The duties of the Santa Barbara mayor and City Council include “oversight of the financial affairs of the city” and, without saying, the safety of our community.

Realistically, how can the safety of the community be protected in the absence of prudent financial management?

We have exhausted our contingency reserves and partially depleted our emergency reserves, in spite of warnings from several council members that were ignored.

Without disciplined council action to get back on track, our reserves may be fully exhausted by the 2028-2029 budget cycle.

Many are asking “to what end” did this happen? All that’s required to answer the question is to look at some of the “priorities” on which money is proposed to be or was spent:

• State Street Master Plan and current on-street amenities (aka Band-Aids): Fiscal year 2026 alone = $1,656,017, according to a presentation to the Measure C Oversight Committee. The price tag for implementing the master plan is approximately $100 million and does not include the many technical engineering studies (stormwater, wastewater, etc.) required to have 2,000-plus housing units downtown. Even with grant funds (yet to be secured), matching dollars from the city will likely be required. We simply cannot afford implementation unless some serious money falls out of the sky.

• Rent stabilization program and rental registry ordinance: This costly and controversial endeavor is supported to date by four Council members, a slim majority. A tremendous amount of staff effort and money has already gone into this effort — funds that could have been allocated to our emergency reserves or safety efforts. In the Sept. 22 Council Agenda Report, an initial $500,000 will be set aside for program administration deliverables by a consultant and funds to hire two to three new staff positions to manage the registry. Previously, $400,000 had been set aside to handle litigation associated with the rent increase moratorium implemented in December 2025.

When the rent stabilization program becomes fully implemented, the program and registry “will require between 7.0 and 9.0 full-time equivalent positions and total annual budgeted expenditures in the range of $2 million to $2.4 million,” according to the Council Agenda Report.

Again, there are more critical and financially prudent targets for our taxpayer dollars than making a long-term commitment to an ever-higher cost, bureaucratic program that is steeped in community controversy.

Now, let’s consider some prime concern areas where I believe taxpayer dollars should be allocated:

• Our top priority should be to replenish contingency reserves and emergency reserves, bringing them back up to required levels, especially our emergency reserves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has already declared a statewide State of Emergency due to the dangerous El Niño predictions for this winter. We need to be prepared for this and the high-risk wildfire season that is now upon us. The city is also facing significant inflationary pressures — both on its operating, overhead and capital costs — and the depressing effects that continuing inflation may have on the broader Santa Barbara economy and the city’s income.
  
• Another top priority should be to establish a permanent and consistent source of funding for our Local Housing Trust Fund. Our professionals in deed-restricted housing need a reliable funding source for delivering affordable housing to our community members of very low, low and moderate income levels. I’m confident that this is a priority for a majority of our community and has been stated as such by the City Council, but permanent funding still has not been approved.
  
• Measure C priorities were defined with its passing in 2017: These include the new police station (under construction) and rebuilding Fire Station 7, which was later identified by the council as a top 5 priority of Measure C because of its condition and location on Stanwood Drive. As well, Fire Station 3 is of concern. Although a fire station location and facilities master plan has been approved, it has been years and Fire Station 7 is still without any action. Measure C funds seem to be increasingly straying from the purposes/priorities for which they were approved.

• Based on the warnings we’ve received about this winter’s weather and the severe, heavy surf damage that Southern California coastal counties already have experienced, the city’s budget should also prioritize our Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan actions. Staff is working on several critical plans (waterfront and wastewater/water systems) that require funding. We should be planning ahead and providing funding for the public safety and infrastructure effects of sea-level rise and flooding. We must be prepared financially for both a potentially tough 2026-2027 winter and have adequate funds available to finance our long-term mitigation/remediation strategies. Recall in 2023, one storm cost $3 million in damage repairs.

Given our dwindling reserves and the myriad likely financial demands we face, it is time to step back and reconsider our current “priorities,” with an unblinking focus on prudent financial management and public safety.