The Oceanside City Council voted unanimously Wednesday, June 24, to place a temporary half-cent general sales tax measure before voters Nov. 3, seeking an estimated $20 million a year for city services and infrastructure.
If approved by a simple majority of voters, the additional tax would take effect April 1, 2027, remain in place for 10 years and raise Oceanside’s total sales tax rate from 8.25% to 8.75%.
The proposed measure would be a general tax, meaning its revenue would enter the city’s general fund and could be used for any lawful municipal purpose. The ballot language identifies infrastructure and service needs including street and sidewalk maintenance, pothole repairs, beach protection, traffic improvements and public-safety facilities.
City staff members identified several potential priorities, although the ballot measure would not dedicate money to individual projects. A formal annual spending plan would be required if voters approve the tax.
Possible priorities cited by city officials include:
✔️ A permanent Fire Station No. 8, estimated at $35 million.
✔️ The RE:BEACH Oceanside coastal-resilience project, with preliminary full implementation costs of about $60 million.
✔️ Rehabilitation or replacement of the Pier Bridge, plus a new lifeguard headquarters and support facilities, with an estimated $50 million funding gap.
✔️ Roadway maintenance and rehabilitation. Staff estimated that $5 million annually could stabilize the pavement backlog, while $8 million annually could begin reducing it.
✔️ A replacement for the Oceanside Police Department headquarters, which staff estimated would cost more than $100 million.
The new levy would be added to the existing half-cent Measure X tax, which Oceanside voters renewed in 2024 through April 2036.
The proposed ordinance calls for revenue to be tracked in a separate general-fund subaccount, an annual spending plan, annual independent audits and a Citizens’ Oversight Committee. Staff members recommended expanding the existing Measure X committee from seven members to nine, potentially adding a coastal-advocacy representative and an at-large member.
Groceries, prescription drugs and certain medical devices would remain exempt under the proposal. The ballot question would cite streets, sidewalks, parks, public facilities, traffic improvements, beach protection and emergency facilities among the intended priorities.
Written comments submitted before the meeting included support as well as opposition.
Oceanside resident Kevin Ham wrote that he supported placing the issue on the ballot, writing that “placing the measure on the ballot does not raise taxes by itself — it allows Oceanside voters to decide” whether the investments are priorities.
“The proposal also recognizes that a substantial portion of sales tax revenue is generated by visitors and non-residents, helping distribute the cost of maintaining the infrastructure and public amenities that serve both residents and tourists,” Ham said in his comments. “At the same time, necessities such as groceries and prescription medications remain exempt from sales tax.”
Save Oceanside Sand also supported the ballot measure but urged the city to keep its oversight and spending structure distinct from Measure X and focused on capital projects.
“Using the existing Measure X oversight structure risks blurring the purpose of the measure and weakening public confidence in how funds will be spent,” Save Oceanside Sand CEO Bob Ashton wrote. “Voters are far more likely to support this measure when there is clear accountability that revenues will be used specifically for infrastructure improvements voters can see and experience directly.”
Opponents questioned the need for another sales tax and whether the city had sufficiently explained its spending plans.
“Sales taxes are among the most regressive types of tax revenues,” resident David Wittenborn wrote. “They disproportionately tax those with the least ability to pay.”
Wittenborn said the city should consider other revenue options, including short-term-rental, luxury-hotel and marina-use taxes, along with higher parking fees.
With the City Council’s 5-0 vote in place, the next procedural step is for the city clerk to promptly file a certified copy of the resolution with the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and Registrar of Voters, and direct the registrar to take the actions necessary to conduct the Nov. 3 election.
The resolution also directs the clerk to send the measure to the city attorney for an impartial analysis of up to 500 words. Eligible voters and organizations may submit ballot arguments to the city clerk by a deadline the clerk will establish, with rebuttal arguments due no more than 10 days after the deadline for initial arguments.
This report was partially written using artificial intelligence, then updated, edited and fact-checked against source material by North Coast Current staff. View our AI policy on the About Us page, and read more in a column by our publisher.
Letters to the editor are welcome. Send letters to letters[at]northcoastcurrent.com.
