District Taxpayer Concerns specifically noted to BCHD Outside Counsel by cc

SPENDING ON THE ALLCOVE BUILDING PROJECT MUST CEASE PENDING A REVISED, FUNDED BUDGET BY THE BOARD
BCHD must cease all spending on the ALLCOVE building until it formally adopts a realistic budget complete with funding sources. At present, BCHD is spending taxpayer funds on pre-development, similar to the fiscal error made by BCHD on the HLC where the District spent $12,708,121. BCHD failed to write a fiduciarily protective contract with the developer and as a result, taxpayers were forced to fund pre-development. The nearly $13M that BCHD spent on pre-development with taxpayer funds is nearly enough to pay for an entire year's operation at BCHD.

Once BCHD has established a realistic budget for the ALLCOVE building, unlike it's initial low-ball attempt, AND BCHD has fully funded that budget, then it can move forward with spending. In the meantime, the funds are at risk with only resident-taxpayers as a backstop. If the building is not built, then the grant funds must be repatriated to the State and as with the HLC pre-development funding - RESIDENT-TAXPAYERS ARE AT RISK FROM BCHD'S DEVELOPMENT INEXPERIENCE. Another failed project attempt would be a costly negligent act by the Board and Executives.

UNLIKE THE PMB LLC FIASCO, ANY FUTURE PRE-DEVELOPMENT COSTS MUST BE EXPLICITLY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER
Unlike traditional pre-development, BCHD forced its resident-taxpayers to foot the pre-development cost burden. Whether an oversight or negligence, the nearly $13M in pre-development costs results in LOST SERVICES TO THE DISTRICT RESIDENTS. We cannot allow another loss of nearly one year of District funding due to inadequate commercial experience and contract terms by the District with the developer.

BCHD MUST CEASE ITS FALSE CLAIM THAT THE 4-STORY HOSPITAL IS 60-FEET TALL - IT IS NOT. IT IS 51.5-FEET TALL
BCHD spent $1,877,289 of resident-taxpayer funding on architect consultants for the HLC project. That in itself is an excessive pre-development spend by an inexperienced District Board and Executive team without adequate contracts in place. Nearly $2M in design and architecture is far in excess of the required cost to prepare a document used to conduct an EIR analysis and represents substantial waste by the Board and Executives.

In any event, one of the FACTS from taxpayers' $1,877,289 expense is in the BCHD HLC Drawing Set that is incorporated both into the CERTIFIED EIR and the BCHD Pre-CUP Development FIling. The 2-2-2022 Drawing Set by primary recipient of the nearly $2M is Murdoch. Murdoch demonstrates that the 4-story hospital (ROOF PARAPET) is 51 feet, 6 inches. See page 13/35 of the Drawing Set. The total height of the building, which represents the less than 1,000 square foot penthouse (ROOF PROJECTION), is 76 feet, 2 inches. BCHD MUST STOP LYING.

As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote in a Washington Post Op-Ed famously quoted by former President Obama, "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." (1983 January 18, The Washington Post, More Than Social Security Was at Stake by Daniel P. Moynihan, Quote Page A17, Column 5, Washington, D.C.)

BCHD spent nearly $2M of TAXPAYER FUNDS and the Board certified an EIR based on FACTS. BCHD used the same information in its filing with the City of Redondo Beach. The FACTS show the 4-story hospital (along with 99.7% of the campus square footage) is 51.5-feet or shorter.

****

AS BCHD PLANS TO PRIVATIZE HALF THE CAMPUS - THE TIME HAS COME TO LIMIT SERVICES TO RESIDENT-TAXPAYERS AND REQUIRE FULLY-LOADED REIMBURSEMENT FROM NON-RESIDENTS DUE TO BCHD EXCESSIVE NON-RESIDENT SPENDING AND BCHD EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD COSTS THAT MUST BE RECOVERED FOR EVERY NON-RESIDENT SERVICE

BCHD SUBSIDIZED BETWEEN $1M AND $1.9M IN DISTRICT TAXPAYER FUNDING TO NON-RESIDENTS IN THE COVID RESPONSE
In the CEO's own report, he demonstrates that BCHD spent $5.2M on Covid response yet only recovered 56% or $2.9M from FEMA, state, etc. That leaves a RESIDENT-TAXPAYER burden of $2.3M for what BCHD also stated were 84% non-resident Covid testing and 45% non-resident vaccinations. With between 45% and 84% of services going to non-residents of the District, and district resident-taxpayers paying $2.3M in Covid response costs, that translates to an out of District tax burden on resident-taxpayers between 45% and 84% of $2.3M, or a "donation" to non-residents between $1M and $1.9M. (January 2023 Page 18 states QUOTE total District COVID-19 emergency response expenditures are $5,209,000 with estimated total reimbursement of 56% or $2,900,000 UNQUOTE)

BCHD HAS OBSCENELY HIGH OVERHEADS - EXECUTIVE PAYROLL
During a recent Finance Committee meeting, BCHD noted that of the District's $1.1M in taxpayer subsidy funding for the CHF (i.e. costs-revenues for the program) that only $250K were hard costs and the rest were overheads. That begs the question .... should we fund ANY BCHD ACTIVITY if the overheads are $850K out of $1.1M for a program? Doesn't 80% overheads seem ... well ... outrageous?

One reason is that BCHD is wildly excessive in its number of executives (Directors and above) compared the Cities it services.

image showing BCHD executive payroll relative to Hermosa, Manhattan and Redondo Beach

BCHD HAS FULL AUTHORITY FROM LALAFCO AS CONFIRMED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PAUL NOVAK TO RESTRICT ALL SERVICES TO RESIDENTS ONLY - AND BCHD NEEDS TO USE THAT AUTHORITY TO ONLY OFFER SERVICES THAT ARE FULLY REIMBURSED - INCLUDING BCHD'S EXCESSIVE OVERHEADS.