2026 Ballot Proposals

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. 

What this proposal means

This proposal would change how New York City permits public sidewalks and streets to be used for outdoor structures like accessibility ramps, benches, electrical poles, bus shelters, and outdoor cafes. 

Currently, property and business owners who want to use public space must get City permission, called a "revocable consent." First, they submit applications to the Department of Transportation (DOT) or the Office of Technology and Innovation (OTI). The agency is then required to hold a public hearing, and the applicant must pay to publish ads in local newspapers. Community Boards, Council members, and Borough Presidents must also be notified. For sidewalk cafes specifically, the City Council can vote to reject the permit even after DOT approves it. The City can take back these permissions at any time, and permit holders pay an annual fee. 

Under the proposal, public hearings would become optional, meaning many applications could proceed without one. Community Boards, Council members, and Borough Presidents would still be notified of the application and could submit comments to DOT or OTI, but they would have fewer formal review steps. Permit applicants would no longer pay for newspaper ads, but notices would still be posted in the City Record, the City's official public notice publication. Sidewalk cafes would be treated the same as all other revocable consents, removing the City Council's authority to reject those permits. 

The new approval process and removal of required hearings and reviews would go into effect March 1, 2027 and would not apply to petitions already submitted. 

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. 

What this proposal means

This proposal would change the City's contracting process, which governs how the City hires businesses and nonprofits to provide goods and services. It would also require regular meetings of the Procurement Policy Board (PPB), which sets rules for City contracting. 

Currently, prospective contractors must fill out the same detailed questionnaire, maintained by the Mayor's Office of Contract Services (MOCS) and the Comptroller, regardless of the value of the contract. Under this proposal, the PPB would determine the questionnaire's contents and could reduce requirements for certain contractors, such as smaller contractors or lower-value contracts. For franchises and concessions, the Franchise and Concession Review Committee would have the same authority. 

Agencies that award contracts for direct services like shelters, job training programs, and youth services must currently develop an annual plan for these contracts. Under this proposal, these agencies would no longer have to hold a public hearing on their draft plan but would still need to publish a final plan each year. 

Currently, the Mayor's Office can delegate contract approval authority to Agency Chief Contracting Officers, but not for certain contracts over $5 million. This proposal would allow the Mayor's Office to delegate approval of those contracts as well, with the approval of the agency's Commissioner. 

Under State law, the City can currently accept public comments on certain higher value contracts instead of holding an in-person public hearing. Under the proposal, this option would become permanent in City law, and the PPB would decide the contract value at which a public comment period is required. 

Lastly, the PPB is not currently required to meet on any regular schedule, and this proposal would require them to meet at least once every three months. 

The PPB meeting schedule would go into effect January 1, 2027, and they would be allowed to decide the contract value at which a public comment period is required starting October 1, 2030. Everything else would go into effect immediately upon voter approval certification. 

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. 

What this proposal means

This proposal would change the City's approval processes in three different areas: major transportation projects like bike lanes and road redesigns, the sale or lease of certain City-owned properties, and the City's acquisition of office space for its employees. 

Currently, before implementing major transportation projects, such as adding or removing bike and bus lanes, the Department of Transportation (DOT) must notify local elected officials and Community Boards and consult with the Police Department, Fire Department, the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities, and the Department of Small Business Services. In limited cases where public safety concerns require immediate action, this proposal would clarify existing law that DOT can start work prior to notifying elected officials and community boards, when DOT finds that the project is necessary based on safety data. Additionally, technical errors or missed consultations would not be a valid reason to stop a project. 

Most sales or leases of City-owned property currently require the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) to complete a seven-month process, called the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). Under this proposal, sales or leases of smaller lots and development rights on City-owned landmark sites could use a shorter review process, so long as the project does not require an environmental impact statement. This shorter process, called the Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP), allows for concurrent review by Community Boards and Borough Presidents and final decision by the City Planning Commission, without final review by the City Council. The proposal would also make permanent a program that allows the City to sell undevelopable lots to adjacent property owners without public auction. Lastly, the proposal would remove a required public hearing from the process when more than two years pass after Council approval of a property sale or acquisition. 

Currently, when the City seeks to acquire or lease office space for employees, the proposal must go through a process that requires notifying the local Community Board and all five Borough Presidents, a public hearing and vote by the City Planning Commission, and City Council review with the power to disapprove by a two-thirds vote. This proposal would remove hearing requirements and approvals from the City Council and City Planning Commission. Instead, the DCAS Commissioner would certify the acquisition and notify the local Community Board, City Council member, and Borough President in advance. After the acquisition is final, DCAS would also notify the City Council and Comptroller. 

Most changes would take effect immediately upon voter approval certification, except the permanent authorization for selling undevelopable land, which would take effect on December 31, 2030.

What you'll 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 law unchanged. 

What this proposal means

This proposal would change how New York City handles construction and building permits and approvals. It would authorize additional agency officials to approve construction projects, create a centralized construction permitting system, and move waterfront construction permitting to the Department of Buildings (DOB). 

Currently, the DOB Commissioner can only appoint a limited number of officials with the ability to approve construction documents. This proposal would allow the Commissioner to appoint additional officials with this power, expanding the number of officials authorized to sign off on permits. In the Charter, Borough Superintendents would be formally called Borough Commissioners to reflect their present-day titles.

Applicants seeking construction permits must currently submit documents to multiple City agencies through separate systems. Under this proposal, DOB would be required to develop a single, centralized system for submitting permit applications and receiving approval by 2030, and all City agencies would be required to use that system.

Lastly, the Department of Small Business Services (SBS) currently manages construction permitting for certain waterfront structures, including maritime buildings. Under this proposal, that responsibility would move from SBS to DOB, but existing permits and approvals would remain unchanged. 

These changes would go into effect immediately upon voter approval certification, except for the transfer of waterfront construction permitting, which would go into effect on December 31, 2030, or as soon as a new waterfront-structure code is adopted and goes into effect. 

What you'll 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 the 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.

What this proposal means 

This proposal would set savings targets for the City's Rainy Day Fund and require the City to publish a plan for how it adds money to the fund. 

In 2019, voters approved the creation of a Rainy Day Fund, which allows the City to set aside money for use during economic downturns, emergencies, or unexpected revenue shortfalls. However, there is currently no requirement to save any particular amount each year. 

This proposal would set a goal of maintaining a minimum balance equal to at least 12% of the City's previous year's tax revenue in the Rainy Day Fund or other fund reserves. By May 2027, the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Comptroller, would publish a plan outlining how deposits should be made when the fund is below target. The methodology would be updated by May 2030 and every four years after that. Deposits could take place over several years or be skipped during financial hardship and would still require approval by the Mayor and City Council through the normal annual budget process. 

The proposal would also make permanent in City law a State requirement that limits withdrawals to 50% of the fund unless the Mayor certifies a compelling fiscal reason. 

These changes would go into effect immediately upon voter approval certification.