First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Long Time Resident

United States

#21 Dec 31, 2008
I agree --
Street lights are needed by the school.
Why aren't the LEGALLY collected fees from the County paying for that?
Director Barrett keeps saying the 'illegally' collected fees that the District collected -- those fees were collected because WE local residents saw the impact to this area and the Directors acted on that.(The fees collected by the District were only designated illegal because the County was also collecting the same fees).
The District collected those fees to be placed directly back to the impact of THIS area; and then, because of Director isssues, the fees were placed in 'limbo,'(because of Director Barrett).
Those fees supposedly illegally collected by the District (by now) could have paid for several new street lights and a tremendous amount of additions to the current fire departments.(It would not have taken a resolution on the part of any director to do that)!
The fees WERE NOT ILLEGAL -- they were duplicated!
Let's all ask IMPERIAL COUNTY where thier LEGALLY collected fees are for this area?
Imperial County is where the focus should be right now -- where are the LEGALLY collected fees??????????
What did Imperial County do with these fees? Why are there no new street lights and why is the fire department actually getting less funding than it was two years ago??
THAT IS WHAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS NEEDS TO FOCUS ON!!
Maybe the BETTER RESOLUTION for the Board to consider on January 20th. is to confront the County with an accounting of the funds that they collected for the impact to this area!
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#22 Jan 1, 2009
“long time resident”, let’s tackle the street lighting topic first.

The street lighting developer impact fee ($500) that the SCSD imposed back in June of 2005 WAS illegal. This is attested to by two board actions. The first was when the Board authorized the refunds of the fee under advice from the District lawyer and the second was just this October when the Board made its move to capture any un-refunded fees.

It was not a matter of duplication of fees as “long time resident” states, it was the fact that Community Services Districts cannot collect impact fees because they do not possess “land use authority”, that is reserved to counties and cities.

And the duplicity issue aside, the county collects NO impact fees for street lighting, period.

They only way that the district can get impact fees for street lighting is if the district prepared a nexus study that showed the effect of new development on the need for new street lighting. Then the district would have to present that study to the county and ask the board of supervisors to collect an impact fee on the districts behalf. The county would collect the fee at the building permit stage and send the district the money.

THIS IS HOW it is done throughout California Special Districts.

“You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him (or her) drink.”
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#23 Jan 1, 2009
The county has collected over $350,000 worth of fire impact fees from within the district for the impact that the new development has on the county fire department.

On January 13th, 2009 the County Board of Supervisors will be completing their audit process for the impact fees that they’ve collected up to June 30th, 2008. By law they are to make findings that show a nexus between the fee and the development that has caused an impact to the area or they must refund the money.

How can the County show a nexus between a house built within the District and the County Fire Department when the county provides NO fire protection services within the district boundaries?

They can’t (legally and without lying, that is).

This is why cities that provide their own fire protection aren’t charged this impact fee. Same thing goes for the other Special Districts in this State that provide their own fire protection services. Well at least for the ones that have Board of Directors with enough balls to stand up for their rights.

There is only ONE SCSD Director that has been fighting this battle as a Director and a proactive citizen, and that is Director Barrett, for over two years!

No doubt he’ll be fighting for it again at the January 13 Board of Supervisors meeting, while the rest of the Directors sit on their thumbs telling everybody how Director Barrett is trying to bring the district down. WUSSYS!

Again, the only way that the district can get impact fees for Fire Protection is if the district prepared a nexus study that showed the effect of new development on the SCSD Fire Department (which has soul authority for fire protection within the district). Then the district would have to present that study to the county and ask the board of supervisors to collect an impact fee on the districts behalf. The county would collect the fee at the building permit stage and send the district the money.

Is this another battle for the people that Director Barrett must continue to fight alone? Or our “concerned” Citizens like “long time resident” going to hold the other Directors feet to the fire and demand that they do their jobs?


I thought so…,WHIMPS!
Long Time Resident

United States

#24 Jan 6, 2009
Director Barrett,
You are absolutely correct -- you cannot do this all by yourself. The other directors do need to back you up and present a united front to the Board of Supervisors!
Good luck with that! However you must learn to hold your tongue at the District meetings in order to get the other members on your side.
No one is going to be be on your side when the entire audience is listening to profanity that you are spouting trying to make your point.
You really must back off on the outbusts and focus more on the goal you are trying to achieve.
You honestly have a lot of good ideas, but your presentation really needs a lot to be desired!
I, in part, understand your frustration; but you cannot accomplish anything when you use profanity to make your point!!
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#26 Jan 7, 2009
Ah...Gee...Shucks... I always thought an apehole was an apehole....I'll try to be a good ole boy...instead of saying apehole I'll say BUTLER...they's the same thing.

So your telling me that if I don't use colorful language and call some of the other Directors the thieves that they have proven to be, that they would jump onboard of my good ideas.....I really don't think it works that way..."A Spade is Still a Spade"

(and try looking up that phrase before you fly off the handle... you might learn something)
Desert Shores Resident

Lucerne Valley, CA

#27 Jan 9, 2009
and a small minded man with an ego problem is just dictator barret.
In the know

Slidell, LA

#28 Jan 9, 2009
the little man call his rantings that would make a sailor blush "colorful language". I would call it a chlidish fit displayed when the baby doesn't get his way. It will be a lot more pleasent when the little baby is gone.
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#29 Jan 10, 2009
But some of the other Directors being crooks and thieves is ok with you?

You are a scurge
Long Time Resident

United States

#30 Jan 12, 2009
PLEASE Mr. Barrett!!!!!
Stop telling everyone that they should have paid more attention in 3rd. grade English or high school economics and etc.
I really don't appreciate your way of degrading people in your 'polite' way of yours!
Desert Shores Resident

Lucerne Valley, CA

#31 Jan 13, 2009
dictator barrett shows his true nature daily: that's why he'll only last one term.
from the west shores

United States

#32 Jan 13, 2009
barrett, no money, no friends, no life, just a big mouth.
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#33 Jan 14, 2009
BTW, yesterday Director Barrett signed $18,000 more in developer impact fee refunds that the SCSD illegally charged.

In fact $6,000 of the refunds were to people that were screwed by one of those "bad" developers that the other posters on this site are always demonizing.

I bet these same posters will find some reason not to give Director Barrett credit for getting some of these ripped off people some of their money back....or would it have been fine with these posters that the the SCSD kept ALL of the illegally collected fees?

We know the answer to that question.

See if you qualify for the $1,000 refund here:

http://www.saltonseawest.com/News%20Articles/...
AKA SCSDDirector Barrett

United States

#34 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.

Shame,shame,shame

“I'm a Multifacted Personality ”

Since: Nov 07

West Shores of the Salton Sea

#35 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!?
AKA SCSDDirector Barrett wrote:
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.
Shame,shame,shame
Guess Who

United States

#36 Jan 22, 2009
Party's in your mouth Imari?
Desert Shores Resident

Lucerne Valley, CA

#37 Jan 22, 2009
dictator barrett, hey the fool speaks yet again!
Guess Who wrote:
Party's in your mouth Imari?
S8S8 R

United States

#38 Jun 6, 2009
when did barrett get his law degree?

it should also be noted the SCSD lawyer, who is on a retainer fee, ALSO charges the SCSD, an hourly fee for each time anyone from SCSD call him and for any work the lawyer does when its related to SCSD.
I am not sure how much this lawyer charges, but most corporate lawyers charge in the $300/hr range.....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Salton City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Consuelo Falomir (Apr '15) Nov '15 Harvey Dent 3
$100 Starbucks Gift Card FREE (Oct '12) Aug '15 chula 3
dead fish clean-up (Jul '15) Jul '15 Drew kline 1
News Sean on Cover of May's Newsmax Magazine (Apr '11) Jun '15 Jolee arguello 2
New owners of Captn Jim's in Salton City (May '15) May '15 Mary Butler 1
Alarma: Criol Agua Purificada es Tóxico (Apr '15) Apr '15 Oscar from Mecca 1
Alarma: Criol Agua Purificada es Tóxico (Apr '15) Apr '15 Oscar from Mecca 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Salton City Mortgages