San Diego County board adopts some first‑quarter budget adjustments, declines others after public outcry
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
County staff presented FY25‑26 quarter‑one financial results showing a small projected general‑fund deficit and recommended transfers using unlocked reserves; the board approved a limited set of adjustments (recommendations 1 and 15–20) and later approved items 2–14 as a block after additional motions, with mixed votes and vocal public comment questioning spending priorities.
County staff on Tuesday told the Board of Supervisors that the first quarter of fiscal year 2025‑26 shows mixed financial signals and pockets of pressure, particularly in public safety. Acting Chief Financial Officer Amy Thompson and Auditor‑Controller Tracy Drager outlined a general‑fund projection that is $19.2 million negative for the year and a combined negative projection of $7.3 million across all funds as of quarter one. Thompson said that after accounting for unlocked reserves the county has about $16 million available above the minimum reserve, but warned that quarter‑one projections leave a negative unrestricted balance once projections are folded into prior-year results.
The presentation proposed a package of technical transfers and appropriation adjustments. One recommendation would transfer $14.2 million of unused spending authority from Behavioral Health Services to provide spending authority for negotiated lump‑sum payments to employees; staff emphasized the transfer does not increase total budget authority or reduce behavioral‑health service delivery. Drager said the county’s unrestricted general fund balance rose to roughly $1.38 billion on the latest balance sheet, but most of that is tied to unlocked reserves or legally restricted uses.
Public commenters raised sharp concerns about line items ranging from a $50,000 electrical pole to a $2 million equestrian staging area, questioned a $19 million post‑election allocation for registrar work, and urged audits of child‑welfare and contractor spending. Commenters used the public‑comment period to call for greater transparency and for the county to prioritize basic services over what they described as “NGO” spending.
On the board floor, Vice Chair Montgomery Stepp moved the staff recommendation and Chair Pro Temagiri seconded. In the first roll call the board recorded two no votes from Supervisors Anderson and Desmond; under the board’s voting rules that meant recommendations that required only three affirmative votes (recommendations 1 and 15–20) carried while recommendations that required four votes (items 2–14) failed. Following additional procedural motions, the board later voted to approve items 2–14 as a block; that motion passed 4‑1, with Supervisor Anderson voting no.
Board members stressed that while they support fair compensation and investment in priorities such as public‑safety facilities, they were wary of using one‑time reserves for ongoing compensation and urged careful planning as state and federal revenues remain uncertain.
What comes next: staff said they will return with any targeted proposed solutions for the sheriff’s public‑safety pressures and with additional material to clarify projected year‑end results.