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
APRIL 1, 2025
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Judy Rae
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Council; [email protected]
Subject: LTE - BCHD"s March 2025 Board Meeting
Date: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 7:28:52 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD had a Board meeting on last Wednesday, March 26th. At that meeting, it discussed the history of the South Bay Hospital District in very incomplete terms. First, the BCHD Board ignored that South Bay Hospital testified to the Superior Court that it was created for the benefit of "residents who reside within the District". As Al Gore said, that's an inconvenient truth. It's especially inconvenient for the current Board that spends District resident taxes and funds from taxpayer-owned land and buildings on non-residents without limit. Second, it completely glossed over the fact that South Bay Hospital failed in its mission to be a publicly owned and operated hospital. As the Daily Breeze wrote, in the late 1970s South Bay Hospital layoffs and financial shortfalls were common while other hospitals flourished.
Will the BCHD Board ever return to its only voter-authorized role to service the "residents who reside within the District"? Why is servicing the voters, taxpayers and residents who founded, funded and own the District so difficult for the current Board? Why is the plan for the Healthy Living Campus to be 80% to 95% non-resident services from a 100% private developer? As my good Catholic mother would say, "it's a mystery".
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; [email protected]; [email protected]; MHSOAC; info; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer; City Council; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment All Agencies: 100% of BCHD"s revenues and assets are TAXPAYER FUNDED Date: Friday, March 21, 2025 11:41:08 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD creates no revenue. BCHD loses $1M annually on the CHF (costs are $1M greater than revenues). BCHD loses $880K per year on AdventurePlex. Both allow for the free ridership of non-residents and taxpayers in the District subsidize non-residents as well.
Clearly, 100% of the revenues from building rents, interest payments, taxes, LPs, etc. are the property of RESIDENT TAXPAYERS ONLY.
For an easy example of BCHD's doublespeak, CHF and AdventurePlex require $2M in taxpayer subsidies, ABOVE AND BEYOND the undercharges that BCHD claims as "revenue". BCHD needs to transparent in its claims and stop obfuscating its use of 100% TAXPAYER FUNDS.
Q: How is BCHD funded?
A: BCHD has a diverse funding
structure, maximizing your tax
contribution and allowing the
District to provide residents with a
wide range of community health
and wellness programs. FY23-24
Incoming Funding:
33% ($5m) – Property Taxes
27% ($4.1m) – Property
Leases
15% ($2.4m) – Grants,
Interest
14% (2.1m) –
AdventurePlex/Center for
Health & Fitness user fees
11 % ($1.7m) – Limited
Partnerships
BCHD has maintained a balanced
or surplus budget for the last
decade. The only exceptions were
during the pandemic, and those
shortfalls were later reimbursed by
FEMA. We are projecting a
revenue shortfall two years from
now when the old South Bay
Hospital building is
decommissioned and will address
that shortfall through alternative
revenue sources and expenditure
reductions.
The District’s annual audits
routinely report no issues and for
the last five years, BCHD has
received the Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting award from
the Government Finance Officers
Association of the U.S. and
Canada (GFOA).
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; [email protected]; [email protected]; MHSOAC; info; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer; City Council; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment All Agencies: BCHD continues to falsely take credit for results of programs that are unevaluated Date: Friday, March 21, 2025 11:35:56 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
In California Public Records Request responses, BCHD clearly acknowledges that it does not even have the capability to determine if any of its programs have any net benefits (that is, benefits that exceed program costs). For example, LA County was clear to say that NO EVALUATION has ever been done of the LiveWell Kids program, because BCHD failed to structure a control group and the other needed measures to evaluate the program.
All claims by BCHD of community benefits are subjective and unmeasured. We truly have no idea what the net benefit (if any) of the hundreds of millions spent by the District has been.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 5:15 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:
Please see below for the District's response (in BOLD) 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.
Further, Gallup director of research stated on video in a BCHD Board Meeting that Gallup does not conduct any evaluation of any BCHD programs.
See video at https://www.facebook.com/bigbadbchd/videos/3753666611629022 for Gallup's Dan Witter statement on the record.
Taxpayer's deserve more than happy chat. They deserve 100% of BCHD assets and funds to be spent ON RESIDENTS.
Q: What is BCHD’s impact on
the community?
A: Here are some examples of
BCHD’s positive impact on our
community:
The Beach Cities are near the
nation’s best in the Gallup
National Health and WellBeing Index (WBI) while
well-being has declined
nationally.
The Beach Cities’ WBI
score of 68.0 is well above
the national score of
58.2. Manhattan Beach’s WBI
score of 70.6 is the highest
ever recorded by Gallup
among 1,500+ community
scores since 2008.
From these results, Gallup
estimates that Beach
Cities adults save $182.4
million on healthcare costs
each year thanks to lower
rates of obesity, diabetes
and smoking.
In 2024, the obesity rate for
RBUSD elementary school
students was 5.0%, the lowest
rate in 17 years.
There has been a 75%
decline in RBUSD student
obesity since 2007, when
the BMI rate was 20%.
2007 is the year BCHD
and RBUSD began the
LiveWell Kids program in
schools.
During the 2023-24 fiscal
year, 1,611 BCHD volunteers
put in 28,433.43 hours, which
equates to $1,097,583.07 in
value, based on Independent
Sector’s average volunteer
value for California of $38.61
per hour*. The 2023-24 value
delivered by BCHD volunteers
surpassed the previous record,
set in 2018-19, when
volunteers contributed
$1,082,872 in value to our
community.
In November 2022, BCHD
opened the first allcove center
in Southern California/second
allcove facility in California.
Since opening, more than
10,000 young people have
visited allcove Beach Cities,
with nearly 1,200 young
people enrolled in an allcove
service stream. Fifty-five
percent of enrollees are from
the Beach Cities (more than
650 young people).
BCHD was named a recipient
of a five-year, $625,000 DrugFree Communities Grant in 2019 and 2024.
Since receiving the DFC
grant, the percentage of
Beach Cities 11th graders
who report ever using
alcohol has dropped 14
percent, from 46% in 2019
to 32% in 2023, according
to the California Healthy
Kids Survey.
The Beach Cities
Partnership for Youth
Coalition conducted oncampus assemblies for
nearly 800 Beach Cities
students to warn of the
dangers of substance use
and illicitly manufactured
fentanyl. The assemblies
were held at Redondo
Union HS on January 13
and Mira Costa HS on
January 17.
BCHD’s Center for Health &
Fitness (CHF) is one of just
two facilities in California
certified by the Medical
Fitness Association.
During the COVID-19
pandemic (2020-2023):
BCHD coordinated 74
COVID-19 vaccine
clinics, with more than
23,100 doses
administered
BCHD ran a COVID-19
testing site that
administered 155,684
tests.
BCHD’s 500+ volunteers
helped complete more
than 2,600 errands for
residents needing
assistance and delivered
more than 4,700 meals.
The Little Hoover
Commission, a non-partisan
oversight agency that
promotes economy and
efficiency in California
government, cited BCHD as
an exemplar of how a health
district can successfully
operate.
The Beach Cities were named
the 1st certified Blue Zones
Project® community in the
US in 2016.
In June 2016, U.S. Surgeon
General Vivek Murthy visited
BCHD, and told
representatives, “We tend to
believe that America’s health
problems are too big and
intractable. You have proven
that communities can take
charge and reverse the trend.”
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; [email protected]; [email protected]; MHSOAC; info; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer; City Council; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment All Agencies: BCHD Simply CANNOT Tell the Entire Truth - The District condemned the 10 acre site for the benefit of "residents who reside" within the District Date: Friday, March 21, 2025 11:10:30 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
LALAFCO, in the same meeting as BCHD cites below in its HALF TRUTH Q&A, also clearly stated that BCHD has no preclusion from having a RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT for its services. BCHDs Board and its $2.4M per year in executives are CHOOSING to give away the value of taxpayer-owned facilities along with taxpayer-funding to non-residents.
Notwithstanding any opinion of the LALAFCO, the language of the condemnation of the Prospect land CLEARLY requires residency for services. It states clearly that benefits of the land to be condemned are for the "residents who reside within the District".
Q: Does BCHD charge nonresident fees?
A: BCHD has two fee-based
facilities, the Center for Health &
Fitness and AdventurePlex. Later
this year, these facilities will
introduce a non-resident fee to
help contribute to costs, offset
expenses, and maintain highquality services. Government entities like cities and healthcare
districts have the option to charge
non-resident fees or give
preference to residents in their
jurisdiction.
The Los Angeles County Local
Area Formation Commission, or
LAFCO, has jurisdiction over
special districts, including BCHD.
In September 2022, they
confirmed that residency
requirements are not mandated, let
alone required. The following is
from the LAFCO staff report as
part of the most recent Municipal
Services Review of the County’s
Health Districts:
“The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg
Local Government Reorganization
Act of 2000 (“Act”) empowers a
special district to provide services
within its jurisdictional boundary.
LAFCO’s statutory authority
pertains to what services a district
offers, and where those services
are provided. The Act does not
impose a “residency” requirement
for an individual who receives
services within the boundary of a
special district – doing so would
be both contrary to State law, and
is impractical. If one thinks of this
issue in the context of other
municipal services – such as law
enforcement, fire protection, retail
water service, and sanitary sewage
treatment – the limits of such a
residency requirement become
apparent.”
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; [email protected]; [email protected]; MHSOAC; info; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer; City Council; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment ALL AGENCIES: South Bay Hospital District testified to the Superior Court that it condemned the 10 acres Prospect parcel for the Benefit of "Residents Who Reside" within the District Date: Friday, March 21, 2025 11:16:29 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD continues its PR campaign of half truths. In order to gain funding and condemn the Prospect site and take it from private residential use, the District clearly stated in its pleading that the land was needed for the benefit of the "residents who reside" within the District. That contemporaneous evidence provided to the Court by the District is a clear statement of the limits of the specific need of the District. Had the District intended to "take" the land for the broad use of the region, it was compelled to state that. IT DID NOT.
Q: What is the original language
for the measure establishing
Beach Cities Health District (neé
South Bay Hospital District)?
A: On Thursday, December 23,
1954, the Daily Breeze included a
Public Notice in its “Legals and
Proposals” section: “Notice of
Special Election to be held on
January 11, 1955, to determine
whether the proposed South Bay
Hospital District shall be formed.”
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that on Tuesday, the 11th day of
January, 1955, a special election
will be held, pursuant to a
resolution adopted by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Los
Angeles dated November 30,
1954, for the purpose of
submitting to the qualified voters
of the proposed South Bay
Hospital District a proposition
which will appear on the ballot in
substantially the following form:
“Shall the proposed South Bay
Hospital District, with boundaries
as fixed and described in that
certain resolution of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Los
Angeles, duly adopted on the 20th
day of November, 1954, be formed
and organized pursuant to the
Local Hospital District law?”
It is important to note that the
public notice and proposed ballot
language make no mention of
limiting services to residents of the
Beach Cities. In addition, the
Local Hospital District Law was
updated in 1994 to meet the
evolving health needs of
communities.
From California Health Care
District Law, section 32000,
known as “The Local Health Care
District Law.” Any reference in
any statute to the Local Hospital
District Law shall be deemed a
reference to the Local Health Care
District Law, and any reference in
any statute to a hospital district
shall be deemed to be a reference
to a health care district. (Amended
by Stats. 1994, Ch. 696, Sec. 1.
Effective January 1, 1995)
From the Legislative Analyst's
Office: State Law Enumerates
Various Powers. Authority granted
to health care districts under
current law includes, but is not
limited to:
Operating health care facilities
such as hospitals, clinics,
skilled nursing facilities
(SNF), adult day health
centers, nurses’ training
school, and child care
facilities.
Operating ambulance services
within and outside of the
district.
Operating programs that
provide chemical dependency
services, health education,
wellness and prevention,
rehabilitation, and aftercare.
Carrying out activities through
corporations, joint ventures, or
partnerships. - Establishing or
participating in managed care.
Contracting with and making
grants to provider groups and
clinics in the community.
Other activities that are
necessary for the maintenance
of good physical and mental
health in communities served
by the district.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment: Letter to the Editor - BCHD Fiscal Mismanagement of District Taxpayer Funds Date: Saturday, March 22, 2025 10:35:48 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
After years of fiscal mismanagement, BCHD claims it is finally implementing charges for non-resident use. BCHD has been subsidizing non-residents with District taxpayer funds and continues to plan for an 80% to 95% non-resident use commercial facility on District taxpayer-owned land. BCHD's Board and its $2.4M per year in executive management continue to argue that BCHD has a "right" to give away District taxpayer funds to nonresidents. Even after BCHD asked for a $30M bond issue that was soundly rejected. During BCHD's Municipal Service Review at the County, it was clearly told by a sitting lawyercommissioner that BCHD was allowed to implement a residency text and use its District taxpayer resources for District resident only use. Yet, the Board continued to bleed off funding for non-resident use.
The District condemned the Prospect Avenue land from a private developer. That's an important fact. When government takes land, it has an obligation to demonstrate why it needs the land and who will benefit from the land.The District testified to the Court that the land was needed for the health care of the "residents who reside within the District". It didn't make a claim that it would be a regional service provider as BCHD now attempts. Had the District sought to condemn Redondo Beach land for LA County Service Planning Area 8 use (the 1.4 million population area that BCHD services with allcove), it would have been denied by the Courts.
District residents and taxpayers need to keep the pressure on BCHD to stop giving away District resources to non-residents. At a minimum, BCHD must charge the full cost-of-service to non-residents so that District residents do not provide subsidies. A much easier solution would be to require District residency for all services, as the District swore to the Court that it was planning to do when it took the Prospect Avenue land.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach