-
The slide deck said there are Bengali services in Brooklyn & Queens, but there is a large population in the Bronx?
-
The slide you are referencing is about the Board of Elections’ (BOE) services. BOE covers Bengali in Brooklyn and Queens, while the CEC covers Bengali services in the Bronx, as we do not duplicate BOE services.
-
-
Which poll site locations will the CEC be at?
-
See our Early Voting Services Map and our Election Day Services Map on our website.
-
-
What are the requirements for bringing one’s own interpreter?
-
Voters have the right to bring an interpreter with them to the voting booth — it just cannot be a union representative or an employer.
-
- How does CEC decide what language service to provide and where? Why are there gaps?
-
The VLA Program is Charter-mandated, and its implementation is based on a publicly vetted methodology that is amended as needed by CEC commissioners. CEC serves the poll sites with highest concentration of Citizen of Voting Age with Limited English Proficiency (CVALEP) that speak a VLA Program language and allocates services to each language community based on the percent share of each language group. The total number of poll sites covered is dependent on available resources.
-
See the full deck for the meeting here.
Election Day Services by Language/Borough
| Count of Language | County ID | ||||
| Language | Brooklyn | Queens | Bronx | Staten Island | Grand Total |
| Russian | 37 | 3 | 40 | ||
| Yiddish | 10 | 10 | |||
| Haitian | 9 | 1 | 10 | ||
| Arabic | 7 | 1 | 8 | ||
| Polish | 3 | 4 | 7 | ||
| Italian | 4 | 2 | 6 | ||
| French | 5 | 5 | |||
| Greek | 4 | 4 | |||
| Albanian | 3 | 1 | 4 | ||
| Urdu | 3 | 3 | |||
| Bengali | 3 | 3 | |||
| Korean | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Chinese (incl. Mandarin, Cantonese) | 1 | 1 | |||
| Grand Total | 71 | 18 | 12 | 2 | 103 |
Early Voting Service by Language/Borugh
| Count of Language | County ID | ||||
| Language | Brooklyn | Queens | Staten Island | Bronx | Grand Total |
| Russian | 16 | 6 | 4 | 26 | |
| Arabic | 6 | 2 | 2 | 10 | |
| Italian | 3 | 4 | 1 | 8 | |
| Polish | 1 | 6 | 7 | ||
| Haitian | 5 | 2 | 7 | ||
| Yiddish | 6 | 6 | |||
| French | 1 | 4 | 5 | ||
| Greek | 4 | 4 | |||
| Albanian | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |
| Urdu | 4 | 4 | |||
| Bengali | 3 | 3 | |||
| Korean | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Chinese (incl. Mandarin, Cantonese) | 1 | 1 | |||
| Grand Total | 40 | 28 | 10 | 9 | 87 |
See below for information about the ballot proposals, including pros and cons of each proposal:
1- Speed Up Process for Granting a Revocable Consent to Use Public Spaces
What you will 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 says
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.
What this proposal means
- 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.
Proposal 1 – Yes
Those who submitted statements in support of this proposal said it would streamline the current permitting process and reduce costs for applicants while preserving opportunities for community input. Respondents focused on how the proposal would simplify the process for restaurants to secure outdoor dining permits, commercial and residential buildings to install accessibility ramps, and generally transform sidewalks and streets into more vibrant, pedestrian-oriented spaces. They explained the current process is costly, time-consuming, and complicated, which disproportionately impacts small businesses and restaurants that operate with small margins in a high-cost city.
Open Plans, a nonprofit that promotes a people-first street culture, said the current process has “outdated procedural barriers that make it unnecessarily difficult and expensive to put public space to productive, neighborhood-serving uses.” New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, a nonprofit civil rights law firm, said there is a backlog of accessibility ramp applications, some of them for apartment buildings, and argue “swift and efficient approval for these and other accessibility projects is an important step ensuring that millions of New Yorkers and visitors with disabilities can access housing, public space, and transportation.” Some respondents noted that while the proposal represents a common-sense improvement to the status quo, streamlining must come with equal accountability, including meaningful community input and continuous review of the process.
Institutional respondents:
Total number of statements: 11
Proposal 1 – No
Respondents expressed concern that removing mandatory public hearings would compromise safeguards for accessibility and meaningful community input. The nonprofit, The Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY), wrote that relying solely on written comments or notices in the City Record “creates a barrier to participation, particularly for low-income residents and people with sensory or digital access limitations. It also does not allow for valuable back-and-forth conversations with public officials.”
Respondents were concerned about removing City Council review for similar reasons; D9 Harlem Votes®, a Harlem-based, nonpartisan civic engagement coalition, opposed weakening existing layers of public oversight, while CIDNY pointed out that “council members and Community Boards are closest to the daily street-level realities of their neighborhoods.” Another respondent disapproved of this proposal on principle, not wanting restaurants and businesses to limit public sidewalk space.
Institutional respondents:
Total number of statements: 5
2- Reduce City Contractor Paperwork: Require Regular Meetings of Procurement Policy Board
What you will see on the ballot
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.
- 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 says
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.
What this proposal means
- 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.
Proposal 2 – Yes
Respondents support amending the current one-size-fits-all approach to the city contractor questionnaire and streamlining the process to build public works and deliver services to New Yorkers. They said the proposal would reduce burden on contractors, especially small businesses and nonprofits, and make the process more efficient, which means better use of public dollars. New York Lawyers for the Public Interest noted the proposal would reduce barriers to participation for potential city contractors, “especially for small and grassroots nonprofits, including organizations led by and serving communities of color and disadvantaged communities.”
Respondents also support requiring the Procurement Policy Board to meet regularly, which Abundance New York, a nonprofit which advocates for growth, development, and government efficiency, said will “improve the timeliness and transparency of procurement policy decisions.” DRUM Beats, a civic-engagement nonprofit, pointed out the Board “is not currently required to meet on a regular schedule” and therefore this proposal” strengthens accountability.”
Institutional respondents:
Total number of statements: 8
Proposal 2 – No
Respondents who oppose this proposal expressed concern about changing the contracting process to reduce public review. D9 Harlem Votes®, a Harlem-based, nonpartisan civic engagement coalition, said, “Reducing contractor paperwork should not come with reduced public review or unclear changes in oversight responsibilities.”
Institutional respondents:
Total number of statements: 3
3- Speed Up Street Safety Projects, Disposition of Unused City Property, Office Leasing
What you will 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 says
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.
What this proposal means
- 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.
Proposal 3 – Yes
Many respondents in favor of this proposal focused their support on the provision to enable faster construction on street safety projects supported by data. Citing the high volume of traffic fatalities each year and the many steps and frequent delays in the current process to approve street redesign projects, respondents said the proposal would save the lives of pedestrians and cyclists and improve service for transit riders.
Other respondents focused on the provision allowing the sale of unused city property using a shorter review process. Open New York, a grassroots nonprofit focused on solving New York’s housing crisis, noted that because of the lengthy review required for “small lots, oftentimes undevelopable slivers of land…[which] account for 78% of City-owned properties but just 4% of their square footage … disused City-owned land often sits fallow for decades, blighting surrounding properties.” Open New York and New York Housing Conference, an affordable housing policy and advocacy organization, voiced support for simplifying the sale of air rights above city-owned landmarks to generate revenue for the city and allow for more housing to be built in adjacent properties.
Several respondents also shared frustration at the inclusion of the multiple distinct provisions within a single ballot measure, with Reinvent Albany (a nonprofit which advocates for transparent and accountable government in New York) and Regional Plan Association (a civic research and advocacy think tank) both calling for additional safeguards to shore up aspects the proposal while expressing overall support.
Institutional respondents:
Total number of statements: 14
Proposal 3 – No
All respondents who expressed opposition to this proposal focused on one of its three provisions (street safety projects, the sale of city property, and office leasing). Municipal Art Society of New York (MAS), a nonprofit which advocates for a more livable city, voiced a blanket objection to the inclusion of three issues within the same ballot proposal, arguing that “merging these three distinct issues into one measure does not give voters the chance to effectively voice their preferences.”
MAS itself supported expediting street safety projects but, along with other respondents, was concerned about the sale and development of city-owned land. Aligned statements called for the city to prioritize creating more public space like pocket parks and community gardens, building affordable housing, and ensuring communities can determine how land in their neighborhoods is transformed.
Long Island City Partnership, a nonprofit economic development organization which represents businesses and organizations in Long Island City, took issue with the measure that would remove mandatory notification and consultation for street safety projects, noting that the existing process “has allowed designs to be adjusted to balance cyclist safety with the operational needs of industrial businesses.” It elaborated, “faster timelines should not come at the cost of losing input from the businesses and workers most affected by design choices.”
Institutional respondents:
Total number of statements: 4
4- Simplify Building Permitting and Move Waterfront Permitting to Department of Buildings
What you will 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 says
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).
What this proposal means
- 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 approvals, 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.
Proposal 4 – Yes
Several respondents in support of this proposal named that under the current permitting process, builders need to obtain 40 approvals from 18 offices and agencies before starting construction. “This excessive bureaucracy reflects decades of accrued red tape—not deliberate decision-making to serve New Yorkers’ safety and well-being,” wrote Abundance New York, a nonprofit which advocates for growth, development, and government efficiency. Respondents agreed that a new, centralized hub for construction permitting would make it easier for builders – including developers and individual homeowners – to navigate and understand the permitting process while also saving builders time and money.
Other respondents included in their statements that moving waterfront permitting from Small Business Services to the Department of Buildings will reduce confusion and empower the agency best equipped to uphold safety regulations.
Institutional respondents:
Total number of statements: 11
Proposal 4 – No
Those who submitted in opposition to Proposal 4 were concerned that it does not establish clear parameters for public oversight, transparency, and accountability. Respondents voiced questions about how the consolidated permitting authority would be overseen, when and how community input will occur, and how waterfront construction updates and decision-making will be communicated to the public.
Institutional respondents:
Total number of statements: 3
5- Set Contribution Targets for Rainy Day Fund to Promote Sufficient Budgetary Reserves
What you will 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 says
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.
What this proposal means
- 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.
Proposal 5 – Yes
Supporters of this proposal said it is important for the city to maintain strong budget reserves in case of future emergencies and uncertainty, and that transparency is a key part of responsible budgeting. “Establishing a reserve target can help ensure that resources are available to maintain essential City programs and services during periods of fiscal hardship, while deposits remain subject to the City’s normal budget process,” wrote D9 Harlem Votes®, a Harlem-based, nonpartisan civic engagement coalition. “Setting contribution targets creates a level of fiscal accountability that will promote necessary savings,” said Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, the union for hotel and gaming workers.
Institutional respondents:
Total number of statements: 6
Proposal 5 – No
The one institutional respondent who opposed this proposal, Reinvent Albany, said, “Sadly, this is not the rainy day fund New York City so badly needs to prevent catastrophic budget cuts and layoffs if revenues plunge,” arguing that the proposal’s headline is misleading. The nonprofit, which advocates for transparent and accountable government in New York, said the proposal would not update the City Charter to require a rainy day fund; it would only require the publication of a methodology defining how a new rainy day fund will work.
Reinvent Albany also expressed concern that the specifications of the proposal would be easy for a mayoral administration to manipulate, so that the fund would fall short of its goals. The statement elaborates that the proposal would allow the city to count multiple accounts as part of the “rainy day fund,” including retiree accounts that serve other purposes and cannot be tapped to fill a budget hole.
The methodology is flawed, Reinvent Albany said, because it is dependent upon the city’s operating surplus, which the mayor can control by increasing pre-payments for the year ahead; in this way, the mayor could in theory avoid ever having to put money into the rainy day fund by manipulating each year’s surplus. Finally, Reinvent Albany said, to justify withdrawals from the fund, the proposal would “allow the Mayor to define ‘compelling fiscal need’ which is like allowing them to write their own permission slip to raid the piggy bank.”
Institutional respondents:
Total number of statements: 2
Key Dates
-
Early Voting Period
Sat, October 24, 2026 – Sun, November 1, 2026
-
Mail Ballot Request Deadline – In Person
Mon, November 2, 2026
-
General Election Day
Tue, November 3, 2026
Banner Image: CEC Roundtable Cover. Image Credit – CEC
NYC Civic Engagement Commission
The Civic Engagement Commission will enhance civic participation, promote civic trust, and strengthen democracy in New York City.