The government doesn’t become unaffordable overnight. It becomes unaffordable one budget, one compensation decision, and one long-term obligation at a time.

That thought has been on my mind as California has adopted another record budget and Nevada County has approved a Fiscal Year 2026-2027 budget of approximately $466.5 million, approximately $29 million above projected revenues. By comparison, Nevada County’s Fiscal Year 2019-2020 budget totaled approximately $257.9 million – an increase of nearly 81 percent in seven budget cycles. California’s state budget has also grown substantially during that same period. Those numbers caused me to step back and ask two simple questions: how much government can taxpayers realistically sustain? And are we experiencing a comparable increase in core services?

This is not an economic study, nor is it an indictment of public employees. It is an opinion informed by years of reviewing county budgets, Public Records Act responses, Board of Supervisors’ agenda packets, pension reports, consultant compensation studies, and other publicly available financial records. The government should recruit and retain talented employees, and it should compensate them fairly. I do not question that principle. The question, in my view, is whether the current trajectory of compensation, benefits, and long-term pension obligations remains financially sustainable for the taxpayers expected to fund them.

One of the most interesting discoveries came from Nevada County’s own Fiscal Year 2019-2020 CEO budget message. Newly appointed County Executive Officer Alison Lehman emphasized fiscal prudence, maintaining healthy reserves, preparing for future economic uncertainty, and addressing growing pension liabilities. She cautioned against expanding personnel costs in ways that would create greater long-term financial obligations. Those observations were thoughtful in 2019, and I believe they remain just as relevant today.

Yet during approximately that same period, publicly available compensation records indicate the County Executive Officer’s reported total financial compensation increased from approximately $366,295 in 2019 to approximately $554,338 in 2025 – an increase of more than 51 percent in six years. Several other senior county executives now report total financial compensation approaching or exceeding $400,000 annually. According to Nevada County’s published demographic information based on U.S. Census data, the county’s median household income is roughly $79,000. Whether the County Executive Officer’s reported compensation – approximately seven times the community’s median household income – is appropriate is a question every taxpayer should answer for themselves.

I do not present these figures to criticize one individual or suggest that public employees should not be well compensated. Most public employees perform valuable work that benefits our communities every day. Rather, I believe the public records invite taxpayers to ask whether executive compensation has gradually become disconnected from the economic realities of the people who ultimately pay for it. Stewardship requires more than balancing this year’s budget. It also requires considering the financial commitments being created for the next decade and beyond.

Over the better part of the last decade, fellow citizen Pauli Halstead and I have independently reviewed Public Records Act responses and other public records to better understand how executive compensation is established in Nevada County. One question deserves broader discussion. Compensation studies have compared Nevada County with neighboring counties that administer much larger governments, oversee significantly larger budgets, and in many cases have experienced greater population and economic growth. Those comparisons may be appropriate, or they may not. Either way, taxpayers deserve to understand the methodology because they ultimately bear the financial responsibility for those decisions.

My concerns extend beyond salaries alone. Total financial compensation also includes retention bonuses, up to 10% annual performance bonuses, healthcare, retirement contributions, deferred compensation, paid leave, payroll costs, and pension obligations that can continue long after an employee retires. As those obligations grow, they consume a larger share of future budgets, leaving fewer discretionary resources available for roads, infrastructure, public safety, parks, code enforcement, and other core public services. Nevada County has acknowledged significant pension obligations in its own budget documents and planning. In my opinion, those long-term commitments deserve far more public attention than they currently receive.

I also believe the government should remain visible and accessible to the public it serves. Taxpayers invest millions of dollars in public facilities because they expect the government to be accountable, accessible, and present within the community. Public service should include a public presence whenever operationally practical, ending covid era telecommuting.

Reasonable people will undoubtedly reach different conclusions than I have, and that is exactly how our system should work. My purpose is not to convince every reader to agree with me. My purpose in this piece is to encourage every taxpayer to examine the same public records and decide for themselves whether the current trajectory reflects their expectations of responsible government.

Do Your Own Research

Everything discussed here is based on publicly available information. Before accepting – or rejecting – my conclusions, I encourage readers to review the same records themselves. Read Nevada County’s budgets. Compare executive compensation over time. Review demographic information, pension reports, and Board of Supervisors’ agenda packets. Ask whether the long-term financial obligations being created today are ones future taxpayers can realistically sustain.

● Transparent California – compare Nevada County total compensation from 2019 through 2025.
● Nevada County FY 2019-2020 Budget – review the budget message on fiscal prudence, reserves, and pension liabilities.
● Nevada County FY 2026-2027 Budget – compare current spending levels and priorities.
● Nevada County Salary & Staffing Information – review county staffing and compensation resources. ● Nevada County Demographics & Statistics – compare executive compensation with local household income.
● California FY 2019-2020 Budget and California FY 2026-2027 Budget – compare statewide budget growth.
● SR 25-1878 and the Senior Executive Compensation and Benefits Summary – review the 2025-2028 executive compensation action and agreement.

The government does not belong to elected officials. It does not belong to administrators. It belongs to the taxpayers who fund it.

Don’t take my word for it. Read the budgets. Review the compensation records. Compare the numbers. Ask difficult questions. Reach your own conclusions. An informed public has always been the strongest safeguard of accountable government.

Michael Taylor is a Nevada County native, writer, and civic policy advocate focused on government accountability, transparency, and bipartisan reform. A moderate independent who once leaned left, he now finds his views more aligned with constitutionally based libertarian principles.