Understanding the NYC ballot proposals

Don’t forget to flip your ballot. New York City voters won’t just be deciding among candidates this year. They’ll have an opportunity to vote to approve or reject five questions when they cast their ballots for the Nov. 3 general election. Early voting kicks off Saturday, Oct. 24. If passed – as tends to be the case for ballot proposals – each of the questions would make amendments to the city’s governing document known as the City Charter. 

We’re not talking about anything that would shake city government at its core. These proposals are wonky, staked on the premise of streamlining government processes and cutting red tape – in this case, around public space, city contracting, building permitting, street safety and the city’s budget reserves.

“They are positive, measured, practical steps towards government reform,” said Ben Weinberg, policy director for government reform group Citizens Union. “They aren’t wholesale transformative …. But they would allow government to move faster to serve New Yorkers.” 

The proposals were crafted and approved by a 15-member panel assembled by Mayor Zohran Mamdani, which he’d dubbed the Commission on Government Efficiency, or COGE – a cheeky play on President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The commission collected feedback at hearings held around the city last spring and early summer.

Unlike the last couple of times a Charter Revision Commission has sent ballot proposals to voters, the City Council isn’t waging war against them. So don’t expect a repeat of last year’s dueling costly public education campaigns that centered around a set of housing proposals. 

But it’s not totally smooth sailing for the 2026 ballot questions either. Some have garnered opposition from civic groups as well as the scorn of a few individual council members. Mamdani himself has been promoting the proposals with his trademark videos – though carefully encouraging New Yorkers to vote on faster government, rather than vote for them, since the city charter bars government advocacy for or against ballot proposals. 

Here’s what you should know before hitting the ballot box. 

Prop 1: Speed up the timeline for using public space – like with outdoor dining and benches

What would it actually do? This proposal would simplify the process in which the city doles out permits for public sidewalks and streets to be used for outdoor structures like dining sheds, benches, bus shelters and ramps.

Currently, business owners that want to use public space for any of these things must get permission from the city and go through a lengthy application and approval process. Applying for an outdoor dining shed or sidewalk cafe is particularly complex, taking as long as eight months. Public interest in correcting this has only grown now that the City Council passed legislation once again allowing year-round outdoor dining in the city. 

The proposal would simplify the approval process by making public hearings optional and no longer requiring the publishing of newspaper advertisements ahead of a hearing, which would save small businesses money. According to COGE, these changes would cut down the outdoor dining process to two months – a roughly 75% reduction from the current timeline. 

What’s the vibe? 

Restaurants and civic and good government groups like Citizens Union, the Regional Plan Association, Reinvent Albany and the Citizens Budget Commission are fans of this proposal. 

Reform group Common Cause New York opposes it because they argue it would remove “meaningful opportunities” for New Yorkers and elected officials to weigh in on decisions involving the use of public space. 

Prop 2: Reform the city contracting process to improve procurement

What would it actually do? New York City government relies heavily on its procurement process, using outside contractors to provide vital municipal services like afterschool programming, construction projects, early childhood education and the shelter system. In the last fiscal year alone, the city paid outside contractors roughly $35.9 billion – about 30% of the municipal budget. But this system is notoriously complicated, often rife with delays for the nonprofits and small businesses seeking to do business with the city. 

The proposal would make several changes to this process in an attempt to simplify things. Top city agency officials would be allowed to sign off on some contracts worth more than $5 million, allowing the mayor to delegate a responsibility that currently rests in his hands. It would also cut down on paperwork for potential contractors, dramatically simplifying the questionnaire they must fill out to apply. It would also direct the Procurement Policy Board, the five-member body that writes the city’s procurement rules, to meet at least once every three months. There’s currently no meeting requirement.  

According to the commission, these changes would cut down the procurement timeline by 12%, speeding up how long it takes the city to decide which organizations or companies to award contracts to. 

What’s the vibe? 

While there is broad support for what the proposal is attempting to do, many nonprofits and city officials are skeptical that it will actually make things easier for nonprofits and small businesses contracting with the city. 

Still, most good government groups are supportive. That includes Common Cause New York, Reinvent Albany and Citizens Union.

Prop 3: Fast-track street safety infrastructure, acquisition of office space and activation of city land

What would it actually do? This proposal pertains to two different land use issues: speeding up construction for street infrastructure, like bike and bus lanes, and simplifying the process in which the city sells, leases or uses unused city property and office space for city workers.

It would make three major changes: the first would simplify review of street safety projects, the second would replace the City Council with the City Planning Commission for review of unused city property and the third would remove hearing requirements and approvals when the city leases office space.

According to COGE, the first component would reduce project timelines by 33% because the Department of Transportation would no longer be required to present to the local community board before beginning a project or confer with multiple offices in the same agency. 

The second component, which applies to only smaller lots and developments, would make the city permanently able to sell undevelopable lots to adjacent property owners without public auction, which COGE says will reduce the timeline to sell the smaller lots from seven months to 90 days. The third would remove City Council and the City Planning Commission approvals, and the City Council’s ability to override, when the city leases office space for employees.  

What’s the vibe? 

Most good government groups support this proposal, though it's garnered some opposition from organizations that oppose bike lanes and the Municipal Art Society of New York.

Prop 4: Simplify building permitting

What would it actually do? The proposal would create a single centralized hub overseen by the Department of Buildings that all applications for construction permits would go through. This would mean New Yorkers need only go through one entity instead of waiting for approval across multiple agencies as is currently the case. The Department of Buildings would also gain control over permitting the city’s waterfront properties – a responsibility that is currently handled by the Department of Small Business Services.

It would also allow more high-ranking agency officials within the Department of Buildings to approve certificates of occupancy, instead of the current cap of three officials per borough. 

What’s the vibe? 

This one really isn’t controversial. You’d be hard pressed to find an opponent. 

Prop 5: Set contribution goals for rainy day fund 

What would it actually do? This proposal would set a target amount of money to hold in the city’s revenue stabilization fund – essentially money set aside that the city can use in case of economic downturn or other financial hardships. The “rainy day fund” was first established via ballot referendum in 2019 but lacks a binding target size, formula for deposits or guidance for withdrawals. 

The proposal sets a target of 12% of the previous year’s tax revenue — right now, the fund sits at roughly $2 billion, or 2% of last year’s tax revenue. The proposal would require the mayor’s budget office and the comptroller to establish a formula for deposits, but doesn’t require deposits outright. It would limit withdrawals to no more than 50% while requiring the mayor to certify that there’s an immediate fiscal need. 

It would also require the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget to come up with a plan in consultation with Comptroller Mark Levine’s office by May 2027 on how deposits should be made when the fund is below target. Levine previously recommended a 16% benchmark target.

What’s the vibe? 

While it may sound innocuous, this is easily the most controversial of the questions on the ballot. 

The fiscally conservative Citizens Budget Commission is a resounding no as the group believes  that non-rainy day funds should be counted toward the city’s target. Reinvent Albany has taken a similar stance, arguing that the proposal is way too weak. 

Common Cause supports it as does Citizens Union, though both acknowledge it doesn’t go far enough to protect the city’s rainy day fund. Still, they argued it’s better than nothing. 

“You shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good here,” Weinberg said.