Opinion: Supervisors’ spending plans put San Diego County at fiscal risk

The Aug. 26 vote by the Board of Supervisors to change San Diego County’s reserve policy is a reminder that institutional memory fades quickly in local government.

Not long ago, supervisors faced the unenviable task of pulling the county back from near bankruptcy. While there was plenty of criticism about their austerity measures, they succeeded.

In a region with outsized risks for devastating wildfires, massive earthquakes and severe droughts, their calculation for a reserve fund may be more conservative than the Government Finance Officers Association’s guidelines because it was meant to provide a strong safeguard against future recklessness so that San Diegans are prepared in times of crisis.

As presented by Supervisors Terra Lawson-Remer and Monica Montgomery Steppe, the revised reserve fund calculation will create a one-time windfall of approximately $380 million and provide an ongoing funding stream that otherwise would have gone into reserves.

While the discussion about what San Diegans would gain from this has been weak and convoluted, most recently, Lawson-Remer has indicated this will be used as bridge funding to allow the county to continue existing services that the federal government is cutting.

Doing so, she says, requires hiring over 1,100 new county employees to process paperwork. The risks are apparent. Using temporary funds to expand permanent programs is how structural deficits begin.

There are reasons to be skeptical about this proposal. As a taxpayer, it was unsettling to see numerous county employees at the May 6 Board of Supervisors meeting using their workday to lobby our elected officials for this change. It’s a luxury few other San Diego workers can afford.

Those union workers understand that with this change, lump-sum payments will be coming their way. Coupled with adding 1,100 new county employees, the results will be to bolster union coffers for future elections.

Another concern is that the windfall is intended to prepare for looming liabilities. The county faces pretrial proceedings in a class-action lawsuit over in-custody jail deaths. Meanwhile, the California attorney general is investigating youth detention facilities, raising the prospect of litigation like Los Angeles’ $4 billion settlement. And the case involving the county’s former assistant chief administrative officer will likely require a good-sized chunk of taxpayer dollars.

These cases are likely to add to the eye-popping settlements this board has a proclivity to approve without regard for working San Diegans who are footing the bill.

Recently, Montgomery Steppe openly pondered, “What are we going to do when that [one-time] money runs out?” Indeed. Because indeed it will be spent.

The board’s hopeful answer is that it will be able to squeeze more from San Diego taxpayers.

According to Lawson-Remer, her proposed $1 billion tax hike would be just what it takes to make San Diego County self-sufficient. But sufficient to do what? To fund political candidates and pay for failures in county government?

There is a better way and time for the board to reconsider. Rather than changing the reserve policy, conduct a vote to release the needed funds according to the current guidelines, keeping the obligation — and discipline — to top up the reserve after the emergency has passed.

Institutional memory may fade, but voters will not forget if their elected leaders put San Diego County at fiscal risk.

Stonebrook is a small business owner in Carlsbad.