Bond-Funded LAPD Construction Found Mired in Red Tape

In a report that could damage the chances for an upcoming police facilities bond measure, an internal city review found that lack of expertise in the Los Angeles Police Department, poor coordination between city agencies and indifferent attitudes among employees have bogged down previous bond-funded construction projects.

“There is no centralized authority for the construction process. Not only does no one know the system, no one runs the system,” said the report, which was presented Wednesday to the City Council’s new Ad Hoc Committee on Expediting Police Facilities.

The study blamed a cumbersome bureaucracy for keeping the city from moving forward with projects that voters expected bond money to produce, such as stations in the mid-Wilshire district and the San Fernando Valley that were never built.

Permit processes are too complex, and “no one knows the entire system or how it all fits together,” said the study, prepared by the Police Department in conjunction with the city Bureau of Engineering.

To rectify the problems, City Councilman Richard Alarcon, architect of a $171-million bond measure to add and expand police facilities, vowed Wednesday to take steps to expedite construction, including a recommendation in the report to appoint ombudsmen to oversee specific projects.

But opponents of the bond proposal were quick to describe the study as “excellent ammunition” in their attempt to defeat the citywide ballot measure at the polls June 6.

“It verifies and justifies what we’ve said,” said attorney Richard Close, who wrote the argument against the bond measure that will appear in the official voter pamphlet. “Instead of putting a pork-barrel proposal on the ballot, they should do a needs assessment and a cost analysis first before they ask us to increase our property taxes to pay $171 million--and interest--in these bonds.”

If approved by two-thirds of the voters, the bond measure will increase property taxes by $9.40 annually for the average household over a span of 25 to 30 years.

The bonds would fund four new police stations, training facilities, parking structures and improvements to existing structures.

Working against the proposal is a more fiscally conservative environment than existed in recent years and the reluctance of voters over the last decade to pass several bond measures relating to law enforcement.

Still, proponents of the June measure remain optimistic about its chances. “Our (poll) numbers are very positive,” said Alarcon, whose measure has the endorsement of Mayor Richard Riordan and Police Chief Willie L. Williams.

Alarcon acknowledged that the track record for bond-funded police construction projects has not been good. Although voters gave the nod to a similar bond measure in 1989 to fund 32 projects, city and police officials later revealed that they had vastly underestimated construction costs, and slashed the number of projects by more than half.

Currently, 11 projects using money from the 1989 bond measure are in various stages of construction, said Stephen F. Hatfield, a senior management analyst with the Police Department.

The review released Wednesday blamed the halting pace of construction on a complicated bureaucracy that pulls in several different departments--and often differing opinions--to accomplish a handful of tasks.

In its study, the Police Department identified itself as one of the reasons projects lagged or foundered, admitting that “there was no expertise in the Police Department to prepare for or oversee construction projects. . . . As a result, the learning curve was long.”

“In the beginning we were really shooting in the dark. It’s been a hard process, and we’ve learned a lot,” said Sgt. Bill Dolan of the LAPD’s facilities construction group, which wrote the report. “But there are still a lot of problems to resolve.”

The study recommended that the city hire a management consultant to establish strict schedules for specific projects. A City Council oversight subcommittee should be appointed to help expedite bond-funded projects, as well as ombudsmen with the authority to issue binding opinions, the study recommended.

Department managers should also work harder to unify and motivate their employees, many of whom do not understand the difference “between ‘doing your job’ and ‘getting the job done,’ ” it said.

Alarcon promised to ask his colleagues on the City Council to designate “case managers,” or ombudsmen, to take charge of construction projects and shepherd them through the bureaucratic process.

Critics of the bond proposal say it is ill-advised, especially in light of the problems plaguing past efforts to put bond money to use.

“Let’s do analysis first and appropriations second, not the other way around,” said Close, the attorney who opposes the ballot measure.

“There’s a need for more space (for police), but the question is, can we get it cheaper elsewhere? Maybe leasing is better. Maybe substations throughout the city would be better and cheaper.”

He derided the bond measure as an originally modest proposal that eventually ballooned to $171 million to satisfy political demands.

“This became a pork-barrel proposal, giving every council member a piece of the action to get it on the ballot,” Close said. “That’s not how you do planning.”