Reinvent Albany Positions on 2026 NYC Ballot Questions (Four Yes, One No)

Reinvent Albany submitted the following summary of our positions to the NYC Campaign Finance Board for the NYC Votes 2026 General Election Voter Guide. Our positions and those of other New Yorkers may be cited on the NYC Votes website in mid-October. Voters should know that each question on their ballot is only a short summary of the full Proposed Charter Amendments. 

Question #1: Streamline Process for Using Public Space for Uses like Outdoor Dining, Ramps, and Benches 

Reinvent Albany Position: Strong YES 

We strongly support efforts to streamline the approval process for the City’s popular outdoor dining program. The ballot proposal smartly combines the revocable consent requirements for sidewalk cafés and roadway dining into a single application, making it easier for businesses to apply.

Question #2: Reform the Contracting Process to Improve Procurements, Including for Small Business and Nonprofits 

Reinvent Albany Position: Strong YES 

We strongly support quarterly meeting requirements for the Procurement Policy Board, which has not met on a regular basis, even while many important contracting policies should be addressed. We also support tailoring vendor questionnaires more specifically to industries to streamline data reporting. 

Question #3: Fast-Track Street Safety Infrastructure Including Bike Lanes and Bus Lanes, Acquisition of Office Space, and Activation of City Land 

Reinvent Albany Position: YES

On balance, Reinvent Albany says YES to question three. We strongly support efforts to speed up street safety and improvement projects, including bike and bus lanes. We also strongly support simplified review of street safety projects, and allowing the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation to fast-track street infrastructure improvements where there is an identified, immediate need. 

Unfortunately, the laudable streets-related proposals are improperly paired with a completely unrelated policy question that allows mayoral agencies to fast-track the sale or lease of small city properties and neighboring property owners, the air rights above landmarked city properties, and lease large blocks of office space for city workers. The proposal also removes the City Council from the approval process. We support streamlining these transactions; however, we would like to see the risks of reduced time for review mitigated by increasing the oversight authority for the Comptroller, and increasing the independence and professional staff of the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services. Both of these entities help ensure agencies fully comply with city procurement laws and processes. 

We are unhappy to report that it appears the courts have given broad discretion to charter revision commissions to lump together different proposals into single questions. The New York State Legislature should clarify Municipal Home Rule Law to ensure that its intent is preserved: Multiple, unrelated changes to the City Charter should be presented to voters as separate, individual questions. 

Question #4: Simplify Building Permitting 

Reinvent Albany Position: Strong YES 

We support this proposal because it sensibly brings 40 approvals from 18 separate offices and agencies into one hub for permitting, saving builders time and frustration.

Question #5 and Related Internal Reforms: Set Contribution Goals for Rainy Day Fund to Ensure Sufficient Budgetary Reserves 

Reinvent Albany Position: NO

Sadly, this is not the rainy day fund New York City so badly needs to prevent catastrophic budget cuts and layoffs if revenues plunge. The headline for this proposal is that it establishes a rainy day fund of 12% of city tax revenues, or roughly $10.3 billion based on FY 2026 tax revenue of $86 billion. Unfortunately, that’s not really what it does. 

In 2019, the City Charter was changed to say “The city may maintain…” a rainy day fund. This proposal does not update the City Charter to now require one. In fact, the proposal only requires one concrete thing: the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has to publish a methodology by mid-2027 that defines how a new rainy day fund will work. 

Reinvent Albany believes it is good policy for New York City to have a well-stocked rainy day fund, but this ballot proposal does not meet our basic test for creating one. We evaluated this proposal based on whether it adequately meets three basic goals for rainy day funds. Unfortunately, the proposal fails to meet any of them.

• Target: Is the target clear, required by law, and unable to be gamed? 
• Deposits: Are the triggers for depositing funds into the rainy day fund clear and required? 
• Withdrawals: Are there clear and binding restrictions on withdrawals from the rainy day fund to prevent it from being used as a slush fund when it is not “raining”?

Target
Unfortunately, because the component accounts of the fund are defined by the Mayor, what seems like a clear target of 12% is actually easy to game. On the surface it appears the ballot question creates a simple requirement for a fund that is at least 12% of city tax revenue. Unfortunately, this is misleading because the rainy day fund is very unlikely to be one account and will instead consist of multiple reserve and contingency funds decided upon by the Mayor, potentially including the Retiree Health Benefits Trust. The Charter Commission could have asked voters to approve a single account called the “rainy day fund” that held actual funds worth 12% of tax revenue. But that’s not what is on the ballot. Instead, reserve funds – like the Retiree Health Benefits Trust that serve other purposes and cannot be spent as part of filling a general budget hole – can be counted towards the 12% target. 

Deposits
The Mayor, via OMB, will publish a methodology that says when the City has to put money into the rainy day fund. Voters are being asked to require OMB to make a plan, not to approve binding requirements for topping off a rainy day fund. Worse, one of the main criteria for the OMB’s future methodology described in the charter proposal is the City’s operating surplus, which is very easy to game. The City can precisely control the surplus by adjusting how much of the following fiscal year expenses it pre-pays. In other words, the City can increase pre-payments so it never has enough money to put into the rainy day fund. 

Withdrawals
The charter proposal allows withdrawals when it’s not “raining.” It also continues to allow the Mayor to define “compelling fiscal need” which is like allowing them to write their own permission slip to raid the piggy bank.