Questions 2 and 4 pass: less contractor paperwork and a central building permit hub. What the Contracts Committee heard days before the vote

Two of the five charter questions approved Tuesday deal with how the city buys services and lets people build. Question 2, on city contracting, passed with 61.8% (1,061,799 to 657,038), the narrowest margin of the five. Question 4, on building permits, passed with 67.7% (1,155,304 to 552,003). Both counts are as of 12:42 a.m. Wednesday, Nov. 4, from the Board of Elections' unofficial results for Question 2 and Question 4.

Why it matters to residents: the city pays nonprofits to run shelters, senior centers, child care and after-school programs, and late contracts mean late payments to those groups. Permits decide how long a renovation, a new building or a dock repair takes.

What the two measures do

Question 2 lets the Procurement Policy Board tailor paperwork rules, so certain vendors, such as small businesses, can file less. It requires the board to meet at least every three months and lets the mayor hand some contract approvals to agency officials, according to amNY's guide. The Commission on Government Efficiency estimated the changes could cut about 30 days from a procurement.

Question 4 creates a central permit hub for construction, with a target launch of Dec. 1, 2029, which could slip depending on funding, amNY reported. It also moves waterfront construction permits from Small Business Services to the Buildings Department. Citizens Union, the Citizens Budget Commission and Common Cause supported it, amNY reported.

Staten Island voted no on both, at 40.2% yes on Question 2 and 44.9% on Question 4. Manhattan gave Question 4 its strongest support, at 75.9%, according to the Board of Elections' borough breakdowns for Question 2 and Question 4.

What our records add

The Contracts Committee asked about Question 2 five days before the vote. At the Oct. 29 hearing, Chair Lincoln Restler asked Kim Yu, director of the Mayor's Office of Contract Services, what letting the board set the vendor questionnaire would mean for vendors, and how her office would carry it out. He then asked whether she agreed with the commission's estimate that the reforms together could save up to 30 days. She said she agreed with it but that it was not her office's estimate. Later in the hearing, Restler noted that the administration could already hold as many Procurement Policy Board meetings as it wanted without a charter change, but called a mandate for regular meetings welcome.

Late payments have been the committee's theme all year. At a Feb. 25 hearing, Restler said many nonprofits were "struggling like hell on cash flow" because of late contracts and payments. Our Oct. 30 story on the city's contract system hearing has more.

Two bills from Carl Wilson were heard the same day. Int. 1064 would set timeframes for agency approvals and change orders on small capital projects, and Int. 1065 would require cost benchmarks for small recurring capital projects. Both were heard and laid over Oct. 29. At the hearing, Wilson asked whether the city keeps data on the total costs of completed small capital projects. An administration witness said it does, but that the data is not easily searchable for the public. Wilson won election Tuesday to keep his District 3 seat; see our story.

The Council's role in the hub. Question 4 doesn't change any Council vote, but the hub depends on funding, and the Council adopts the city budget each June.

What's next

The contracting changes and the permit hub take effect on the schedules written into the measures once results are certified. The Procurement Policy Board will have to start meeting at least quarterly. Int. 1064 and Int. 1065 stay in the Contracts Committee until it schedules a vote. The official text is on the Charter Revision Commission's site.