BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 4, 2024
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Stop BCHD
To: Communications; Michelle Bholat; Noel Chun; Jane Diehl; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Comment Study Session: BCHD"s allcove program is removing funds and services from District Residents Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 2:45:26 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
PUBLIC COMMENT District City Councils
There is NO WAY that BCHD can argue that spending funding on 91% non-resident service area from Resident funds does not DEPRIVE RESIDENTS OF SERVICES.
And - the deficit is expanding due to poor management. BCHD fails to include the $250,000 per year donation of land rent for Flagler & Beryl. Further, BCHD fails to include the donation of overheads of $500K to $1M annual.
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!
Current
Prior
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Council; CityClerk Subject: Fwd: A Response to Bakaly"s ER Sandbox of 5/23/24 Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 11:58:59 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - City Councils, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance
We need to get BCHD to come clean with Residents who reside in the District that allcove is 91% non-resident service area, PACE will be only 17 District seniors and 383 non-resident enrollees, and assisted living will be 80% non-resident tenant. I don't believe that voters will be anxious to allow BCHD to tied up public land for 95 years for 80% to 95% non-residents of the district. Nor do I think residents will be pleased to pay off a $30M bond that is for allcove's 91% non-resident service area.
BCHD must stat telling the whole truth, not just what they prefer to get survey results. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Date: Wed, May 22, 2024 at 10:19 PM
Subject: A Response to Bakaly's ER Sandbox of 5/23/24
To: Kevin Cody <[email protected]>
BCHD continues to avoid the real issues surrounding its proposed expansion project. It isn't just their plan to increase the size of the buildings from 312,000 sf nearly 800,000 sf. Nor is just their plan to move the maximum building heights from the center of campus to the most negatively impactful locations on the perimeter of the site, over 100-feet above the adjoining streets. Nor is it the years of noise, vibration, dust, traffic and construction in the center of residential neighborhoods. It's all that - and the fact that the new campus is being built for 80% to 95% non-residents of the District.
None of BCHD's survey questions started with, "allcove's service area is 91% non-residents of the District. Should BCHD spend more District taxpayer funding on the expansion of allcove's services for its 91% non-resident service area?" Nor did any survey questions state, "PACE services 1 in 1,000 seniors and that means only 17 District seniors would choose PACE.
Should BCHD use District taxpayer funding to build and operate a PACE facility for 400 enrollees? And surveys didn't state "BCHD wants to allow a 100% private developer to build a 300,000 sf, 100-feet above the street assisted living facility on taxpayer land with 80% nonresident tenants. Should BCHD tie up public land for 95 years for 80% non-resident use?" BCHD has lost its way. The District was voter-approved for "residents who reside" within the District. allcove and the rest of the Healthy Living Campus will be for 80% to 95% nonresident use according to BCHD contracts, BCHD consultants, and the National PACE Association data.
Voters should approve or deny any BCHD bond based on facts, not on fuzzy half-truths.The current BCHD bond is one-third for the 91% non-resident allcove and two-thirds to clear ground for the 80% to 95% non-resident HLC. Vote yes, or vote no, but vote based on facts.
And ultimately voters should determine if BCHD should be allowed to tie up public land for 95 years 80% to 95% non-resident use. Again, yes or no, but base it on the facts.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
From: Stop BCHD
To: Jane Diehl; [email protected]; Michelle Bholat; Noel Chun; info; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nils Nehrenheim; [email protected]; [email protected]; Zein Obagi; [email protected]; [email protected]; Paige Kaluderovic; Todd Loewenstein; Scott Behrendt; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment - allcove Beach Cities must be fully funded or transferred to LA County Date: Saturday, May 25, 2024 1:22:48 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
TO: BCHD Board, City Councils of District Cities, LALAFCO Board, LA County Board of Supv., Stanford Psychiatry & Behavioral Health Chair, State of California MHSOAC
To whom it may concern:
1. BCHD District Resident-Taxpayers Have Been Burdened with an allcove Beach Cities Liability of $174.9M for the 30-year, 91% Non-Resident Service Area - a Cost that is 3-Times the Asset Value of BCHD.
2. BCHD Board FORCED Resident-Taxpayers to Accept an Existential Financial Risk to the District without a Proper 30-year Analysis.
3. The 30-year Liability of allcove Beach Cities MUST BE at least 91% Non-District Taxpayer Funded or the Program MUST BE transferred or terminated for Non-Residents.
4. District Voters founded and funded the District for "residents who reside" in the District. An Existential Financial Threat for 91% Non-Resident Services is Far Outside District Voter Intent.
As shown in a BCHD's public records request response, BCHD has not conducted a 30 year analysis of the allcove Beach Cities liability.
BCHD chose to agree to the terms of the $6M BHCIP construction grant requiring 30 year operation of the building and its services without a financial analysis of the liability impact on the District Taxpayers for the 91% non-resident service area of allcove..
EXISTENTIAL FINANCIAL THREAT TO DISTRICT TAXPAYERS
The liability is immense, especially since 91% of the allcove service area of SPA8 is non-resident/non-taxpayer of the District. The $175M potential cost of allcove is over 3X the $55M asset value of BCHD. allcove is an existential financial threat to District Taxpayers. The full financial analysis that BCHD should have conducted prior to BHCIP grant approval is at the bottom of this public comment.
LARGE BURDEN OF DENIED SERVICES TO DISTRICT RESIDENTS ($38.2M) That analysis also shows the significant overhead that is paid exclusively by the taxpayers of the District and can only be interpreted as services being denied to residents who reside within the District. The cost to Resident-Taxpayers of BCHD Board's proposed donation of overhead service and allcove building site rents is $38.2M. That represents services transferred from District-Taxpayers to the 91% nonresident allcove. The potential services of that $38.2M are being DENIED to the District Resident-Taxpayers.
LARGE BURDEN OF FUTURE DIRECT COSTS TO DISTRICT RESIDENTS ($136.7M) That analysis also shows that District Resident-Taxpayers face a $136.7M liability for the 30-year obligation of building and mental health services for the 91% non-resident allcove.
TOTAL LIABILITY BCHD FORCED ON DISTRICT RESIDENTS FOR A 91% NON-RESIDENT SERVICE AREA PROGRAM ($174.9M)
That analysis shows that District Resident-Taxpayers face a total unfunded liability for the 91% non-resident allcove program of $174.9M.
DISTRICT BOARD FAILURE OF ANALYSIS AND DECISION MAKING IS CLEAR The District acted to initiate the allcove BHCIP $6M loan without financial analysis of the 30-year liability to District Resident-Taxpayers. (CPRA response from BCHD). Furthermore, BCHD states that current funding expires on June 30, 2026, leaving taxpayers exposed to the entire
TAXPAYERS FACE FINANCIAL BURDEN FROM BCHD BET "ON THE COME" OF SHORT TERM GRANTS AND DONATIONS FOR A 30-YEAR LONG TERM PROGRAM
BCHD is gambling with District Resident-Taxpayer funds.
BCHD Board's action to accept a 30-year liability on behalf of District Taxpayers for a 91% non-resident program was reckless.
BCHD Board's failure to quantify the existential financial threat to the District and its Resident-Taxpayers who formed the District for the benefit of "Residents who reside" within the "District" was reckless. 30-YEAR FUNDING REQUIRED OR PROGRAM MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO LA COUNTY Because the service area is LA County SPA8, the program is not appropriate for a three city District with its own Resident-Taxpayer funded mission. Either this project must be fully funded, transferred, or terminated.
VOTER INTENT REPRESENTED IN DISTRICT LEGAL FILINGS
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voterapproved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.
From: Stop BCHD
To: Communications; Michelle Bholat; Jane Diehl; [email protected]; Noel Chun Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - BCHD has done a poor job managing funds FY23-24 to support DISTRICT RESIDENTS Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 2:34:23 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
PUBLIC COMMENT: City Councils of District Cities.
Per the District's own finance report, BCHD is $5M upside down for the Fiscal Year 23-24. Undoubtedly, that $5M is the result on non-resident spending on:
RCFE planning - 80% non-resident tenants
allcove planning & operation - 91% non-resident service area with a $150M tail risk PACE - 95% non-resident enrollees per National PACE Assoc CHF - 33% non-resident members
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-oflife, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Cc: Jane Diehl; Michelle Bholat; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt
Subject: Public Comment - Congratulations and Thanks to the Quality of Life Coalition and the Strong City Support on Greenline
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2024 2:05:30 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
After participating in the Metro meeting on the Greenline extension (5/23), I believe that the RBQOL and City achieved the best practical outcome by "living to fight another day". Thank you for all your hard work on behalf of 1600+ families who will suffer decades of intergenerational health damages if the ROW plan goes through. StopBCHD.com has been pleased to be able to provide some support the cause through social media and ongoing formal technical comments.
I am however appalled by the ongoing dismal performance of BCHD in this process. Metro's $1.7M donation to BCHD for the 400-foot bike path ($4500 per foot) appears to have effectively stopped BCHD from any significant support of the City residents. BCHD refuses to condemn the ROW path and support the Hawthorne elevated alternative. Perhaps BCHD can redeem itself if it takes an active role in the EIR submitting testimony regarding the myriad of damages to health in the ROW neighborhoods.
Again, congratulations to the RBQOL and City for making a positive difference supporting the impacted residents, their property values, and most importantly, their health for the rest of the 21st century.
Mark Nelson
Expert Witness
Redondo Beach Property Owner
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; [email protected]; CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - Oppose Metro ROW Option on Green Line Extension - Support Hawthorne Date: Thursday, May 23, 2024 12:56:28 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD has spent millions on Mr Dan Beuttner's Blue Zones project. Blue Zones is very much concerned with stress. Blue Zones states:
Stress is one of the leading causes of chronic inflammation. It also has direct links to major age-related health issues, from dementia to Alzheimer’s disease. https://www.bluezones.com/2022/02/13-unusualways-to-shed-stress-lessons-from-the-worlds-blue-zones/ via @bluezones
BCHD must support Blue Zones given its millions of dollars of support. The chronic stress of 24/7/365 light rail will increase dementia and Alzheimer's disease in surrounding neighborhoods and BCHD Blue Zones makes that damage clear.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi; info
Subject: Public Comment (BCHD Board, RB Council, LALAFCO Board): Re: CPRA - BCHD Polling Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 4:56:35 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Thank you.
BCHD or its polling company has fielded a highly biased survey, withheld material facts, and its results are irrelevant. BCHD has failed to disclose that $10M of its expenditures are for a 91% non-resident program (SPA8, allcove).Surely had BCHD disclosed it wanted $10M for a 91% non-resident program, the response would have been different.
BCHD also failed to disclose that the use of the HLC overall is 80% non-resident tenants in RCFE and 95% non-resident enrollees in PACE. Again, by willfully withholding the facts from Residents of the Distirct, BCHD biased and corrupted the survey.
BCHD's survey is biased, inaccurate, and not worthy of use for decision-making with Resident-Taxpayer funds.
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 4:48 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records request received 5/17/24 that reads:
As part of the exploration of a bond, this spring the District hired a public policy research firm, FM3 (Los Angeles), to conduct a survey of 650 beach cities respondents between April 13 and April 18. Results found that 66% of likely voters in the three beach cities believe there is a need to fund local community health and wellness services, an increase of 14% from a similar survey in fall 2021.
1. Provide documents demonstrating that the BCHD polling disclosed that the HLC is expected to be 80% to 95% non-resident benefit based on Service Area, PACE enrollee, and RCFE tenants.
No responsive records
2. Provide documents demonstrating that the polling disclosed that allcove Beach Cities has a Service Area of SPA8 and is 91% non-resident of the District population No responsive records
3. Provide documents demonstrating that the polling disclosed that BCHD consultant MDS study found that zipcodes 90254, 90266, 90277, 90278 contain only 20% of the RCFE tenant prospects has a Service Area of SPA8 and is 91% non-resident of the District population
No responsive records
4. Provide documents demonstrating that the polling disclosed that only 1 in 1000 seniors uses PACE, and there only 17 of the 400 enrollees in PACE at BCHD are anticipated by the National PACE Association data to be residents No responsive records
Please note that if records you are seeking do not exist, BCHD has no obligation to create new records, or to obtain records from other sources, unless those sources are considered “prepared, owned, used by, or retained by” by the District.
If you believe we have not correctly interpreted your request, please resubmit your request with a description of the identifiable record or records that you are seeking.
Please note that the District may not respond to questions or comments included with your request that are not themselves requests for identifiable public records under the California Public Records Act. The lack of response by the District to any such questions or comments, including follow-up questions and comments, is not an indication of the District’s position on any topic or item, and should not be presented as such to any person.
Thank you
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 11:20 AM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA - BCHD Polling
EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
This PRR is with respect to the poll described by:
As part of the exploration of a bond, this spring the District hired a public policy research firm, FM3 (Los Angeles), to conduct a survey of 650 beach cities respondents between April 13 and April 18. Results found that 66% of likely voters in the three beach cities believe there is a need to fund local community health and wellness services, an increase of 14% from a similar survey in fall 2021.
1. Provide documents demonstrating that the BCHD polling disclosed that the HLC is expected to be 80% to 95% non-resident benefit based on Service Area, PACE enrollee, and RCFE tenants.
2. Provide documents demonstrating that the polling disclosed that allcove Beach Cities has a Service Area of SPA8 and is 91% non-resident of the District population
3. Provide documents demonstrating that the polling disclosed that BCHD consultant MDS study found that zipcodes 90254, 90266, 90277, 90278 contain only 20% of the RCFE tenant prospects has a Service Area of SPA8 and is 91% non-resident of the District population
4. Provide documents demonstrating that the polling disclosed that only 1 in 1000 seniors uses PACE, and there only 17 of the 400 enrollees in PACE at BCHD are anticipated by the National PACE Association data to be residents
THE PRECEDING E-MAIL, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, CONTAINS
INFORMATION THAT MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL, BE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY
CLIENT OR OTHER APPLICABLE PRIVILEGES, OR CONSTITUTE NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION. IT IS INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED ONLY TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THIS MESSAGE,
PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE AND THEN DELETE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM. USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR
REPRODUCTION OF THIS MESSAGE BY UNINTENDED RECIPIENTS IS NOT AUTHORIZED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. PLEASE NOTE THAT
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT, ALONG WITH
ALL ATTACHMENTS OR OTHER ITEMS, MAY BE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. THE BEACH
CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CLAIMS,
LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE DISCLOSURE OR USE OF ANY
INFORMATION, DATA OR OTHER ITEMS THAT MAY BE CONTAINED IN ANY CORRESPONDENCE.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; info; Garth Meyer; Tyler Evains; CityClerk; [email protected]; GreenlineExtension; Zein Obagi Subject: Re: Public Comment Green Line Damages to Residents: Reinforcing Health Damages and Blue Zones Chronic Stress "Silent Killer"
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2024 2:28:40 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Reminder of BCHD's past failure to support the Hawthorne Alternative and oppose the ROW.
BCHD needs to step up and support the health of the 1600+ families that will suffer intergeneration health damages from Metro's proposed ROW Greenline extension.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:20 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) wrote:
Metro DEIR Comment on Greenline Surface Right-of-Way Preferred Project Metro Inspector General Comment on BCHD's Bike Path Reimbursement BCHD has failed to weigh in to support the District residents who will be harmed by Metro noise and vibration, despite the fact that BCHD is now fully aware of damages from peer reviewed studies and the Blue Zones that BCHD has spent millions of dollars supporting has significant research on the damages of noise and chronic stress. BCHD is ignoring its fundamental responsibility by failing to weigh in Metro.
It is possible that through its negligence, BCHD has spent significant Metro Measure M funds with worthless planning for a bike path in Torrance along Flagler St and in Flagler Alley. As such, BCHD may well have no professional status at Metro from BCHD's error of failing to get Torrance approval prior to significant expenditures.
The following is yet another demonstration of the damages caused by Metro's proposed project:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00395-019-0753-y
Acute exposure to nocturnal train noise induces endothelial dysfunction and prothromboinflammatory changes of the plasma proteome in healthy subjects This study demonstrates the damages of night time noise on surrounding residents from trains. The 24/7/365 Metro will cause such damages if it runs on the surface of the existing right of way, and perhaps in a trench as well. Furthermore, Blue Zones findings on noise and sleep both indicate this is a health hazard. From the study conclusions "In the present study, we showed for the first time in a field study that nighttime railway noise is associated with a significant degree of endothelial dysfunction in healthy subjects. ... nights with exposure to railway noise, compatible with a noise-induced increase in oxidative stress within the vasculature. The observed proteomic changes in response to nighttime railway noise point toward a prooxidative, proinflammatory and pro-thrombotic phenotype, providing a molecular basis to explain the increased cardiovascular risk observed in epidemiological noise studies."
From: Stop BCHD
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Michelle Bholat; Noel Chun; Jane Diehl; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; Zein Obagi; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt Subject: Re: Updated with all Images due to link failure: BCHD"s Decision to Agree to nearly $150M in allcove Indebtedness without Financial Analysis or Public Vote Date: Friday, May 24, 2024 3:37:07 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Due to a 5/22/24 disclosure by BCHD that it is donating $500K to $700K annually to allcove in District overhead support (IT, Finance, HR, etc.) the prior nearly $150M risk estimate to District taxpayers for the 91% non-resident service area allcove has been re-estimate up to $175M. See table below. This liability is now approaching 4X the asset value of the District and posing a bankruptcy risk to taxpayers of the District.
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 9:56 PM Stop BCHD <[email protected]> wrote:
Resending due to failure of some images to transfer into the document.
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 8:56 PM Stop BCHD <[email protected]> wrote:
LETTER OF PUBLIC INQUIRY: BCHD Counsel, LA County Counsel, LA District Attorney PUBLIC COMMENT: Councils and Counsels of HB/MB/RB
PUBLIC COMMENT: Boards of LA County and LALAFCO
To Whom It May Concern and Submitted in the Interest of Protection of District Taxpayers:
District Taxpayer Indebtedness Risk of allcove Beach CIties is nearly $150M BCHD has indebted District Taxpayers to nearly $150M in allcove Beach Cities liability. BCHD is obligated to operate allcove Beach Cities services and building for at least 30 years following initial operations of the allcove building. This is based on BCHD's acceptance of partial construction funding for the allcove Beach Cities building that requires a 30 year building and land restriction and obligation to operate the mental health building and services. These were terms of the grant application.
At present, we calculate the potential District Taxpayer obligation across 30 years to be:
BCHD Proposed Bond Obligation committed to allcove: $ 10.0M BCHD Estimated Bond Obligation Debt Service @5%: $ 15.0M BCHD 30-YR Building Shell Operations Obligation: $ 9.9M BCHD 30_YR allcove Services Obligation: $104.0M
BCHD Land Rent donation of the allcove Taxpayer Site:
$ 9.7M
$148.6M TAXPAYER LIABILITY OR COST
BCHD has a 30-Year allcove Obligation yet NO Secure Funding for allcove Beach Cities past June 2026 While BCHD intends to be successful with grant funding, BCHDs current grant funding expires in June 2026 before the building and 30 year operating guarantee by BCHD even begins. That leaves District Taxpayers with an immense potential debt. As a reminder, the Daily Breeze has elegantly published an article about the financial distress, layoffs, and ultimate license termination of the public South Bay Hospital in 1984. District financial failure has already occurred once and from a Taxpayer liability perspective, must be assumed in computation of risk.
District Residents Represent only 9% of allcove Beach Cities Service Area - Yet They Bear 100% Financial Risk BCHDs Board actions are particularly disturbing because 91% of the 1.4M population LA County SPA8 service area of allcove Beach Cities is comprised of Non-Residents of the District. Therefore, this indebtedness risk is a 100% obligation for Taxpayers while they represent only 9% of the allcove service area. District Taxpayers are only 9% of the allcove Beach Cities service area population, and therefore face a cost risk of over 10-to-1.
The District was Established for Residents who Reside Within the DIstrict That level of obligation for a District Taxpayers is highly inappropriate for a District founded and funded by voters who reside within the District.
Furthermore, the most contemporaneous statement of voter intent for the District comes from the 1957 pleading by the District with the Superior Court for land condemnation. The District tells the Court that it requires the land for the hospital for the "residents who reside" within the District.
Not for non-residents, and certainly not for the totality of SPA8's 1.4M population. allcove Beach Cities Indebtedness Exceeds District Asset Value Without considering the potential for significant economy-wide cost escalation as we have recently witnessed, the $148.6M Taxpayer obligation of allcove Beach Cities significantly exceeds the asset value of the District which is $55.8M per the last District financial audit. That makes the debt of allcove Beach Cities nearly 300% of the asset value of the District, and surely worthy of a public vote.
BCHD Board and Executive Management Failed to Conduct Appropriate Due Diligence of the allcove Beach Cities cost to Taxpayers Unbelievably, when BCHD was presented with a Public Records Act request for their 30 year analysis of allcove costs, the District response was "no records." It is inconceivable that an organization of any kind would take on a 30-year obligation without first computing the exposure and PV of the obligation. BCHD clearly states that it did not compute such an obligation.
Should allcove Beach Cities, a 91% Non-Resident Building and Service, Required a Public Vote for $150M in Cost Risk? Surely had BCHD Board and Executive Management undertaken an obligation that was fully funded this would not be an issue. And surely had BCHD been providing equal measures of costs and benefits to District Residents, this would merely be another program. However, allcove Beach Cities is effectively a speculative pseudo-business where District Taxpayers fund 100% of the risk, represent a small 9% share of the Service Area, and rely on the goodwill of donors and grant-makers to cover the costs. BCHD committed to this 30-year obligation without analysis of the cost or of the need for a public indebtedness vote.
It is now time for the legal counsels of the District, County and DAs Office to review BCHD's actions in an attempt to protect District Taxpayers from potential catastrophic financial losses, bankruptcy, and Court-ordered tax assessments for 30 years to cover the debt that BCHD Board and Executive Management has obligated those Taxpayers to pay.
District Taxpayers deserve a full review of how they were saddled with nearly $150M in obligations without a vote.
Supporting Analysis Below
BCHD Records Response - No 30 Yr Analysis
SPA8 Population Analysis - 9% District
BCHD Bond Proceeds - $10M allcove
30 YEAR BOND DEBT SERVICE - $15M
$10M * 30YRS * 5% = $15M
30 Year Building Operation Cost - $9.9M
30 Year allcove Beach Cities Operating Cost - $104M
30 Year Land Rent Donation for 0.5AC Flagler & Beryl Lot - $9.6M Taxpayer Market Value of allcove Building 30-year Free Use - $9.6M 30 Year Obligation Language
Current allcove Funding Termination of June 2026
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.