The Grand Jury is a judicial body comprised of nineteen citizens. It is impaneled to act as an "arm of the court," as authorized by the State Constitution, to be a voice of the people and conscience of the community.

Excerpt from the IMPERIAL COUNTY GRAND JURY PROCEDURES MANUAL - 2006

Below are some citizen complaints that have recently been submitted to the Grand Jury. 

Every citizen has a right to submit a complaint to the Grand Jury.  Once a complaint has been submitted there is no guarantee that the Grand Jury will even investigate it.  All parties involved are presumed innocent.

State Law prevents anyone from disclosing  anything that they learned as a Grand Jury Witness until the Grand Jury's term expires.  However the Supreme Court has ruled that things that were already known to the witness before they became a witness is not subject to this non-disclosure requirement.

The links below will take you to EXACT copies of what was sent to the Grand Jury:

On November 20th, 2007 the SCSD Board of Directors refused to even discuss Resolution 2007-11-xx (Barrett) which would have acknowledged that the Sewer User Fee increase of June 2007 did not legally pass.  The resolution would have instructed the County Tax Collector not to collect the $60 increase that just showed up on district tax bills.  This increase is a lien on all  houses that are connected to the Sewer System in Salton City and Desert Shores as well as some houses in Vista Del Mar.

Complaint #1 Submitted by James G. Barrett on 11-21-07

This addresses the issue that the Sewer User Fee increase enacted in June of 2007 did not obtain the 2/3 Board vote that was required after it survived the Proposition 218 protest.

Complaint #2 Submitted by James G. Barrett on 11-21-07

This addresses the issue that the Proposition 218 notice that was authorized by the Board in April 2007 to be sent out was not the version that the property owners were actually sent.

On December 19th, 2006 the Board of Directors authorized the refund of $485,000 worth of improperly imposed Fire Department / Street Lighting Developer Impact Fees that by law the SCSD was not permitted to collect.

Complaint #3 Submitted by James G. Barrett on 11-27-07

This  complaint deals with the refund applications' arbitrary "must submit by date" of December 31st, 2007. 

This date conflicts with Government Code that states that a local agency such as a Community Services District cannot take possession of "unclaimed" moneys until they remain unclaimed for 3 years and then only after proper public notice via announcements published in a newspaper of general circulation within the County.

The complaint also addresses the $24,000 of the impact fee that the SCSD general fund has already expended and has not returned to the proper fund.

On August 21st, 2007 the SCSD Board of Directors refused to even discuss Resolution 2007-08-02 (Barrett) which would have refunded tens of thousand of dollars in improperly collected channel maintenance fees.

Complaint #4 Submitted by James G. Barrett on 12-10-07

This complaint involves the Channel Maintenance Fee that is charged to every subdivided lot in tracts  576-A and 679 in Salton City.  For over 30 years the SCSD has been assessing those tracts a fee of $30 and $20 respectively.  Per the deed recorded covenants the SCSD was only allowed to charge more than the $10 minimum if the actual costs of channel maintenance in the previous year exceeded the total of all of the collected $10 fees in that year.

Additionally the SCSD has been "skimming" off one-third of the interest earned on this fund for "office overhead".

In 2006-07 the fund was "skimmed" of $5,591 for "office overhead" even though no money was actually spent on the maintenance of these channels.