Santa Barbara voters approved Measure C in 2017 for a clear purpose: to repair the city’s aging infrastructure and protect essential public safety facilities. That promise should not be blurred, minimized, or repurposed in the heat of a city election or a debate over the future of State Street.
Recent public discussion about State Street, the budget deficit, and Measure C has become troubling to many of us who worked for the measure’s passage. Measure C was placed before the voters of Santa Barbara and approved in a general election. It is not, and was never presented as, a slush fund.
Those of us who asked residents to raise their own taxes made a specific commitment: the money would fund a thorough, well-planned series of infrastructure projects. Opponents warned at the time that future councils might ignore that intent and treat the revenue as flexible money for other priorities. We assured voters that would not happen. And if it did, we would say something.
I served on the Measure C committee, and I remember clearly how carefully the measure was developed. I have confidence in city staff and in the Measure C Oversight Committee, whose job is to protect the intent voters approved. I also respect the staff developing the State Street Master Plan at the direction of the council. This is not a staff problem. It is a city council problem.
Measure C passed in November 2017 with 13,656 yes votes, or 56.2 percent, to 10,642 no votes, or 43.8 percent. It added a 1 percent local sales tax directed to the Santa Barbara City General Fund with no sunset. Supporters were clear with skeptical voters: the revenue would address well-documented infrastructure needs identified by City of Santa Barbara Public Works, not salaries or benefits. In seeking support from city firefighters and police officers, the Measure C committee made that point explicitly. Based on this promise, both groups readily agreed.
At the time, the tax was projected to generate about $22 million a year. To date, Measure C has generated more than $230 million for the city, with annual revenues varying over time, including during the COVID years. The amount of money involved only heightens the importance of keeping faith of the voters who approved it.
Public surveys showed that voters’ leading reason for supporting Measure C was maintaining police, fire, and 911 response. That included building a new police station and replacing Fire Station 7 on Stanwood Drive in the city’s extreme high fire area. Roads were another major concern. They had deteriorated to the point that a major repair program was essential, and anyone who has driven through town over the past eight years has seen the results of that investment.
In recent weeks, some have blamed the new police station for Santa Barbara’s budget deficit and sharp decline in reserves. That claim is false and inconsistent with the facts. As intended, the police station will be paid for entirely with Measure C funds.
More troubling is what has happened to fire protection. Fire Station 7 has disappeared from the city council’s stated priorities, as adopted on December 12, 2023. Since then, it has become clear that Fire Station 7 urgently needs replacement and that Fire Station 3 on East Sola Street is also a serious concern. Built in 1929, that neighborhood station may soon be unable to house a modern fire engine because of its size and historic architecture.
The Santa Barbara City Council approved and funded a fire station Location and Facilities Master Plan in 2025 to address these concerns. But plans do not protect neighborhoods unless elected officials make them a priority. Without council action, those plans will remain on the shelf.
I am particularly troubled by the false equivalence being drawn between the estimated cost of the State Street Master Plan and the actual cost of the new police station. The master plan may be a worthwhile aspirational effort, but the police station and other Measure C priorities were placed on the ballot and approved by voters. No comparable vote has been held for the State Street Master Plan.
If city leaders now want to redirect Measure C revenue toward new goals, they should put those goals before the voters. Until the promises made in 2017 are kept, changing or diverting Measure C’s intentions would confirm the very concern opponents raised when we argued for its passage.
We promised that if those commitments were threatened, we would speak out on behalf of the people who supported Measure C. That time has come. Santa Barbara should keep faith with its voters before changing the use of Measure C funds.
Pat McElroy is a former Santa Barbara City Fire Chief who retired in 2018.
