Delta County MI Committee of the Whole Meeting (03/13/2025): Labor Allocation and Financial Performance

Watching this meeting on duties and responsibilities is an interesting one. We have people working hard and indicating they are struggling to keep up. What we also find is a potential solution. Considering the cost of hiring some help is $10K additional cost per the conversation, one might be able to create efficiencies thereby self-funding. For example, if processes improve outcomes beyond $10k then this could be money well spent. A positive return could come through allocating that time for the person to find grants, management efficiencies, attracting/encouraging businesses (tax base), process improvements, productivity and general outcomes. If you are going to hire someone then we might think about how they are going to create net positives that can be measured in a way that adds to the bottom line of the budget and overall performance. Adding people to add people will just raise costs but having a good idea of how they can add significant tangible value is another. For example, one strong grant they find or some duty they don’t need to subcontract could save that money fairly quickly. Just like in business, government can be efficient if the right amount of people with the right skills, and purpose are put in the right place. 

This is the concept of a governance and net positives. Net positives occur when money spent leads to higher returns in capital and other factors like quality of life. However, to have net positives it is necessary to think of total value provided and how efficient/effective resources are being used. This is why government in general should always seek to use taxpayer money well through being good organization stewards. While government is not a business per se it does have costs and expenses that impact long term organizational value. People often list intangible benefits but one's that make the bank account bigger at the end of the day increase the value of good governance in a fiscally sound way. Be lean, be focused, and be impactful. If they can find a way to raise value over $10K, they are adding a positive governmental influence where others are laying off and that would be a feather in cap for perceptions of sound fiscal management that could be of interest to investors who want to do business in areas with such effective governance.

In a different example, if one added a person who could attract business, help people start businesses, resettle entrepreneurs into the area, helped streamline regulations, coordinated with the various business entities, etc. something like a $60K a year could bring a few million back to the government's coffers for paying debt, infrastructure improvements that lead to further economic/quality of life benefits while improving net positives in other areas. I think you sort of get the point overall that sometimes one might eliminate a position and sometimes one might add but value should be a major consideration. You have to run the numbers for any new position otherwise you get stuck with a hefty long-term bill and liability that drags good governance.

This is an interesting concept on improving financial performance through proper staffing. Improving Financial Performance HR