As Los Angeles considers how to reform its City Charter, members of the Board of Public Works recently presented their proposal for “Strengthening Infrastructure Governance” to the Charter Reform Commission’s Planning and Infrastructure Committee.
Their proposal supports implementation of a five-year Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP), a much-needed step that Investing in Place has long advocated for. A citywide CIP would help Los Angeles better understand its infrastructure needs, prioritize investments, improve coordination across departments, and provide greater transparency to the public.
Where the conversation becomes more challenging is around governance.
The Board’s proposal largely focuses on preserving and expanding the Board’s existing role. Board members point to their frequent meetings, oversight of major contracts, and responsibility for reviewing more than $1 billion in annual infrastructure investment. Those responsibilities are significant and important.
But the larger question is not how many contracts are approved or how many meetings are held. The larger question is whether Los Angeles has the governance structure needed to deliver better infrastructure outcomes.
Today, Los Angeles still lacks a clear citywide system for long-term infrastructure planning, prioritization, delivery, and accountability.
The challenge is structural, not personal. The current Board inherited a system that has evolved over decades. But the outcomes suggest that the system itself deserves closer examination.
Today:
- More than 50,000 sidewalk repair requests remain pending.
- It can take years to install accessibility improvements such as curb ramps.
- Streetlight repairs can take months.
- More than 200,000 tree wells sit empty during a period of increasing heat and climate challenges.
These conditions raise important questions:
- Who is ultimately accountable for citywide infrastructure performance?
- Who is responsible for coordinating priorities across bureaus and departments?
- How are infrastructure outcomes measured and reported to the public?
- What governance structure best supports long-term delivery and accountability?
A city can be highly efficient at processing contracts and still struggle to achieve strategic outcomes. Contract administration and executive leadership are different functions, and a well-functioning city requires both.
This is not an either-or choice between oversight and management. Los Angeles needs both strong oversight and strong leadership.
It is also worth remembering that this conversation is not new.
During the Charter Reform process of the late 1990s, commissioners debated whether the Department of Public Works should continue under its existing governance structure or move toward a more traditional executive model with a single accountable leader. Some proposals would have transformed the Board into a part-time oversight body while creating a stronger executive management structure.
Ultimately, the Board retained its executive authority. A Director of Public Works position was created, but with limited authority and administrative responsibilities.
Nearly three decades later, many of the same questions remain unresolved.
As Los Angeles prepares to implement a citywide Capital Infrastructure Program, the city has an opportunity to revisit those questions with a focus on outcomes rather than tradition.
Investing in Place recommends that the City Charter establish a Chief or Director of Public Works with the authority, expertise, and responsibility to lead implementation of the Capital Infrastructure Program and coordinate infrastructure priorities across departments.
This role should be professional, accountable, and empowered to manage long-term infrastructure performance on behalf of the public.
At the same time, there is an opportunity to reconsider the role of the Board of Public Works. Rather than serving as both an oversight and executive body, the Board could evolve toward a governance model similar to those used by the Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airports, or the Department of Water and Power. These bodies provide oversight, policy direction, and transparency while leaving day-to-day management to professional staff.
This conversation is not about personalities.
It is about whether Los Angeles has the governance systems necessary to care for its sidewalks, streets, trees, parks, and public infrastructure over the long term.
It is about accountability.
It is about delivery.
And it is about whether the city’s public realm reflects the level of care that Angelenos deserve.
If Los Angeles wants a Capital Infrastructure Program that succeeds, it must also create the leadership structure necessary to implement it.
