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
JULY 9, 2024
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
CONCERNED TAXPAYER GROUP SEEKS OVERSIGHT OF allcove BEACH CITIES ACTIVITY As a neighborhood taxpayer and advocacy group, we are very concerned about both MHSOAC’s lack of controls and evaluation of BCHD’s allcove program, as well as the potential misuse of our taxpayer funding. The results of the BCHD allcove program demonstrate a significant bias toward whiter, advantaged, higher income, less diverse communities. The BCHD program further exacerbating the disparity of services within SPA8.
OVERSIGHT BY MHSOAC AND BCHD IS LACKING REGARDING allcove BEACH CITIES Based on the allcove proposal evaluation criteria, areas of mental health provider shortages, disadvantaged communities, and targeted underserved groups such a LGBTQ+ and BIPOC were the primary objective of the allcove funding. Unfortunately, those objectives appear to have been ignored by BCHD in its allcove program delivery design, and MHSOAC appears to have failed in its oversight role of BCHD and protection of taxpayer funding.
allcove BEACH CITIES ENROLLMENT IS INEQUITABLE BASED ON INCOME, RACE, DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITY STATUS, MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDER SHORTAGES AND DEMOGRAPHIC NEED The only plausible conclusion is that BCHD failed to target those factors that led to the creation of the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative (CYBHI), failed to target those factors used to evaluate the BCHD allcove application, failed to target those factors in the funding agreement, and that MHSOAC failed in its oversight role of the programs and funding.
How else could 70.8% of the allcove enrollees have 190% of the income level, 63% the level of nonwhite residents, no mental health provider shortages, and no disadvantaged communities?
MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDER SHORTAGES DO NOT APPEAR CONSIDERED We have conducted a census tract analysis of Los Angeles County Service Planning Area 8 (SPA8) using HRSA.gov data. SPA8 is the service area for allcove Beach Cities and we determined based on program lack of performance that areas of mental health provider shortages have not been prioritized by BCHD based on current allcove results for SPA8.
Athens, Carson, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lennox, Rancho Dominguez, San Pedro, and Wilmington all contain one or more census tracts with shortages of mental health providers. Increasing services to areas with shortages of providers is a primary objective of the broader CYBHI initiative that provides the funding. Those communities represent only 12.9% of the allcove enrollees/participants per BCHD.
%<18 HH Income % Non-white % allcove Enrollment
SPA8 21.9% $ 93,058 70.8% 94.80%
BCHD (HB/RB/MB) 23.5% $ 152,392 35.6% 54.30%
The BCHD "4" (HB/RB/MB/Tor) 22.1% $ 129,316 52.7% 70.80% Disadv+Below Avg Target 24.2% $ 67,272 84.4% 10.10%
DEMOGRAPHICS, SOCIOECONOMICS, DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES, AND UNDERSERVED GROUPS DO NOT APPEAR CONSIDERED BROADLY WITHIN SPA8
To determine which SPA8 cities have the greatest need for allcove based on demographics, socioeconomics, disadvantaged communities and underserved groups, we gathered data for proxy measures of those community factors. The variables selected were based on their sources, relative similarity to the application evaluation criteria and their ease and consistency of acquisition across all the cities. They are Cal Enviro Screen/SB 535 disadvantaged community status, fraction of the city population under the age of 18 (a Census measure), percentage of non-white residents, and average household income.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Athens, Carson, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lennox, Rancho Dominguez, San Pedro and Wilmington are all disadvantaged communities by Cal Enviro Screen/SB 535 criteria.
Those communities represent only 12.9% of the allcove enrollees/participants per BCHD.
DEMOGRAPHIC NEED BASED ON RELATIVE SHARE OF COMMUNITY YOUTH The US Census metric for fraction of population under age 18 was available and of consistent quality across cities. Using the intersection of Mental Health Provider Shortage Areas and Disadvantaged Communities, we found that Athens, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Rancho Dominguez, and Wilmington all had youth populations above the average share for SPA8. By virtue of their lack of mental health providers, community disadvantage, and high population fraction of use, these seven communities qualify as a priority prospects for allcove services and should receive a disproportionate share of services, effects, and expenditures. This group represents on 10.1% of the allcove enrollees/participants per BCHD data.
TRADITIONALLY UNDERSERVED GROUPS
US Census measures of gender preference and identity are not available currently. As a proxy, we used fraction of non-white population. Athens, Carson, Gardena, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lennox, Long Beach, Rancho Dominguez, and Wilmington all rank above the average non-white % of SPA8 and should be considered priority prospects for BIPOC and other marginalized groups. This group represents on 12.4% of the allcove enrollees/participants per BCHD data.
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Household income was used to identify economic disparity among SPA8 communities. There is an enormous disparity in income levels between the wealthier coastal and Palos Verdes Peninsula communities and the rest of SPA8. The following communities all have household income below the SPA8 average: Athens, Avalon, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lennox, Long Beach, Rancho Dominguez, San Pedro and Wilmington. This group represents on 12.4% of the allcove enrollees/participants per BCHD data.
PRIORITY TARGETING IN THE allcove APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT The priority groups were set out in both the allcove application and agreement. Further, the intent of the program as stated in the application included: “Priority will be given to applicants serving communities with higher demonstrated need (e.g., mental health professional shortage areas, socio-economically disadvantaged communities, communities with populations of focus) or those which propose to reduce disparities between racial/ethnic/marginalized groups in the community.” The only reasonable conclusion to draw based on the allcove Beach Cities results is that BCHD ignored the various factors of disparity and and inequity and provided the service primarily to higher income, better served, local areas without regard to appropriate targeting.
BCHD PERFORMANCE FOCUS IS ON WEALTHIER AND WHITER AREAS OF LA COUNTY SERVICE PLANNING AREA 8
BCHD is currently stating in a June 4, 2024 California Public Records Request (CPRA) response that allcove Beach Cities is servicing the following with allcove:
Further, BCHD highlights in its CPRA response “In addition, please find the attached slide that shows the allcove Beach Cities residents’ enrollment is 54.3% and with Torrance is 70.8% (September 2023.)” From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Request for Formal Investigation of MHSOAC, it"s Technical Advisor, and BCHD"s allcove Program Date: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:04:37 PM
Attachments: allcove Beach Cities Non-Performance.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment HB/RB/MB City Councils and Attorneys as the BCHD "Beach Cities" ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 11:42 AM
Subject: Request for Formal Investigation of MHSOAC, it's Technical Advisor, and BCHD's allcove Program
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: Kevin Cody <[email protected]>
Following extensive analysis, we have determined that the results of the BCHD allcove Beach Cities program exacerbates the health resource disparities between disadvantaged, non-white, provider deficient communities and the wealthy, generally white, provider rich areas of SPA8 - the allcove Beach Cities service area. In short, this is an abject failure of the objectives of the MHSOAC and MHSA.
A full investigation is required.
--
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: [email protected]; Robert W. Lundy; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; [email protected]; info; Michael Webb Subject: Public Comment - Correction of Misleading BCHD Proposed Bond Language - Item XIA, BCHD BoD 6/26/24 Date: Thursday, June 20, 2024 8:58:01 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - City Councils of the Beach Cities, BCHD, LALAFCO Board BCHD's proposed language is wildly misleading to the voters of the 3 beach cities of Hermosa, Manhattan, and Redondo Beach that founded, funded and own the BCHD. The corrections are mandatory to provide non-deceitful disclosure of the non-resident use of funding and the voluntary nature of taxpayer asset demolition.
To complete the 91% non-resident service area allcove youth mental health center; install water and energy conservation systems in the 91% nonresident service area allcove building; and create up to 2 acres of accessible, public outdoor space for youth and older adult community wellness programs by electively and voluntarily removing outdated, taxpayer-owned medical buildings with 25 years of remaining life based on best practices in seismic ordinances, shall Beach Cities Health District’s measure authorizing $30,000,000 in bonds, at legal rates, levying approximately $3.00 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, generating approximately $1,700,000 annually while bonds are outstanding, with financial oversight and accountability requirements, be adopted? From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]; Robert W. Lundy; Michael Webb; info; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - Fwd: BCHD has no data demonstrating CAUSALITY between BCHD and health outcomes Date: Friday, June 21, 2024 1:18:37 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD has been well aware for several years that Witter's survey cannot evaluate any BCHD programs, because the research design does not contain any control group. As such, nothing Witter's surveys have concluded reflect the individual actions of any BCHD program or offering. Quite simply, read Witter's own words.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <
Date: Wed, May 24, 2023 at 6:27 PM
Subject: BCHD has no data demonstrating CAUSALITY between BCHD and outcomes To: Communications <[email protected]>, Noel Chun <[email protected]>, Vanessa I. Poster <[email protected]>, Jane Diehl <[email protected]>, Martha Koo <[email protected]>, Michelle Bholat <[email protected]>, info <[email protected]>, Monica.Suua <[email protected]>
Perhaps the best possible testimony to BCHD's lack of appropriate program causality research are the direct words o Dan Witter of Gallup
BCHDs GALLUP SURVEY PROVIDES NO PROGRAM EVALUATION BENEFIT
AND SHOULD BE REPLACED
The cost for Gallup should be eliminated. BCHD conducts no community health benefits evaluation at the program level due to lack of "mission", "funding" and "ability". As such, BCHD has no benefit-cost or net benefit analysis of programs. Gallup's director stated clearly in the clip attached from January 2021 Board meeting that Gallup's research has never been about evaluating programs or individual service delivery. As a result BCHD's argument to keep the Gallup survey instrument is invalid.
BCHD needs research that with control groups that conclusively demonstrates public health community value of programs for use in funding priorities - not Gallup's generalized survey that has no control groups and no ability to validate causality..
Per Transcript of Dan Witter, Gallup:
... it's true that we don't try and evaluate
1:51:47
individual programs or offerings that's never been a part of uh the well-being 1:51:52
index survey what we're about is measuring the movement of well-being over time"
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; [email protected]; Robert W.
Lundy; [email protected]; info
Subject: Public Comment: Warning that BCHD may be planning to misrepresent Gallup results Date: Thursday, June 20, 2024 9:21:34 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
City Councils of the Beach Cities, LALAFCO Board:
Gallup has been extremely clear that none of its work assesses BCHD's programs. That is, no causality can be associated with the results.
The language below from the BCHD CEO report appears to signal that BCHD is planning to falsely claim financial credit for the health-related savings seen in the Beach Cities since 2010. If BCHD makes such a statement, a complaint to the State Attorney General will be required for false advertising.
From the CEO Report
"Gallup Well-Being Index follow-up: Following the presentation of the Gallup Well-Being Index results,
the board requested information to help quantify details of the high stress levels reported. The Community Health Committee reviewed the BCHD community survey scheduled for this summer. The
board also requested more information on health-related savings in workplace absenteeism due to the
reduction in obesity and smoking seen in the Beach Cities since 2010. Staff has requested these
calculations from Gallup and will report them when they are received." From the transcript of BCHD BoD meeting 2021-02 Feb https://youtu.be/MSeWzzXMSJo Contains BCHD's agreement that use of Gallup data to imply BCHD causality of benefits would constitute a violation of violate the state of California business and professions code section 17500.
Dan Witter from Gallup gave the board
17:37
members lots of information and numbers so I want to bring into Focus some 17:43
important facts that we're communicated by Dr Witter related to the randomized Gallup 17:51
survey uh Dan told us we'd quote we don't try
17:58
to evaluate any particular programmer offering we are about measuring the 18:03
movement of well-being over time we've never tried to boil down individual 18:09
programs and the Blue Zone survey has never been about evaluating programs or 18:15
offerings this means that the survey does not report whether any bchd program or 18:23
service has had an impact on the community this survey reports respond and 18:29
subjective impressions of their well-being what the survey does not say is that 18:36
bchd is responsible for any change in an individual's or a collective beach 18:43
cities residents current health status or sense of well-being whether it's 18:49
smoking cessation increased exercise better nutrition
18:55
or decreased depression using the information in this survey to report the 19:01
impact of any bchd program or service would be misleading the public and may 19:09
violate the state of California business and professions code section 17500 19:16
as a board you might consider this could there be another reason beach 19:22
cities residents rank high on the Gallup well-being scale 19:28
there is reliable research excuse me there is reliable research evidence that 19:35
socioeconomic status SES affects an individual's health and life expectancy 19:43
higher SES may be correlated with better physical health and overall sense of well-being 19:49
this is the most likely explanation for Beach City's residents improved health 19:55
status and well-being especially given that 64 percent of beach cities 20:02
residents have no familiarity with blue zones whatsoever 20:07
and 26 percent of beach cities residents were only somewhat familiar with blue 20:14
zones per the Gallup study showing that beach cities residents physical health 20:19
and well-being occurs without the influence of blue zones 20:25
having said this the value of the survey is that it points to areas of program 20:32
development and strategic planning as Dr Witter pointed out in his presentation 20:39
this is how the survey may be useful to you as a board not as an indication of 20:45
bchd's impact on the community hi Sheila your time's up there we go 20:53
um I would just like to add that I do have uh references for the research 20:59
thank you Sheila thank you so much we'll we'll uh heed those From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; Robert W. Lundy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jane Diehl; Martha Koo; Michelle Bholat; Noel Chun
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Council; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Public Comment - June 2024 - allcove
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 6:40:55 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
I have a 7PM meeting so I filed my comments in writing given the relatively slow pace of the meeting.
cc: Public Comment City Councils of Beach Cities
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 6:27 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) wrote:
BCHD Executive Management and Board have repeatedly failed reasonable due diligence on the allcove Beach Cities program. As a result, BCHD Executive Management and Board have exposed the taxpayers of the three Beach Cities to potential liability of 3-times the asset value of the District.
Unfortunately for District taxpayers, BCHD produced no financial analysis in CPRA responses to determine the full risk exposure of a 91% non-resident program. Presumably, when the CEO obligated District taxpayers to allcove and SPA8 area in the 12/9/2021 agreement, the expectation was to terminate the agreement for convenience if the financial burden on District taxpayers became too large. More likely, given the lack of financial analysis, BCHD failed to even consider the risk impact of allcove’s non-residents on District taxpayers.
Fast forward to BCHD’s decision to accept a $6M state grant to construct the allcove building to service SPA8. Terms of the grant require continuous 30 year operation of the building and its ongoing mental health services. Further, the District taxpayer land at Flagler & Beryl (a $5M parcel) will be encumbered for 30 years as a donation to allcove resulting in $250,000 per year of lost rent based on Cain Bros estimates of land value leasing.
In November 2023, long after BCHD had already executed the 30-year obligation in return for $6M in grant funding, the District responded in a CPRA response that it had never estimated the risk burden of 30 years operation on District taxpayers. As a result of BCHDs’s failure, several of us computed the 30-year risk at nearly $175M for allcove operations, building operations, repayment of the $10M allcove portion of the bond, BCHD donated land, and BCHD donated overheads.
/
Aside from the enormous liability if BCHD can’t fill its allcove tin-cup regularly with grant funds, there’s the issue that BCHD is accepting funding for SPA8 allcove, despite the fact that BCHD is redirecting the funding to 50% district residents and 70% district + Torrance residents per the BCHD CPRA response.
Due to BCHD's lack of due diligence, District taxpayers are hanging out with an enormous liability that liquidation of all District assets cannot cover.
Hooper Lundy and Davis Farr need to figure out how to get District taxpayers out of this mess caused by the fiduciary BCHD Executives and Board.