Should Westminster voters approve Measure O? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether Westminster voters should approve Measure O on the November 3, 2026 ballot.

The plan would raise the hotel tax to 12 percent and may bring the city $452,000 each year.

What supporters say

• Measure O could give Westminster new local money for police, parks, fire help, clean streets, or other needs.
• Hotel stays may not drop much, since past data shows hotel use often stays steady after tax hikes.
• An audit each year would let people check how the city handles the money.
• Short-term guests would pay the tax, rather than people who live in Westminster all year.

What critics say

• Higher taxes may put money stress on hotels, motels, and other places that host guests.
• The plan does not set the money aside for one clear need, such as parks or fire help.
• Hotels may raise room prices, lose some profit, or do both because of the tax.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; strong proof matters more than a long list.

Measure O would raise Westminster’s hotel-tax rate to 12 percent, producing an estimated $452,000 a year in additional local revenue. Voters must weigh that potential benefit against the measure’s flexible spending rules and uncertain effects on visitors and lodging businesses.

The case for

The strongest argument for Measure O is that it would create a new, locally controlled source of money. The city’s official analysis estimates roughly $452,000 in annual revenue, although that figure is a projection rather than a guarantee. Actual receipts would depend on hotel prices, occupancy, short-term rentals, enforcement and whether visitors change their plans. 1

The money would go into Westminster’s general fund, where it could be used for any lawful municipal purpose. That gives the city flexibility to support police, fire protection, emergency response, parks, cleanliness, homelessness services or other priorities. The tax would generally be collected from guests staying 30 days or fewer at hotels, motels, inns, short-term rentals and similar properties, rather than imposed directly on permanent residents. 2

That does not mean residents would be completely unaffected. Hotels could raise room prices, absorb the cost themselves or combine the two. Still, voters who prefer to have visitors help finance city services may view the measure as a reasonable way to link part of the tax burden to tourism.

There is also some evidence that a higher hotel tax would not sharply reduce hotel activity on average. A peer-reviewed study of California cities found negligible average effects on hotel sales and employment when tax rates differed. That suggests Westminster might collect additional revenue without a major overall drop in hotel business if its market resembles those studied. But the research examined average results and does not show that every Westminster hotel or visitor segment would be unaffected. (see Figure 1) 3

Measure O would also require an annual review by an independent certified public accountant and a public report. That would provide information about how much the tax raised and add a measure of oversight, even though it would not dictate how the money is spent. 4

The case against

The main criticism is that the measure does not guarantee funding for any particular service. Because the proceeds would enter the general fund, approval would not require more money for police, fire, parks, homelessness programs or traffic safety. An audit could make the finances more transparent, but it would not turn the measure into a promise of specific improvements. 5

The tax could also create costs for visitors and lodging operators. If hotels pass the full increase to guests, room prices could rise and price-sensitive travelers could stay elsewhere. If hotels hold prices steady, their profit margins could shrink. The available evidence does not show how large either effect would be in Westminster. 7

The California study offers some reason for caution. Although it found little average change in sales or employment, hotels in cities with higher tax rates tended to have lower credit ratings. That may indicate financial pressure or weaker resilience for some operators. The finding does not prove Measure O would damage Westminster hotels, but it shows that stable average business activity would not mean every property is unharmed. 6

The measure’s revenue estimate also lacks an independent sensitivity analysis showing how collections would change under different assumptions about occupancy, room rates, short-term rentals, enforcement or visitor demand. Nor does the available record quantify price increases, changes in hotel margins, effects on particular types of properties or possible visitor substitution.