How Much Government Can Taxpayers Sustain?
The government does not 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. During roughly the same period, California’s state budget grew from approximately $214.8 billion in Fiscal Year 2019–2020 to approximately $351.7 billion for Fiscal Year 2026–2027.
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 public 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, executive employment agreements, and other publicly available government records. More importantly, it is an invitation for every taxpayer to examine those same records and reach their own conclusions.
Government should recruit and retain talented professionals, and it should compensate public employees fairly. I do not question that principle. The question, in my view, is whether California—and Nevada County in particular—have allowed compensation, benefits, and long-term obligations to grow beyond what taxpayers can reasonably sustain over time.
Fiscal Prudence Then and Now
For years, I have followed Nevada County’s annual budgets, compensation agreements, pension reports, executive employment contracts, and Board of Supervisors’ decisions. During that time, I have watched budgets steadily increase while executive compensation packages climbed well beyond what I once imagined possible. At first, I assumed there must be reasonable explanations. The deeper I looked into the public record, however, the more questions I found myself asking.
One of the most interesting discoveries came not from critics of government, but from Nevada County’s own budget documents. When Alison Lehman became Nevada County Executive Officer, her first budget message for Fiscal Year 2019–2020 emphasized what I believe every taxpayer hopes to hear from local government: fiscal prudence.
Alison Lehman wrote about maintaining healthy reserves, preparing for future economic uncertainty, carefully managing long-term financial obligations, and addressing the County’s growing pension liabilities. She cautioned against expanding personnel costs in ways that would create greater pressure on future budgets and emphasized long-term planning rather than short-term decision-making. Those observations were thoughtful in 2019, and I believe they remain just as relevant today, but what happened?
Following the Money
During approximately that same period, Nevada County’s budget increased from approximately $257.9 million to approximately $466.5 million, while California’s state budget also expanded substantially. Government budgets increase for many legitimate reasons, including inflation, state and federal mandates, capital projects, emergency services, expanded responsibilities, and changing community needs. I recognize those realities.
What concerns me is not simply the overall size of government budgets, but the share devoted to personnel costs and other continuing financial obligations. Salary represents only one portion of government compensation. Taxpayers also fund healthcare benefits, retirement contributions, deferred compensation, payroll costs, paid leave, retention bonuses, up to ten percent performance bonuses annually at the sole discretion of the CEO, and the pension obligations created by today’s compensation decisions. Every increase in long-term compensation becomes part of tomorrow’s financial commitments.
Publicly available compensation records indicate that Nevada County Executive Officer Alison Lehman’s reported taxpayer-funded 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 upon U.S. Census Bureau data, the county’s median household income is approximately $79,395. Nevada County Executive Officer Alison Lehman’s reported total financial compensation is therefore roughly seven times the median household income of the community she serves. Whether that ratio 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 records invite taxpayers to ask whether executive compensation has gradually become disconnected from the economic realities of the people who ultimately pay for it.
How Executive Compensation Is Established
Over the better part of the last decade, fellow citizen Pauli Halstead and I have independently spent countless hours reviewing Public Records Act responses, consultant compensation studies, Board of Supervisors’ agenda packets, executive employment agreements, pension reports, and county budgets to better understand how executive compensation is established in Nevada County. We did not begin with predetermined conclusions. We simply wanted to understand how the system works and why executive compensation continued to rise.
Every few years, Nevada County hires an outside consultant to evaluate executive compensation. The consultant’s recommendations are incorporated into staff reports and presented to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Those studies, together with executive staff reports and compensation summaries, become the basis for new executive compensation suggestions and agreements. The Board most recently approved a Senior Executive Compensation and Benefits Summary covering July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028, supported by the Board members 5-0.
Hiring an outside consultant is not unusual; many California public agencies follow a similar process. The more important question is how the recommendations are developed and whether taxpayers understand the methodology behind them.
Based upon my review of consultant studies obtained through Public Records Act requests over multiple compensation cycles, Nevada County executive staff sets the standard that executive compensations be compared with the same jurisdictions that, as I recall from those reports, included Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado counties. Those counties administer substantially larger governments, oversee larger operating budgets, and generally serve much larger populations than Nevada County. Many have also experienced stronger population and economic growth, while Nevada County’s population has remained relatively flat.
Taxpayers deserve a thoughtful public discussion about whether those jurisdictions are the most appropriate benchmarks for a rural county of approximately 100,000 residents. The methodology may ultimately be appropriate, but it should be transparent, understandable, and readily available for public review because taxpayers ultimately fund every compensation decision.
The Long Shadow of Pension Obligations
As I continued reviewing compensation records, another pattern became difficult to ignore. Every increase in salary can affect employer retirement contributions, deferred compensation, payroll costs, healthcare expenses, and ultimately the pension benefits earned over a public employee’s career. Today’s compensation decisions become tomorrow’s pension obligations.
Again, that reality was acknowledged in Nevada County’s own 2019 CEO budget message, when County leadership identified growing pension liabilities as one of its most significant long-term fiscal challenges. Seven years later, I believe that observation deserves renewed public attention.
Pensions represent promises made to employees who have devoted years of service to their communities, and those promises should be honored. The larger public-policy question is whether today’s compensation decisions are creating obligations future taxpayers can realistically sustain. Fiscal stewardship requires looking beyond next year’s balanced budget and asking what today’s decisions may cost five, ten, or twenty years from now.
Long-term financial sustainability is measured not simply by whether the next budget balances, but by whether future taxpayers inherit obligations they can realistically afford.
The Effect on Core Public Services
These questions extend beyond executive compensation. As personnel costs consume a larger share of government spending, taxpayers should ask what opportunities may be lost elsewhere. Roads require maintenance. Infrastructure continues to age. Public-safety demands grow. Parks, code enforcement, technology, emergency preparedness, and other public responsibilities compete for the same limited resources.
Every dollar committed to one continuing obligation becomes a dollar unavailable for another priority. That does not mean executive compensation is inherently inappropriate. It means taxpayers should understand the tradeoffs that accompany every budget decision.
As total financial compensation obligations grow, they can consume a larger share of future budgets and leave fewer discretionary resources for roads, infrastructure, public safety, parks, code enforcement, and other core services. Nevada County has acknowledged significant pension obligations in its own budget documents and planning. In my opinion, those commitments deserve far more public attention than they currently receive.
Public Service Should Include a Public Presence
I also believe government should remain visible and accessible to the public it serves. Governor Gavin Newsom has directed many state employees to return to regular in-person work for most of the workweek. In my view, Nevada County should adopt a similar expectation wherever operationally practical.
Taxpayers invest millions of dollars in public facilities because they expect government to be accountable, accessible, and present within the community. Public service should include a public presence whenever operationally practical, bringing an end to unnecessary COVID-era telecommuting practices.
Ultimately, this discussion is not about one employee, one compensation agreement, or one budget. It is about stewardship, transparency, and ensuring that the public has sufficient information to evaluate whether the long-term financial trajectory of local government reflects the community’s priorities.
Transparency Requires Participation
One conclusion I have reached is that government transparency is meaningful only when citizens actually use it. Virtually every budget, compensation agreement, Board of Supervisors’ agenda, pension report, and public financial record is now available online, yet relatively few people read them.
Government documents can be lengthy, technical, and difficult to navigate. But within those thousands of pages are decisions that shape our taxes, public services, and long-term financial obligations. The information is there. The challenge is encouraging more people to look.
That is ultimately the purpose of this article. My hope is not that readers simply agree with my conclusions. Reasonable people can review the same information and reach different conclusions. That is exactly how our system should work. My hope is that more citizens begin reading the public record for themselves, attending Board of Supervisors’ meetings, reviewing agenda packets before important votes, asking thoughtful questions, and becoming engaged in decisions that affect every taxpayer. Government works best when an informed public participates in the process.
Do Your Own Research
Everything discussed in this article is based upon publicly available information. Before accepting—or rejecting—my conclusions, I encourage readers to spend time reviewing the same documents for themselves.
Begin with Transparent California Nevada County compensation page. Search for the employee you wish to review, then manually select each year to compare compensation records from 2011 through the current year. Transparent California’s current format displays employer pension contributions separately rather than incorporating them into the displayed total compensation figure. To better understand the County’s total annual employment cost for each employee, review salary, employer-paid benefits, retirement contributions, employer pension contributions, deferred compensation, and other taxpayer-funded obligations together.
Next, read the Nevada County Fiscal Year 2019–2020 Budget, paying particular attention to Nevada County Executive Officer Alison Lehman’s budget message discussing fiscal prudence, reserves, personnel expenses, and pension liabilities. Then compare it with the Nevada County Fiscal Year 2026–2027 Budget and ask how spending priorities, personnel costs, and long-term obligations have changed over seven budget cycles.
Review Nevada County’s Demographics and Statistics and compare executive compensation with the median household income of the community. Review SR 25-1878, the Board of Supervisors’ agenda item approving the 2025–2028 Senior Executive Compensation and Benefits Summary, together with the staff report and supporting documents.
If you remain curious, explore the consultant compensation studies that help shape executive-compensation recommendations and compare the jurisdictions selected as benchmarks. Whether you ultimately agree with those methodologies or not, understanding how the recommendations are developed is an important part of understanding how local government operates.
Public Documents Referenced
Transparent California — Search Nevada County employees, manually select each available year (2011 through the current year), and compare salary, employer-paid benefits, retirement contributions, employer pension contributions, deferred compensation, and other taxpayer-funded compensation to understand the County’s total annual employment cost for each employee.
Nevada County Fiscal Year 2019–2020 Budget — Review the budget message concerning fiscal prudence, reserves, personnel expenses, and pension liabilities.
Nevada County Fiscal Year 2026–2027 Budget — Compare current spending levels, revenues, staffing costs, and budget priorities.
Nevada County Salary and Staffing Information — Review County staffing and compensation resources.
Nevada County Demographics and Statistics — Compare executive compensation with local household income.
California Fiscal Year 2019–2020 Budget — Review the earlier statewide spending level.
California Fiscal Year 2026–2027 Budget — Compare statewide budget growth.
SR 25-1878 — Review the Board of Supervisors’ 2025 executive-compensation action.
Senior Executive Compensation and Benefits Summary — Review the compensation and benefit provisions covering July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028.
The Responsibility of an Informed Public
Throughout the years I have spent researching these issues, I have come to appreciate something that extends well beyond budgets and compensation. Good government is not created solely by elected officials, county executives, or department heads. It is strengthened when citizens pay attention, ask respectful but difficult questions, and insist upon transparency and accountability.
Democracy depends not only upon honest public servants, but also upon an engaged public willing to understand the decisions being made in its name. Public participation is not an inconvenience to government. It is one of its greatest safeguards.
The government does not belong to elected officials. It does not belong to administrators. It belongs to the taxpayers who fund it.
If there is one thought I hope readers remember after finishing this article, it is this: Government does not become unaffordable overnight. It becomes unaffordable one budget, one compensation decision, and one long-term obligation at a time.
Whether you agree with that statement or strongly disagree, I encourage you to examine the public record before reaching your own conclusions.
Do not take my word for it. Read the budgets. Review the compensation records. Compare the numbers. Ask difficult questions. Then reach your own conclusions. An informed public has always been the strongest safeguard of accountable government.
