If It Doesn’t Balance Here, How Will It Balance in Washington?

An Open Letter to Supervisors Heidi Hall and Robb Tucker

As Nevada County moves through the 2026–2027 budget process, you are not only making local fiscal decisions, but you are also presenting your record of financial stewardship to voters as candidates for Congress. That connection matters. Before asking voters to trust you with federal spending, it is reasonable to expect a clear demonstration of fiscal discipline here at home, where budgets are smaller, more transparent, and within your direct control as a sitting supervisor.

Is the Current Budget Structurally Balanced?

At the center of that expectation is a straightforward question: Is the current budget truly structurally balanced today? No! A structurally balanced budget is simple in concept. Ongoing expenses should be supported by ongoing, projected revenues, and one-time resources such as prior-year surplus should not be used to fund ongoing operations. Using carryover to close budget gaps may allow a budget to appear balanced in a given year, but it does not resolve the underlying imbalance. It delays it.

That distinction matters now more than ever. Nevada County’s pension system is approximately 63% funded, with roughly $273.9 million in unpaid pension-related obligations. Over time, that liability grows significantly when financed. This is not abstract, it is a long-term commitment that will be carried by future budgets and taxpayers if it is not addressed more aggressively now.

At the same time, the County adopted a 2025–2026 budget of approximately $415 million, exceeding projected ongoing revenues by roughly $24 million and relying on prior-year surplus to close that gap. That raises a fundamental question about structural balance. That same budget also added approximately 24 new full-time positions. At an estimated total compensation of $160,000 to $170,000 per employee, those additions represent roughly $3 to $4 million in new annual spending, creating tens of millions of dollars in long-term obligations over time.

The True Cost of County Operations

Taken together, these decisions point to a broader issue: the increasing use of one-time resources to support ongoing costs while expanding long-term commitments. There is a common argument that today’s County workforce is handling a larger budget with fewer employees than in the past. At a high level, that may be technically true, but it does not reflect the full picture.

Around 2008, Nevada County operated with approximately 1,200 full-time employees. Those employees performed a wide range of functions that are now, in many cases, contracted out. Portions of the Public Defender’s Office are contracted. Security once handled by the Sheriff’s Department within County facilities is now contracted. Public Works contracts out services such as road striping and pavement sealing. Those responsibilities did not disappear, they shifted into the “services and supplies” category.

When contracted services are considered alongside current staffing levels, the comparison changes. The County is no longer simply doing more with fewer employees. It is operating through a combined structure of employees and contracted services that, taken together, likely exceeds prior peak levels in both cost and operational capacity.

Rising Costs vs. Actual Productivity

Cost is another critical factor. In 2008, total compensation per County employee on average was closer to $80,000 to $90,000. Today, that figure is closer to $160,000 to $170,000. At the same time, the cost of equipment, vehicles, and contracted services has increased significantly, often doubling over that same period. These are not minor changes. They fundamentally alter how budgets should be evaluated and compared over time.

Nevada County’s 2008–2009 fiscal budget was approximately $230 million. Today, it is approximately $415 million—nearly double. Over that same period, the cost of compensation, equipment, and contracted services has increased dramatically, in many cases approaching a doubling as well.

That reality challenges the notion that fewer employees are doing more work. In practical terms, the County is not delivering twice the output, it is paying significantly more to deliver many of the same services. The increase in budget reflects cost growth, not necessarily increased productivity.

A Call for Real Fiscal Discipline

For residents without a background in public finance, the issue can be understood simply: a sustainable budget should cover current expenses with current income, use surplus funds to reduce long-term liabilities, and avoid increasing permanent obligations without stable funding sources. Measured against that standard, several questions emerge: Is the County making measurable progress in reducing its pension liability? No! Are one-time resources being used for ongoing costs? Yes! Are long-term obligations increasing faster than stable revenues? Yes!

The answers to those questions point to a structural problem—not a balanced budget. This is not about accounting technicalities. It is about basic financial discipline. Most households and businesses understand this intuitively. If you use last year’s savings to cover this year’s expenses while continuing to increase long-term commitments, you are not solving the problem, you are postponing it.

The 2026–2027 budget presents an opportunity to take a different approach—one grounded in fiscal discipline and long-term thinking. That approach should include building a budget where ongoing revenues fully support ongoing costs, using surplus funds to reduce pension and debt liabilities, exercising discipline in adding new permanent positions, and ensuring that staffing and contracted services are evaluated together as part of the County’s true employment cost structure.

These are not partisan ideas. They are the fundamentals of responsible financial management. Local budgets are the clearest record of leadership. They reflect priorities, discipline, and a willingness to address long-term obligations directly.

As you move through this budget process, the decisions you make will speak clearly—not only to County residents, but to voters evaluating your readiness for higher office. Because the question is straightforward: If a budget does not truly balance here where it is smaller, more transparent, and easier to manage, how will it balance in Washington?