\nBackground<\/a>
\nLocation and Hours<\/a>
\nOperations<\/a>
\nDirect Costs<\/a>
\nIndirect Costs<\/a>
\nRules and Regulations<\/a>
\nImages<\/a>
\nStats and Finances<\/a>
\nPros & Cons<\/a>
\nCriticisms of the Current Implementation<\/a>
\nGeneral Comments<\/a>
\nPublic Hearing Input<\/a>
\nThe Current Question and Analysis<\/a>
\nConclusions and Moving Forward<\/a>
\nUpdate<\/a>
\nFinal Vote<\/a><\/p>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n The Day Labor Center (DLC) was opened in December of 2002 by the City of Garland (COG) to combat four problems:<\/p>\n The COG built the facility and manned it with a single employee in cooperation with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). Contractors and laborers are matched up at the facility on a daily basis.<\/p>\n Benefits of this facility are: Workers are given the security of being assured pay for the days\u2019 work, and a return trip to the facility. Contractors have a larger pool of talent in a single area and can pick up workers out of traffic.<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n 2007 Saturn Rd, Garland, TX 75041 <\/a><\/p>\n Workers sign up on a first come, first serve basis. Contractors arrive and pull from the list those workers with the skills needed for the day\u2019s work. Workers are typically provided transport to and from the job site.<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n The original building cost was $250k, which was largely funded by the state. Annual recurring expenses include $82,000 for staff, plus additional incremental costs for utilities and building maintenance, TWC costs (funded by state tax dollars).<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n A few operating costs that are not traditionally broken out into budget line items are mowing\/landscaping, Garland Police (Number of calls and time spent are usually higher where people congregate), additional nearby street usage and wear, and lack of AV tax on land improvements.<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Any violation of the above rules may result in suspension from the DLC at discretion of staff.<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Satellite Overview<\/i> Map<\/i> DLC in Operation<\/i> Off-Site Laborers Gathered Across the Street at the Gas Station<\/i> <\/a><\/p>\n Based on testimony and discussion in council, I\u2019ve listed the following pros and cons:<\/p>\n Pros<\/strong><\/p>\n Cons<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n This issue first came up in an October 2018 council meeting. At the time, the council member for district 5 (where the center is located) broached the topic of potentially closing the center. More research was called for, and then the matter was dropped. This year, as a part of the budget discussion the matter was brought up again, but this time as a financial decision that the council needed to make.<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Other Concepts<\/strong><\/p>\n Rewinding slightly, I began looking heavily at the issue in December of 2018. At the time, I was trying to view the DLC as a possible entry level pathway into continuing education. My thought was that we could use the DLC program to slowly introduce new concepts and skills, with the end goal of helping laborers move up and become their own bosses instead of being at the mercy of others. Or put simply, to offer a \u201chand up\u201d instead of a \u201chand out\u201d.<\/p>\n The concept plan as I had it drawn up as of 1\/16\/2019 is below. The details are difficult to see here, but it was an attempt to vertically integrate the DLC into the TWC and a Makerspace, followed by classes at the Richland Annex and finally utilizing the Chamber of Commerce as a small business resource. The image below is the council equivalent of drawing a plan on a cocktail napkin, so please excuse the shorthand notes and incomplete nature of it.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, due to the relatively small number of people using the DLC, the requirement of new capital costs, an untested Makerspace program (and a past history of the city not playing well with others), this concept was impractical. I felt I would need several hundred users per day to make it viable. It most likely would have been a waste of taxpayer dollars, and so I never worked to advance it.<\/p>\n Location<\/strong><\/p>\n Day Labor Centers, much like homeless shelters, water treatment plants, mental health hospitals, and landfills are subject to \u201cNIMBYism\u201d. NIMBY stands for \u201cNot In My Back Yard\u201d. People by and large believe that these facilities should exist, but they do not want to live near them. This creates a challenge for decision-making bodies like our council. The residents have asked us to aggregate day labor in one area, but due to traffic, added crime (which is higher wherever people congregate), and the transient nature of the business, no one wants a center in their area. It\u2019s difficult from my perspective to ask another member of the council to take on a task or a facility that I would refuse to put in my own district, and so my concept plan was adjacent to a residential area in my own council district.<\/p>\n Economy<\/strong><\/p>\n Temporary labor has historically been higher in lean times and lower during prosperous times. Because firms can afford to be less lean during a strong economy, more full-time employment is available, and less day labor is needed. We can even see this trend reflected in our own DLC numbers. Our best year on record is 2012, just after the height of the recession, as the construction market began to thaw locally. Our worst year so far is 2018, one of our strongest economic years in decades and the product of a long-running housing bubble in the metroplex. When considering the future of the center, I\u2019ve picked the midpoint between those two years to try and judge the average effectiveness of the program.<\/p>\n Area Facilities<\/strong> Crime<\/strong><\/p>\n The biggest complaint by far, and what I believe is the reason for the discussion around the DLC is the loitering and crime that occurs across the street. According to some, laborers that either are not selected by contractors, those that have been suspended or banned from the DLC, and homeless from area encampments gather at the gas station. They purchase meals, hang out, some panhandle, some deal drugs, some solicit prostitution, and there is other criminal mischief. When police arrive, the people scatter, and when the police leave, they come back. The station\u2019s owners walk a fine line in what they report and what they allow on their property. They know the law well enough to keep themselves from being targeted by law enforcement.<\/p>\n Residents of the area have stated that they simply do not feel safe around the DLC, and it has led to the decline of the businesses in the immediate area.<\/p>\n Effectiveness of Aggregation<\/strong><\/p>\n The City cannot prevent people from seeking work on street corners. The Supreme Court has ruled in recent cases that there are limits on what the government can do to limit commercial speech, as it is a 1st amendment right. This means that there is no strict requirement for people to use the DLC to find work. While people do work from the DLC, they also congregate in other areas of the city to find work. Reliable statistical data is unavailable for calculating what percentage of day laborers use the DLC as a total of all temporary laborers.<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Public hearings are sometimes a very useful way to get a feel for the mood of the community, learn new things about a topic from the people that live close by to them, and get background on issues. This hearing was no different. When you see me furiously typing on my laptop during public comments, I’m taking notes while people are speaking so that I can read and reflect on the comments later on. I’m sharing the notes from this hearing because it may help give you a sense of the various points of view that were expressed.<\/p>\n B.R. \u2013 Resident of the Neighborhood J.O. \u2013 Resident of the Neighborhood L.L. \u2013Employment Solutions Non-profit working with TWC Question I asked: If we were to move and fund a new facility, would the state still be willing to partner by providing staff? Hon Jackie Feagin – former Council Member District 5 W.M. – Resident of the Neighborhood S.H. – Contractor G.C. \u2013 Long Time Contractor M.L. \u2013 Resident of the Neighborhood Question: Would we be better served if we put a full-time officer at the center during operating hours, or would we need to have it covered full time? W.Y. M.P. <\/a><\/p>\n The question of the DLC\u2019s future is being included in the budget process, so elimination of the program is being presented as an amendment to the budget. A vote for the amendment would defund the DLC, and a vote against the amendment would continue the program.<\/p>\n Program elimination via budget amendment is not uncommon with the Garland Council, and it is an appropriate avenue for making decisions. The council member proposing the amendment has repeatedly and publicly indicated his concerns with the current program for over a year, giving the council time to think about the issue, so this amendment was not a surprise or ill-timed. However, defunding of the facility is not in and of itself a policy decision. Likewise, we may choose to budget for the program but then end it at a later date.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve broken the issue out into a few questions that I\u2019ll answer:<\/p>\n Crime<\/strong><\/p>\n Based on the police call-out numbers in the \u201cGarland Day Labor Center: Annual Usage Report\u201d, on-premises crime is largely a non-issue. Because the call-out counts are associated with the center no matter what the location of the crime is, it is even harder to assume there is significant on-premises crime. There was light reporting of Marijuana use, but assaults, hard drugs, and theft have been very uncommon on the site.<\/p>\n Area crime is the primary public complaint and is centered around the gas station across the street. Complaints span all hours of the day, including those hours when the DLC is closed. The gas station has been reluctant to remove people from their property, as many are paying customers. As seen in the google street view image labeled Off-Site Laborers Gathered Across the Street at the Gas Station on page 6, we can see that there are many people loitering on the corner. People that are suspended\/ banned from the center, or simply don\u2019t want to use the program will gather across the street. Those that do not find work are left idle. A submarket of drugs and prostitution has popped up around the area and is creating additional problems.<\/p>\n The hard question we have to ask is whether or not the DLC\u2019s presence is the sole cause of the rise in crime. If you recall, there were four original issues that the DLC was designed to combat. The main issue was people holding signs on the corner and looking for work. In areas where people congregated, there was a rise in crime, even when scattered across the city. City policy led to those sub-groups to gather in one location, and that rise in crime followed.<\/p>\n While the DLC hasn\u2019t brought all laborers into one parking lot, it was never assumed that there would be 100% participation in the center or that it would resolve all issues regarding laborers on street corners. The unanticipated piece was that a local business owner would enable criminal activity in order to benefit economically.<\/p>\n The crime rate was an issue before and is still an issue now. The only question is the density. I would stress that correlation does not equal causation. I do not believe that the DLC inherently promotes crime. I do believe that we are creating a concentration of people just like a DART park & ride (which, incidentally has a dedicated police force).<\/p>\n It is difficult for me to blame a legitimate enterprise for crime that happens next door. For example, we set up an auto repair shop (shop A) on one side of the road. Another repair shop (shop B) opens across the street staffed by fired employees of shop A. Shop B ends up being a \u2018chop shop\u2019. Would we blame shop A for the actions of shop B? Or would we adopt a law enforcement strategy to handle shop B? Obviously we would tackle the criminal element and leave the legitimate business alone. Crime rates are higher around train stations, which are located next to residential areas. We have a jail\/court complex in my district next to a residential area. Crime rates are higher in and around big box stores like Walmart- also around residential areas. There is no difference between those offerings and this one; we just haven\u2019t put the resources into policing it the way we would other facilities.<\/p>\n Homelessness<\/strong><\/p>\n Many homeless seek temporary labor as a way to subsist without finding steady employment. This may encourage the homeless to camp nearer to areas where temporary labor is concentrated. We had a chance to hear from the TWC\/Non-Profit representative that was extremely knowledgeable about usage and the people involved. Homeless participation has been historically minimal- usually less than 3 to 4 people at a time. There have been a few success stories of people finding permanent employment and a home. But there are also stories of people claiming to be \u2018urban campers\u2019, that make just enough money to eat and afford their vices.<\/p>\n With the current homeless numbers estimated in the city at roughly 400-500 people, it is impossible to lay the blame solely at the feet of the DLC. While there is an extremely light correlation between homelessness and the DLC, I would not expect \u2018access to employment\u2019 to be viewed as a negative. Earning honest money instead of being reliant on taxpayer welfare is traditionally viewed in a positive light. If the question is how many homeless are finding employment at the DLC, then I think the follow-up question would be \u201cHow can we get more of our homeless to sign up for work and be self-sustaining?\u201d, not fewer.<\/p>\n Cost-Effectiveness<\/strong><\/p>\n I had assumed, and then had the assumption confirmed by the TWC-related non-profit that temporary labor need is lowest when the economy is healthy, and highest during recessions. Our numbers support the idea that temporary labor demand increased during the last part of the previous recession as the construction industry was thawing. I would expect our overhead numbers to track closely with employment rates.<\/p>\n In the DLC\u2019s best-performing year, our combined overhead for job placement was 28%. In our worst-performing year, the overhead was nearly 42%. Overhead costs are split roughly 60\/40 with Garland assuming the higher proportion of cost. We know that with a greater amount of participation, overhead costs will drop. The overhead for this program at current utilization is steep. Normal \u2018head hunting\u2019 companies charge 10-15% for short term labor and 18-20% for long term skilled labor. In our best year, we were 8% over that. It should not surprise anyone that compared to its private-sector counterparts, the city\u2019s program is less cost-effective.<\/p>\n But cost-effectiveness can\u2019t just be measured in terms of job placement. After all, that was only one part of the overall mission, and even that was purely a state\/TWC goal. Our city\u2019s goal was the physical aggregation of bodies, and a higher likelihood that the transaction between employer and employee would be completed. Simply put, the real mission of the center when you look at it very closely, is public safety.<\/p>\n If we take the total cost for Garland residents, it\u2019s about the amount that it would cost us to put one police officer on patrol to drive around and enforce a no-loitering or congregating rule (which in theory we can\u2019t do anyway based on recent Supreme Court rulings). The question becomes now, do we use the carrot or the stick? The carrot is the attractiveness of concentrated employers. The stick is punitive laws and their enforcement.<\/p>\n The biggest question for Garland taxpayers isn\u2019t \u201cIs this a cost-effective way to place employees?\u201d. We know that it isn\u2019t and likely never will be able to compete with a similar private sector offering. The question is: \u201cIs this a cost-effective way to keep people off of street corners, keep them out of traffic, and improve city-wide public safety?\u201d Based on the stats of total registered laborers, the correlation with the economy (and our eventual recession), and the lack of a better alternative, I would say yes. But there is still a question of localized public safety and general quality of life in that area that has to be addressed.<\/p>\n Location<\/strong><\/p>\n Is the center located in the right place? No. Unlike the more successful center in Plano, it isn\u2019t close enough to a freeway and to mass-transit. It is adjacent to a residential area and near a stop light. It is close to a wooded area, which could conceivably enable and provide concealment for idle hands for those that aren\u2019t hired. The best solution would be to move the center, but there\u2019s a complication.<\/p>\n The TWC initially funded construction of the building on city land, but the TWC is cutting back significantly on their satellite buildings. The TWC will not fund another building, and if we cancel our program for any length of time, we will likely lose their participation permanently. Just for basic employee security, vacation, and sick leave, we would have to hire a 2nd person to man the center using purely Garland money instead of the city\/state mix. If we were to move the building to a better location, we would need to bring the new site up while the current site is still running. There is currently no funding source identified for a new building of this type.<\/p>\n The location could certainly be better, and if we intend to continue the program we have to step carefully.<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n I have a difficult time blaming a legitimate enterprise for the poor conditions allowed by the next door neighbors, and laws being under-enforced by the city. While this business may continue to allow for brand and reputation-damaging activity to take place on their property, I don\u2019t believe that closing the DLC will relieve that problem. The use of that parking lot as a hangout is well established, and without a law enforcement strategy or intervention by their corporate office we aren\u2019t solving our crime problem.<\/p>\n To be clear, I don\u2019t believe that the city should be in the business of stopping people from getting work outside of the center. That would be the same as saying \u201cyou aren\u2019t allowed to get work unless you go through a government agency\u201d. But the city DOES have a responsibility to enforce our laws regarding public intoxication, illegal drugs, prostitution, and approaching cars in the middle of a busy roadway.<\/p>\n So far we have not dedicated significant law enforcement resources to combatting the problems in that area (apart from the gang unit reactivation this past January which has served the general area to the south). We have tools in our legislative toolkit to manage the rights of way in that area that haven\u2019t been tried yet. It also takes us a great deal of time and effort to clear homeless encampments. We\u2019ve been ineffective so far at keeping public and private land clear.<\/p>\n People using drugs, engaging in prostitution, being homeless, and gambling are not going to suddenly stop because the DLC closes. We\u2019ll just be chasing the problem from one place to another.<\/p>\n The center is run by our parks department and in the past was considered a warehouse. This seems wholly inappropriate considering the circumstances of use and area crime. It also has zero to do with recreation.<\/p>\n Shutting down the program is a one-way street. Once we end it, we lose our second employee who is currently funded by the state. That raises the financial bar and prevents us from experimenting with a temporary closure. I don\u2019t think that is in the best interests of the city.<\/p>\n I would propose several actions prior to ending the program. While it will be difficult to accurately measure success, resident area feedback should be solicited, and center stats should be closely tracked.<\/p>\n One thing I think we can all agree on is that the location is sub-optimal, and the facility is under-performing. We have an opportunity to try and make this work more effectively in the way it was intended to. On what I believe is the cusp of an upcoming recession, I would hate to lose this valuable tool now. I encourage the council and staff to take the time to get this right.<\/p>\n We have one more public hearing coming up, and a last round of council deliberation. At this point I intend to vote to fund the center for another year’s worth of operation. I\u2019ll keep my ears and my mind open for other points of view. This also does not stop us from choosing as a matter of policy (not budget) later in the year to make a change. We\u2019ll also need generally agreed upon metrics to judge the continued success of the facility.<\/p>\n -RJS<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Public Hearing, 8\/27\/19<\/p>\n P.P. D.P. A.W. S.B. – Workforce Solutions Greater Dallas Question: What is in a full service center?Background<\/h2>\n
\n
Location and Hours<\/h2>\n
\nMonday \u2013 Friday, 6:30am \u2013 2pm
\nSaturday, 7am \u2013 12pm<\/p>\nOperations<\/h2>\n
Direct Costs<\/h2>\n
Indirect Costs<\/h2>\n
Rules and Regulations<\/h2>\n
\n
Images<\/h2>\n
\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/robertjsmithtx.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/dlc1.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/robertjsmithtx.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/dlc2.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/robertjsmithtx.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/dlc3.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/robertjsmithtx.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/dlc4.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nStats and Costs<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/robertjsmithtx.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/dlcstats1-1.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/robertjsmithtx.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/dlcstats2-1.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/robertjsmithtx.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/dlcstats3.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/robertjsmithtx.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/dlcstats4-1.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nPros and Cons<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Criticisms of the Current Implementation<\/h2>\n
\n
General Comments<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/robertjsmithtx.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/dlc_workfroce_dev.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe only other Day Labor Center in the metroplex near Garland is the Plano center. It has a number of advantages over the Garland facility.
\n– Located next to mass transit \u2013 DART rail
\n– Located on a major freeway \u2013 US 75
\n– Not near a residential area
\n– In an area that demands more day labor
\nThe Plano facility is well-promoted by their city, and processes nearly 10 times Garland\u2019s volume of workers each day.<\/p>\nPublic Hearing Testimony Notes From 8\/20\/19<\/h2>\n
\n\u2022 Requested for closure or relocation.
\n\u2022 Early morning traffic complaints.
\n\u2022 People on either side of the road tap on the doors and windows and bother them.
\n\u2022 Unsightly.
\n\u2022 Amount of money spent to maintain it.
\n\u2022 Law enforcement issues.
\n\u2022 Group fight broke out in the presence of a family member.
\n\u2022 Homeless camp within the area.<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Neighborhood doesn\u2019t like it.
\n\u2022 Why is it located where it is?
\n\u2022 Neighborhood vitality.
\n\u2022 Would you want one in your back yard?<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Building was built with state money, with one state staff member.
\n\u2022 Originally built as a crime resolution.
\n\u2022 TWC is removing all state-owned facilities and losing the facility on 10th street.
\n\u2022 Roughly half of the users of the DLC identify as Garland residents.
\n\u2022 State will be a partner no matter what we decide.
\n\u2022 Some temp to perm success. Some self-development success.
\n\u2022 State satellite offices must be a standardized layout
\n\u2022 Correlation of economy and the temp labor market
\n\u2022 In July 2019, roughly 10 employed for the day, 5 from Garland<\/p>\n
\nAnswer: An employee would probably be funded by the state provided that they moved from an old facility to a new one, with uninterrupted employment.<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Was partly responsible for the center being built in 2002.
\n\u2022 Supports keeping the center open.
\n\u2022 Believes that the station next door is the root cause of the issues.
\n\u2022 Believes we should step up enforcement at the gas station.<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Lives within \u00bd mile of the DLC
\n\u2022 Doesn\u2019t believe in the effectiveness of the solution
\n\u2022 Draws in people from outside the city
\n\u2022 Encourages hangouts
\n\u2022 Security and safety issues \u2013 affects his family personally<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Sells clothing, brought in not on hangers, they hire day labors to put them on hangers (saves time and space)
\n\u2022 Has felt secure and has had no issues like he had in the past when working out of Oak Cliff
\n\u2022 People at the gas station next door cause the problems<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Keep the DLC open
\n\u2022 Contractor that looks for full-time employees there
\n\u2022 Uses the center fairly routinely and requires people at the gas station to use the center prior to hiring.<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 In 2008, they moved due to safety concerns around the DLC
\n\u2022 Drug use at the facility
\n\u2022 Prostitution, drug sales, sleeping
\n\u2022 Sleep and partying in the right of way
\n\u2022 Lack of police presence
\n\u2022 Two break-ins at her home<\/p>\n
\nAnswer: We would need to cover it 24×7, and we need to enforce loitering issues in the right of way.<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Forced to move his business from Garland due to criminal mischief associated with the DLC
\n\u2022 Believes that immigration enforcement should be at the forefront of our approach<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Creates an environment where criminal mischief occurs
\n\u2022 Church moved due to those reasons
\n\u2022 Likes the people at the center<\/p>\nThe Current Question and Analysis<\/h2>\n
\n
Conclusions and Moving Forward<\/h2>\n
\n
Update 8\/27\/19:<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n\u2022 Registered against the DLC, but not testifying<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Registered against the DLC, but not testifying<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Fiduciary responsibility is spending the tax dollars in the wisest way possible that provides a taxpayer value.
\n\u2022 $200k annually, 17 people per day on a non-permanent, non-ongoing basis.
\n\u2022 Apprenticeships scholarship programs for full-time jobs.<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Board voted Feb 21, 2001 to provide the DLC with cash and 1 staff member
\n\u2022 No more satellite buildings<\/p>\n
\n– Training Programs
\n– Help for removing barriers to employment
\n– No DLC component<\/p>\n