Planning for a Safer, More Resilient Island
Addressing Our Infrastructure Needs
Purpose
Consider placing a $300 million GO bond (infrastructure bond) on the November 3, 2026 ballot to allow Alameda voters to decide whether to fund infrastructure needs.
If approved by voters, property owners would pay approximately $49 per year for every $100,000 of assessed value (not the home’s market value).
Outreach and Education
In fall 2025, City staff conducted four City Council workshops on Alameda’s Infrastructure and Facilities Needs Produced a fact sheet, FAQ, newsletter, PowerPoint presentation, social media content, and email blast Sent out two mailers to all registered voters in Alameda Conducted a community survey mailed to all registered voters with an online option to share priorities for a potential funds 1,700+ total responses
600+ mailed in
1,000+ online entries
675+ public comments
City staff gave 16 presentations to community organizations, boards, and commissions to educate and seek feedback
Key Milestones & Benchmarks
Voter survey
Election timing
Funding mechanism
Political landscape
Measure structure
Potential controversy
Non-advocacy communication
Existing comms
Informational mailers
Internal & external audiences
Seek feedback
Refine proposal
Ballot measure structure
Ballot ordinance/
resolution
75 words
Accountability features
Tax rate
Project List
Fundraising
Direct mail
Lawn signs
Endorsements
Grassroots
Texting
Mailers
Digital ads
GOTV
© 2023
Campaigns must be privately funded
Council Action Dates: Jul. 7th/21st
Resolution Due Date: Aug. 7th
Survey Methodology
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding) Dates
June 10-17, 2026
Survey Type
Dual-mode Voter Survey
Research Population
Likely November 2026 Voters in Alameda
Total Interviews
420
Margin of Sampling Error
(Full Sample) ±4.9% at the 95% Confidence Level(Half Sample) ±6.9% at the 95% Confidence Level Contact Methods
Data Collection Modes
Survey Tracking
2008, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 Surveys Languages
English, Spanish, and Chinese
Text
Invitations
Telephone
Calls
Email
Invitations
Telephone
Interviews
Online
Interviews
Context
Q1.
First, would you say that things in the City of Alameda are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track? After a few years of largely mixed opinions, Alameda voters are more optimistic than pessimistic.
Q2. Next, I am going to read you a brief list of public officials and agencies. Please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of the job each is doing.
Total Approve
Total Disapprove
69%
23%
61%
26%
56%
29%
Broad shares approve of City government, the Mayor, and City Council.
Q5. Next, please consider the following issues that some people suggest are problems facing the City of Alameda. For each one, please indicate whether you think it is an extremely serious problem,a very serious problem, a somewhat serious problem, or not too serious a problem for residents of Alameda. *Split Sample Extremely/Very Serious Problem
71%
67%
56%
53%
50%
43%
40%
36%
36%
34%
31%
The cost-of-living issues are widely seen as a serious problems.
Public safety after earthquakes or other natural disasters
Q4.
Great/Some Need
A Little/No Real Need
66%
23%
58%
22%
64%
24%
54%
29%
Next, would you say that to maintain and improve public infrastructure the City of Alameda has a great need for additional funding, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funding? Two-thirds see at least some need for additional infrastructure funding – up significantly over last year.
Views of a Potential Bond Measure
Q3. Do you think you would vote yes or no on this measure? SAFER Alameda Act — Preparing Alameda for Sea-Level Rise, Accidents, Flooding, Earthquakes, Resilience. To prepare for emergencies, earthquakes and sea-level rise; prevent flooded Tubes;repair potholes; keep streets safe and accessible; maintain response to fires, accidents, and medical emergencies; prevent Bay pollution; and protect shorelines; shall the City of Alameda measure issuing $300,000,000 in bonds, levying $49/$100,000 of assessed value, generating approximately $19,000,000 annually while bonds are outstanding, requiring oversight, public disclosures, and local control, be adopted? Total Yes62%
Total No28%
Three in five support the measure based on ballot language alone – a solid majority, but less than the two-thirds needed for passage.
Q3. Do you think you would vote yes or no on this measure? 2025
2026
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total No33%
Total Yes60%
Total No28%
Total Yes62%
The “definitely yes” share is broader than in 2025, when slightly different language was tested.
Voter Priorities
Q6. First, please consider some potential elements of this measure, including ways in which funds it generates could be spent. For each one, please indicate how important each one is to you personally, regardless of how you feel about the measure: either extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. ^Not Part of Split Sample Extremely/Very Important
77%
77%
74%
73%
72%
71%
70%
69%
69%
69%
Voters’ top priorities for funding include maintaining quality of life and protecting public safety during natural disasters.
Q6. First, please consider some potential elements of this measure, including ways in which funds it generates could be spent. For each one, please indicate how important each one is to you personally, regardless of how you feel about the measure: either extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. ^Not Part of Split Sample Extremely/Very Important
66%
63%
63%
62%
60%
58%
56%
56%
54%
49%
44%
Relatively few prioritize sidewalks or matching funds.
Reactions to Supportive and Critical Statements
Q3, Q8 & Q10. Do you think you would vote yes or no on this measure? Total Yes
Total No
62%
28%
66%
26%
61%
28%
After supportive arguments, two-thirds supported the measure; however, that support dropped after bond criticisms.
These levels of support are higher than observed in the December survey.
Total Yes
December 2025
June
2026
Δ
Initial Vote
60%
62%
+2%
After Positive Messages
58%
66%
+8%
After Negative Messages
51%
61%
+10%
Conclusions
Survey Takeaways
Voters are somewhat more optimistic and have largely positive views of their city government.
An infrastructure bond measure faces a challenging path to approval in November. It will require that a strong, positive campaign emerge in the community and no deterioration in political and economic conditions.
The initial “yes” vote based on ballot measure language alone is below the two-thirds needed for passage.
Two-thirds support for a measure was just barely reached after modeling a scenario in which all voters received and contemplated rationales for a bond.
The “yes” vote declines below two-thirds after negative messaging.
Voters’ top priorities include maintaining quality of life and protecting public safety during natural disasters. Effective message themes focus on earthquake safety and the risks of sea-level rise.
At the same time, these results represent an increase in the “definitely yes” vote and perceived need for funding compared to our 2025 survey, indicating the success of outreach so far.
Conclusions
Despite negative economic headwinds, the measure displayed a positive trend from the initial poll results Public education and communication about the issue works Continued outreach and education is needed to pass the 2/3 threshold A robust independent advocacy campaign is required for the measure to be successful While narrow, the measure has a path to victory
Recommendation: $300 million measure focused on highest-priority projects to begin addressing the over $800 million in unfunded needs
Staff Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution declaring that public interest and necessity demand the issuance of the GO bond to finance authorized improvements Introduce an Ordinance submitting a $300 million GO Bond measure to voters at the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election.
Appendix
Alameda’s Infrastructure Is Aging
Aging roads, storm drains, and public safety facilities are increasingly vulnerable to:
More frequent and severe storms
Flooding and sea level rise
Major earthquakes
Poor street conditions
Aging Infrastructure Creates a Financial Strain
The City of Alameda is committed to the long-term financial stability of our island The City has over $800 million in unfunded infrastructure projects Without a dedicated funding source, the City will be forced to pull from the General Fund The General Fund pays for everyday services like parks and emergency response Infrastructure needs grow more expensive every year they go unaddressed
Q3. Do you think you would vote yes or no on this measure? Initial Vote by Gender & Age
Total Yes
Total No
61%
33%
63%
24%
75%
20%
54%
29%
49%
40%
Three-quarters of voters under 50 support the measure, while a slim majority aged 50 to 64 back it.
Q3. Do you think you would vote yes or no on this measure? Initial Vote by Party & Race/Ethnicity
Total Yes
Total No
69%
23%
63%
25%
15%
74%
66%
26%
65%
29%
62%
30%
59%
32%
Seven in ten Democrats support the measure, as does just under two-thirds of independents.
Q3. Do you think you would vote yes or no on this measure? Initial Vote by Own/Rent & ZIP Code & Need for Funding
Total Yes
Total No
57%
37%
69%
17%
65%
25%
50%
42%
77%
15%
29%
63%
42%
34%
Those who see “great need” or “some need” for additional funding are quite likely to vote “yes” on a measure.