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. “Yes” speeds up process to use public space while maintaining community input. “No” maintains longer process with mandatory public hearing to use public space and Council review of sidewalk cafes

This proposal changes the approval process for constructing certain structures on streets and sidewalks. In legalese this is called “revocable consent,” because the city is granting a temporary (revocable) right to use its property. The proposal includes several parts, which are mostly intended to make it easier to set up outdoor dining structures.

• No longer require a public hearing for each revocable consent agreement. Replace it with a 15 day comment period, with notice sent to the Community Board, City Council member, and Borough President, unless they opt out.
• If a public hearing is held, its notice time would be cut from 15 days to six days, and these notices would no longer appear in print newspapers.
• Sidewalk cafés’ additional, specific review process would be canceled. That additional review includes a community board recommendation, another public hearing, and the ability for the City Council to call up a sidewalk café application for a vote.

This is a straightforward, positive step to improve the outdoor dining culture that has greatly benefited our city. Getting sidewalk and roadway café approvals has proven cumbersome and costly, leading to a drop in the number of licenses issued. These proposals could cut months from the approval process for local businesses. Although public hearings would no longer be required and the City Council would lose its “call-up” power over individual sidewalk cafés, other avenues for public input would remain, albeit limited. The result would be a simpler, faster system that allows more local businesses to invest in vibrant public spaces and strengthens the street life that makes New York such a dynamic city.

Reduce paperwork for City 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. “Yes” amends Procurement Policy Board authority, including to simplify contractor questionnaire; authorizes Mayor to delegate certain contract approvals. “No” leaves laws unchanged, with Mayor and Comptroller maintaining longer questionnaire.

It makes several changes to how the City buys goods and services, and how it awards contracts to businesses and nonprofits.

• Eliminate the law that sets what questions city vendors must be asked when they apply to be vendors. Instead, let the administration’s Procurement Policy Board (PPB) decide which questions vendors must answer, with different questionnaires for different types of contracts or industries.
• Allow top city agency officials to approve contracts over $5 million that are not awarded through competitive bidding, rather than requiring the mayor to approve them.
• Require the Procurement Policy Board, the five-member body (three mayoral, two comptroller appointees) that writes the City’s procurement rules, to meet at least once every three months.
• Replace public hearings on contracts over $100,000 with public comment periods, making permanent a change that state law currently allows through 2030. Starting in 2030, the PPB could change the dollar threshold for contracts subject to a comment period.
• Eliminate the requirement that agencies contracting social services publish a draft of a “client services plan” and hold a hearing on the draft, before publishing the final plan each year.

The city’s procurement system is notoriously complex: it takes too long to purchase goods and services, and even longer to pay social service nonprofits that provide city-funded services. These proposals will not overhaul the system, but they could improve it at the margins by allowing city agencies to get money out the door faster and reducing staff time dedicated to sparsely attended hearings.

But there are risks. Specifically, we are concerned about the plan to give the administration, through the Procurement Policy Board, the authority to rewrite the questionnaire that new vendors must submit. The current questionnaire, whose exact questions are set by law, is long and burdensome and applies equally to all vendors, whether a major bank or a food stand. However, some questions help ensure vendor integrity, prevent corruption, or hold vendors accountable after potential violations. Officials at the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services (MOCS) assured Citizens Union that the agency shares our concern about vendor integrity and said it would work with other oversight agencies when developing the new questionnaire. If this measure passes, the Department of Investigation must be involved in this effort.

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. “Yes” simplifies street project approval, City property disposition and office leasing. “No” maintains intra-agency consultation for road projects, Council approval for City property dispositions and Council disapproval of office leases.

This question addresses two land use goals. The first is to speed up construction of street infrastructure, such as bike and bus lanes. The second is to make it easier for the City to sell, lease, or otherwise use idle City-owned property, including small parcels, unused landmark air rights, and office space for City workers.

Street safety projects

• Remove the requirement to consult with local firehouses on “major transportation projects.” Instead, the Department of Transportation (DOT) would consult with agency heads.
• Allow the DOT Commissioner to begin construction of “major transportation projects” immediately, even before public notice, when there is a risk of significant injury, based on crash data.

City-owned property

• Shorten the public review process for certain small City-owned lots and for the transfer of air rights from City-owned landmarks. The projects would move from the ULURP process to the faster ELURP process, which voters approved last year.
• Remove the additional public hearing requirement when more than two years have passed between final ULURP approval of a City property disposition and the execution of the project.
• Make the “SAIL Away” Program permanent, which allows the no-auction sale of tiny, unbuildable sliver lots to next-door owners. The program was created in 2010 but must be extended every five years.

City office leases

• Remove the City Planning Commission and City Council’s authority over City office leases. Instead, the DCAS commissioner would make the final decision, based on whether the lease is “in the best interests of the city.”

This question proposes reasonable fixes to streamline some land use processes. Among other things,

1. It would speed up major transportation projects by requiring approval from the Fire Department commissioner, instead of every affected firehouse, a mandate that has caused delays and invited litigation that slows down projects.
2. It would fast-track the disposition of unused City property, continuing the reforms established by last year’s charter commission. We note that allowing air rights development of city-owned landmarks through an expedited review process would align them with private landmarks’ air rights, but given the potentially substantial square footage at stake, these decisions warrant close oversight and maximum transparency.
3. It would shift authority over city government office leases from the City Council and City Planning Commission to the administration, in line with current lease negotiations practices. Recent corruption scandals involving office leases were not uncovered through oversight by the City Council or City Planning Commission.

Regardless of substance, this question improperly bundles unrelated policy areas – street authority, land disposition, and office leasing – into a single question, making it difficult for voters who may support one part of the proposal but oppose another. We have long opposed confusing omnibus ballot questions, which do a disservice to New Yorkers.

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. “Yes” 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. “No” leaves laws unchanged.

It creates a single, coordinated entry point for permitting through an online portal, gives the Department of Buildings more flexibility over who can sign off on certificates of occupancy, and moves waterfront permitting into that same department. More specifically:

• Create one centralized construction permitting hub, managed by the Department of Buildings, so applicants can access a single online portal instead of more than a dozen separate agencies.
• Allow more high-level Department of Buildings officials to sign off on certificates of occupancy, instead of the current legal cap of two deputy commissioners and one superintendent per borough.
• Move waterfront structure enforcement and permitting from the Department of Small Business Services to the Department of Buildings

These changes are positive modernization efforts that would make it easier to navigate the construction permitting process and give the Buildings Commissioner room to organize the agency for modern workloads.

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. “Yes” requires Mayor to develop methodology for calculating deposits to rainy day fund, with deposits subject to approval in the City budget. “No” leaves laws unchanged, with no reserves target.

This question establishes rules for the City’s rainy day fund, which was created in 2019. The fund currently has no required savings target or formula for how much money is deposited each year. Those decisions are made from scratch each annual budget cycle.

• Establish a formal reserve target of 12% of the City’s total tax revenue for the prior fiscal year.
• Require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to create a formula for deposits, in consultation with the Comptroller, and update it every four years.
• Limit the City to withdrawing no more than 50 percent of the Rainy Day Fund unless the Mayor certifies that there is a compelling fiscal need. This reflects limits already in state law.

This is an incremental step to build rules and structures around the relatively new Rainy Day Fund, a fiscal tool the city uses to prepare for economic downturns or unexpected crises. The proposal is not perfect. Although it would establish a formula for deposits into the fund, it does not actually require annual deposits – those would be up to the Mayor and Council each year. It also allows the City to count other reserve funds, such as pension funds, toward the 12% reserve goal. It should have set stronger guardrails on large withdrawals and required the Comptroller’s consent on the deposit formula. But overall, this is a good proposal to strengthen the city’s finances in the long run, and it should be supported.