Bloomberg versus Ferrer may top the marquee on tomorrow’s ballot, but it’s not the only question New Yorkers must answer.

In addition to two statewide ballot initiatives – one to revamp the state budget process and another on the $2.9 billion Transportation Bond Act – voters heading to the polls in the five boroughs will also have to decide on two amendments to the city charter.

Question 3 on the ballot would require an ethics code for administrative law judges and hearing officers, the arbiters of such non-criminal disputes as parking violations, city employee discipline, dirty sidewalks, and building and fire code violations. The second city proposal, Question 4, would transfer to the city charter the provisions of a state budget law enacted after the city’s fiscal crisis in the 1970s. The Financial Emergency Act of 1975 mandates a balanced budget and a four-year financial plan for the city, and forbids an annual deficit of more than $100 million. Some of the state law’s provisions expire in 2008, so an amendment to the city charter would keep them on the books.

The two questions were approved for the ballot in August by the Charter Revision Commission, appointed by Mayor Bloomberg in 2004. The commission held more than 20 meetings and hearings across the city and considered dozens of ballot proposals from city agencies, elected officials, and advocates.

The proposed ethics code is designed to heighten public confidence in city administration by requiring the mayor and the chief administrative law judge jointly to issue conduct rules for judges and hearing officers. Currently, those judges and officers must adhere to citywide conflict of interest guidelines, which the commission deemed not sufficiently strong or enforceable. The proposal would also create uniform guidelines for all city agencies. “They did not identify a raging problem, but they found an area of improvement,” the commission’s executive director, Terri Matthews, said of the commissioners. She said the city would be following state and federal precedents by instituting an ethics code for administrative judges.

The proposed budget amendment attempts to codify state regulations that have had near universal support in the three decades since the city nearly went bankrupt. The 1975 state law also created an oversight panel, the Financial Control Board, that will continue to exist, but will have little power, after 2008. A debate over the board’s future will come later, Ms. Matthews said, but it made sense to import the state provisions that have been successful into the city’s charter.

For now, the amendment would continue the requirements of a balanced annual budget. It would require the mayor each year to prepare a four-year financial plan that includes at least $100 million to cover shortfalls.

The charter changes on the ballot come two years after a similar commission recommended the mayor’s proposal for nonpartisan citywide elections. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the plan, as well as another amendment to mandate an ethics code for administrative judges and hearing officers.

The failed 2003 ballot measures prompted the latest charter commission to alter its process for selecting proposed changes, Ms. Matthews said. As a result, the 2004-05 panel spent a year reviewing the charter and possible amendments, and early on decided not to recommend any changes that lacked widespread support. “By definition, these proposals have a great deal of expert and public consensus going forward,” Ms. Matthews said.