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
OCTOBER 1, 2024
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Further, Gallup refused to provide citations for its dollar values of “fictional” savings from differential health outcomes, so BCHD Taxpayers have no way to know if the values are fictional “savings” of what residents might have paid, or what insurance companies might have paid, or what State policy cost in taxes, or what overall City, State and Federal healthcare costs might have been. In short, the “savings” are largely undefined by Gallup.
For its part, BCHD responded in California Public Records Act (CPRA) responses that it received no additional data, methodology or report from Gallup for our $400,000+ Taxpayer Payment.
Therefore BCHD was without any ability to clarify the Gallup Taxpayer report. In prior CPRA responses, BCHD has generally asserted that computing the community value of health benefits from its Programs is beyond the District’s requirements, funding, and ability. As such, BCHD’s lack of technical expertise in the area was not helpful.
The full Gallup study/press release is at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/648008/good-health-savescalifornia-beach-cities-millions-yearly.aspx BCHD’s CPRA responses can be provided on request.
BCHD’s $400,000+ purchase order contract with Gallup can be obtained from BCHD directly.
For each City, LA County as a whole, Service Planning Area 8 (broadly the “South Bay” and also the Service Area for BCHD’s allcove Beach Cities), the following data was extracted from the LACDPH dataset: City Name, HH Income, Federal Poverty Level Rate, Rate of Uninsured Adults, Obesity Share, Diabetes Share, and Smoker Share.
The chart below provides a summary of the data from the LACDPH 2023 survey for each available South Bay city (population above 20,000). The Cities were, LA County Averages, and SPA8 Averages were sorted by Household Income level. As you view the chart from Left-to-Right, the Household income if largest on the Left (Manhattan Beach) and smallest on the Right (Inglewood).
The percentages that are printed represent the share of Obesity, Diabetes and Smokers for the City named. Additionally, the chart shows the level of Uninsured Adults and percent of residents below the Federal Poverty Level. All values are available in a Table as well.
City
Obesity
Rate
Uninsured
Adults
Diabetes
Rate
Below Fed
Poverty
Cigarette
Use HH Income
Compared
Obesity
Rate
Compared
Diabetes
Rate
Compared
Cigarette
Use
Gallup Taxpayer
Funded Study Method
Computed "Fictional"
Savings per Resident
Manhattan Beach 13.8% 2.2% 6.0% 2.4% 3.0% 187,217$ 16.0% 5.3% 3.7% $ 1,138 Rancho Palos Verdes 14.6% 4.0% 7.6% 3.4% 3.0% 166,747$ 15.2% 3.7% 3.7% $ 977 Culver City 18.3% 5.3% 6.1% 5.6% 4.0% 114,429$ 11.5% 5.2% 2.7% $ 943 Redondo Beach 18.1% 4.9% 7.9% 4.6% 5.3% 134,033$ 11.7% 3.4% 1.4% $ 701 Torrance 21.0% 7.0% 9.8% 7.2% 5.7% 109,554$ 8.8% 1.5% 1.0% $ 431 Carson 29.6% 10.5% 11.0% 9.5% 4.8% 103,045$ 0.2% 0.3% 1.9% $ 163 LA County 29.5% 12.6% 11.4% 13.8% 6.0% 83,411$ 0.3% -0.1% 0.7% $ 47 Lawndale 35.3% 17.3% 9.6% 9.1% 6.1% 76,213$ -5.5% 1.7% 0.6% $ 46 SPA8 29.8% 12.0% 11.3% 12.8% 6.7% 94,702$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% $ - W Carson 28.6% 9.7% 12.8% 8.1% 5.6% 91,513$ 1.2% -1.5% 1.1% $ (24) Gardena 31.4% 14.5% 13.4% 12.5% 6.5% 75,443$ -1.6% -2.1% 0.2% $ (212) Hawthorne 35.9% 16.0% 12.6% 17.0% 7.1% 72,298$ -6.1% -1.3% -0.4% $ (301) Compton 45.3% 16.9% 12.8% 18.3% 3.7% 69,728$ -15.5% -1.5% 3.0% $ (330) Inglewood 37.5% 15.0% 12.8% 15.3% 6.7% 67,563$ -7.7% -1.5% 0.0% $ (333) Overall Averages 27.8% 10.6% 10.4% 10.0% 5.5% 103,278$ 2.0% 0.9% 1.4% $ 232 No data was provided for Manhattan Beach smoker rates. Therefore the RPV rate was used as a proxy for Manahttan Beach's smoking rate also.
The table below provides the results of using Gallup’s Taxpayer Funded study values to rank order the South Bay Cities and LA County by “fictional” savings against SPA8.
Findings:
Rank #1 – Manhattan Beach. It has the highest income and based on its disease rates as measured by the LACDPH survey, it also have the highest per person “fictional” savings as computed using Gallup’s uncited benefit values.
SPA8 has Worse Health Outcomes than LA County Overall – While they are very similar, using Gallup’s methodology, LA County health outcomes are valued slightly better than South Bay SPA8.
Redondo Beach’s Health Level is Lower than its Income Predicts – Redondo Beach ranks #4, behind lower income Culver City. Redondo Beach has generally poorer health outcomes than expected resulting in a lower Gallup “fictional” savings.
Lawndale performs worse than LA County but slightly better than SPA8. Gardena, Hawthorne, and Inglewood all have health outcomes below the SPA8 average.
Overall, and with only limited exceptions, Health Outcomes mirror the relative affluence/income of the Cities.
SB535 Disadvantaged Communities in SPA8
Data Source: CalEPA ArcGIS for SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities using CalEnviroScreen 3.0 results (June 2018 Update
CalEnviroScreen results clearly show that within SPA8, the Disadvantaged communities lie to the North and East of the coastal area. A supermajority of BCHD’s allcove Beach Cities services are being provided to non-SB535 Disadvantaged Communities (shown in red).
Medically Underserved Area/Populations
Data Source: Community Health Profiles Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (2023 dataset) September 2024
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) provided its Service Planning Area 8 data in a consolidated format for review. As clearly visible in the blue shaded areas, the medically underserved areas of SPA8 do not occur in the western coastal cities that make up the supermajority of BCHD allcove Beach Cities enrollees.
SPA8 is important because it is the South Bay’s planning area and because it is the area that Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) represented as the Service Area for allcove Beach Cities services in order to gain funding for the building and program. BCHD accepted a 30-year obligation to provide allcove Beach Cities building operation and services to SPA8. To date, we have evidence from BCHD that 74% of services are provided to the non-Medically Underserved areas of the BCHD District plus Torrance residents. Scant enrollees in allcove Beach Cities come from the most needed Underserved areas.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; info; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; MHSOAC; [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Did BCHD misstate the facts in a PRR response? Appears so from its rhetoric.
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 10:15:32 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - BCHD has previously misstated that its 80% to 95% non-resident HLC will be a public benefit. Since this is Redondo Beach land use, it is far MORE CLEAR that BCHD's HLC will have damages that exceed benefits in Redondo Beach. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Date: Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 12:36 PM
Subject: Did BCHD misstate the facts in a PRR response? Appears so from its rhetoric.
To: Communications <[email protected]>
BCHD states that it does not have the ABILITY to compute a community benefit for programs.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 5:15 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:
Please see below for the District's response (in red) to your public records request received 1/27/22 that reads:
Q -For each KPI presented in the Board study session Jan 26, 2022, provide Forecasted Benefit-to-Cost ratios to justify continued program operation.
A - Please note that the District has previously explained that calculating a dollar community benefit for each program is beyond the scope of the District’s mission, financial resources and abilities.
Thus - any assertion by BCHD that its programs have net positive value beyond their costs cannot be validated due to BCHD's self proclaimed lack of evaluation requirements for its programs. Unlike BCHD assertions in February 2019 to the Redondo Beach City Attorney, there is no "clear" "significant" value of the HLC to Redondo Beach residents, because BCHD asserts it has no obligation to determine if program values exceed the cost of the programs.
California Special Districts Association
1112 I Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814
877.924.CSDA; www.csda.net
1 GUIDELINES FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS
REGARDING BALLOT MEASURES
I. General Rule-Information, Not Advocacy; Explanation Not Promotion • Special districts may not spend money to support or oppose ballot measures placed before the electorate. It is permissible, however, for special districts to expend public funds for informational purposes to provide the public with a “fair presentation” of the facts relating to a ballot measure which directly concerns the special district. It is also permissible for special districts to formally adopt a position on a ballot measure and educate the public on the measure, its impacts on the district, and the basis for the district’s position.
• If public funds or special district equipment or facilities are used to provide information regarding a ballot measure, that information provided by the special district must be accurate and balanced and represent supporting as well as opposing views.
• However, if a special district has formally adopted a position on a ballot measure, and is responding to a request from the public, the media, or some other source to explain the district’s position, then the district may merely state and explain the district’s position without being obligated to present all possible views on the issue. • Special district employees and directors retain their free speech guarantees to express their personal viewpoints on any ballot measure. The right of free speech is not forfeited because of any association with a special district. Therefore, special district employees and Board members may express their personal opinion on ballot measures and urge the support or opposition to a ballot measure in a public forum so long as no public funds are expended, including district reimbursement of a district employee or Board member’s expenses incurred making such a presentation. If a district’s funds or facilities are involved in any way in the activity of an employee or director with respect to a ballot measure, that individual will be deemed to be acting as a representative of the district and will be required to limit his or her comments to a balanced, factual presentation containing supporting as well as opposing views.
California Special Districts Association
1112 I Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814
877.924.CSDA; www.csda.net
2 II. Permissible Activities
The law allows special districts to expend public funds to take the following actions regarding a ballot measure:
• Expend public funds for the purpose of formulating and drafting a proposed initiative and securing appropriate initiative sponsors.
• Adopt a formal position in support of or in opposition to a ballot measure at an open meeting of the special district. Representatives may also respond to requests for explanation of the district’s position by merely stating and explaining the district’s position without being obligated to explain all sides of the issue. • If a district is initiating a presentation or information piece regarding a ballot measure, a special district may notify the public, media and others of the district’s position through news releases, bulletins or other vehicles at public expense that are informational and balanced but do not advocate a yes or no vote, or contain language which indicates that the district is “taking sides” with respect to the ballot measure.
• In addition to informing the public of the district’s position with respect to a ballot measure, the district may expend public funds, without taking a formal position on the ballot measure, to initiate, prepare and distribute factual, balanced information on a ballot measure to the public and other organizations, which material should represent both pro and con viewpoints in a fair manner. • Special district representatives may respond to inquires from the media, the public, or other organizations about the impact of a measure on the district as long as such response is factual and does not advocate a position.
• Special district representatives may participate in forums or debates on a ballot measure at public expense if all views are represented. • Special districts may sponsor forums or debates on a ballot measure at public expense if all views are represented. If only one side is able to attend, districts should be prepared to document the fact that opponents were actually invited. • District staff and elected officials may meet with newspaper editors and other groups to objectively explain a ballot measure’s impact on the district, as long as such explanations do not advocate a position on the ballot measure. • Special district Board members and employees may participate in forums or debates and advocate a position if it is expressly stated that they are speaking in their personal capacity, and that no public agency funds, expense reimbursements or California Special Districts Association
1112 I Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814
877.924.CSDA; www.csda.net
3 facilities are being utilized for such advocacy.
• Upon request, special district Board members and employees are free to explain their personal views of a ballot measure.
III. Prohibited Activities
Pursuant to state law special districts may not engage in the following activities:
• Use public funds to purchase such items as bumper stickers, posters, advertising, or television or radio “spots” as well as the dissemination at public expense of campaign literature prepared by private proponents or opponents of a measure, or otherwise spend public money to clearly advocate a yes or no vote on a ballot measure.
• Use public funds to contribute to a campaign supporting or opposing a ballot measure.
• Expend public funds or utilize public facilities such as photocopy machines, facsimile machines, computer e-mail, etc., or office supplies or staff time in connection with any activity designed to support or oppose a ballot measure; expend public funds to attempt to influence voters to qualify a ballot measure, including utilizing public funds to gather signatures for the ballot measure. Utilizing public funds to secure signatures to qualify the ballot measure has been held to constitute “improper advocacy”.
IV. Additional Guidelines to Avoid Advocacy
• Timing, Style and Tenor of the Publication
To avoid the appearance of advocacy, special districts need to analyze the timing, style and tenor of their publications with respect to ballot measures. Several court decisions and attorney general opinions have found publicly financed brochures or newspaper advertisements that contain only relevant factual information and which refrain from asking voters to vote in a particular way to constitute improper expenditure of public funds for ballot measure advocacy because the publication is sent within two weeks prior to the date of election. Any items mailed in the last two weeks before an election may be found to constitute improper expenditures because they appear to be primarily designed to influence voters, and not to convey information.
Regarding the style of the publication, if the explanation of impacts of a ballot measure on a district contains only the significant adverse impacts and fails to disclose other less serious impacts, it may be found that the purpose of the publication was to influence voters rather than to inform voters.
California Special Districts Association
1112 I Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814
877.924.CSDA; www.csda.net
4 Hiring a public relations firm to promote a measure and prepare publications for the district may be considered evidence of an attempt to influence voters, rather than inform them.
A call for action urging the public simply to vote, without urging a particular vote, may, under certain circumstances, be found to be improper advocacy.
A high volume of mailed brochures may be found to go beyond responding to requests for information from the public and be considered an attempt to influence voters.
In order to avoid the impression that materials are being sent to influence the public, publications should contain information on opposing viewpoints. • Full Disclosure
Special districts need to insure that any materials they produce provide a factual and complete presentation of the ballot measure and its positive as well as negative impacts on the district, as well as a full explanation of the pros and cons if the publication is initiated by the district, rather than formulated in response to a request for information.
• Choosing the Appropriate Vehicle for Publication
Special districts may produce special publications or materials regarding ballot measures, but the use of existing newsletters or other forms of communication to educate the public about a ballot measure is considered by the FPPC to be more indicative of an informational piece, as opposed to a promotional piece. • Use of Disclaimers
Special districts may wish to include a disclaimer on any printed materials that states the materials being provided are for informational purposes only and are not meant to advocate a yes or no vote on the ballot measure. • Consult Legal Counsel
Because the legal principles in this area of law change frequently, special districts should consult their legal counsel for guidance with respect to any activities relating to ballot measures, particularly printed materials distributed to the public, and the use of public funds to finance speakers with respect to the ballot measure. This fact sheet is meant only to be general guidance and is not legal advice.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer; [email protected]; Tyler Evains Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; [email protected] Subject: Information regarding advocacy and prohibited activities at a public forum on Bond Measures Date: Monday, September 23, 2024 7:47:54 PM
Attachments: HIGHLIGHTED - CSDA White Paper-Ballot Measure Guidelines.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment All Agencies
The attached white paper from the Special Districts Assoc. provides circumstances that courts have used to view communications as ADVOCACY on bond measures.
In the case of the September 23, 2024 bond measure forum, it was initiated by the bond measure sponsors, and therefore, it cannot: 1) provide information with balanced opposing views, 2) spend any district funding, 3) advocate for any position, 4) even advise residents to vote at all - even without a recommendation, 5) provide personal opinions because in this case, the three agencies staffs are presenting in official capacities, including Board members.
It will be interesting to see which, if any, violated the law.
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Invalidity of BCHD September 23rd Bond Measure meeting declaration Date: Friday, September 20, 2024 2:53:26 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment and Notice: All electeds and their legal counsels BCHD's definition of the September 23 Bond measure event is flawed. BCHD declares a Brown Act exemption in
https://granicus_production_attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/bchd/140bbcaeaa257bfc23830f2fe90493fa0.pdf for "Please note that the Community Forum is an educational gathering within the meaning of California Government Code Section 54952.2(c)(2)." A plain English reading of the Code shows that there is no such thing as an "education gathering" in that CGC section. BCHD invented it out of whole cloth.
Further, none of the staff, board, electeds, council, etc. will be allowed to give any opinion on any facet of the bonds. Only the reading of specific, Board or Council approved statements can be available for the public to avoid RBUSD, CofRB or BCHD from advocating for their respective measure using paid staff and RBUSD paid facilities..
--
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: Stop BCHD
To: Communications; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk Subject: Press Release: BCHD"s 100% Private Assisted Living Costs Escalate to $183K to $243K pre-tax Annual Income Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 4:38:53 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
MDS (a BCHD paid consultant) has not updated its assisted living rent and income requirements since 2019. We have updated them using BLS LA-Long Beach inflation from 2021 (the year of MDS's rent projections) to current.
In short, the escalation of the MDS pre-tax income requirement to be a tenant is now $183,000 to $243,000 per year.
See full details of the analysis at:
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/rent-cost-of-bchd-s-100-private-assisted-living-facility-risesto-183k-to-243k-annually --
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: Stop BCHD
To: Communications; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Press Release: Statistical Models Show Property Values within 1/2-mile of BCHD MUCH LOWER than Expected Date: Monday, September 30, 2024 4:53:27 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Based on statistical models, the property values within one-half mile of the BCHD campus are significantly lower than would otherwise be expected for similar property. Journal articles and economic theory suggest that the negative impacts to property values are caused by close proximity to large facilities.
See full info at:
Redondo Beach Value Decline $105M
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/redondo-beach-property-value-impacts-within-1-2-mile-ofbchd-104-7m-loss Torrance Value Decline $74M
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/torrance-property-value-impacts-within-1-2-mile-of-bchd-73- 8m-loss
--
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: Stop BCHD
To: [email protected]; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; MHSOAC; Cc: Kevin Cody; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment All Agencies: LA County SPA8 Health Outcomes Date: Monday, September 23, 2024 8:09:04 AM
Attachments: 4-Medically Underserved Areas in SPA8.pdf
3-SB535 Disadvantaged Communities in SPA8.pdf
1-Analysis of South Bay SPA8 Health Outcomes.pdf
2-Mental Health MHSAs in SPA8.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment
On August 15, 2024, Gallup issued a press release that was an analysis of health outcomes based on a $400,000 contract with Beach Cities Health District (BCHD). The Gallup press release did not provide enough of a fact base to validate its results and despite signficant taxpayer funding to Gallup by BCHD, no further data or workpapers were available.
As a result, our volunteers undertook a study of South Bay, SPA8 health outcomes and needs.
Our primary data sources are all documented within the attachments.
Summary Results
Differences in health outcomes were found to be largely explained by differences in income levels amongst the SPA8 cities that LA County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) provided data for. Explanatory power varied, but in general 70% to 80% of health outcome differences could be statistically explained using household income levels (using the taxpayer funded Gallup definitions of important health outcomes including Obesity, Diabetes and Smoking). That suggests to us that for health equity, more direct health services need to be injected into the lower income Cities. Attachment #1 goes into more detail.
Mental Healthcare Professional Shortage Areas (M-HPSAs) tend to be in the northeast and southeast sections of SPA8. BCHD was funded to deliver allcove youth services to all of SPA8, but with a specific emphasis on diverse areas. We did not find evidence of any signficant effort by BCHD to deliver allcove to the youth of SPA8 M-HPSAs. Attachment #2 goes into more detail.
Disadvantaged Communities in SPA8 are more widespread than M-HSPAs and also represent an income correlation. Disadvantaged Communites also do not appear to be a service delivery priority for BCHD with its allcove funding. See Attachment #3 for more detail.
Medically Underserved Areas/Populations provide a powerful snapshot of the state of healthcare in SPA8. They are relatively widespread and could serve as a focus target for Federal, State, County and BCHD allcove funding and services. See them in Attachment #4 for more detail.
All measures suggest that the western coastal areas of SPA8 and the Palos Verdes Peninsula are well served compared to the rest of SPA8.
We hope that this documented, detailed work is able to provide local governments with support for increased resources and also highlights the disparate need situation for services and support inside SPA8.
The Neighborhood Team
--
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.