Audit Questions Cost of Dixon Office Renovation : Spending: The county’s chief administrative officer did not report $2.6 million of the total, the report finds. A grand jury had criticized the project.

Just a day after he recommended drastic cuts in county services, Chief Administrative Officer Richard B. Dixon’s own lavish spending has been questioned by an official audit, which said the controversial renovation of his offices cost $2.6 million more than he reported.

The audit, released Friday, said Dixon, Los Angeles County’s top bureaucrat, spent $1.6 million on furniture alone, $850,000 more than he reported to the Board of Supervisors.

On Thursday, Dixon recommended about $350 million in program cuts as the county copes with its worst budget crisis. His proposed budget would eliminate 4,200 county jobs.

“It’s probably in the best interest of the county that when the current budget crisis is over, Mr. Dixon enjoy his retirement,” said Robert Alaniz, spokesman for Supervisor Gloria Molina.

Dixon’s office did not return calls seeking comment on the audit, which was requested by supervisors in June and completed by Auditor-Controller Daniel Ikemoto.

The office renovation encompassed much of the third, fifth and seventh floors of the downtown Hall of Administration and included installation of carpeting and lighting and the purchase of furniture. A marble floor was installed at the entrance to Dixon’s office.

Dixon once estimated the cost of the project at $2.3 million, then raised the estimate to $3.4 million in 1991. This year, he reported the cost at $6.2 million.

On Friday, the auditor-controller said the project cost $8.8 million.

“The costs keep mounting every time you turn over a rock,” Alaniz said. “This is an example of the board delegating responsibility to the CAO and not overseeing the budget as it should.”

The Los Angeles Grand County Jury issued a report in June highly critical of Dixon and the office renovation. A few weeks later, Dixon announced he would resign as soon as the county budget was complete.

Dixon has argued that the grand jury audit, performed by the accounting firm of Price Waterhouse, was incorrect. But Ikemoto’s report supported many of the grand jury’s findings.

The auditor-controller also questioned Dixon’s assertion that the renovation helped save $25 million by streamlining Dixon’s staff and making the office more efficient.

Ikemoto said that $18 million in salaries and employee benefits was simply shifted to private contractors and other departments. “They were savings to the CAO’s budget, but they were not necessarily savings countywide,” Ikemoto said.

Asked why there were discrepancies between Dixon’s report on the office renovation and the audit, Ikemoto noted that Dixon’s staff had been forced to put together the report quickly under a tight deadline from the Board of Supervisors.

The auditor-controller recommended that the county adopt more thorough budgeting and accounting guidelines for renovation projects.