With the budget facing a crunch, two of the San Diego County Supervisors will Tuesday force the issue, seeking to open the county's reserves to prevent cuts to services.
Supervisors Terra Lawson-Remer and Monica Montgomery Steppe plan to introduce a reform to an existing county reserve policy to "safeguard public health, housing, and vital care systems," citing looming state and federal budget cuts to multiple programs the county administers.
"These aren't abstract numbers — the threat of these cuts will have a devastating impact on our neighbors, our seniors, and our children," Montgomery Steppe said. "We can't control what's happening in Washington, but we can ensure San Diego County is equipped to act with urgency, compassion, and responsibility when we are faced with the impact of those decisions."
The proposal will face stiff opposition from the other two members of the diminished board. In fact, with the two Republicans on the officially nonpartisan body — Supervisors Joel Anderson and Jim Desmond — already coming out as skeptical or outright hostile to the idea, it is all but sure to fail.
But that may be the point.
Lawson-Remer and Montgomery Steppe could be pitching opening up the budgetary reserves — an idea floated by Lawson-Remer during last month's State of the County Address — as a major issue for voters to consider during the special election to replace Supervisor Nora Vargas in July.
Vargas resigned suddenly in December "due to personal safety and security reasons."
It was unclear what those reasons were, but board meetings have become increasingly rowdy in recent years, and Vargas was away from the board several times for unspecified reasons and had dealt with health issues resulting from nodules on her vocal cords.
Imperial Beach Mayor Paloma Aguirre and Chula Vista Mayor John McCann were the top two vote-getters in the April primary, and will square off in the special election in July with very different views of how the county should be run.
Lawson-Remer said bringing the issue before the board at Tuesday's meeting was intended to bring "local practices into alignment with the Government Finance Officers Association's national best practices."
"We can't afford to tie our hands while Washington walks away," she said. "This updated reserve policy ensures we can respond to real emergencies, protect core services, and stand up for the San Diegans who count on us most."
San Diego County currently tries to keep its reserves at about two months of all spending — including large, nonrecurring capital costs. The supervisors presenting Tuesday's proposal said this misrepresents how much is truly needed to keep the county in good financial health.
Ultimately, they are asking their colleagues to reduce the amount needed in reserves from $973 million to $945 million for this fiscal year.
"This is about transparency and truth in budgeting," Montgomery Steppe said. "Residents deserve to know the full extent of the resources we have to respond to crises that are becoming more alarming each day for us. This policy gives both the board and the public that clarity."
Desmond said he was opposed to touching the county's safety net, and had issues with new departments he claimed didn't help the average resident.
"At our next Board of Supervisors meeting, two of my colleagues are pushing a proposal to dip into the county's emergency reserves — unlocking nearly $380 million to fund more government spending," Desmond wrote to supporters in an email. "These reserves are supposed to protect you and your family during real emergencies — wildfires, natural disasters, economic crises. Instead, some politicians want to raid them to cover up years of overspending and fund pet projects that don't deliver core services.
"Rather than cutting wasteful spending, the county added 2,500 new government positions over the last few years and created costly new departments like the 'Office of Sustainability and Environmental Justice' and the 'Office of Equity and Racial Justice.' These departments don't pave roads, protect neighborhoods, or lower your cost of living."
Anderson said he was opposed to raiding reserves for "pet special interest projects" and called the proposal "last minute and reckless" in an op-ed for Times of San Diego.
"The late-docketed proposal from my colleagues threatens to weaken our financial safeguards by raiding the county's reserves," he wrote. "This approach would lead our county down a dangerous path of unsustainable spending while refusing to solve our fundamental budgetary issues.
"The board and county residents should reject this proposal on Tuesday and instead support preserving our time-tested reserve policy. Fiscal responsibility and transparency aren't negotiable.
Last week, San Diego County's Chief Administrative Officer Ebony Shelton released a $8.62 billion recommended budget for 2025-26, a 1% increase over the current year's adopted budget.
The proposed budget, $85.8 million more than 2024-25, comes as the county faces uncertainty driven by the economy and actions out of Washington, D.C. Despite rising costs, the budget released Thursday is balanced and is "designed to protect core services for residents in the region and continues investments in issues important to San Diegans," according to a county statement.
As it stands, the budget would cut 190 positions — a little less than 1% of the county's employees. Not all of those positions are filled.
Crystal Irving, president of the Service Employees International Union, Local 221, said county leadership needs to dig into reserves as cuts from the White House and Sacramento loom.
"Federal and state budget uncertainty mean it is raining! The proposed budget reflects staffing and program cuts in critical county functions, including health and human services, behavioral health, environmental protection and helping the unhoused," she said. "County workers on the frontlines are calling upon the Board of Supervisors to take action and tap into our rainy day fund, our reserves, so we can protect and strategically invest in services at this critical moment."
The proposal scheduled for Tuesday's meeting also includes changing how the county defines reserves: Currently it only counts "unassigned" monies, whereas the change would include "assigned" funds, intended to give more flexibility to spend to meet needs.
It also sets up guardrails for using these excess reserves, only allowing funds to be accessed in tough economic times. Even then Lawson-Remer and Montgomery Steppe say, no more than 25% of the newly-available reserves may be used in a single fiscal year.
"This reserve windfall is one-time money, and protections will be put in place to ensure that it is spent responsibly," Lawson-Remer said. "We have a responsibility to use our reserves to make sure that people who are going through tough times actually continue to get the services they need."
Should the proposal pass Tuesday, a vote to adopt this ordinance would be scheduled for May 20. If amendments are made during the initial hearing, a new adoption date will be set.
