TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
Wendy Kaserman, City Manager
Shawn Hagerty, City Attorney
FROM: James Jeffries, City Clerk
DATE: June 24, 2026
SUBJ: Updated Meeting Materials – June 24, 2026, City Council Meeting The attached correspondence for the below-mentioned Items was received and is being provided for your consideration.
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT:
CONTINUED BUSINESS:
(17) Continued Review of the Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-27, and Resolution Adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-27 and Taking Related Actions. (City Manager/Finance – Kaserman/Jennings)
(18) Resolutions Placing a General Tax Measure on the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election Ballot to Establish a Temporary One (1) Percent General Transactions and Use (Sales) Tax for 10 Years. (City Manager – Kaserman)
Councilmember Hall,
I wanted to thank you for your vote last week opposing the resolution directing staff to return with a proposed tax increase ballot measure.
Thank you also for taking the time to genuinely consider the concerns many of us have raised regarding a potential sales tax increase. Your willingness to question the approach and prioritize thoughtful evaluation is very much appreciated.
I also want to be direct: our community expects and deserves greater accountability before any proposal moves forward that would increase the financial burden on residents. That should include a transparent, detailed review of current spending, a clear identification of inefficiencies, and evidence that internal solutions have been fully explored.
As part of my own due diligence, I am actively reviewing publicly available records related to city personnel expense reports, contracts, and auditing procedures. In that review, I have already identified significant inconsistencies and potential policy concerns that raise serious questions about oversight and financial discipline. These issues further underscore the need for a more rigorous and transparent process before asking residents to pay more.
While it may be reassuring to hear Councilmember McNellis state that “the city runs as the leanest in the county,” recent findings suggest a deeper review is warranted. I intend to share my findings publicly in the interest of transparency and informed community discussion. My hope is that this encourages a more thorough and accountable approach moving forward.
Residents are paying close attention, and there is a clear expectation that decisions of this magnitude be grounded in diligence, fiscal responsibility, and open communication.
Thank you again for your leadership and for representing the community with care and integrity.
Be great today,
Tony
1 James Jeffries
From: SS DD
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 7:37 AM
To: Stacy Ready; James Jeffries
Subject: Submitted Public Comments For 6/24/2026 Council Meeting Hey there, Crew!
Here are my submitted public comments on Non-Agenda, Item 17, and Item 18 for tonight’s Council meeting.
Thanks so much,
-Truth
Non-Agenda:
Hey, it's yours truly and true, Truth. 蹉蹊蹋蹌蹍蹎蹏蹐蹑
I finally took a look at the way late "Agenda Correspondence" upload of submitted comments, and noticed that the emojis I include within my comments are NOT being included. Why not? They are very much a part of my expression and comments, so they should be included. To not do so, is essentially omitting essential parts of comments.
For the record, I once had to bring this to the attention of the Imperial Beach City Staff, and they fixed it by the next meeting. So can the City of Santee manage the same?? 덯데덬덭덮
Based on the issues surrounding implementation of SB707 and its Remote Public Comment requirements...
I've realized that every City not used to remote access needs a step by step breakdown of the process to truly understand the potential issues.
Even for the Agencies currently accepting remote comments, I see the need for serious privacy, access, and efficiency reforms.
(Note: I only support FUNDED, Constitutional Mandates. 뽾뽿뾀뽽뾁뾂뾃뾄) Dealing with the latter first...
Agencies should NOT be calling out the last 3-4 digits of people's phone numbers, as this is personally identifiable information. SANDAG, APCD, and the City of San Diego all do 2 this, and it has lead to the Doxxing of private individuals' full phone numbers, in violation of California Government Code Section 1708.89.
I have personally fought this battle in the past, and am now fighting it again. I expect more fights coming in July.
Be an Agency who makes no fight for privacy necessary.
On the sign up system/remote comment break down...
County Telephonic Comment example: Via the County Public Comment website and speaking form, one must sign up to speak on an item before public comment begins on the item.
Only a name and number are required. When a commenter calls, an (unchanging) meeting ID code must be entered so they can be in the queue to speak. One will be able to hear the meeting live when they call in.
A speaker will be unmuted when it's their time to speak.
If someone does not respond or cannot be heard when it's their turn to speak, the Clerk will use their name to check if they're present. If they're not, they'll come back to them later (usually at the end).
The County recently updated this system a few months ago, and it has improved greatly, with new additions such as: Adding a box to check if one is "neutral”, “in support”, or “in opposition" to an item when they sign up to speak, and adding a wait time estimate to the call line while in the comment queue. (Here's the County's speaker sign up form and
requirements: https://publiccomment.sandiegocounty.gov) SANDAG Telephonic Comment example: One does NOT have to sign up to speak on any item in order to speak on an item.
When a commenter calls, an (ever-changing) meeting ID code must be entered so they can be recognized in the queue. The Clerk will give the Chair an estimate of how many speakers are in the queue, but it can increase as comments are taken. There has rarely been an instance where the Chair introduced a cut-off time for raised hands, as SANDAG rarely receives more than 6 different commenters.
One will be able to hear the meeting live when they call in. A speaker must virtually raise their hand in order to be recognized to speak (*9 on the phone).
A speaker must them unmute themselves by pushing *6 (or hitting unmute on Zoom) when it's their time to speak. If someone does not respond or cannot be heard when it's their turn to speak, the Clerk will come back to them later (usually at the end). 3 The Clerk almost always calls out the last 3-4 digits of a person's phone number if they're participating by phone rather than by Zoom. (The private company Zoom allows a name ID change, whereas a phone number can't, however, the Clerk is well-aware of who is behind most of the phone number owners that call in.) SANDAG once experimented with updating this system by no longer calling out a speaker's last 3-4 phone digits, but instead using the phrase "call-in user 1". For unknown reasons, they quickly abandoned this privacy-ensuring method. (SANDAG's remote access directions are not particularly clear, but are provided via every agenda, so here's an example: https://pubsandag.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=af3f5850-d8b0-4115-8b7fdcee1c1e618c&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English) The City of San Diego, MTS, and APCD operate very similarly to SANDAG, though APCD requires a pre-sign up via their speaker form.
(Here's APCD's speaker sign up form and
requirements: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/community/speakerrequests.html) The Cities of Coronado and National City each have their own remote comment systems (via Zoom) that I have not utilized.
(I don’t use Zoom because I’m Old School. 뽾뽿뾀뽽뾁뾂뾃뾄)
On what Santee definitely needs for remote comments...
PATIENCE when requesting that people virtually raise their hands to provide comment, as anyone watching the meeting live will be seeing/hearing something with anywhere from a 5 second to a 1 minute delay.
Only AFTER they’re in the speaker queue will they be hearing the meeting LIVE. So, it’s important to give people some extra time to raise their hand to speak. (Taking in-person comments first sometimes helps with that time delay gap.) More audio cues as to what item the Council is considering, how many minutes will be provided to speak to an item, what images are in a presentation, etc. Meetings being watched/listened to remotely (especially when waiting in a speaker queue by phone) can be more difficult to follow, so it helps to hear reminders whenever possible. This is also helpful for those with disabilities and/or hearing impairments. 4 A separate sign up system to shield remote commenters’ personally identifiable information. A separate sign up system being a requirement before an item is called would also free up Staff time and focus from having to constantly monitor a screen full of an unknown amount of emails during a meeting. That's just ludicrous to even imagine.
A separate sign up system would also provide Meeting Management ahead of time, which is not something a Clerk and the Mayor should have to repeatedly figure out in real-time.
It's obvious that the City of Santee needs to add some additional website features that should've already existed, as Ronn alluded to.
I have mentioned it before, but I've been disappointed in the functionality of the "upgraded" website. It’s SLOW!
You all should take a look at the City of San Marcos' website, as it's very user-friendly; easy to find what you're looking for. But when it comes specifically to how remote comments work, nobody has a better system than the County, from my personal experiences...(though the meeting experiences are a totally different story...뇤늿닀닁닂늼늽늾뇺뇻뇽뇼뇤) SANDAG’s style of not having to sign up to speak is incredibly convenient for the commenters, but it is honestly inefficient for Staff, who have to count speakers in realtime, and sometimes have to create a real-time cut-off for raised hands.
In my opinion, requiring a sign up to speak before comments begin on an item (or before an item is called) makes for better Meeting Management.
Hopefully that long write-up was helpful. Sometimes I'm like an old Council Member who mistakenly assumes that everyone has the same knowledge that I do...until I realize that they don't. 뻳뻯뻴뻵뻰뻱뻲
It's also funny that those who sit on Boards and Councils rarely are people who've signed up to remotely speak to a Board or Council!! 뇤뇪뇫뇥뇦뇯뇰 Generational differences perhaps...
I also realized that I didn't leave a comment on the Performance Evaluation of the City Manager, so I’m happy to do that now:
Wendy has been 1 of the welcome changes to Council meetings. She's had a very 5 positive disposition, and she also answers every question to the best of her ability. I've been pleasantly surprised and pleasantly satisfied. 뇤눜눝눞눟눠눡蹗蹖 Please keep hiring employees like James, Stacy, and Wendy.
During the last meeting, I was actually simultaneously having a conversation with a friend about Santee, its general operations and successes, and its more positive environment as of late. I hope that doesn’t change with future Councils. 뜱뜲뜳뜴뜵뜶띃뜷뜸뜹뜺뜻뜼뜽뜾뜿띀띁띂띄
Also, hopefully for my first phone-in comment for the City of Santee, I can address something serious, and not have too much fun picking at you guys from afar. 뇤뇪뇫뇥뇦뇯뇰 Item 17: (Budget)
As referred to in my Non-Agenda, I’d like to see a little money put into truly upgrading the unfortunately still-deficient parts of the City website.
That includes adding the ability to add e-comments (though I personally never use that method), and adding a speaker sign-up form for future meetings.
Consider that providing the ability for people to sign up to speak ahead of time online will save on the City’s use of paper, ink, pens, and Staff time for in-person speakers.
Also...I'm disappointed that last meeting, Laura didn't read all 50 of her colorful budget tabs. 뇤뇪뇫뇥뇦뇯뇰
...Laura was, however, able to throw in some free beer references. 뇤뇪뇫뇥뇦뇯뇰뻯뻴뻵뻰뻱뻲뻳 (Still wondering who her Official sponsor is...)
And for the record, it wasn't my plan, but I also skimmed all the department accomplishments and objectives because they were actually interesting. 뾧뾱뾲뾨뾩뾪뾫뾬뾭뾮뾯뾰뾳뾴뾵 Keep that Transparency as the standard.
Item 18: (Tax)
6 So the premise for a new Sales Tax was the Capital Improvement Program being obviously underfunded for years on end.
So why not Earmark any potential increased Sales Tax revenue for the CIP? Why send it all to the General Fund for a new Council to play with anyway they want to?? And if the CIP allegedly needs $258 million, how would a new Sales Tax that would only provide $140 million make a dent, when it wouldn't even meet half the need? Is the CIP multi-million number just an excuse to add a new Tax? This Sales-Tax-going-to-the-General-Fund scenario has already played out in a couple different Cities, where Law Enforcement and Fire Department needs have gone neglected, and are now slowly falling apart.
Obviously, that's not Santee's plan (at the moment), but it's just an example of an unprogrammed spending capability.
I love laughing at the phrase "Temporary" and "10-year-long Sales Tax" being put together for PR purposes.
While the "community priorities" consist of the job a Council is already SUPPOSED to be doing. 덮덯데덬덭
The proposed Citizen Oversight Committee being appointed by the Council doesn't breed confidence, as that has the appearance of a Conflict-Of-Interest.
How would appointees avoid pressure from the Council?
Would there be minimum requirements for someone to be on the Citizen Oversight Committee? If so, that may result in fewer candidates. I think of SANDAG's Audit Committee struggling for Public Members.
In my opinion, it'd be wiser to provide a bit of financial training.
Also, will there be a certain number of seats set aside for certain types of people like business owners?
I personally don't believe in that type of discrimination, but Staff seemed to suggest it.
I love John suggesting that a Sales Tax targets Tourists/Visitors by ensuring they pay their “Fair Share” for the roads they use driving in and out of Santee. Pretty sure that would more accurately describe a Transit Occupancy Tax, NOT a Sales Tax, which targets anyone who shops in Santee, which is primarily Local residents.
Santee definitely gets a good amount of Sales Taxes from Visitors, but not in an exclusive way, so that perspective will fall flat and deaf with residents who will bear the brunt of any new Sales Tax.
7 Now maybe if you offered a Locals Only Discount...뇤뇪뇫뇥뇦뇯뇰 It will cost over $80,000 just to place this Sales Tax on the ballot for a vote...
In regular person terms: Wow, imagine NOT risking that kind of money, and instead investing it in what we need.
But in Government Machine terms: "What about the potential Return On Investment?" 덮덯데덬덭
I look forward to voters considering and then denying 1 of 1 billion new Taxes coming from Government – Especially after hearing the plethora of new Taxes being pushed by the evil Sacramento Swamp.
There’s a few writings on the wall to consider. Better notice.
For the record, I have shared the City of Santee's pursuit of another Sales Tax with a few friends. It is fun to compare different realities and perspectives of different communities, as well as the tactics Cities use to convince the public of needing a new Sales Tax, and the tactics of the public to ensure Accountability after the fact.
I recommend you on Council do the same.
Forget the Overpaid Consultants.
Final note for thought:
Too often, people in Office believe they have authorities that don't exist.
As a fellow Civically Engaged citizen has said:
"You don't have the Right to Lead, you have the Privilege to Represent." Thanks for reading蹖蹗,
-Truth
8 --
Sent with https://mailfence.com
Secure and private email