Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Equipment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee questions $18M MICLA helicopter plan; members ask for updated study before purchase
Summary
The committee questioned a tentative MICLA listing for two LAPD helicopters, sought a modern study of costs and operational need, and asked the CAO and LAPD to return with lifecycle and maintenance analyses before final council authorization.
The Budget and Finance Committee reviewed a tentative MICLA equipment list that includes an $18 million placeholder for two new LAPD helicopters. Council members and the CAO discussed the fiscal and operational rationale, and several members asked for a contemporary, independent study before the council commits to the acquisition.
What was discussed: LAPD and Aviation staff told the committee that older helicopters cost roughly twice as much in maintenance per flight hour than new helicopters (figures cited in the hearing were about $820 vs $415 per flight hour). Staff also said aging airframes are becoming harder and more expensive to service because parts are scarcer, and failing to replace or maintain a regular replacement schedule could raise long‑run costs and operational risk. The department and CAO explained the MICLA process: the list is a tentative MICLA project list and would require separate council approval before funds are spent.
Opposition and requests: Several council members, including the member who represents districts with many serviced neighborhoods, asked the LAPD to delay MICLA purchase authorization until the council receives a modern study of air support needs, costs and deployment strategy. They said the last formal planning analysis referenced in the department’s materials dated from the 1970s, and that an up‑to‑date analysis is necessary before committing to a multiyear purchase schedule. Some members suggested smaller or phased purchases or using a MICLA loan only if the life‑cycle cost analysis favors replacement.
CAO/CLA notes: The CAO emphasized that the MICLA tentative list does not commit city general fund dollars for the upcoming year and that the procurement would return for separate council approval. Several members asked the CAO to calculate an annualized debt‑service comparison of purchasing versus deferring replacement and to model the maintenance costs of aging airframes.
Outcome: Committee members asked staff to prepare a baseline cost comparison and to explore funding alternatives. At least one member asked for a formal study from a third party or university lab before proceeding to full procurement authority.
