safety projects to reduce construction timelines. Fast track disposition of unused City property with approval from City Planning Commission. Expedite leasing offices used for City workforce.

A “yes” vote simplifies street project approval, City property disposition, and office leasing.

A “no” vote maintains intra-agency consultation for road projects, Council approval for City dispositions, and Council disapproval of office leases.

League of Women Voter’s Notes:

This proposal combines two City issues that should have been separated for proper review by themselves. 

• Currently the City Charter mandates consultation for major construction projects (like bike lanes or bus lanes) with local elected officials and Community Boards, with the Police Department, Fire Department, the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, and the Department of Small Business Services.  The street safety portion of this proposal would give the Department of Transportation the ability to fast-track critical street improvements based on their determination of a “safety issue.”  This fast tracking would allow construction to begin before consulting with other city players. 
• The other part of the proposal focuses on moving the approval process for city owned properties from the lengthy ULURP (Uniform Land Use Review Process) to the ELURP (Expedited) process that voters approved last year for private developers.

Pros:

• Allows the Department of Transportation Commissioner to fast-track critical street infrastructure improvements where there is an identified, immediate safety need
• Allows the city to operate more efficiently with its property
• Approval of Selling and/or leasing of smaller city property and office space (including air rights) reduced from 7 months to 90 days 

Cons:

• Expediting the process may reduce community input and local transparency that can have significant lasting impacts on neighborhoods.
• It removes Council review of City property, eliminating an independent layer of oversight for transactions that can involve millions of taxpayer dollars.
• Is 90 days too short?

What You Will See On The Ballot

Create centralized construction permits hub to simplify permitting. Move waterfront permitting from Department of Small Business Services to Department of Buildings. Allow construction approval by additional Department of Buildings officials. 

A “yes” vote simplifies permitting by authorizing a centralized permitting hub, moving waterfront permitting to Department of Buildings, and allowing additional Department of Buildings officials to issue approvals. 

A “no” vote leaves laws unchanged. 

League of Women Voter’s Notes:

This proposal includes two unrelated items – one that would need a Charter change, and one that would not.

• The part of the proposal that does not need a Charter revision is the change in a system or technology to be used in building permitting.  This could have been addressed through administrative or legislative changes.
  The system changes attempt to improve the user experience when working with the city to build anything.  Currently there are 40 approvals needed from 18 separate agencies and it is the builder’s job to navigate through the maze.  This proposal will allow the builder to enter the maze through one portal and be able to see the process unfold and where the hold-ups are, i.e., which agency is holding up the approval process.

• The portion that does require a Charter change is a change to the jurisdiction for the Department of Buildings to now include marine-related structures instead of the Small Business Services. 

Pros:

• Creates a centralized permitting hub, within the Department of Buildings (DOB), to allow for greater transparency so applicants know where delays might be occurring.
• Centralizes waterfront services within the DOB
• Improves efficiency of DOB
• Because many waterfront properties have historic or landmark significance, this will not alter landmark preservation 

Cons:

• We believe this is a straightforward proposal and could not identify any cons

What You Will See On The Ballot

Set target amount of money to hold in reserve funds, including rainy day fund, to address unexpected financial hardships in future years, and require development of methodology to calculate contributions. 

A “yes” vote requires Mayor to develop methodology for calculating deposits to rainy day fund, with deposits subject to approval in the City budget.

A “no” vote  leaves laws unchanged, with no reserves target. 

League of Women Voter’s Notes:

 In 2019, NYC voters approved a City Charter change to create a rainy day fund.  The fund must always operate within the rules of the New York State Financial Emergency Act which restricts the city from withdrawing more than 50% of the fund unless the mayor certifies that there is a compelling fiscal need.  There are currently no deposit mandates.  

This proposal sets up a financial target to fill the rainy day fund and requires the City to publish a plan for how it adds money to the fund by May 2027 and updated every four years.

The target amount of funding for the rainy day fund is up to 12% of the previous year’s city’s total tax revenue.  This amount appears to be a compromise between those who want no restrictions on how NYC spends its money, and those who want more control.  The source of the contributions to the fund are decided by the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Comptroller with review by the Speaker of the City Council, the State Comptroller and the NYS Financial Control Board.    

Pros:

• Helps to plan for financial coverage should NYC experience financial hardships. 

Cons:

• The proposal may not be  strong enough and the recommended target may not be sufficient if NYC faces a major fiscal crisis

• This proposal shifts greater authority over the source of the contributions to the executive branch, reducing the Council’s role despite its Charter-mandated budget responsibilities and limiting the collaborative approach that has long guided the City’s fiscal planning.

• Establishing more rigid reserve requirements could reduce budget flexibility during emergencies or changing economic conditions and give the Council less discretion in the process