The Job Center bottom line

S.J. CAHN

Three interesting political stories graced the cover of the Daily

Pilot on Wednesday.

One was on the continuing St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church

expansion plans, which are now back in the hands of the Newport Beach

Planning Commission. We can only assume that its members couldn’t be

happier that the City Council pitched the controversy back their way

(after the Newport-Mesa Unified School District board of trustees

punted it to the council).

The second story, which was teased from the front, was about

Newport Beach resident Danielle Aimee winning the “Big Break III,” a

Golf Channel reality show. I only saw bits and pieces of the

months-long series, but it certainly seemed like personal politics

was key to maneuvering the way to a win. That was one tough go. Her

prize, for those who missed it, is entry to two LPGA tournaments next

month.

Finally, there was a story about the Costa Mesa City Council

putting off, yet again, the closure of the Job Center. Now the final

date is at the end of the year.

This issue remains heated, and there’s no reason to think it will

cool off any before the end of the year -- the (for now) end of the

line. Those who’ve been following the story know all the hot buttons

being pressed: race, economics, Newport versus Costa Mesa sentiments,

immigration. And we all have our opinion on which is the driving

force of the debate.

There’s one, though -- or maybe part of one -- that we can take

off the table. Closing the Job Center is not going to save the city

any serious money and likely will end up costing Costa Mesa.

That claim of savings is a part of the “economic” argument for

closing the center. More broadly, this argument suggests that getting

rid of the center at this point will help drive Westside

redevelopment -- though what that redevelopment should look like is

an issue that is also tangled mess, with all the same issues of race,

immigration and Newport’s influence on Costa Mesa politics at play.

So in these convoluted webs it’s useful to be able to rule out

parts of the debate. So, again: Closing the Job Center won’t save the

city money.

Before explaining why, I’ll point out who’s said it would.

In a Sunday Q and A feature in the Pilot, Costa Mesa Mayor Allan

Mansoor said: “The Job Center costs us about $100,000 a year to

operate, yet we only place a little over 30 people a day. This

clearly can be absorbed by a private sector business such as Labor

Ready. Why should all Costa Mesa taxpayers fund this when many from

other cities use this service? Employers, not employees, pay the fee

at Labor Ready. As a general rule, government should not do what the

private sector already does.”

When asked: How do you think closing it will help the city?

Mansoor replied: “It will save the city money.”

City Councilman Gary Monahan, who first brought the issue of

closing the center to the council, told the Pilot this: “We’re

looking for other ways to provide work for these folks but just not

through a government-funded, untaxed, underground economy.”

Well, that government funding isn’t very much.

I spoke this week with Mark Taylor, a management analyst in the

recreation department and the one who directly oversees the Job

Center. Here’s how he broke down the cost of the center, which totals

about $105,000 a year.

Rent for the facility is $26,000. Obviously, that money would be

saved, as would the $10,000 in supplies and utility bills per year --

though both figures would have to be adjusted depending on how long

into the fiscal year the center remains open.

But the biggest expense won’t fall to any bottom line. The

part-time workers there are budgeted to cost the city $61,954. But

plans are to reassign them to other city programs.

So figure, at best, we’re talking a savings of $43,000.

Here’s where things get interesting. Police Chief John Hensley has

made it clear that he’ll have to reassign officers to handle the

pockets of day laborers expected to pop up around town. The question

is just how many officers, and what that cost would be.

I asked department spokesman Sgt. Marty Carver if it were possible

to put hard and fast numbers to the redeployment, but unfortunately

he couldn’t do that -- and police officials rightly aren’t given to

expansive speculation.

A look at the budget, though, suggests sworn police officers --

the ones doing the patrolling -- make an average of about $74,000 a

year. That means that if even one officer -- Carver said it would be

officers from special enforcement and the patrol’s bike detail -- has

to be reassigned to manage day laborers, the city essentially loses

$31,000.

I posed that number to Mansoor to see if, in fact, bottom-line

savings really isn’t a key piece of this debate.

His answer, I’d say, swings us back into the more complex parts of

this debate.

“You can calculate it many different ways,” he told me before

emphasizing that a program such as the center “is best done by the

private sector.”

In the short term, he conceded, the city might have to spend some

money on more enforcement. But if the center were moved and put in

private hands, that spending should be brief.

“It won’t be a problem if another location is found,” he said.

On a larger scale, closing the center will help with Westside

revitalization, he stressed -- and we’re back into the larger,

messier debate as well.

Separately, though, Mansoor made two other comments worth

considering. The first regards even the small potential savings once

a private center is opened: “Some of the little things add up to big

government.”

The second, on why the center should be closed, hits on a bit of

political philosophy: “It’s about the main focus of government, which

in my opinion should be public safety and infrastructure.”

With that, you can add difference of political philosophy to the

list of arguments that are driving this debate.

* S.J. CAHN is the managing editor. He may be reached at (714)

966-4607 or by e-mail at s.j.cahn@latimes.com.