Editordude: Sue Taylor is a retired City of San Diego employee who worked at the City for 41 years. She recently wrote a commentary in response to an article at Voice of San Diego entitled, “Mayor Todd Gloria set out to fix the city’s deficit this year. He didn’t.” She originally sent it the Voice last week and had followed up several times but never got a response from Voice managing editor Scott Lewis. Taylor then sent it to the Rag — and here it is:
By Sue Taylor
The city’s significant budget deficit has been a serious problem for well over a year, and it’s largely of Mayor Todd Gloria’s own making.
But the mayor found it politically expedient to ignore the budget gap when he ran for re-election in November 2024. Only after securing another term did he begin framing this as a fiscal emergency.
Yes, voters did reject the proposed sales tax increase. But in the months leading up to the election, the mayor’s deputy chief operating officers focused on how to spend the roughly $400 million they assumed voters would approve, rather than preparing for the very real possibility that it would not pass. That was a choice, and in hindsight, a very bad one.
The fact that voters rejected the tax spoke volumes about their distrust of city hall, even if many were reluctant to cast their vote for the political novice who challenged the mayor’s successful campaign for a second term.
Meanwhile, city spending and staffing continued to expand dramatically. The total number of City budgeted positions grew by more than 1,600 between FY21 and FY25, increasing from about 11,700 to more than 13,350. Over that same period, total City expenditures increased by nearly $1.8 billion, rising from about $4.0 billion in FY21 to more than $5.8 billion in FY25.
Revenues also increased during this period. By FY25, total City revenues had grown to about $5.4 billion, an increase of roughly $1.4 billion since FY21, including about $560 million in additional General Fund revenue.
But General Fund expenditures increased by an estimated $650 million over the same period, meaning core City spending grew faster than core City revenue.
Inflation does not explain that imbalance. Inflation affects revenues and costs on both sides of the ledger; it does not justify expanding staffing levels, excessive management layers, and long-term commitments beyond what ongoing revenues can sustain. These were discretionary policy choices by the mayor.
The growth wasn’t limited to front-line services.
As labor leader Mike Zucchet has noted, the proliferation of Program Managers and Coordinators has been out of control. In FY21, the City had 185 Program Managers. By FY24, that number had grown to 224.7. Even after reductions, the FY26 budget still shows 213.35 Program Managers, which is 28.35 more than the mayor inherited.
Program Coordinators followed the same pattern: from 109.5 positions when he took office, up to 192 in FY24, and then proposed at 167, still 57.5 higher than where he started. These management positions also command significantly higher salaries today than they did when the mayor took office as they got the same salary increases as the union-represented positions.
On top of that, the mayor and council committed the City to spending roughly $348 million to purchase 101 Ash Street and Civic Center Plaza, about twice what it would have cost to continue leasing both buildings, and without a clear, funded plan for their use or rehabilitation. Whatever the motivation for that controversial purchase, the result was hundreds of millions in upfront costs layered onto a City already grappling with a structural deficit.
City employees deserved raises they had gone without for years, but responsible leadership would have spread those increases out over a longer period, while restraining growth in management positions.
But the mayor chose to expand spending and staffing first, and treated fiscal sustainability as an afterthought. The theory that the mayor “set out to fix” the deficit is both inaccurate and deeply ironic. He created it, knew about it while he campaigned for a second term, avoided being honest with voters, and only acknowledged it once the election was over.
And now San Diegans are being asked to pay the price for those decisions through higher fees, reduced services, and a budget crisis that could have been avoided by more transparent and competent leadership.
Good article, but think it’s still missing a few key points:
An absolute classic issue with government budgets is they get flush with cash in years where there is bumper tax payments from capital gains. That is ALWAYS temporary, but city/county governments in particular are the absolute worst at treating it as something that will be permanent. Then a union lobby comes along and demands increased pay given the timing of the increased coffers (don’t blame them it’s their mandate), and then the governments agree because they don’t want to lost the voting coalition blocks. So yes, there were crazy increases to middle management (although it would be interesting to know how many positions were simply backfilled and open vs net new), but there were also LARGE pay increases across the board to the employee base of the city/county without permanent funding to cover it. Did many of those deserve COL increases? Yes! Did many get them who don’t deserve them? Yes (my wife worked for the county, I know plenty about this issue).
2.
Thx for your very insightful comments on Sue Taylor’s article. I hope this is widely read and discussed, and perhaps Scott Lewis will post Sue’s response to the VOSD article. I’m sure readers would like more information on this important issue.
Thanks Paul!
You’re right that governments often mistake revenue spikes for permanent money (even though they say they don’t). But this wasn’t an accident and it came right after COVID, which was when revenues were down, but CARES Act funds were received. The city still locked in permanent, compounding salary and staffing costs anyway, including adding to the number of middle managers. That was a conscious decision which we are paying for. I believe Gloria thought the sales tax would go through and he’d be off the hook. But it didn’t, and now he is on the hook! This is 100% a structural deficit that was knowingly created.
100% Sue!
All this poor messaging and rushed implementation comes back to the huge mistake made by the Mayor and the council to only use positive messaging regarding the now-failed sales tax measure. They never mentioned consequences of it not passing. It was only for “new” services not to just maintain existing. They lied on purpose and both Mayor Gloria and Councilman Campillo are on the record admitting their market-testing showed positive messaging sells not negative. Now here we are.
Thanks for hitting the nail on the head!! You expressed the feelings of MANY San Diego citizens regarding spending dollars on projects that are utterly stupid, like bike lanes and paid parking in Balboa Park.
I’m curious to know if there is any way to revisit/re-work the unfunded pension benefits enjoyed by city employees that we taxpayers are on the hook for? I would like to see exactly how much of our taxes are going to fund these benefits each year, rather than to public services/infrastructure.
2026 City of SD Draft Budget:
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/pb_v1cbo.pdf
Another interesting article:
https://inewsource.org/2025/06/05/san-diego-clean-sd-program-position-budget/
When businesses overspend and fail to see revenue increase in compensation, they pay the consequences and sometimes go under. When governments begin spending to buy votes and influence without commensurate long term revenue increases, they can ignore market forces (taxpayer revolts) blame the stingy electorate and respond with new ways to soak the public (sales tax increases or exorbitant parking meter fees) rather than acknowledge the mistake. Our City’s bloated middle management is a result of the Peter Principle applied to a government agency with taxing power that doesn’t answer to economic forces.
Fascinating but sickening reading clearly illustrating mismanagement on a grand scale by both the Clowncil and its puppet master, the Toddster! Another place to cut salaries is the Clowncils staff members – I understand the chief of staff for La Cava is paid in excess of $350,000/year. The details of the city’s pension plan needs to see the light of day too. How is it that an elected Clowncil member after just 8 years can collect a $30,000/year pension payment….that’s what the U-T stated was being paid to Brian Mainscheien. I wrote to the Regional Chamber of Commerce CEO not that long ago suggesting that he propose to the Toddster and with his OK the creation of a Blue Ribbon Cmte to do a line item study of the city’s budget so as to identify were expense cuts could be done. Never heard back from Chris Cate, that CEO. We city citizens are being “had” big time! Why won’t other MSM entities do this forensic accounting reporting? Is it a covert cabal to scam us taxpayers??????????
P.S. – to Sue Taylor – Scott Lewis, editor of “The Voice” has never responded to my messages directed to him, so you are not alone.
In the UT today is a horror story about how the City’s Pensions are causing a big bump in the Mayor’s road. The article also says the average City employee makes $113K. So I went to the City of San Diego Job Opening web page and found 33 Job Opening Classifications and the average pay was a few thousand less than 100K. So, what did that tell me? City employment is super top heavy. Perfect example is on the Mayor’s webpage, there are 31 “titled” Staff just in the Mayor’s office, and shown on his webpage. However, there are who knows how many working as assistants, to those with a title on his webpage. And, anyone can go to each Council Reps webpage and see how many people are shown with a title. Whitburn for example has 10. And again this is not counting the receptionist, file clerks, and again who knows how many other people are working in his office and they don’t have their picture on his webpage. Times the 9 Council reps. There are various titles for each Department head honcho too. As I said, the City is very top heavy.
This is the reality of San Diego becoming a single party government and the group think and covering for political buddies that happens as a result.
Stop voting for the same politicians, San Diego would benefit from ranked choice voting.
Kudos for Councilmember Campillo begin to question decisions.
Gov Jerry Brown left a blue print for further pension reform throughout California. California and San Diego residents still have more work to do:
1. Amend the California Constitution or Statutory Interpretation of the California Rule
Goal: Allow modest, non-retroactive adjustments to future, unearned benefits for current workers (e.g., COLAs, benefit multipliers).
Challenge: Requires either a state constitutional amendment or a California Supreme Court reversal—both politically and legally difficult.
Model: Arizona passed a constitutional amendment (Prop 125) to adjust public safety pensions with union consent.
2. Enable New Hybrid Pension Systems Statewide
Policy: Authorize or incentivize cities and special districts to implement hybrid plans (part DB, part DC) for new hires.
Precedent: Other states (e.g., Michigan, Utah) have moved successfully toward hybrid or DC-only systems for sustainability.
Action: The Legislature can modify PEPRA (2013) to make these models more flexible and uniform across jurisdictions.
3. Push back against Union Regulatory capture and bring the unions to the negotiating table to lessen budget impacts from pensions through local resident grass root activities.