Should Albany voters approve Measure P? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether Albany voters should approve Measure P on November 3, 2026.

The measure would keep a property tax for roads and storm drains.

What supporters say

• Measure P would keep about $1.4 million each year for fixing roads and storm drains.
• Steady repairs could help stop small problems from becoming much more costly later.
• The measure would give some low-income owners and renters tax breaks or money back.
• The city would keep sharing yearly reports about the tax, spending, and finished projects.

What critics say

• We are not sure how much money the large-parcel rule would raise or cost.
• The tax would remain a long-term cost for property owners.
• Renters might pay higher rent if landlords pass some tax costs to them.
• Some renters may still face these costs, even with the new money-back program.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; stronger proof matters more.

Albany voters will decide on Nov. 3, 2026, whether to approve Measure P, which would continue a dedicated property tax for street paving and storm-drain improvements. The measure also changes exemptions, rebates and inflation adjustments, making the choice a trade-off between reliable infrastructure funding and a long-term, uneven tax burden.

The case for

The strongest argument for Measure P is continuity of funding for basic infrastructure. The city’s official analysis estimates that the measure would keep about $1.4 million a year in a dedicated fund for streets and storm drains. Albany’s five-year capital plan identifies those systems as core programs and lists the parcel tax as one source of funding. 1

The city has also documented projects that produced visible results. One paving project preserved about seven miles of roads, while another combined street paving with storm-drain and curb-ramp work. A broader government economic analysis finds that delaying road maintenance can raise costs for both public agencies and road users, supporting the idea that steady funding may prevent more expensive repairs later. That analysis, however, was not specific to Albany or Measure P.

The measure would add targeted relief for some lower-income residents. Qualifying low-income property owners would receive a 50% exemption, while qualifying low-income renters could receive rebates covering 50% or 100% of the tax. The measure would also retain an existing full exemption for very-low-income owners. 2

Those renter rebates address a concern that owner-only relief would miss. A California study found that changes in landlords’ property-tax costs can affect rents for new tenants, suggesting that renters may indirectly bear part of a property tax. The study does not measure Measure P itself, but it offers some support for including renters in the relief program.

Measure P would also continue annual public reporting on tax revenue, spending and project status. That gives voters and officials a recurring way to track the program, although it is mainly a transparency tool rather than a guarantee of efficient spending. 3

The case against

The main objection is that Measure P would preserve a long-term property burden. The tax would continue until voters repeal it, and its rate could rise with inflation, subject to a 3% annual cap. Because parcel taxes are not necessarily linked to a property’s value or the owner’s ability to pay, the burden could remain uneven despite the new exemptions and rebates. Research on local tax districts raises similar distributional concerns, though it does not directly assess Albany’s measure. 4

Renters could also face indirect costs without qualifying for relief. The California research supports the possibility that landlords pass some property-tax costs into rents for new tenants, but it does not show how often that happens in Albany. Renters must also apply and meet eligibility rules to receive rebates. 5

Another unresolved issue is the measure’s large-parcel provision. If a parcel of at least 500,000 square feet becomes exempt, the City Council could impose a lot-square-foot rate of up to 6.38 cents on all parcels. The official analysis does not say how often this trigger might occur, how payments would be redistributed, or how the result would compare with current tax bills. 6

The available materials also do not show that Measure P is the best option among grants, fees, general-fund spending or borrowing. Nor do they quantify Albany’s unfunded maintenance backlog, identify the additional projects the $1.4 million would finance, or provide local data on rebate participation, rent pass-through or project performance. Annual reports would improve transparency but would not require independent audits or specific targets, such as better pavement conditions or less flooding.