Breaking down NYC’s five 2026 ballot proposals before you vote

New York City voters will cast their ballots for five proposals this midterm election. Those measures come from the New York City Commission on Government Efficiency (COGE), which heard from New Yorkers over a series of 10 public hearings this summer. 

More than 1,200 people attended, 264 testified live, and over 600 written comments were received. People shared their frustrations over the time and cost of applying for city permits, delays in city contracts, the cost of setting up outdoor dining and the slow pace of street safety projects.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani convened COGE to review the City Charter, or the city’s governing document. The charter outlines the city government’s structure, responsibilities of each agency, and how processes like budgeting and contracting work. Following the summer’s public hearings, the commission determined which concerns fell under the Charter’s scope, which required a change in state law, or which could be handled by the administration on its own, commissioners said at a recent roundtable for community and ethnic media outlets.

The proposals will appear on the back of voters’ ballots this November and only need a simple majority to pass. Voting yes would enact them on a specified timeline. Voting no would leave the charter as is. To read additional statements for and against each ballot measure, click “learn more” under each proposal at nycvotes.org.

Jump ahead to read more about the five ballot proposals:

• Proposal 1
• Proposal 2
• Proposal 3
• Proposal 4
• Proposal 5

Proposal 1

How it will appear on the ballot: Speed Up Process for Granting a Revocable Consent to Use Public Spaces  

1. What it does: It changes how businesses and property owners get city permission to use sidewalks and streets: merging the two outdoor dining applications into one, making public hearings optional, replacing newspaper ads with online comments, and ending the City Council’s power to block sidewalk cafes.
   
2. How it works and what it would change: To put things like outdoor dining, ramps or benches on a sidewalk or street, businesses and property owners need permission from the Department of Transportation. That permission is called a “revocable consent” because the city can take it back at any time. 

The proposal would:

Combine two applications into one for things like sidewalk cafes and roadway dining. 

Currently, sidewalk applications take six to eight months and roadway applications take three to five, according to the commission’s report.

Make public hearings optional and collect public comment through an online portal instead of requiring applicants to place newspaper ads announcing when the public hearing on their application will be held.

End the City Council’s power to reject sidewalk cafe applications, as well as the community board’s formal review of them. Boards, Council members and borough presidents would still be notified and could submit comments. The commission said the council uses its review power 10 to 15 times a year.

3. Who it affects: Restaurants and cafes, property owners installing ramps or lifts, businesses installing planters or benches, and the community boards, City Council, and residents who comment on those applications.

4. What it doesn’t do: The city is still able to “revoke consent” at any time. Businesses will still pay annual fees for using sidewalks and roadways. The DOT must still notify the community board, city council member and borough president of applications to allow them to comment.

5. When it would take effect: If approved by voters, the new process would go into effect March 1, 2027. Applications already submitted will not fall under the rule change.
   
6. What the commission says: The outdoor dining process could drop from eight months to two, and small businesses could save up to $1,800. Commissioners said current hearings are sparsely attended and costly, and said they hope online comment will bring in more public input. The Council’s review power adds up to 30 days to every sidewalk cafe application – whether or not the Council takes it up – and only a handful of applications have been denied in the last decade, according to the commission’s final report.
   
7. Concerns raised: Vital City, a policy publication that supports the proposal, says it doesn’t go far enough. Outdoor dining would stay under the “revocable consent” system, which the city can take back at any time, instead of moving to a standard permit that restaurants could rely on.

Proposal 2

How it will appear on the ballot: Reduce City Contractor Paperwork: Require Regular Meetings of Procurement Policy Board

1. What it does: Changes how the city hires outside businesses and nonprofits, which it pays to do much of its work, from running homeless shelters and afterschool programs to building infrastructure and supplying everything from pencils to fire hoses.
   
2. How it works and what it would change: The city spends billions of dollars a year in outside contracts – for example, these contracts totaled $42.3 billion, or nearly 40% of the city’s budget, in fiscal year 2025. 

The proposal would: 

• Let the Procurement Policy Board, a five-member panel appointed by the mayor and comptroller that sets the city’s contracting rules, tailor the vendor questionnaire based on factors like contract size and whether the vendor is a small business. The questionnaire is a long disclosure form that businesses and nonprofits must fill out before getting a city contract. The commission said this would mean shorter forms for some vendors.
• Require the board to meet at least quarterly. Right now, it has no set schedule.
• Let the mayor’s office hand off approval of certain contracts over $5 million to the agencies awarding them, with the agency commissioner’s sign-off.
• Make permanent a temporary state rule that lets the city collect public comments instead of holding hearings on some larger contracts.
• End the required public hearing on agencies’ yearly plans for contracts like shelters and youth programs. The plans would still be published.

3. Who it affects: Businesses and nonprofits applying for or holding city contracts, city agencies and the people who use contracted services.
   
4. What it doesn’t do: The commission says it doesn’t change existing protections for workers employed by city contractors, such as rules requiring them to be paid set wage rates. The city’s watchdogs would also keep their roles: the Department of Investigation, which looks into fraud and corruption, and the city and state comptrollers, who audit how public money is spent.
   
5. When it would take effect: Most changes go into effect after election results are certified. The board’s quarterly meeting schedule would go into effect January 1, 2027. Starting Oct. 1, 2030, the board could set which contracts require a public comment period, based on contract size.
   
6. What the commission says: If implemented, the changes could save up to about 30 days per contract and could shorten the questionnaire for some vendors. Delegating approvals could save one to two weeks on more than 120 contracts per year.
   
7. Concerns raised: Some expressed concern that changing the contracting process would “reduce public review,” according to nycvotes.org. “Reducing contractor paperwork should not come with reduced public review or unclear changes in oversight responsibilities,” D9 Harlem Votes said.

Proposal 3

How it will appear on the ballot: Speed Up Street Safety Projects, Disposition of Unused City Property, Office Leasing

1. What it does: Puts three different changes into one vote: fewer approval steps for street safety projects like bike lanes, a shorter review for selling small city-owned lots and the unused building space above city-owned landmarks and fewer approvals when the city rents office space for its workers.
   
2. How it works and what it would change: This proposal touches on three potential changes.

Street projects: Before building a bike lane or redesigning four or more blocks of road, DOT must notify the local Council member and community board and consult agencies like the Fire Department. That wouldn’t change, but agencies couldn’t be required to get sign-off from their local offices, such as nearby firehouses. A missed consultation also couldn’t be used to stop a project in court. And if DOT decides that a project is urgent based on crash data, it could start work before finishing the notification process.

City land: The city owns many small, unused lots, some taken over decades ago when owners stopped paying taxes, others left from old city facilities. Selling them now takes about seven months of review. Under the proposal, lots under 10,000 square feet would get a 90-day review instead, with the City Planning Commission making the final decision. The same applies to air rights over city-owned landmarks: the unused space above a building that zoning would allow to be built on, which the city could sell to nearby property owners. The proposal would also permanently let the city sell tiny, unbuildable lots to neighbors without an auction. It would also drop an extra hearing required when a sale is delayed more than two years after approval.

Office leases: Along with the buildings it owns, the city rents office space from private landlords for some of its workers. Leasing that space currently requires a hearing and approval by the City Planning Commission, and the City Council can reject the lease with a two-thirds vote. Under the proposal, neither step would be required. Instead, the head of the city agency that handles real estate would have to certify that the lease is in the city’s best interest and notify the local community board, Council member and borough president beforehand. The Council and comptroller would be notified once the deal is done.

3. Who it affects: Anyone who uses city streets, community boards, landlords who rent office space to the city, neighbors of city-owned lots, the City Council, and city agencies.
   
4. What it doesn’t do: DOT still needs to notify community boards and present projects when asked, except when DOT decides a project is urgent. The local community board and borough president would still review sales of city land. Lot sales still require environmental review and, except for slivers of land, a public auction. The proposal doesn’t change who can buy city land, what can be built on it or the zoning process.
   
5. When it would take effect: Most changes would go into effect once election results are certified. The authorization to sell undevelopable land would take effect Dec. 31, 2030.
   
6. What the commission says: Street projects could move at least 33% faster. Authorizing the sale of small lots could take 90 days instead of seven months. The time to lease office space would drop by up to 50 days. The city could earn more than $200 million from lot and air-rights sales.
   
7. Concerns raised: This proposal would remove the City Council’s review of sales of small city lots and its power to reject office leases. In a statement about the commission’s proposals overall, the City Council warned that several could reduce public input and weaken checks and balances. Before the final vote, the watchdog group Reinvent Albany also objected to combining unrelated changes, like street projects and office leases, into one ballot question.

Proposal 4

How it will appear on the ballot: Simplify Building Permitting and Move Waterfront Permitting to Department of Buildings  

1. What it does: Changes how people get construction permits. It would require the city to build one website for submitting permit applications to different city agencies, put the Department of Buildings (DOB) in charge of permits for building on the waterfront, and let more offices within DOB approve that a building is safe and legal to move into.
   
2. How it works and what it would change: Any construction project in New York City, from a homeowner’s renovation to a large development, can require approvals from multiple city agencies through separate systems. The proposal would bring together 40 permits and approvals from 18 offices and agencies into one online hub. Commissioners said applicants would only have to enter their information once.

Waterfront permits would move from the Department of Small Business Services to DOB, which handles most construction permits and inspections.

The proposal would also let more officials within DOB sign off on construction approvals, including certificates of occupancy: the document showing a building meets the rules to be lived or worked in. A building can’t legally be occupied without one.

3. Who it affects: Homeowners, small businesses, housing developers and anyone building on the waterfront.
   
4. What it doesn’t do: It doesn’t change building or safety codes. Each agency keeps its authority to review applications and enforce its rules. Decisions about how waterfront land is used remain the same.
   
5. When it would take effect: Most changes would take effect once election results are certified. DOB would have until 2030 to launch the permit hub, though the commission’s report says that deadline could be pushed back if DOB determines it isn’t feasible, and the hub depends on city funding. The move of waterfront permitting to DOB would take effect Dec. 31, 2030, or once a new waterfront building code takes effect.
   
6. What the commission says: The hub would centralize and simplify the permits and approvals process.
   
7. Concerns raised: Some questioned who would oversee the new permitting system, when the community could provide input and how the public would get updates on waterfront projects.

Proposal 5

How it will appear on the ballot: Set Contribution Targets for Rainy Day Fund to Promote Sufficient Budgetary Reserves  

1. What it does: Sets a savings goal for the money the city puts aside for emergencies and hard times, including its rainy day fund. The goal would be 12% of what the city collected in taxes the year before. The city would also have to make a plan for how much to save each year when it’s below that goal.
   
2. How it works and what it would change: The city’s rainy day fund exists in cases of emergency or unexpected economic downturns – like a pandemic that requires emergency supplies, or a drop in tax revenues – so agencies can keep providing  services to the public. Voters approved creating the fund in 2019, and a state law cleared the way in 2020. However, there is no target or rule for deposits. The fund now holds about $2 billion, or 2% of tax revenues. The proposal would set a savings target of 12% and require the city to make a plan for deposits. It would also make a state requirement permanent in city law, limiting withdrawals of the fund to 50% unless the mayor certifies there’s an urgent financial need.
   
3. Who it affects: The city budget, and the services and city workers it funds.
   
4. What it doesn’t do: It doesn’t require a fixed deposit every year. Deposits could be spread over several years or skipped during economic downturns, and would still need approval in the city budget.
   
5. When it would take effect: The changes would take effect once election results are certified. The Office of Management and Budget would have to create a plan for how deposits will be made when funding is below target by May 2027, in consultation with the city comptroller. This would be updated by May 2030 and every four years after that.
   
6. What the commission says: It would set a savings target for the first time.
   
7. Concerns raised: City Comptroller Mark Levine had recommended a 16% target and said key rules on deposits, withdrawals and what counts as a reserve were still unresolved. The Citizens Budget Commission, which also recommended 16%, said the policy as written could allow withdrawals for almost any reason.