County Digs into Department Budgets – Not Reserves – For Staff Bonuses

This story has been updated.

Nearly $25 million in October bonuses for county employees will come from county departments rather than the rainy-day fund, as originally planned. 

That decision, forced by the Democratic supervisors’ apparent lack of four needed votes to pull from the county’s reserve fund, increases the prospect of budget cuts at a time when the county faces other financial uncertainties. For now, county officials say their existing budget can cover the bonuses. 

The bonuses come weeks after the county board’s three Democrats voted to change the county’s reserve policy. Supervisors separately signed off on three-year deals with most county labor unions calling for $1,000 lump-sum payments this year to roughly 17,000 employees if supervisors approved changes to county reserve policies. The deals also include $500 bonuses in 2026 and $250 ones in 2027.  

County officials said in late August they expected to return to the Board of Supervisors after the reserve policy changes took effect. The policy changes made it easier for the county to dip into its large bank account. The plan was to ask supervisors to approve using reserve funds to pay the bonuses.  

Executing that plan meant getting Republican Supervisors Joel Anderson or Jim Desmond, who have both publicly opposed the reserve policy change, to agree to direct county reserve funds to bonuses. 

Desmond had already spoken out against the bonuses. 

Anderson, once seen as the most likely swing vote given his public backing of the labor deals, told Voice of San Diego last week that he wasn’t willing to use reserves to pay them.  

“I am not gonna be voting to tap into the reserves,” Anderson said. 

He also noted that he worked to pass a county budget – and labor deals – that only requires three votes on time earlier this year in part rather than delay the process to keep board Democrats from including a plan to dip into reserves in this year’s budget. Outside the budget process, county policy requires four votes to dig into reserves. 

“By me ramrodding to get the budget done early this year I prevented them for a year from tapping that reserve,” Anderson said. “Cause I couldn’t stop them from passing that reserve change.”  

Yet union leaders considered the trigger-clause in county labor deals requiring bonuses if supervisors changed the reserve policy binding – even absent four votes to direct unleash reserve funds for them.  

SEIU Local 221 President Crystal Irving, whose organization is the county’s largest labor union, stood by that call in a Friday statement. 

“Bonuses are a normal part of most contracts,” Irving wrote. “Honoring the agreements we negotiated in the contract to pay fair wages and bonuses is one of the critical ways to retain and recruit the skilled employees the county needs.” 

County officials have decided they must still pay up too – even if they can’t tap reserve funds. 

County spokesperson Tammy Glenn said that the county will rely on department budgets to cover nearly $25 million in bonus checks later this month. 

Yet to be seen: Whether county departments can shoulder that burden without cuts later this fiscal year – especially given other challenges the county is forecasting. 

Glenn argued cuts are far from certain. She noted in an email that the bonuses are the equivalent of three-tenths of a percent of the county’s overall budget – and that the county is for now able to pay the bonuses without any budget adjustments. The county plans to tap funds already budgeted for salaries and benefits to cover them. 

If it turns out the county does need to reallocate funds or dip into reserves to avoid cuts, Glenn wrote that officials would likely make those adjustments and ask for the Board of Supervisors to sign off in December when the county typically makes first quarter budget changes. County officials could also choose to stretch the funds they’ve got or decrease funds in one area to cover another. 

“The county continuously monitors potential fiscal changes to maintain its commitment to the community by prioritizing mandated services and reducing costs to address additional needs,” Glenn wrote. “It would be premature to share any mitigation strategies – they may not be needed, and strategies may change as the year progresses.” 

Oct. 6 clarification: Supervisor Paloma Aguirre wasn’t seated until July after the budget vote.