SCSD Refunds $54,000 More in Illegally Obtained Developer Impact Fees
Posted in the Salton City Forum
#1 Dec 19, 2008
Not that I'm one to say "I told you so" but the Salton Community Services District is once again accepting applications for refunds for a Fire Department/Street Lighting Developer Impact Fee that they illegally charged new developments between July 1st, 2005 through December of 2007.
This never would have happened without the diligence of www.saltonseawest.com and the perseverance and tenacity of Director James G. Barrett.
$54,000 in refunds were authorized and sent out the week of December 15th, 2008 and there is still over $170,000 in unclaimed funds just waiting for the rightful owners to apply for them.
As a Community Service to our neighbors and fellow property owners that might have paid this illegal fee and who are eligible for these $1,000 refunds, Salton Sea West with public documents provided to it by Director Barrett has posted online a list of people/entities which records show have at least $1,000 owed to them.
Click this link to view the list and download the Official Refund Form.
Again the refunds are once again flowing!
Be a Good Neighbor and help spread the word.
#2 Dec 20, 2008
You might also mention that the only reason this was an illegal fee collected by SCSD was that even though they collected it because of direct impact on this area, Imperial County also collected the same fee. SCSD has never received any of that money back to this area (that was collected by Imperial County) even though there have been hundreds of homes built and the families that bought those homes are now living in this area. They need street lights and fire protection just as those that have lived here for years.
In essence -- we have many, many more people living in this area. However, we have very few new street lights installed and we certainly don't have anymore in fire protection (as proven by the current fire contract for this budgeted year).
If you are going to HELP THE PEOPLE then help those that live in this area!
They are the only ones that can, or MIGHT, re-elect you!!
#3 Dec 21, 2008
The County has collected over $350,000 in fire Protection from within the districts fire protection area and yet has not spent one cent of that here.
Mr.Barrett has contated the County Board of Supervisors repeatedly over the last 2 years trying to get the to use that money according to the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
In fact, Director Barrett has tried several times to get the SCSD Board of Directors to ask (and demand) the County to spend the money where the law says they have to spend it but time and time again the other Directors have refused to do so.
You can blame Directors Palmer and Butler for that dereliction of duty.
Luckily though Director Barrett tried again at the December16th, 2008 board meeting by drafting Resolution 2008-12-01 which asks the County to use that money on a new fire station. It passed by a 4-0 vote with Palmer being absent. It’s a good thing that all the Volunteer Firefighters were at that meeting or it would have been voted down again.
If “long time” wants that money for better fire protection than he/she might consider asking the rest of the Directors to pursue it with at least half as much of the vigor that Director Barrett has been doing.
As far as the street lighting thing goes ; the County is not in charge of street lighting here and has not collected any street lighting fees from within the district.
#4 Dec 21, 2008
You can read the passed resolution here:
Also on Tuesday 12-23-08 the County Board of Supervisors will be attempting to amend the current County Impact Fee Schedule. This is a great opportunity to let your Supervisor (Gary Wyatt) know that the County needs to follow the Mitigation Fee Act and spend the Fire Impact Fee monies that were collected from within the district in the district.
Meeting starts at 8:30 am
You can count on Director Barrett being there fighting for his constituents!
You can also email Gary Wyatt at
#5 Dec 21, 2008
So the developers that built shoddy houses got money back while SCSD does not even have a street light at So. Marina where you turn into the new school. S***Head Barrett done a lot of god for the community.
#6 Dec 21, 2008
The sad thing is a local real estate agent who should want this place to grow and prosper helped as much as he could to give this money away. Actions like this will certenly cost him business and cost Salton City to grow.
#7 Dec 22, 2008
Director Barrett has told the SCSD Board several times that they could ask the County Board of Supervisors to impose a street lighting (or fire department) impact fee "on our behalf" and transfer that money to the district.
This is how it is done throughout california special districts.
San Diego Fire Districts get hundreds of thousands of dollars each year this way for capital improvements.
But the other Directors ignore facts like these simply because Director Barrett brought it up. They are so imcompetant in raising legal monies for the Community, and that incompetance puts the community at risk.
And idiots like "in the blow" and "blobservor" and "desert shores decedant" never hold the other Directors feet to the fire to pursue these financing alternatives. That's because it easier to shoot the messenger then to act on the message; there nothing but "give me a handout" sloths on the government dole.
And "blobservors" comment about another citizen helping "give this money away" seems to have the mindset that it's not their money but it belongs to the district. What a thieving mindset.
#8 Dec 22, 2008
...the only idiot I see in the room is Dictator barrett.
#9 Dec 22, 2008
Speaking to the SCSD Board President today, dictator barrett was not authorized to speak on behalf of the SCSD Board of Directors at the Board of Supervisors Meeting on Tuesday morning.
He can speak as a land owner, but can't speak on behalf of the rest of us, as a Director.
#10 Dec 22, 2008
One thing that is impossable is keeping barrett from spouting off about the District. If he knew as much as he thinks he does he would not be out of work and driving a couple of s**t cars!!!!!!!!!!
#11 Dec 24, 2008
Mr. Barrett's "s**t" cars our paid for....I bet there are a lot of people out there that wish they didn't have those big car/home/credit card depts hanging over their heads during this recession.
Sounds to me that Mr. Barrett planned a little ahead for this recession. How about you "in the know"? Are you still bumming rides to go pickup your government cheese?
#12 Dec 24, 2008
You guys weren't kidding when you said dictator barrett was an ass.
#13 Dec 31, 2008
Your resolutions sound great, but do you honestly believe that you can take 50% of the money recently recovered and spend only 50% of that originally designated to two new street lights?
Let's see --$39,000.00 is $18,000.00 for street lights and $18,000.00 for the fire department in recovered funds. 50% is only $9,000.00 (at this point). I'm sure the fire department could use that money (in an instant); but do you honestly think that you can install TWO street lights for that amount of money and then pay the ongoing monthly cost of the utility bill year after year?
Also, don't forget about the $30,000.00+ obligation to pay for the fire mitigation study that the Board approved to have done. I don't recall THAT being a part of the 2008-2009 approved budget.
The District is in financial trouble! Your well-meaning ideas are comendable but at the same time there is simply no money to fund the projects you want to put forth and being an advocate of the PEOPLE means not spending money for ANYTHING other than the on-going obligations of the District at this point.
THE STATE IS PLANNING TO SEND US I.O.U.'S THIS YEAR INSTEAD OF OUR RIGHTFULLY DUE REFUNDS FOR OUR INCOME TAXES!!
Shoudn't the District follow the same strategie and just pay their obligations and maintenance to just keep the toilets flushing and avoiding fines from the state for not maintaining it's obligations?
AND please don't come back and tell everyone that I should have paid more attention in economics or etc.-- it's common sense THE DISTRICT HAS NO MONEY!! Don't criticize the other Directors for not approving your resolutions when they in fact want to spend money that is needed just to maintain what little that we now have.
Isn't that what an elected officials' obligation is? Maintain what we currently have with what there is to work with and expand on that when there are available funds?
#14 Jan 1, 2009
Sounds like "long time resident" wants the cake and to eat it too"
More of the same "rob Peter to pay Paul" mentality that put the district in the financial situation it is currently in.
And why is the district broke?...because the Board set its rates lower then the cost of providing the service (sewer fee), that's why.
How can you continue to provide a service if you don't charge enough to maintain that service?
BTW the two Resolutions say "a minimum" of 50% of the captured funds. The Board can increase that to 100% if they want to.
I think Director Barrett was trying to balance the need to balance the budget with the need for street lighting and increased Fire Protection. That is after all why the impact fees were originally charged.
At the December Board Meeting, when the Fire Department Study item came up, Director Barrett asked the Assistant Manager where the money was going to come from. She replied it was to come from the remaining General Fund portion of the Borrego Springs Stock Sale Fund.(This was transferred to the General Fund on 11-18-08 via Board vote.)
#15 Jan 3, 2009
I paid a fee in another county to get a permit for a pool. The county stopped issuing pool permits because of a water shortage and a drainage issue. They gave me my fee back. I didn't even have to ask. I paid the money and didn't get the service.
The owner builders and developers that paid the extra/illegal fee are entitled to a refund. It's a REFUND, not a bailout.
As far as "shoddy" buildings...go after the builder and go after the county inspectors. I don't know of any builders that would ever build anything that failed an inspection.
Return the money to the rightful owners. It belongs to them.
#16 Jan 11, 2009
Granted builders most likely do not purposely build inferior homes -- they just (in this instance) did not know the soil compaction of this area (in some areas).
SO -- now who does the fault lie with? The builders for not researching the area OR the county inspectors!
Yes, Director Barrett is correct -- the SCSD Board as a whole should be looking to the County for answers as to WHY CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY were issued when the homes are now (less than two years later) falling apart!
New people to this area are currently paying mortgages for homes that are cracking and falling apart, or they have simply walked away.
The SCSD only approves setbacks and utility lines-- they do not approve livability and longevity!
My home is 40-plus years old and only has a few minor hairline cracks in the foundaiton. How can the County explain the passing of inspections when those same homes are unliveable NOW!
The SCSD Board really does have to look at this issue AND GET SOME ANSWERS from the County.
The current inspectors seem to be focusing on the current residents and their failures and not having to answer for their lack of doing the job they should have done two years ago in approving new construction.
The County has, once again, failed this area and will continue to do so until the Board UNITED takes them to task!
#17 Jan 12, 2009
I don't think SCSD has the autharity to go after the County for lousy building. We had our chance the last election and re-elected the same supervisior for the third term and than some of us bitch about County services here.
#18 Jan 20, 2009
It saddens me to inform everybody that on Tuesday January 20th, 2009 the SCSD Board of Directors chose to jeopardize the lives of your children by declining to install a much needed street light on South Marina at the entrance of the new elementary school.
I hope it's not one of your kids that dies at that intersection.
“I'm a Multifacted Personality ”
Since: Nov 07
West Shores of the Salton Sea
#19 Jan 21, 2009
I think maybe the SCSD Board (which is a sewer district) should send a letter to CVUSD as it should have been the CVUSD to install lights, signs, cross walks, near any school that it builds within the SCSD, but their too busy dealing with all the legal crap that Director barrett has caused.
Remember Community; November 2009 an end of an ERROR- barrett is out of office, whoses having that celebration party!?
#20 Jan 22, 2009
Parties in your mouth Imari?
Add your comments below
|CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10)||3 hr||theos||2,276|
|CA Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10)||3 hr||mix an match||200,976|
|CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10)||22 hr||free for all||5,081|
|CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10)||Sat||surfs up||7,955|
|CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10)||Sep 18||Pizza||16,000|
|What type of business are lacking in the Salton... (Sep '08)||Jul '14||jessica||21|
|Imperial County Sheriff's Deputies involved in ...||Jul '14||The people||44|
Find what you want!
Search Salton City Forum Now