Lodi City Council — Regular Meeting

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 — Invocation 6:55 p.m. | Regular Session 7:00 p.m.

Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Mayor Ramon Yepez | Mayor Pro Tempore Mikey Hothi | Councilmembers Cameron Bregman, Lisa Craig-Hensley, Alan Nakanishi

Summary

The Council meets the day after the November 3 general election. Most of the agenda finishes work the Council started in October. No closed session is scheduled.

• Growth and annexation rules. The Council takes a second vote on the Phase 4 Development Code package, Ordinance 2050. It adds park-land rules for new subdivisions, a two-step annexation process and the City’s first Williamson Act procedures. A second vote on Ordinance 2051 would prezone the 96.1-acre Westside “F” annexation area.
• Farmland fee. The Council pulled the agricultural mitigation fee, Chapter 15.69, from the package on October 21 after a Building Industry Association letter. The chapter returns as a discussion item (G.1), but the ordinance text has not changed and the staff report has no written analysis.
• Sewer bills. A public hearing (F.1) would base residential sewer bills on December through March water use, dropping the highest month. No household’s billed volume can go up under the new formula.
• Contracts and grants. Consent items include a $110,000 state traffic-safety grant, a June 2024 pay schedule approved more than two years late, a third amendment that roughly doubles the Mosaic recruitment contract to $209,750 and a third amendment that takes the WSP electric mapping contract to $650,000.
• Old minutes. Minutes from July and August 2024 record a 3–1 vote to join the San Joaquin Regional Housing Fund, a residency raise for then-City Manager Scott Carney and a postponed Main Street transitional housing contract.

Meeting Details

Date and Time: Wednesday, November 4, 2026. Invocation 6:55 p.m.; regular session 7:00 p.m.

Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Remote Viewing and Comment: Zoom webinar ID 821 7418 0304, passcode 123456; phone 1-253-215-8782 or 1-346-248-7799. The meeting also streams on the City’s YouTube channel (@cityoflodi_publicmeetings) and SJTV Channel 26.

Written Comment: Email councilcomments@lodi.gov at least two hours before the meeting. Written comments go to the Council and into the minutes but are not read aloud.

Public Comment Limits: Five minutes per speaker on non-agenda items, in person or on Zoom.

Agenda Packet: 241-page packet in the City of Lodi Agenda Center. Page references below (“p. 28”) refer to this packet.

Accommodations: The agenda still lists Olivia Nashed as the contact for disability accommodations. Elizabeth Haglund is the current Interim City Clerk.

Agenda

B. Presentation

• B.1 Recognition of the Diede family for restoring the American Legion Memorial Building

C. Consent Calendar

• C.1 Approve minutes: July 17, 2024; August 7, 2024; October 7, 2026; October 28, 2026 (special)
• C.2 Accept Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) grant, $110,000 (Police)
• C.3 Approve City pay schedule dated June 1, 2024 (Human Resources)
• C.4 Mosaic Public Partners recruitment contract Amendment 3, +$106,750 to $209,750 (Human Resources)
• C.5 Accept Hutchins Street Square pool crack repair, $38,370 final (Public Works)
• C.6 WSP USA electric GIS support Amendment 3, +$100,000 to $650,000 (Electric Utility)
• C.7 Set November 18 hearing on 2027 habitat plan development fees (Community Development)
• C.8 Set November 18 hearing on the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (Public Works)

F. Public Hearing

• F.1 Introduce ordinance changing the residential sewer billing formula, Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) 13.12.181(C). No rate change.

G. Regular Calendar

• G.1 Discuss Chapter 15.69, Agricultural Mitigation Fee

H. Ordinances (Second Readings)

• H.1 Adopt Ordinance 2050, Phase 4 Development Code package, excluding Chapter 15.69
• H.2 Adopt Ordinance 2051, Westside “F” prezoning

B. Presentation

B.1 Diede Family, American Legion Building

The Council will recognize the Diede family for restoring the American Legion Memorial Building at 320 North Washington Street (pp. 5–6). Lisa Craig-Hensley signed the certificate as “Councilwoman” rather than the Mayor signing it. It praises the family for preserving the building “for continued use as a community gathering and assembly space.”

Background. American Legion Post No. 22 sold the building in 2021 as membership fell and upkeep costs rose. Storm damage followed, including a tree limb that tore a hole in the roof (Lodi News-Sentinel, Sept. 29, 2026). Diede Construction bought the property in December 2023 and spent about two years and roughly 40,000 labor hours turning it into a private events venue. The work included an outdoor patio on 30 feet of leased Lawrence Park land (Lodi News-Sentinel, Sept. 15, 2026). The venue held its first event October 17 (Lodi News-Sentinel, Oct. 17, 2026).

Open Issues to Watch

• The October 17 column gives the purchase date as “late 2024,” which conflicts with the December 2023 date in the September columns.
• The patio sits on leased park land. The lease terms are not in this packet.

C. Consent Calendar

Consent items pass together on one motion unless a Council member or a member of the public asks to pull one for separate discussion.

C.1 Approve Minutes

Assistant City Clerk Pamela Farris prepared the item (p. 7). Two of the four sets come from 2024, before the November 2024 election changed the Council. Lisa Craig was Mayor then, Cameron Bregman was Mayor Pro Tempore and Scott Carney was City Manager.

July 17, 2024 — Regular Meeting (pp. 8–12)

• Closed session (4:33–7:05 p.m.): Yepez and Bregman were absent. The Council discussed a Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board penalty (Administrative Civil Liability R5-2024-0508) with an expedited payment offer, labor talks with all employee groups and the City Manager’s performance evaluation. No reportable action.
• Regional Housing Fund (major decision, split vote): Yepez pulled the item. Neighborhood Services Manager Jennifer Rhyne and Kim Anderson of the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) explained how the countywide housing trust fund works. Mayor Craig asked whether it could help pay for the Access Center, the City’s homeless shelter. Yepez said most low-income housing ends up in his district and asked for a policy to spread it across the city. Rhyne said the Housing Element already requires varied housing types citywide. Resolution 2024-121 passed 3–1, Yepez voting no.
• Other consent items (4–0, Bregman absent): White Slough farm leases with Kirschenman Farms and Lima Ranch (Resolution 2024-122); a two-year, $78,000 street-sweeping contract with SCA of CA (2024-123); Transportation Development Act claims of $6,152,690 and $85,873 (2024-124); Janelle Wilkinson appointed to the Senior Citizens Commission.
• Grace Orchard solar: Assistant Electric Utility Director Melissa Price presented a Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) agreement to buy power from the Grace Orchard Energy Center. The purchase helps Lodi meet the state Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires a rising share of renewable electricity. Resolution 2024-125 passed 4–0.
• Council comments: Hothi asked for an item on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on homeless-camp enforcement. The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.

August 7, 2024 — Regular Meeting (pp. 13–20)

• Closed session: Labor talks, one anticipated-litigation matter and the national opioid litigation (Kroger settlement). Staff received direction. Nakanishi was absent all evening.
• Consent calendar (4–0): 14 items, including a $122,962 Callander Associates amendment for DeBenedetti Park plans (2024-127), a $387,400 West Yost task order for White Slough (2024-128), a three-year, $500,000 lab contract with Eurofins Eaton Analytical (2024-130) and a $172,517.52 John Deere loader bought through the Sourcewell cooperative contract (2024-132). The Council also set an August 21, 2024 hearing to rezone about 3 acres for affordable housing.
• Public comment: Lodi Hotel resident Michael Rude complained about late-night noise downtown. Robert Van Arsdale raised Assembly Bill 413, the state law that requires clear “daylighting” space near crosswalks, and Mayor Craig asked staff for a report on it.
• City Manager raise (major decision): City Attorney Lucchesi said Carney’s contract provided a raise once his Lodi residency was verified. Resolution 2024-133 passed 4–0, effective July 16, 2024. The Lodi News-Sentinel reported the contract set a $275,000 base salary plus $5,000 for moving into the city (Lodi News-Sentinel).
• Main Street transitional housing (major discussion): Staff proposed a five-year lease and operator agreement with Inner City Action, Inc., with the City paying up to $80,000 in utilities for 18 months. Mayor Craig objected that Inner City Action sent no representative and criticized the single proposal. Bregman favored a 12-month residency limit instead of 24. Yepez said he would not contract with Inner City Action. Hothi supported it. The Council voted 4–0 to continue the item and asked staff why other providers did not apply. The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.

October 7, 2026 — Regular Meeting (pp. 21–26)

• Closed session (6:17–7:00 p.m.): All five members discussed an initial performance review of City Manager Kara Reddig and two lawsuits filed by former City Manager Scott R. Carney (San Joaquin Superior Court cases STK-CV-UWM-2026-0003828 and STK-CV-UOE-2026-0044713). City Attorney Taryn Jones reported no action.
• Consent calendar (4–0, Nakanishi absent): Eight sets of backlogged minutes; BKF Engineers on-call planning contract raised by $144,000 to $224,000 (Resolution 2026-204), pulled by Craig-Hensley; Purchasing Policy changes for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rules; a $240,543 sole-source Civica library catalog agreement (2026-205); free student bus fares through the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP).
• Valley Outdoor Advertising: Bregman recused himself and left the dais. The transit advertising extension through December 31, 2026 passed 3–0 (Resolution 2026-210).
• Public comment: Through a translator, Central Avenue residents described homelessness, trash and illegal activity near a church, a liquor store and a vacant lot on Tokay Street. Mayor Yepez said he had asked staff for help.
• Westside “F” hearing: Staff pulled F.1 and continued it to October 21. The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.

October 28, 2026 — Special Meeting, State of the City (p. 27)

Mayor Yepez gave the State of the City address at 8:00 a.m. in Kirst Hall at Hutchins Street Square, with all five members present. The minutes record attendance only, with no summary of the address and no link to the slides.

Open Issues to Watch

• The 2024 minutes arrive 27 and 28 months after those meetings. Lodi has no posted deadline for producing minutes.
• The October 21, 2026 minutes are not in the packet, even though H.1 and H.2 are second readings of ordinances introduced that night. Minutes of the October 27 special meeting on the Facility Maintenance Plan are also missing.
• The August 2024 minutes end with the Main Street contract continued. The packet does not show what happened next.

C.2 Traffic Safety Grant: $110,000 (pp. 28–53)

The Council would accept Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) grant PT27085 from the state Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), let the City Manager sign the documents and set up the budget. The grant covers October 1, 2026 to September 30, 2027 and comes from federal highway-safety funds the state passes through.

It pays police overtime for DUI saturation patrols on weekend and holiday evenings, five DUI and driver’s-license checkpoints, motorcycle, pedestrian, bicycle and distracted-driving enforcement, and impaired-driving training. Checkpoints take more than a third of the money.

FIGURE 1. STEP grant budget lines. Source: OTS Schedule B, agenda item C.2, November 4, 2026 packet.

Values: checkpoints 5 × $8,010 = $40,050; saturation patrols 15 × $1,400 = $21,000; traffic enforcement 13 × $975 = $12,675; distracted driving 10 × $985.23 = $9,852; collaborative enforcement 5 × $1,750 = $8,750; pedestrian/bicycle 8 × $930 = $7,440; training travel $3,723; motorcycle 2 × $975 = $1,950; warrant service 2 × $925 = $1,850; overtime benefits $1,554; checkpoint supplies $1,156. Total $110,000.

Local data in the application (pp. 33–34). Lodi recorded about 917 crashes in 2025, none fatal, with 157 injury crashes that hurt 203 people. Police counted more than 75 DUI-related crashes and about 269 DUI arrests. Crashes hurt 22 pedestrians, 17 bicyclists and 9 motorcyclists. The department is authorized for 80 sworn officers, with about 23 positions not fully staffed and about 17 recruits in training.

Requirements. OTS requires a kickoff news release by December 31, participation in 12 national safety campaigns and a monthly “DUI BOLO” (be on the lookout) list of repeat offenders driving on suspended licenses.

Open Issues to Watch

• The grant year began October 1, five weeks before Council approval. The agreement bars costs before it is fully signed, so October enforcement would not be reimbursed (p. 30).
• The application credits Lodi’s October 2024 to September 2025 grant for the drop in crashes. It does not mention any grant for October 2025 to September 2026.

C.3 City Pay Schedule Dated June 1, 2024 (pp. 54–61)

The Council would approve, after the fact, the citywide pay schedule dated June 1, 2024. It lists monthly pay ranges for roughly 200 job classifications.

Why it matters. CalPERS, the state pension system, counts pay toward a pension only if it appears on a “publicly available pay schedule” the governing body approved in a public meeting (CalPERS Circular Letter 200-050-16). Approval now closes a gap in the City’s pension compliance.

The schedule lists the City Manager at $275,000 a year, effective June 1, 2024 (p. 55). The Council approved Carney’s residency raise effective July 16, 2024, an action recorded in the August 7, 2024 minutes on this same agenda. Carney now has two lawsuits pending against the City.

Open Issues to Watch

• The staff report does not say why the schedule was not approved in 2024.
• It does not say whether the 2025 and 2026 schedules are approved, or whether CalPERS has flagged the gap.

C.4 Mosaic Public Partners Recruitment Contract, Amendment 3 (pp. 62–128)

The Council would add $106,750 to the City’s contract with Mosaic Public Partners, an executive-search firm in Lincoln, bringing the total to $209,750 and extending it through June 30, 2027. The signed exhibits show three earlier steps, none with a Council action cited in the packet.

TABLE 1. Mosaic contract history. Source: Agenda item C.4 staff report and agreement exhibits.

FIGURE 2. Contract ceiling after each action. The yellow line marks the City Manager’s $60,000 signing limit under the 2022 Purchasing Policy; the red line marks the $80,000 limit in a June 2026 draft.

What the new money covers. $26,500 pays for an Assistant City Attorney search (proposal dated October 15, 2026) and $25,500 for a Risk Manager search. The other $54,750 is “for the recent City Clerk recruitment and possible future recruitments.” Mosaic’s July 14, 2026 City Clerk proposal set a $32,000 flat fee, and that proposal is attached to Amendment 2.

Open Issues to Watch

• Amendment 1 took the contract past the $60,000 limit and Amendment 2 past $80,000 (Finance Committee agenda, June 10, 2026). The packet shows no Council approval for either, and this resolution does not ratify them.
• The original term ran September 4, 2025 to September 3, 2026 (p. 79). Amendment 2 is dated September 30, after it expired, and the packet shows no extension in between.
• The staff report does not explain why the City Clerk search needs more money if Amendment 2 covered it, or what the uncommitted share of the $54,750 will buy.
• The funding line reads “Fiscal Year 20267-278.”

C.5 Hutchins Street Square Pool Repair: Accept Work (pp. 129–131)

The Council would accept the finished repair and file a Notice of Completion. Siegfried Engineering and Pacific Coast Leak Detection traced the pool’s leaks to cracked concrete in the pool shell. On May 6, 2026 the Council authorized up to $40,000 from a restricted Hutchins Street Square Foundation donation (Resolution 2026-092).

The City received one bid, from Ichor Restoration of Prunedale, at $29,900. Change Order 1 added $8,470, a 28% increase, for damage found during the work, for a final cost of $38,370. Crews injected epoxy into cracks and patched spalled concrete. Staff expects the repair to last about five years before a full rehabilitation.

Open Issues to Watch

• The fiscal impact section says $38,380, $10 more than the $38,370 in the background.
• No capital plan in the packet addresses the full pool rehabilitation the five-year estimate points to.

C.6 WSP USA Electric GIS Support, Amendment 3 (pp. 132–183)

The Council would add $100,000 to Lodi Electric Utility’s contract with WSP USA, formerly Power Engineers, for a $650,000 total through December 31, 2028. GIS, or geographic information system, is the utility’s digital map of its poles, lines and meters.

The original $225,000 contract from December 2022 moved the utility’s maps into Esri’s ArcGIS Utility Network. Amendments 1 (February 2024, $125,000) and 2 (June 2024, $200,000) improved asset data and gave customer meters unique IDs so the GIS and outage system can track outages. WSP’s August 13, 2026 proposal covers ad hoc support, back-end upkeep, project management and training for a new in-house Enterprise Technology Analyst. Funding comes from account 50061500.72450.

FIGURE 3. WSP contract ceiling after each action. Source: Agenda item C.6 staff report and amendments.

Open Issues to Watch

• The staff report says Amendment 3 adds a connected model of the sub-transmission system and moves streetlight maps into GIS. WSP’s scope letter names neither as a deliverable.
• The packet does not cite the Council resolutions that approved Amendments 1 and 2.

C.7 Set November 18 Hearing: 2027 Habitat Plan Fees (pp. 183–184)

The San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), run by SJCOG, charges developers a per-acre fee to offset habitat lost to construction. The Council would set a November 18 hearing on the 2027 fees.

TABLE 2. SJMSCP fees. Sources: Agenda item C.7; City of Stockton Resolution 25-1076 for 2026 fees.

FIGURE 4. 2026 and proposed 2027 fees. The wetted vernal pool fee ($183,894 to $191,580) is left off for scale.

The agricultural fee covers land purchase ($15,816), habitat improvement ($6,444) and management and administration ($648.18). It rises about 28%, or $5,040 an acre. The vernal-pool uplands fee would fall about 20%. SJCOG reported $9.85 million in plan fees collected in 2025, with farmland habitat making up 78% of the acreage that paid fees (SJCOG Board agenda, March 18, 2026).

Open Issues to Watch

• Lodi’s proposed farmland mitigation fee (G.1) would be charged on top of this habitat fee for annexation projects that convert farmland.

C.8 Set November 18 Hearing: 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (p. 184)

State law requires large water suppliers to update an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years, covering supply, demand and drought shortages. Lodi hired Provost & Pritchard of Clovis in July 2026. The current plan was adopted August 4, 2021.

Open Issues to Watch

• The state Department of Water Resources (DWR) required 2025 plans to be adopted and submitted by July 1, 2026 (California DWR). Staff says the City “remains eligible for various grant funding opportunities” but does not address the missed deadline.
• The same staff report appeared as C.12 in the October 21 packet. The packet does not say whether the hearing was already set then.
• Staff says the draft is on the City’s website, but neither the packet nor the staff report links to it. The City’s Master Plans page lists only the 2020 plan.

F. Public Hearing

F.1 Sewer Billing Formula, LMC 13.12.181(C) (pp. 185–191)

The Council would hold a hearing and introduce an ordinance. Adoption would come at a later meeting, with the ordinance taking effect 30 days after that.

What changes. Lodi bills metered homes for sewer service based on winter water use, since little of that water goes to lawns. Today the bill rests on average use in December, January and February. The new formula looks at December through March, drops the highest month and averages the other three. Rates stay the same. High-strength commercial and industrial users, billed on actual flow and pollution load, are not affected.

What the math means. The new figure averages the three lowest of four months. If March is the highest month, it drops out and the result matches today’s formula. In every other case a higher December–February month is swapped for March, so the average falls. A household’s billed volume can only stay the same or go down. That helps households with one heavy winter month from a leak or holiday guests. It also means sewer revenue can only hold steady or fall unless rates change.

Open Issues to Watch

• Staff says revenue impacts “will depend on customer water consumption patterns” but gives no estimate. The City has meter data that could answer it.
• Bills are recalculated each July 1, but the ordinance gives no start date. Staff has not said whether December 2026–March 2027 readings will set July 2027 bills.
• The redlined and clean versions in the packet look the same, so the redline does not show what text changed.
• The agenda labels the item “Res.” (resolution), but it is an ordinance.

G. Regular Calendar

G.1 Chapter 15.69: Agricultural Mitigation Fee (pp. 192–202)

On October 21 the Council approved the Phase 4 code package except Chapter 15.69. It held the chapter after a letter from the Building Industry Association of the Greater Valley (BIA) and asked staff for “additional information and clarification” (Plan Lodi). Staff now asks the Council to review the chapter and give direction or take action.

Background. General Plan Policy C-P7, adopted in 2010, calls for an agricultural conservation program with a fee and at least one acre of farmland preserved for each acre converted (Lodi General Plan, Appendix A). Until now the City has applied it project by project.

What Chapter 15.69 does.

• When it applies: development tied to an annexation that converts state-mapped Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance or Unique Farmland and needs a building or grading permit. Existing city land, previously developed land, public projects and accessory dwelling units are exempt.
• Ratio and fee: at least 1:1 mitigation. The Council would set the fee later by resolution, based on a nexus study that legally ties a fee to the impact it pays for. The fee is due at building permit.
• Where the money goes: permanent conservation easements held by a group such as the California Farmland Trust, on San Joaquin County land, with priority near Lodi or in greenbelt “community separator” areas between cities.
• Adjustments and options: annual increases tied to a construction cost index, Mitigation Fee Act accounting, an option for developers to provide their own easement and appeals to the City Manager within 30 days.

What the packet shows. The staff report is one paragraph. It has no written response to the BIA letter, no fee estimate and no copy of the letter. A word-by-word comparison of the November 4 ordinance with the October 21 clean version found no text changes, and the redlined and clean attachments are identical. Any new information will come in a presentation at the meeting.

Why it matters now. Plan Lodi says the Westside “F” annexation “relies on adoption of the Phase 4 provisions establishing the City’s Williamson Act regulations and agricultural mitigation requirements.” Another delay would leave Westside “F” with no adopted farmland mitigation rule. The Maverik project handles mitigation through a signed letter of agreement until an ordinance is adopted.

Open Issues to Watch

• The fee amount, and the nexus study needed to set it, are not scheduled.
• The BIA letter has not appeared in any City packet.
• A farmland conversion would pay this fee on top of the 2027 SJMSCP habitat fee of $22,908.18 per acre (C.7).
• If the Council introduces the chapter, adoption requires a second reading at a later meeting.

H. Ordinances (Second Readings)

H.1 Ordinance 2050: Phase 4 Code Package, Excluding Chapter 15.69 (pp. 203–237)

The Council would waive the second reading and adopt. The ordinance takes effect 30 days later.

• Chapter 15.70, Parkland Dedication and In-Lieu Fees. Under the state Quimby Act, cities can require park land, or a fee instead, when land is subdivided. Lodi would require 5 acres per 1,000 residents, with a goal of 8. Recreation-designed stormwater basins can count. Subdivisions of more than 50 lots dedicate land; smaller ones pay a fee equal to appraised land value at final map.
• Section 17.28.040, Planned Development (PD) overlay. Annexation areas of 40 acres or more need a Master Plan covering land use, infrastructure, parks, fiscal impacts and phasing.
• Chapter 17.77, Boundary Changes. Annexation becomes two steps: a Pre-Annexation Hearing before the City Council, which decides whether a proposal may proceed, then a formal application with studies of services, fiscal impacts, water and farmland. Annexations of 10 acres or less are exempt from the first step. The chapter also covers prezoning, tax-sharing agreements and filing with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the county board that approves boundary changes.
• Chapter 17.78, Williamson Act Regulations. The Williamson Act cuts property taxes on farmland in exchange for a contract to keep it farmed. The chapter sets Lodi’s procedures for taking over contracts on annexed land, non-renewal, cancellation fees and protests.

Changes since October 21. Chapter 15.69 is removed and later sections are renumbered. The first annexation step now goes directly to the City Council: Section 17.77.050(C) reads “The City Council shall conduct a Pre-Annexation Hearing,” replacing an October draft that gave a “Merit Hearing” to the Planning Commission (pp. 203–204). State law (Government Code §36934) requires an ordinance changed after introduction to wait at least five days before final passage; the packet was printed October 29, six days ahead.

Open Issues to Watch

• Section 17.78.030(E) cites “Government Code Section 5183.4.” The correct section is 51283.4, on tentative cancellation certificates.
• The Section 17.28.040 purpose clause still reads “then would have been achieved,” where “than” is meant.

H.2 Ordinance 2051: Westside “F” Prezoning (pp. 238–241)

The Council would adopt prezoning for the 96.1-acre Westside “F” area south of West Vine Street, north of West Kettleman Lane and west of South Lower Sacramento Road. Dobbins Properties, Inc. is the applicant. Prezoning takes effect only if LAFCO approves the annexation.

Do the acres add up? The October 21 packet gives the zone acreage three ways, and they do not agree. The staff report and the ordinance title, repeated unchanged on November 4, use 9.2, 19.91, 10, 49.8 and 7.2 acres. Those add to 96.11. The Westside Pre-Zoning Exhibit map (October 21 packet, p. 297) adds to 95.3. The List of Annexation Parcels attached to the ordinance (p. 311) adds to 95.52 for the 20 parcels. It gives no acreage for the Taylor Road right-of-way, which the annexation resolution counts in the 96.1-acre total.

TABLE 3. Westside “F” zone acreage by source. Sources: October 21, 2026 packet, item F.2 staff report, Attachment 2 (p. 297) and ordinance Attachment 1 (p. 311); November 4, 2026 packet, item H.2.

FIGURE 5. Acres by zone in each source. The parcel table assigns no parcel to PF; the 10.0-acre parcel 027-050-03 is the only one without a zone. RLD is Residential Low Density; MCO, Mixed Use Corridor; PF, Public and Community Facilities; GC, General Commercial; RMD, Residential Medium Density.

The parcel table supports the 19.91-acre Mixed Use Corridor figure: its six parcels along West Kettleman Lane (State Route 12) add to exactly 19.91. The October 21 staff report said the earlier 19.1-acre and 95.3-acre figures were clerical errors and that the correct numbers appear “in the corrected prezone exhibit.” The exhibit in the October 21 packet still reads 19.1 acres for the Mixed Use Corridor and 50.2 acres for Residential Low Density, and its labels add to 95.3. The Residential Low Density parcels add to 49.22 acres, 0.58 short of the 49.8 in the staff report. That gap equals the difference between the 96.1-acre total and the parcel sum. The staff report does not say whether the Taylor Road right-of-way is counted in the low-density zone.

Ordinance 2051 itself does not list acres by zone. It prezones “the respective portions of the Project Area,” with the parcels listed in Attachment 1. Since introduction, its description of the Project Area has changed from “approximately 95.3-acre” to “approximately 96.1-acre,” and its title now reads West Kettleman “Lane” where the October text said “Road.” The packet does not mark these changes or include Attachment 1 or a map.

Background. On October 21 the Council voted 4–0 to seek annexation of the 20 parcels, with Bregman recused for a conflict of interest (Lodi News-Sentinel, Oct. 23, 2026). Five parcels north of Taylor Road are cropland, and 10 agricultural-residential parcels lie south of it (Lodi News-Sentinel, Aug. 15, 2026). For environmental review, staff relies on CEQA Guidelines §15183, which covers projects consistent with a General Plan that has a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Open Issues to Watch

• The ordinance refers to a property list and zoning map as attachments, but the packet includes only the four-page ordinance.
• No corrected pre-zoning map has been published. The only exhibit in the record shows 19.1 Mixed Use Corridor acres and a 95.3-acre total, figures staff has called errors.
• The parcel table gives no zone for parcel 027-050-03 (345 East Taylor Road, 10.0 acres), the only parcel without a zone and the same size as the PF zone. As written, the attachment ties the PF zone to no parcel.
• Since introduction, the ordinance text has changed its Project Area acreage from 95.3 to 96.1. State law (Government Code §36934) bars final passage of an ordinance altered after introduction until at least five days later; the packet was printed October 29.
• Bregman is expected to recuse again.
• LAFCO review of land with Williamson Act contracts and Prime Farmland depends on H.1’s Williamson Act chapter and the outcome of G.1.

References

• City of Lodi, City Council agenda packet, November 4, 2026
• City of Lodi, City Council agenda packet, October 21, 2026
• City of Lodi, Agenda Center (agendas and minutes)
• City of Lodi, Public meetings video channel
• City of Lodi, Finance Committee agenda, June 10, 2026 (Purchasing Policy draft)
• City of Lodi, Plan Lodi: Phase 4 code amendments
• City of Lodi, General Plan Appendix A, Policy C-P7
• City of Lodi, Master Plans and Reports
• California Department of Water Resources, Urban Water Management Plans
• CalPERS, Circular Letter 200-050-16 and publicly available pay schedule checklist
• California Office of Traffic Safety, grant programs
• San Joaquin Council of Governments, SJMSCP habitat program and Board agenda, March 18, 2026
• City of Stockton, Resolution 25-1076 (2026 SJMSCP fees)
• California Government Code, Section 51283.4
• Lodi News-Sentinel background reporting: Carney contract; October 21 annexation vote; Westside “F” parcels; American Legion Building columns of Sept. 15, Sept. 29 and Oct. 17, 2026

Prepared for Lodi411 by Don Bradford. Source: City of Lodi City Council agenda packet for November 4, 2026, including staff reports, agreements, ordinances, exhibits and minutes, and the City of Lodi agenda packet for October 21, 2026.

Lodi Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee — Regular Meeting

Lodi411 / LodiEye — Agenda Review

Wednesday, October 28, 2026 — 5:15 p.m.

Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Chair Rosado | Vice Chair Donaldson | Members Dickens, Hamilton, Woehl

Summary

Lodi has never had a historic preservation law. On Oct. 28 the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) holds a public workshop on the first draft. SPARC is the five-member committee that reviews the design of commercial and multi-family projects. The committee takes no vote. It gives staff its comments before the draft goes to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council.

The draft would create a local register of historic buildings and districts. Owners would need a permit, called a Certificate of Appropriateness, before changing or demolishing a listed building, and SPARC would decide the larger cases. The draft would also offer Mills Act property tax contracts, a state program that lowers an owner's taxes in exchange for preservation. The draft gives SPARC the final say on those contracts, even though state law gives that power to the City Council. The draft also leaves several basic questions open, including whether owners must consent to designation and whether buildings not yet listed would be covered.

The ordinance carries out a policy the General Plan adopted in 2024. The consultant survey for the new Downtown Specific Plan found six buildings already on state or national historic registers, 118 more that may qualify, and a possible Japantown historic district on North Main Street.

Meeting Details

Date and time: Wednesday, October 28, 2026, 5:15 p.m.

Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi. The building is the former Lodi Carnegie Library, which is already listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.

Zoom webinar: Meeting ID 818 0090 1564, passcode 747476; by phone at 1-669-444-9171 or 1-346-248-7799

Written comment for the meeting: Email sparccomments@lodi.gov, or mail or hand-deliver to the Community Development Department (P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241; 221 W. Pine St.). Comments must arrive at least two hours before the meeting, by 3:15 p.m.

Comment on the draft ordinance: The City accepts comments until the ordinance is adopted. Send them to planningdivision@lodi.gov or call (209) 333-6700.

Agenda contact: Jessica L. Pagán, Administrative Assistant, (209) 333-6711

The committee: SPARC has five members who serve four-year terms. One of them is appointed from the Planning Commission. SPARC meets on the second and fourth Wednesdays of the month. The roster above is the one recorded in the committee's Jan. 14, 2026 minutes.

Agenda

1. Roll Call

2. Minutes

The agenda lists minutes but names no meeting and attaches none. The committee last met Sept. 23, when it reviewed the Maverik convenience store and fuel station at 4872 E. Kettleman Lane.

3. Comments by the Public (Non-Agenda Items)

Each speaker gets one appearance.

4. Review Items

None. No project designs are before the committee this meeting.

5. Regular Business — Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance

A public workshop on the draft ordinance, which is marked "Workshop Draft — For Discussion Only." The packet includes the 18-page draft but no staff report, presentation, cost estimate or environmental review determination.

6. Comments by Committee Members and Staff (Non-Agenda Items)

7. Adjournment

A Quiet Year for SPARC

This is only the fifth SPARC meeting this year with an agenda. The City canceled 14 of the 19 regular meetings it scheduled for 2026, including Oct. 14. Each of the other four meetings heard a single design review:

• Jan. 14: a 44-unit senior townhome project at 1100 W. Lodi Ave.
• March 11: a 70-foot electronic freeway sign at 1255 S. Beckman Road
• Aug. 26: electronic message signs on City property, which the committee rejected
• Sept. 23: the Maverik store and fuel station on East Kettleman Lane

Source: City of Lodi Agenda Center, SPARC listings for 2026.

Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance

Why Lodi Is Writing One

Lodi has no way today to list a building as historic or to review changes to it. The City's consultants wrote that Lodi "currently has no historic preservation ordinance or formal designation criteria or procedures for local listing." An older building gets historic review only when a project triggers the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the state law that requires environmental review of some projects.

In December 2024, the City updated the Conservation Element of its General Plan. The update directs the City to:

• adopt a historic preservation ordinance (policy C-P33);
• establish a Historic Preservation Commission (C-P32);
• survey and designate historic buildings and districts (C-P30 and C-P31); and
• evaluate older buildings during environmental review (C-P29).

The new Downtown Specific Plan makes the ordinance a near-term task. Implementation action P-27 reads: "Write and adopt a historic preservation ordinance with assistance from the Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee (SPARC)."

On June 3, City staff asked the Council to amend the City's contract with RRM Design Group, the downtown plan consultant. The amendment uses about $137,000 left in the existing contract and adds no new money. It sets aside "approximately $22,000 in continued historic preservation and adaptive reuse support, including completion of the Historic Preservation Ordinance," and extends the contract through June 30, 2027.

What the Downtown Survey Found

GPA Consulting prepared the Historical Resource Inventory for the downtown plan. The plan area has about 413 parcels, bounded roughly by Pleasant Avenue, De Force Avenue, Washington Street and Lodi Avenue. GPA walked or drove every street, photographed buildings at least 45 years old, and checked state records.

It found six buildings already listed on state or national historic registers:

• the Lodi Arch (Mission Arch)
• Hotel Lodi
• the Southern Pacific depot
• the Lodi Armory
• the Carnegie Library
• City Hall

GPA also flagged 118 potential historic properties across 130 parcels, along with one potential district: "Lodi's Japantown Historic District, along N. Main Street between E. Elm Street and E. Oak Street." GPA did not evaluate any of those properties in depth to decide whether they actually qualify.

Source: GPA Consulting, Historical Resource Inventory, in the June 3, 2026 City Council packet. Parcel counts are approximate.

What the Draft Would Do

The draft adds a new Section 17.36.260, "Historic Resources," to the City's Development Code. It also amends Table 4-1, the chart showing which official or board decides each type of permit.

Three kinds of historic designation

A building less than 50 years old could be listed only if the Council finds it has "exceptional significance." The City would keep two lists: a Historical Resource Inventory of surveyed buildings, and a Local Register of designated ones. The draft says participation is "voluntary."

Permits for changes: Certificates of Appropriateness

• Minor certificates. The Community Development Director decides minor work, including repairs, window and door changes, signs, accessibility upgrades, screening of equipment, and additions not visible from the street.
• Major certificates. SPARC decides everything else, including demolition and relocation.
• No certificate needed. Routine maintenance, interior work, repairs with matching materials, landscaping and emergency repairs.
• Permits on hold. The City would not issue a building or demolition permit for covered work until the certificate is approved.
• The approval standard. Work must follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the federal guidelines for treating historic buildings. Work that meets them would count as causing no "substantial adverse change" under CEQA.

Mills Act tax contracts

Owners of Local Landmarks and of contributing buildings in a district could apply. The contracts follow state law: they run at least 10 years, renew automatically, require City inspections, and can be canceled if the owner doesn't keep the terms.

Hardship, demolition and enforcement

• Economic hardship. An owner could ask for relief by showing that preservation isn't financially feasible. SPARC would recommend and the Council would decide.
• Demolition. Demolition "may be justified" in any one of four cases:
  • the building has lost its historic character;
  • it is an unfixable safety hazard;
  • the City has approved a hardship; or
  • demolition would make way for a project with "substantial public benefits" and no reasonable alternative exists.
• Enforcement. The Director could stop work and order corrections or reconstruction. "Demolition by neglect," meaning letting a building decay until it is lost, would be a violation.
• Removal. Taking a building off the register would require Council approval and a finding that it no longer has its historic significance or character.

Who Would Decide

"Appeal" means the body hears appeals of an earlier decision. Source: draft ordinance, pp. 16–17.

Counts each body's role across the six historic decision types in draft Table 4-1.

The Planning Commission's only role in individual historic cases would be hearing appeals. It will still review the ordinance itself and send a recommendation to the Council.

Open Questions for the Workshop

1. Who approves Mills Act contracts. State law says "the legislative body of a city" may contract with an owner (Gov. Code § 50280). In Lodi, the legislative body is the City Council. The draft table gives SPARC the final decision and leaves the Council only appeals.
2. The cost of the tax breaks. The draft sets no yearly cap on the number of contracts or on the property tax given up, and no application fee. It includes no estimate of the cost to the City, the county or the schools.
3. Who can get a Mills Act contract. State law extends the program to properties on the National Register or any official state or local register (Gov. Code § 50280.1). The draft limits contracts to Local Landmarks and district contributors. Hotel Lodi and other buildings already on state or national registers would not qualify unless the City lists them locally, and no Structure of Merit would qualify.
4. SPARC in place of a preservation commission. General Plan policy C-P32 calls for a Historic Preservation Commission. The draft gives the job to SPARC and sets no preservation qualifications for members. Lodi could become a Certified Local Government, the status that opens state preservation grants, but certification requires "an historic preservation review commission by local ordinance" (California Office of Historic Preservation). The draft defines the program but never uses it.
5. Owner consent. The draft calls participation "voluntary." It doesn't say whether owners must agree to a listing, who else can apply, or what share of owners must agree before a district is created. It also doesn't let an owner who volunteered later withdraw unless the building has lost its historic character.
6. Unlisted buildings. The draft defines a historical resource as any property that meets the criteria "regardless of formal designation." It lets the Director decide whether a request "involves a Historic Resource," and it holds permits for "work subject to this Section." Read together, those provisions could reach the 118 downtown buildings the survey flagged. The ordinance should state plainly whether an older building that isn't listed needs a certificate.
7. Housing projects. For housing projects, state law requires a city to decide whether a site is historic when the application is complete, and that decision holds for the life of the project (Gov. Code § 65913.10). The draft doesn't address that rule.
8. What a certificate covers. The list of covered work names alterations only for Structures of Merit, the lowest tier. The next paragraph requires a certificate for any work on a landmark, a Structure of Merit or a district contributor. The draft also lists economic hardship as a type of certificate, but the Council decides hardship cases.
9. SPARC's role is described two ways. One section says SPARC "will approve requests and forward recommendations to the City Council." The table gives SPARC final decisions on major certificates and Mills Act contracts but only recommendations on listings.
10. Demolition findings. Approval requires "all" of the listed findings, and the first one says the work must not harm the building's significance. No demolition can meet that test. A separate section then allows demolition if any one of four conditions applies, including the broad "substantial public benefits." The draft needs one clear standard for demolition.
11. Paperwork for small jobs. Every application, even for a sign or a window, would need a "maintenance and preservation plan." The Director's review list includes "the public benefits of the proposed contract," wording that belongs to Mills Act review.
12. The inventory and the register. The section titled "Local Register" describes the inventory, and it calls adding a building to the inventory "voluntary." The draft doesn't adopt the downtown survey or commit to the citywide survey that policy C-P30 calls for.
13. Enforcement. Demolition by neglect applies only when an owner "intentionally" lets a building decay, which is hard to prove. The draft sets no minimum maintenance standards and no penalties specific to historic buildings.
14. Fees and notice. The draft lists no fees. It doesn't say whether every owner in a proposed district would receive a mailed notice.

What Comes Next

Source: Plan Lodi, Phased Development Code Amendments page.

The Planning Commission meets in the same room at 7 p.m. that night. Its agenda has no historic preservation item, but the "Actions of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee" slot lets staff report on the workshop.

Track the Ordinance

• Plan Lodi — Development Code amendments and ordinance schedule
• City of Lodi Agenda Center — SPARC, Planning Commission and Council agendas and minutes
• City of Lodi — SPARC committee page

LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.

This LodiEye report was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic’s Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:

Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval located the following:

• the Oct. 28, 2026 SPARC packet and draft ordinance;
• SPARC's 2026 agendas, cancellations and minutes;
• the June 3, 2026 City Council packet, which contains the Downtown Specific Plan, GPA Consulting's Historical Resource Inventory, the 2024 Conservation Element policies and the RRM contract amendment;
• the Plan Lodi ordinance schedule;
• the state Office of Historic Preservation's Certified Local Government guidance; and
• the Government Code sections on Mills Act contracts and historic determinations for housing projects.

Credibility Validation: The decision roles came from the rendered pages of draft Table 4-1, not from extracted text. Survey counts, General Plan policies and contract amounts were taken from the Council packet pages that contain them. Each legal point was checked against the statute's text. The committee roster comes from the Jan. 14, 2026 minutes because the City's committee page does not list members.

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude assisted in comparing the draft's text with its own review-authority table, with General Plan policy, and with state Mills Act, housing and Certified Local Government requirements, and in identifying open questions for the workshop.

Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the designation, decision and schedule tables and the three charts.

Final Review: Throughout the process, the editor sets the report's goals, scope, and tone; creates and shapes draft content; reviews and edits the report; integrates independent fact checks; and reviews the AI cross-checks and validations.

Lodi411/LodiEye believes that transparency about how our research is produced — including our use of AI under human direction — strengthens trust with readers and the broader information ecosystem. Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.

References

• City of Lodi — SPARC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet and Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, Oct. 28, 2026
• City of Lodi — City Council Agenda Packet, June 3, 2026 (RRM Amendment No. 1, pp. 16–17; Downtown Specific Plan action P-27, p. 453; GPA Historical Resource Inventory, pp. 590–636)
• Plan Lodi — Phased Development Code Amendments, Historic Preservation Ordinance schedule
• City of Lodi — SPARC Agenda Packet, Sept. 23, 2026 (includes Jan. 14, 2026 minutes)
• City of Lodi — SPARC Agenda Packet, Aug. 26, 2026
• City of Lodi — SPARC Agenda Packet, March 11, 2026
• City of Lodi — SPARC Agenda Packet, Jan. 14, 2026
• City of Lodi — Planning Commission Agenda Packet, Oct. 28, 2026
• City of Lodi — Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee page
• California Government Code § 50280 — Mills Act contracts
• California Government Code § 50280.1 — Qualified historical property
• California Government Code § 65913.10 — Historic site determinations for housing projects
• California Office of Historic Preservation — Certified Local Government questions and answers
• City of Lodi Agenda Center — minutes and actions as they post

Prepared for Lodi411 by Don Bradford.

Living in Vehicles: About 660 People in San Joaquin County, No Direct Count and No Legal Place to Park

Lodi411 / LodiEye — Housing and Homelessness Brief — October 2026

One in five homeless people interviewed in San Joaquin County this year was sleeping in a car, van, truck or RV. That share doubled from 2024, even as the county's overall homeless count fell 30 percent to 3,306 (2026 San Joaquin County Point-in-Time Count Report).

Applied to the countywide total, that share works out to about 660 people. No agency publishes a direct count of them. And no city in the county, nor the county itself, runs a lot where they can legally park and sleep for the night.

In Lodi, police post and tow RVs on the industrial east side month after month. The city pays $1,300 a tow (Lodi Committee on Homelessness, Sept. 10, 2026 packet). This report covers four questions: what has to be counted, what is pushing people into vehicles, what the county and cities can do that also protects residents and businesses, and whether a managed "trailer park" for vehicle residents could work here.

Summary

The 2026 Point-in-Time (PIT) count, the federally required homeless count taken one night each January, does not report how many vehicles were occupied or how many people were in each one. The 660 figure is an estimate built from a survey share. A realistic range is about 500 to 830. Police tow logs, school records of students living in cars and DMV registration data could each fill part of that gap. None of those records are combined or published today.

Several pressures push people into vehicles at once. Most people lose housing in the county where they already live. Vehicle residents are more likely than other homeless people to be working, older or raising children. Tent camping has been pushed out by enforcement. And a large supply of aging, cheap RVs is coming onto the used market.

Other California cities have opened managed parking lots with restrooms, water, waste disposal and caseworkers. Those sites cost about $2,200 to $4,400 per space per month to run. A vehicle resident earning the average income found in Los Angeles research could afford about $440. That gap is why the realistic opportunity here is a civic one, with private operators and landowners in contracted roles. A standalone commercial park does not cover its costs at the rents these residents can pay.

Key Numbers

• 3,306 — People counted as homeless in San Joaquin County, January 2026
• 20% — Survey respondents sleeping in a vehicle, up from 10% in 2024
• About 660 — Estimated people living in vehicles countywide (range about 500 to 830)
• 0 — Safe-parking lots operating anywhere in the county
• $1,300 — What Lodi pays per tow under its RV enforcement program

The picture: California, the county and Lodi

California counted 181,934 homeless people in January 2025, and 115,583 of them were unsheltered (HUD 2025 California report). In the largest statewide study of homelessness, conducted by UC San Francisco, 21 percent of participants said they had spent most of their time homeless living in a vehicle (UCSF California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness). A May 2026 national report put the number living in vehicles statewide at about 34,000. Advocates quoted in that report said the real figure could be double (Philadelphia Inquirer / New York Times, May 25, 2026).

San Joaquin County's 2026 count found 3,306 people: 1,468 in shelters and 1,838 unsheltered. Lodi accounted for 248 of them, 133 unsheltered and 115 sheltered (2026 PIT Count Report). The report's city table lists 2,550 people as the incorporated-city total. That figure is not the countywide count. The countywide total of 3,306 also includes 700 people in unincorporated areas and 56 at scattered shelter sites.

The biggest change since 2024 is where people slept. The tent share fell by more than half and the vehicle share doubled. Over the same period the shelter share also doubled, and about 1,300 permanent housing options opened countywide (San Joaquin Continuum of Care).

Percent of survey respondents. Outdoors or streets 41% (2024) and 35% (2026); shelter 13% and 27%; vehicle 10% and 20%; tent 31% and 14%; motel 4% and 3%; abandoned building 1% and 1%. 2024: 624 answers; 2026: 249 answers. Source: 2026 San Joaquin County PIT Count Report, p. 22.

Most of the county's vehicle residents are not counted as housed by anyone. A separate group does have a recognized address. The Census Bureau estimates 222 occupied "boat, RV, van" homes in the county, holding about 556 people, mostly RVs at a recognized address (American Community Survey 2020–2024, Table B25033). That group is not in the homeless count. It also has its own pressures: park age limits, stay caps and park closures.

In Lodi, the record comes from monthly police reports to the Lodi Committee on Homelessness, an advisory panel to the City Council. In June 2026, police posted 23 RVs, trailers and vehicles. One RV that stayed after it was posted burned on the roadway (Lodi Committee on Homelessness, July 9, 2026 packet). By August, police had switched to Vehicle Code towing after a warning and a 10-day wait. They reported that RVs on the street had "decreased from 30 to 11" (Sept. 10, 2026 packet). On Sept. 24, a cleanup of two campsites at East Lodi Avenue and Thurman Road ended with six RVs, a truck and a moped towed and eight people arrested. One person accepted help from the Lodi Access Center, the city's shelter (FOX40).

1. What needs to be tracked and counted

Nobody in the county can say with confidence how many vehicles are lived in, where they park, or what happens to them after a tow. The pieces exist in separate offices. The table below lists the records that matter, who holds them, and what each would answer.

Agencies listed are the holders of each record. "Published now" reflects public records found for this report.

A repeated early-morning street count along known corridors would add a local trend line between January counts. In Lodi those corridors include S. Guild Ave., Thurman St., S. Beckman Rd. and Industrial Way, where police have documented clusters (July 9, 2026 packet). Any agency or volunteer group can run the same route, at the same hour, on a fixed rotation.

San Jose shows what registration data can reveal. About 36 percent of the city's more than 2,000 oversized or presumed lived-in vehicles had expired or unverifiable registration in 2024 (San Jose parking enforcement status report, Nov. 2025).

How the 660 estimate works, and its limits

The PIT report publishes two numbers that can be combined: the countywide total (3,306) and the share of surveyed people who said they were sleeping in a vehicle (20 percent of 249 answers). Multiplied together, they give about 661 people. It is an estimate of people, not vehicles.

• Timing. The street count ran Jan. 26–27. The surveys were taken later, between February and mid-March, so the 20 percent describes where people slept when they were interviewed.
• Sampling error. A margin of plus or minus 5 points on 249 answers puts the range at about 500 to 830. Using the report's own stated margin of 5.7 percent gives about 470 to 850.
• Cross-check. Counting only unsheltered respondents, vehicles were 29 percent. Applied to the 1,838 unsheltered people, that gives about 525, toward the low end of the range.
• Not included. The roughly 556 people the Census counts in occupied RVs and vans with a recognized address are a separate group.

2. What is driving it

Housing loss close to home

People living in vehicles here are mostly local. In UCSF's statewide study, 75 percent of participants were living in the same county where they last had housing (UCSF statewide study). A car or RV is often the last thing of value a household still owns after losing a lease.

Working, older and raising children

Research from the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, based on Los Angeles County's 2020 survey, found vehicle residents were more likely than other unsheltered people to be employed, to be women, to be older and to be living with children. Living with children was the strongest predictor, five times more predictive than the next factor. Average monthly income was $1,458. Job loss was the main reason they gave for becoming homeless (UCLA, Understanding Who Lives in Cars in Los Angeles County).

Lodi service providers report the same pattern among older residents. In April 2026, the Lodi Access Center director told the homelessness committee that "elderly homeless who are living in RVs are reluctant coming in" to the shelter (April 9, 2026 packet). In June 2026, 47 percent of Adventist Health Lodi Memorial's housing-support referrals were people 60 or older (July 9, 2026 packet).

Tents pushed out; vehicles take their place

Every city in the county and the county itself now restrict sleeping in vehicles or camping in them. The rules run from the county's 60-minute, 300-foot rule to overnight bans in Lathrop and Ripon (County Ordinance 4655; Lathrop Ordinance 25-466; Ripon Chapter 12.28). Manteca's camping law defines "camp facilities" to include "vehicles, vehicle camping outfits" (Manteca Municipal Code 12.20).

In Lodi, a camp car may be occupied outside a licensed campground only under a 30-day backyard guest exception. Overnight RV occupancy is otherwise allowed only in an approved RV park (Lodi Ordinance 2028; Lodi Municipal Code 17.32.030(E)). The city's Lodi Lake facility page lists 16 RV hookup sites for weekend camping in the Rotary Area (City of Lodi). Friends of Lodi Lake says RV camping there is currently unavailable (Friends of Lodi Lake). Flag City RV Resort is a separate, privately run park.

Bans tend to move vehicles rather than reduce them. A UC Institute of Transportation Studies brief on 85 Los Angeles County cities found a citywide ban cut vehicle dwellers by 3 people in the regulated area and added 4.5 in nearby areas. Vehicle residents concentrated where industrial land was common (UC ITS policy brief). Lodi's east side, Stockton's Wilson Way and Airport Way corridors, and unincorporated county roads fit that description.

Nowhere sanctioned to go

Stockton budgeted $1.8 million in federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) money for safe camping and parking. Its 2022 request for qualified operators "received no qualified applicants" (City of Stockton ARPA study session, Feb. 22, 2023; Stocktonia, Aug. 30, 2024). Tracy's council voted 3–2 in February 2020 for a temporary safe-parking pilot that would allow RVs. It set aside $25,000 and declared a shelter crisis to give the city liability protection (Tracy council minutes, Feb. 18, 2020). The city's request for proposals gave providers less than five days to respond (City of Tracy).

In January 2026, county supervisors voted unanimously to cancel a safe-camping site at the former Oakmoore golf course. The project would have cost more than $11 million to build and $4 million a year to run (County Crossroads newsletter).

County parks allow stays of 10 days in any 25 (San Joaquin County Parks campground rules). Stockton's River Point Landing caps stays at 21 days (River Point Landing).

A growing supply of cheap, aging RVs

U.S. manufacturers shipped a record 600,240 RVs in 2021 (RV Industry Association). Many private campgrounds refuse RVs more than 10 years old. Disposal often costs $2,000 or more, which leaves a pool of free or cheap older RVs that end up on public streets (City of Portland RV fact sheet). Under a 10-year rule, the 2021 units start losing access to many parks around 2031. Whether that adds to street living is a reasonable question, but it is not yet a finding.

In Los Angeles, informal landlords known as "vanlords" buy RVs at auction for $2,000 to $5,000 and rent them for $600 to $800 a month (ABC7 Los Angeles). A 2026 state law, AB 630, lets Los Angeles and Alameda counties dispose of inoperable oversized vehicles worth $4,000 or less, up from $500 (California DMV).

Units shipped from manufacturers. 2021 full year: 600,240 (record). 2025 full year: 342,220. January–July 2025: 213,338. January–July 2026: 183,592, down 13.9%. Sources: RVIA, 2021; RVIA, 2025; Modern Campground, July 2026.

3. What the county and cities can do

Vehicle clusters have real costs for the people around them. Lodi made N. Sacramento St. between DeForce Ave. and Turner Rd. a permit-only overnight parking zone to deter people from sleeping in cars there. Shelter clients receive temporary permits (CBS Sacramento). The RV that burned on a Lodi roadway in June is a fire risk in plain view. People in RVs also need a legal place to empty waste tanks. Long Beach opened a sanitation and water-filling station for that reason (City of Long Beach).

A tow, meanwhile, costs Lodi $1,300 and can cost the resident shelter, storage, transportation and a job. UCSF and UCLA both found vehicle residents more connected to work, and newer to homelessness, than other unsheltered people. Once the vehicle is gone, the person usually ends up in a tent or on the sidewalk, which is more visible and more costly to manage.

The options below are listed by priority and dependency. Each step makes the next one easier to size, site or defend. These are options for public discussion; none has been proposed by a local agency unless a source is cited.

1. Publish the data that already exists. The Continuum of Care can release the vehicle tally, the people-per-vehicle multiplier and survey answers broken out by sleeping location. Police departments can add each RV's outcome to the logs they already keep. This needs nothing else first.
2. Pair every posting with an offer. Before a tow, give the owner a shelter referral, registration help and a list of legal places to go. Lodi's committee packets already track postings and tows. Adding outcomes would show whether offers work.
3. Open a sanitation and water station. Long Beach's site lets RV dwellers, by referral, empty tanks and fill water. No overnight parking is allowed there. It addresses the sewage and trash complaints directly and can sit at an existing public facility. The location depends on where steps 1 and 2 show vehicles are concentrated.
4. Help people keep running, registered vehicles. Registration and repair assistance and ticket diversion cost far less than towing and storage. The tow log from step 1 would show how many vehicles are lost over registration alone. In June, Lodi towed two for registration expired more than six months.
5. Allow faith, nonprofit and business lots to host overnight. In November 2024, Stockton staff proposed "Safe Sleeping Operator Permits for private landowners" so nonprofits and religious groups could open parking lots in the evening (Stockton council file 24-1110). Insurance is the known barrier. Santa Rosa's church-lot program closed over it (Press Democrat, Sept. 25, 2024). A city or county-arranged insurance policy, or the liability protection that comes with a shelter crisis declaration, would need to come first.
6. Run a small, staffed safe-parking pilot. This means a paved lot with restrooms, water, trash service, security and a caseworker. It depends on a legal basis, an operator and a site. Stockton's 2022 search for an operator found none qualified. Modesto's six-month pilot with the Salvation Army offered up to 25 vehicles from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. (City of Modesto).
7. Use county land the county already owns. The county bought the 62-acre Oakmoore site on Wilson Way for $9.6 million in December 2024 (Stocktonia, Dec. 11, 2024). The county describes the parcel as 67.25 acres zoned P-F, for public facilities (San Joaquin County). Its original plan included "an area within the fencing ... for the homeless who opt to live in vehicles they own" (Manteca Bulletin). The state rule that stalled the plan barred tent camping where temperatures can drop below 50 degrees (Stocktonia, Sept. 18, 2025). That rule addressed tents. Supervisors have since directed staff to plan for county departments on the site.

Protecting residents and businesses runs through every step. Keep enforcement for hazards, blocked access and sensitive areas. Post clear hours and rules at any hosted lot. Require operators to manage trash, waste and security. Report outcomes publicly so neighbors can see whether a site is working.

Sizes and costs as reported by each city or news source on the dates cited.

4. Is there a civic or commercial opportunity for a "trailer park" for vehicle residents?

The legal path exists

California already has a category for this: the special occupancy park, the legal term for an RV park. Under the Special Occupancy Parks Act, a new park needs a local conditional use permit, decided at a public hearing, and a permit to operate from HCD (HCD park laws; HCD park operation; Health and Safety Code, Part 2.3). HCD's guidance says RVs generally may be occupied only in mobilehome parks or special occupancy parks unless a local ordinance allows otherwise (HCD Information Bulletin 2016-01).

The same part of state law lets a city or county issue permits for RV occupancy outside a park. That is the hook Oakland used for its vacant-lot pilot. A shelter crisis declaration, which Tracy used in 2020, is another route.

Stays matter for both the operator and the resident. Under the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law, guests gain stronger protection against removal after nine months in a park (Civil Code 799.20–799.79). Many parks set stay limits with that threshold in mind.

The numbers: what a space costs versus what residents can pay

Local RV parks publish nightly rates, not monthly ones. River Point Landing in Stockton lists $32 to $45 a night, Flag City RV Resort from $54 and Tower Park KOA from $51 (RoverPass listings). Flag City has 180 full-hookup sites (The Dyrt). Just storing an RV, with no one living in it, averages $101 a month at Public Storage in Lodi, $105 at Extra Space and $156 on Neighbor (Public Storage; Extra Space Storage; Neighbor).

Dollars per month. What a resident could pay: $437, which is 30% of the $1,458 average monthly income in UCLA's Los Angeles research. River Point Landing at $32 a night: $973 (its 21-day cap means no one can actually stay a month). Flag City RV Resort at $54 a night: $1,642. Santa Rosa safe parking: $2,167 ($1.3 million a year divided by 50 spaces, 2023 budget). San Jose Berryessa: $4,367 (city estimate of $143.64 a day). Nightly rates multiplied by 30.4 days. Calculations from the sources cited in this section.

The gap is the whole story. Even the cheapest published nightly rate costs more than twice what the average vehicle resident in the UCLA research could pay at 30 percent of income. Staffed safe-parking sites cost more still, because they include caseworkers, security and sanitation. Santa Rosa's results show what that spending buys: 96 people into permanent housing over four years.

Assessment

The civic opportunity is real. There are about 660 people in vehicles, no sanctioned lot, a county parcel whose original plan included a vehicle area, a state permit category that already fits, and state money that has paid for this elsewhere. Santa Rosa's safe-parking spaces were funded through the state's Encampment Resolution Fund (HCD Encampment Resolution Fund award, Santa Rosa). Sonoma County awarded $979,000 to keep it running through fiscal year 2026–27 (City of Santa Rosa).

The commercial opportunity is narrower. Based on published rates, a standalone private park serving this population does not cover its costs without public money. Private businesses fit in three roles:

• Contracted operator. A nonprofit or company runs a publicly funded site, as Urban Alchemy does at Oakland's 66th Avenue site. This depends on finding qualified bidders, which Stockton could not do in 2022.
• Landowner host. Owners of industrial lots, churches and businesses with unused night-time parking take a permit and a fee, as in Oakland's 2020 pilot and Stockton's proposed operator permits. This depends on insurance.
• Set-aside spaces in existing parks. Licensed parks reserve a few spaces paid for with vouchers. This has no local precedent. It would have to work around age limits and stay caps.

Both models carry risks: neighbor opposition, as at San Jose's earlier lot near an Apple site (Mercury News); insurance; tenancy rights after nine months; older RVs that fail safety standards or catch fire; cost overruns like Oakmoore's; and the worry that a single regional site draws vehicles pushed out of other cities. Oakland's utility-connection rules for vehicle sites show the level of building-code detail required (Oakland Building Bureau directive VRF23-1).

The data in Section 1 decides most of this. A count of vehicles by type and location would show how many spaces are needed, whether RVs or cars dominate, and where a site would ease pressure on neighborhoods and businesses instead of creating new pressure.

Where to watch

• San Joaquin Continuum of Care: Point-in-Time Count reports
• City of Lodi Agenda Center: Lodi Committee on Homelessness packets, including monthly police RV reports
• San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors press releases
• Stockton City Council legislation and agendas
• City of Tracy: homelessness actions
• HCD Mobilehome and RV Park search
• DMV vehicle counts by ZIP code (California Open Data)
• San Joaquin County Office of Education: Homeless Youth Services

The Continuum of Care decides what future count reports publish, including whether they carry a vehicle tally.

LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.

This LodiEye report was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic’s Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:

Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval located the 2026 San Joaquin County Point-in-Time Count Report, Lodi Committee on Homelessness agenda packets, city and county ordinances on camping and vehicle occupancy, Stockton, Tracy and San Joaquin County records on safe camping and safe parking, HCD park rules, UCLA and UCSF research on vehicle residents, RV industry shipment reports, local RV park and storage listings, and reporting on safe-parking programs in Santa Rosa, San Jose, Oakland, Modesto and Long Beach.

Credibility Validation: Counts, ordinance language and program decisions were taken from the responsible agency's own documents wherever they were available. News reports were used for program costs and results that agencies did not publish in one place, and each is dated in the text. Countywide totals were checked against the PIT report's own jurisdiction table, and code provisions were read in the published municipal codes.

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude Opus and Sonnet assisted in estimating the number of people living in vehicles from the published survey share and countywide total, computing its range, converting nightly park rates and annual program budgets into monthly cost per space, and ordering the policy options by priority and dependency. The estimate, the monthly cost comparisons and the assessment of civic and commercial roles are this report's analysis, not figures or positions of any agency.

Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the records table, the program comparison table and the three charts.

Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, logical coherence, and balanced presentation. Throughout the process, the editor sets the report's goals, scope, and tone; creates and shapes draft content; reviews and edits the report; integrates independent fact checks; and reviews the AI cross-checks and validations. Multi-tool cross-checking across independent models and sources is the primary error-reduction mechanism.

Lodi411/LodiEye believes that transparency about how our research is produced — including our use of AI under human direction — strengthens trust with readers and the broader information ecosystem. Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.

References

• San Joaquin Continuum of Care / Applied Survey Research — 2026 San Joaquin County Point-in-Time Count Report.
• San Joaquin Continuum of Care — Point-in-Time Count page.
• City of Lodi — Lodi Committee on Homelessness agenda packet, April 9, 2026.
• City of Lodi — Lodi Committee on Homelessness agenda packet, July 9, 2026.
• City of Lodi — Lodi Committee on Homelessness agenda packet, Sept. 10, 2026.
• City of Lodi — Ordinance No. 2028, Public Camping, Outdoor and Tent Assemblies.
• Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 17.32 (Section 17.32.030(E)).
• City of Lodi — RV Camping, Rotary Area (Lodi Lake).
• San Joaquin County — Ordinance 4655 (County Code 6-3701 to 6-3705).
• San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors — County Crossroads, Vol. 3 Issue 1 (2026).
• San Joaquin County — Statement on the purchase of the Oakmoore Golf Course (Nov. 25, 2024).
• San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation — Campground Rules.
• San Joaquin County Office of Education — Homeless Youth Services.
• City of Stockton — ARPA study session presentation, Feb. 22, 2023.
• City of Stockton — Council file 24-1110, Camping Revisited follow-up (Nov. 19, 2024).
• City of Tracy — City Council minutes, Feb. 18, 2020.
• City of Tracy — City and Council Actions to Address Homelessness.
• City of Lathrop — Ordinance 25-466, Chapter 9.06 (June 9, 2025).
• City of Ripon — Municipal Code Chapter 12.28.
• Manteca Municipal Code Chapter 12.20, Camping.
• City of Modesto — Safe Parking Program.
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development — 2025 CoC Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Report: California.
• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2020–2024, Table B25033 (via Census Reporter).
• California DMV — Vehicle Industry Registration Procedures Manual, Housecars.
• California DMV — DMV Highlights New Laws in 2026 (AB 630).
• California Open Data Portal — Vehicle Fuel Type Count by Zip Code (DMV).
• California HCD — Mobilehome and RV Park search.
• California HCD — Park laws (Special Occupancy Parks Act).
• California HCD — Park operation and permits to operate.
• California HCD — Information Bulletin 2016-01.
• California HCD — Encampment Resolution Fund award, City of Santa Rosa.
• California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 2.3 (Special Occupancy Parks Act).
• California Civil Code Sections 799.20–799.79, Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law.
• City of Santa Rosa — Safe Parking Program.
• City of Santa Rosa — Safe Parking Program news release.
• City of Santa Rosa — News Flash (county safe-parking award).
• City of San Jose — Parking Enforcement Status Report (Nov. 2025).
• City of Oakland — Council file on RV safe parking at 66th Avenue.
• City of Oakland — Building Bureau Directive VRF23-1, Utility Connections for Vehicular Residential Facilities.
• City of Long Beach — Sanitation and water-filling site for people sheltering in RVs.
• City of Portland — RV fact sheet.
• UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative — California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness (2023).
• UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies — Understanding Who Lives in Cars in Los Angeles County (2022).
• UC Institute of Transportation Studies — Policy brief on vehicle-dwelling regulations in Los Angeles County (2022).
• RV Industry Association — RV Industry Produces 600,000+ RVs in 2021.
• RV Industry Association — RV Shipments End 2025 with 342,220 Units.
• Modern Campground — RVIA Reports 183,592 RV Shipments Through July, Down 13.9%.
• River Point Landing — RV park information.
• RoverPass — RV parks near Lodi, California (nightly rates).
• The Dyrt — RV camping near Stockton.
• Public Storage — RV storage, Lodi.
• Extra Space Storage — RV and boat storage, Lodi.
• Neighbor — RV storage near Lodi.
• CBS Sacramento — Lodi requiring overnight parking permits on one street (Dec. 2023).
• FOX40 — Eight arrested during cleanup of two Lodi campsites (Sept. 2026).
• Stocktonia — Stockton City Council weighs options after Grants Pass decision (Aug. 30, 2024).
• Stocktonia — Supervisors OK buying Stockton golf course (Dec. 11, 2024).
• Stocktonia — Safe camping at former golf course hits state roadblock (Sept. 18, 2025).
• Manteca Bulletin — Golf course's future: safe camping spot for county homeless.
• Philadelphia Inquirer (New York Times) — California homeless RV enforcement (May 25, 2026).
• Press Democrat — Santa Rosa's safe parking program marks first year (June 13, 2023).
• Press Democrat — Safe haven for Santa Rosa residents living in cars is closing (Sept. 25, 2024).
• CNBC — How RVs became Silicon Valley's housing safety net (Feb. 20, 2026).
• Mission Local — San Jose's approach to RV safe parking (July 2025).
• San José Spotlight — Safe parking site finds housing for homeless residents.
• Mercury News — Neighbors push back against new RV lot (Sept. 8, 2021).
• KTVU — Oakland opens safe RV parking site in Fruitvale.
• The Oaklandside — RV dwellers can live on vacant lots (July 23, 2020).
• ABC7 Los Angeles — Los Angeles "vanlords" and RV renters.
• Friends of Lodi Lake — Rotary Area.

Questions, tips or corrections: editor@lodi411.com

Lodi Planning Commission — Regular Meeting

Lodi411 / LodiEye — Agenda Review

Wednesday, October 28, 2026 — 7:00 p.m.

Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Chair Hicks | Vice Chair Singh | Commissioners Diehl, Lydon, McNickle, Woehl

Summary

The Planning Commission has three public hearings on Oct. 28. Two would split lots. The third would let a new cocktail bar, The Wet Cactus, seek a full bar license at 21 N. School Street, in the former Cellardoor space next to the Visitor Center. City staff recommends approving all three.

The bar permit is the contested item. The Lodi Police Department wrote that it "would emphatically discourage the issuance of this permit," citing more than 1,943 calls for service within two blocks over the past year and 24 other alcohol businesses nearby. Staff recommends that the Commission use its power to waive the City's alcohol location limits, but the packet does not measure the site against those limits.

The second lot split covers the 9.8-acre St. John's Episcopal Church campus on South Lower Sacramento Road, which is surrounded by the proposed Westside "F" annexation. Staff says no development is proposed. The Public Works conditions still call for water mains, a street easement for a future Westgate Drive, and a share of a storm basin that hasn't been built.

Meeting Details

Date and time: Wednesday, October 28, 2026, 7:00 p.m.

Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi

Zoom webinar: Meeting ID 824 8423 0393, passcode 551089; by phone at 1-669-444-9171 or 1-346-248-7799

Live video: youtube.com/CityofLodi

Written comment: Email pccomments@lodi.gov, or mail or hand-deliver to the Community Development Department (P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241; 221 W. Pine St.). Comments must arrive by 3:00 p.m. on meeting day.

Agenda contact: Jessica Pagán, Administrative Assistant, (209) 333-6711

Disclosures: All three hearings are quasi-judicial, meaning commissioners act like judges applying City rules to a specific property. Each commissioner must disclose outside conversations about an item ("ex parte communications") under Resolution No. 2006-31, and any campaign contribution over $250 from a party to the item under Government Code 84308.

Notice: All three hearings were published in the Lodi News-Sentinel on Oct. 17. Mailed notices went to owners within 300 feet: 60 for Peach Street, 22 for Lower Sacramento Road and 37 for School Street.

Agenda

1. Roll Call

2. Minutes

The agenda lists this item but names no meeting and attaches no minutes. The last regular meeting was Sept. 23, when the Commission heard a lot split at 401 N. Ham Lane and the Maverik Type 21 off-sale license on East Kettleman Lane.

3. Comments by the Public (Non-Agenda Items)

Each speaker gets one appearance. The agenda text refers readers to a "Special Teleconference Notice at the beginning of this agenda," but the agenda contains no such notice. The Zoom and comment instructions are at the top of page 1.

4. Public Hearings

4a. 700 Peach Street — Tentative Parcel Map (PL2026-009)

Split one residential lot into two. Applicant: Dillon and Murphy Engineering. Owner: Jacob Neal. CEQA: Class 15 categorical exemption. Staff recommends approval.

4b. 1055 South Lower Sacramento Road — Tentative Parcel Map (PL2026-020 TPM)

Split the St. John's Episcopal Church property (APN 027-050-05) into a 5.0-acre parcel and a 4.5-acre parcel. Applicant: Dillon and Murphy, c/o Joe Murphy. Owner: The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin. CEQA: Class 15 categorical exemption. Staff recommends approval.

4c. 21 North School Street — The Wet Cactus Use Permit (PL2026-021 U)

Approve a Use Permit for a Type 48 license (beer, wine and spirits served on site, plus beer and wine to go) and find that the license serves "public convenience or necessity." Applicant: Bailey Sterni. Owner: Farmers and Merchants Bank. CEQA: Class 1 exemption (existing facilities). Staff recommends approval.

5. Planning Matters / Follow-Up Items

6. Announcements and Correspondence

7. Actions of the City Council

On Oct. 21 the City Council held a public hearing on the Westside "F" annexation and prezoning, which the Commission recommended 5–0 on Aug. 12. Prezoning sets the zoning a property will have once it joins the city. As of this writing, the City's Legistar record shows no Council vote. Staff may report the result here. The outcome affects Item 4b.

8. Actions of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee

The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) reviews building and site design. None of tonight's three projects has been before it. SPARC's Aug. 26 and Sept. 23 agendas dealt with other projects, and its Oct. 14 meeting was canceled.

9. Comments by the Planning Commissioners and Staff (Non-Agenda Items)

10. Adjournment

Planning Commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council.

Item 4a — 700 Peach Street Lot Split (PL2026-009)

Application at a Glance

Site: 700 Peach Street, southeast corner of Peach and W. Tokay streets — APN 027-160-04

Applicant: Dillon and Murphy Engineering

Owner: Jacob Neal (the tentative map lists Ryan Neal and Jacob Neal)

General Plan: Low Density Residential

Zoning: Residential Low Density (RLD), Lodi's standard single-family district, with a 5,000-square-foot minimum lot size and 50-foot minimum width

Site size: 13,752 square feet (0.32 acres) in the staff report; 13,808 square feet on the tentative map

Neighbors: Single-family homes on all four sides

Staff: Assistant Planner Eva Pitts; Community Development Director David Hanham

What Would Change

The corner lot holds one house, a shed and a large side yard. The map draws a new north-south line east of the house. Parcel 1 keeps the house at the corner, and the shed comes down. Parcel 2 becomes a vacant lot facing Tokay Street. The map shows no trees being removed.

Source: Item 4a staff report, Table B, and Attachment A tentative map.

Proposed lot area against the RLD minimum

Both parcels clear the 5,000-square-foot minimum. Source: Item 4a staff report, Table B.

Conditions of Approval Worth Noting

Tokay Street frontage and corner ramp

Before the map records, the owner must dedicate a corner street easement at Tokay and Peach and build the Tokay Street frontage of Parcel 1, including a full curb ramp.

Peach Street improvements can wait, with Council approval

Peach Street has no curb, gutter or sidewalk along the property. Those improvements can be deferred through an Improvement Deferral Agreement, but the agreement requires City Council approval. That will come back as a separate Council item.

Utilities and water rights

City crews will install a new water service from Tokay Street to Parcel 2 at the owner's expense. Both parcels get 10-foot public utility easements along the streets. Any structure that sits on the new lot line must be demolished. The owner must sign the City's standard agreement naming Lodi as agent for the property's groundwater rights.

Background

The Commission approves small infill lot splits like this one regularly. It approved a two-lot split at 116 W. Lockeford Street 6–0 on June 10 under the same exemption, and heard a split at 401 N. Ham Lane on Sept. 23. The Class 15 exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) covers divisions into four or fewer parcels in urban areas, as long as services and access already meet local standards.

Open Issues to Watch — Item 4a

• Wrong zoning in the draft resolution. Finding 1 says the site has "Planned Development No. 34 (PD-34) zoning." That is the zoning for the church site in Item 4b. Peach Street is zoned RLD.
• Findings language reads backward. The staff report says the map "shall be denied" if any of eight findings "can be made," then says most of them can be made. Read literally, that requires denial. The Item 4b report uses the correct framing, explaining why the denial findings cannot be made.
• Lot area does not match. The staff report gives 13,752 square feet. The map and the two new parcels total 13,808 square feet, 56 square feet more.
• Which street is the front. Lodi's code makes the shorter street side of a corner lot its front. For Parcel 1 that is Tokay, at 80 feet, not Peach as the report says. The front determines where the house's setbacks are measured. The packet has no setback check for the existing house against the new interior line, which the map shows roughly 8 to 10 feet away.
• Shed versus "structure on the line." The staff report says a shed will be removed. Public Works Condition 3 requires demolishing any structure "overlying the proposed property line." Commissioners can ask whether the shed is the only structure involved.
• Citation mismatches. This report dates Ordinance No. 1869 to May 20, 2020. The Item 4b report dates it to Feb. 20, 2013. The draft resolution also describes the exemption as covering "fewer than four parcels," while the CEQA rule quoted in the staff report says "four or fewer."

Item 4b — 1055 S. Lower Sacramento Road Lot Split (PL2026-020 TPM)

Application at a Glance

Site: 1055 South Lower Sacramento Road, home of St. John's Episcopal Church — APN 027-050-05

Applicant: Dillon and Murphy, c/o Joe Murphy

Owner: The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, a corporation sole

Zoning: Planned Development No. 34 (PD-34), created when the site was annexed in 1999, with an underlying RLD designation that allows up to eight homes per acre

General Plan: Low Density Residential

Site size: 9.81 acres by City records; 9.50 acres excluding street right-of-way

Staff: Assistant Planner Rajnee Johal; Community Development Director David Hanham

What Would Change

Source: Item 4b staff report and Attachment A tentative map.

Background: An In-City Parcel Surrounded by the Westside Annexation

The church property is already inside city limits. The farmland around it is not. The Westside "F" annexation would bring about 96 acres between W. Vine Street and W. Kettleman Lane, west of Lower Sacramento Road, into the city. The packet's zoning map shows the land around the church with its proposed zoning: General Commercial to the north, Low Density Residential to the west, and Medium Density Residential and Public & Community Facilities to the southwest. To the south is a pocket of farmland that stays under County control.

The Commission recommended the annexation 5–0 on Aug. 12. Residents and commissioners questioned leaving that County "island" near Taylor Road. Staff explained that LAFCO, the county commission that rules on boundary changes, advised it. Including more than 12 objecting parcels would trigger a protest vote that could sink the whole annexation. The Council's Oct. 21 staff report corrected the project to 96.1 acres and conditioned the annexation on setting aside about two acres for a future fire station.

Proposed Westside "F" zoning around the church site

Acres by proposed zoning district, 96.1 acres total. Source: Oct. 21, 2026 City Council staff report, Westside "F" annexation and prezoning.

The annexation matters because Public Works ties Parcel 1's future street, water main and drainage to infrastructure that depends on the Westside area developing. Public Works also notes that development of the land to the north, which is part of the annexation, would trigger the Lower Sacramento Road frontage improvements deferred on the church property since 2001.

Conditions of Approval Worth Noting

Unless noted, these must be done before or when the parcel map is filed.

Lower Sacramento Road frontage

Curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, streetlights and paving have been deferred under an agreement recorded Dec. 3, 2001. They can stay deferred, but the agreement will then cover both new parcels.

Water mains

The owner must extend the existing 8-inch public water main to Parcel 1's west line and install a 10-inch main along that line. "Depending on the proposed Project," the 10-inch main may have to continue north to Vine Street.

Westgate Drive

The owner must dedicate a 40-foot street easement along Parcel 1's west edge for the future Westgate Drive. "Depending on the proposed Project," Westgate may have to be built north to Vine Street, which could require an easement on the neighboring property to the north.

Storm drainage and the F-3 Basin

The site drains to the planned F-3 Basin, which has not been built. The owner must build a portion of the basin at the northwest corner of Taylor Road and Westgate Drive, or build a temporary basin and pay a proportionate share of the basin, outfall and pump station. Today the church's own pond on Parcel 1 handles drainage for Parcel 2.

Improvement agreement and easements

The City Council must approve an improvement agreement before the map records. Improvements are due within a year, with 10% warranty security. The owner must also:

• Record a shared private storm drainage easement.
• Record a 24-foot access easement across Parcel 2 if Westgate is not built.
• Grant Lodi Electric a 10-foot overhead easement on Parcel 2's north line and a 10-foot public utility easement on Parcel 1's north line.
• Abandon any wells or septic systems.
• Sign the standard water-rights agreement.

Open Issues to Watch — Item 4b

• "No development" versus major infrastructure. Findings 3 and 4 say "no new development or physical alteration of the site is proposed." Yet the conditions call for engineered improvement plans, two water mains, a street dedication, F-3 Basin obligations and a Council-approved improvement agreement before the map records. Commissioners can ask which obligations recording the map triggers and which wait for a real project. They can also ask whether the applicant accepts the conditions, and how "a portion" of the basin will be sized when no building is proposed.
• Does the CEQA exemption fit? Class 15 requires that "all services and access to the proposed parcels are available to local standards." Parcel 1 has no public street and no water main at its west line today. Its access depends on an unbuilt road or a private easement.
• Frontage on a street that doesn't exist. Staff counts 331 feet of frontage for Parcel 1 along "future Westgate Drive." The draft resolution says both parcels are "adequately served by existing public infrastructure and roadway access."
• What happens to the vacant five acres. The packet does not say what the diocese plans for Parcel 1. Under RLD standards the land could hold roughly 40 homes. A 2023 state law (SB 4) gives land owned by religious institutions a streamlined approval path for affordable housing, but only on sites meeting tests such as at least 75% of the perimeter bordered by urban uses (HCD SB 4 fact sheet). With farmland to the north and west, the site may not qualify today, but that could change as the Westside area builds out.
• Three acreage figures. The report uses 9.81 acres for CEQA, 9.50 acres for the map and 5.0 plus 4.5 acres for the parcels.
• PD-34 plan not in the packet. Staff tested the lots against RLD standards. The PD-34 development plan, which governs the site, is not attached.
• Police items written as suggestions. The Police conditions on cameras, lighting and crime-prevention design use "should" and "recommended" language, on a map that approves no construction. The Commission can make them binding, tie them to future development, or drop them.
• Dependence on land the owner doesn't control. Westgate Drive, the Vine Street water connection and the F-3 Basin all rely on neighboring land, some of it in the pending annexation. The Council's Oct. 21 decision affects how quickly any of that infrastructure can happen.

Item 4c — The Wet Cactus, 21 N. School Street (PL2026-021 U)

Application at a Glance

Site: 21 North School Street, former Cellardoor space next to the Visitor Center — APN 043-033-13

Applicant: Bailey Sterni

Owner: Farmers and Merchants Bank

Zoning: Downtown Mixed Use (DMU), Downtown Specific Plan Subarea A (School Street Core)

Building: 2,985 square feet on a 0.28-acre lot

Seating: 80 — 16 at the bar (four accessible), 56 at tables, 8 in a lounge. The upstairs and downstairs are for employees only.

Food: None proposed

Staff: Assistant Planner Eva Pitts; Community Development Director David Hanham

What a Type 48 License Allows

The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) issues Type 48 licenses to bars. A Type 48 allows beer, wine and spirits to be served on site and beer and wine to be sold to go. No one under 21 may enter, and food service is not required (ABC license types).

The prior tenant held a Type 2 license. ABC defines Type 2 as a winegrower license, a winery license that allows tasting and sales. A Type 48 would therefore add a new retail bar license downtown. Staff acknowledges that the prior wine bar "does not make the proposed operation equivalent to the prior use."

Proposed operating hours

Opens at 4 p.m. Wednesday through Sunday; closes at 11 p.m., or midnight Friday and Saturday. Source: Item 4c draft resolution, Police Condition 5.

Two Decisions Before the Commission

The Use Permit. Lodi requires a Use Permit for alcohol sales in the DMU district. To approve, the Commission must find that the use:

• meets the Development Code;
• fits the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan;
• won't harm public health, safety or welfare;
• is compatible with neighboring uses; and
• has been reviewed under CEQA.

Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN). When ABC considers an area to have too many licenses, it can issue a new one only if the local agency finds the license serves "public convenience or necessity." Staff says the site's census tract is overconcentrated. The Census Bureau's geocoder places 21 N. School in 2020 Census Tract 42.04, where ABC's current table allows two on-sale retail licenses (ABC Census Tract Authorizations). The packet does not say how many on-sale licenses already exist in that tract.

What Lodi's Alcohol Rules Say

Lodi rewrote its alcohol-sales rules, Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) 17.36.230, in the 2025 Development Code update. The update also added a "problem uses" section, 17.36.240, which lists bars and other alcohol outlets (Ordinance 2034 text). The key provisions:

• Sensitive uses, 17.36.230(D)(2)(a): New alcohol outlets generally may not be within 500 feet of a school, day care, park or youth facility.
• On-sale location tests, (D)(2)(d)(i): Either of two conditions "may be grounds for denial":
  • the site is in an area where Police find crime rates higher than the citywide average; or
  • it is within 500 feet of another on-sale outlet, or more than four are within 1,000 feet.
  The Commission may "waive these restrictions in order to promote and support local economic business growth, including specifically in the Downtown Mixed Use District."
• Off-sale tests, (D)(2)(d)(ii): Similar tests apply to to-go sales, which a Type 48 includes.
• Conditions the City can impose: Security cameras, security guards, loitering controls, lighting and limited hours.

The Police Department's Position

Captain Kevin Kent's Aug. 31 letter says the department "would emphatically discourage the issuance of this permit."

• Calls for service: The address itself had zero calls from Sept. 1, 2025 through Aug. 31, 2026. There were more than 1,943 calls within two blocks, including DUIs, intoxicated persons, liquor-law violations, assaults, thefts and disturbances.
• Nearby alcohol businesses: 20 North is across the street, Ollie's is at 22 N. School and Rooted is on the same block at 7 N. School. Police list 21 more alcohol-serving businesses within half a mile.
• Homeless corridor: Downtown is a regular path for unhoused people struggling with addiction as they move between shelters and encampments to the east.
• Food: Bars that serve only alcohol generate more calls than businesses that also serve food.

Staff met with Police and the applicant. Staff then recommended waiving the location limits for four reasons:

• the space has been used for alcohol service before;
• it had no calls for service in the past year;
• its hours can be limited; and
• the conditions can be enforced.

The applicant declined to add food, saying it would change the cocktail-bar concept.

Police Safeguards Versus Draft Conditions

Source: Item 4c, Attachment E Police letter and Attachment F draft resolution.

How the 12 Police recommendations fared

Counted from the table above. Source: Item 4c, Attachments E and F.

Other Conditions

The proposed hours become binding, and any extension needs an amendment. Alcohol may be served only in approved areas. Amplified outdoor music is banned without separate approval. Nuisance problems can bring the permit back to the Commission for changes or revocation.

The existing sidewalk patio needs a Public Works encroachment permit, liquor-liability insurance and compliance with the City's sidewalk-dining rules, LMC 12.04.425. If the operator does not get the permit, the fencing, tables and chairs must come out of the public right-of-way.

Background and Precedent

Lodi has denied bar licenses over concentration before. A May 19, 2010 Council report on a Type 48 permit with live entertainment found Census Tract 45 overconcentrated. It concluded that, with "similar bar type establishments in the immediate vicinity," a new use offering the same services "is not appropriate" (City of Lodi records). The Commission's most recent alcohol case was the Maverik Type 21 off-sale license on Sept. 23, which relied on ABC's finding that the whole city is overconcentrated.

Open Issues to Watch — Item 4c

• The location tests are never measured. Staff would waive "any applicable location restrictions" without saying which ones apply. The code's crime test compares the area to the citywide average, but Police supplied a two-block call count, not a rate. The packet also includes no count of on-sale outlets within 500 or 1,000 feet, though 20 North and Ollie's appear well within 500 feet. It does not document the 500-foot check for schools, day cares, parks and youth facilities.
• How far the waiver reaches. The waiver clause covers "these restrictions," meaning the crime and proximity tests. The draft resolution waives "any applicable location restrictions." If a sensitive use is within 500 feet, the record should say whether the waiver extends to it.
• To-go sales are not analyzed. The permit would allow beer and wine to go. The off-sale tests, and the option of barring to-go sales, are not discussed.
• "Reuse" is a thin basis. Both the waiver and the PCN finding rest on the former wine bar. That tenant held a winery license, so a Type 48 adds a new retail bar license. The findings never say what public need The Wet Cactus meets that the 24 nearby alcohol businesses do not.
• Most Police safeguards were left out. None of the 12 Police recommendations appears in full. Eight are absent, including the ID scanner, security training, alarm, signage and food service. The code also allows security guards, which are not required.
• Problem-use review not addressed. Alcohol outlets are classified as problem uses under LMC 17.36.240, but the packet has no analysis under that section.
• Patio status. The CEQA exemption and the findings assume the existing sidewalk seating continues, yet the conditions suggest it lacks a current encroachment permit. The patio also does not appear on the floor plan. Commissioners can ask how many patio seats there are, what hours apply, and whether the patio will be part of the ABC-licensed premises.
• The permit runs with the land. A future operator could use the same Type 48 approval. The Commission can consider a review after the first year of operation.
• No clear-out time. Sales stop at closing, but nothing sets when patrons must be gone or when the patio must close.

LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.

This LodiEye report was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic’s Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:

Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval located the Oct. 28, 2026 Planning Commission packet and the Commission's Aug. 12, Aug. 26 and Sept. 23 packets and minutes. It also found the Oct. 21 City Council packet on the Westside "F" annexation, SPARC agendas for Aug. 26 and Sept. 23 and the Oct. 14 cancellation, Ordinance 2034's alcohol-sales and problem-use sections, ABC's census tract authorization table and license-type definitions, a 2010 City Council alcohol permit report, and the state housing department's SB 4 fact sheet.

Credibility Validation: Parcel sizes, conditions, police figures and findings were taken from the staff reports, maps and draft resolutions in the packet and checked against each other. Where the packet's own figures conflict, the report gives each figure and its location. Alcohol rules were checked against the ordinance text, not staff's summary. The site's census tract was confirmed with the U.S. Census Bureau geocoder.

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude assisted in comparing staff findings with code requirements, matching Police recommendations to draft conditions, and identifying open questions for each hearing.

Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the parcel and conditions tables and the four charts.

Final Review: Throughout the process, the editor sets the report's goals, scope, and tone; creates and shapes draft content; reviews and edits the report; integrates independent fact checks; and reviews the AI cross-checks and validations.

Lodi411/LodiEye believes that transparency about how our research is produced — including our use of AI under human direction — strengthens trust with readers and the broader information ecosystem. Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.

References

• City of Lodi — Planning Commission agenda packet, Oct. 28, 2026 (Items 4a, 4b, 4c)
• City of Lodi — Planning Commission packet, Sept. 23, 2026 (401 N. Ham Lane; Maverik Type 21)
• City of Lodi — Planning Commission packet, Aug. 26, 2026 (June 10 and Aug. 12 minutes, Westside vote)
• City of Lodi — Planning Commission packet, Aug. 12, 2026 (Westside "F" annexation staff report)
• City of Lodi — City Council agenda packet, Oct. 21, 2026 (Westside "F" annexation and prezoning)
• City of Lodi — SPARC agenda, Sept. 23, 2026
• City of Lodi — SPARC agenda, Aug. 26, 2026
• City of Lodi — SPARC cancellation notice, Oct. 14, 2026
• City of Lodi — Ordinance 2034, Development Code update (LMC 17.36.230 alcoholic beverage sales; 17.36.240 problem uses)
• City of Lodi records — City Council agenda report, May 19, 2010, Type 48 use permit appeal
• California ABC — Number of Licenses Authorized by Census Tract
• California ABC — License types (Type 02 Winegrower, Type 48 On-Sale General Public Premises)
• U.S. Census Bureau Geocoder — 21 N. School St., Lodi (Census Tract 42.04)
• California HCD — SB 4 Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands fact sheet
• City of Lodi Agenda Center — minutes and Council actions as they post
• City of Lodi Legistar — Oct. 21, 2026 Council meeting item actions

Prepared for Lodi411 by Don Bradford.

Homeless in San Joaquin County and Lodi: Progress, Spending and Trends

LodiEye — October 2026

Summary

In January 2026, volunteers counted 3,306 people experiencing homelessness in San Joaquin County, down from 4,732 two years earlier. In Lodi the count fell from 416 to 248. The county's unsheltered population, meaning people sleeping outdoors, in tents and in vehicles, dropped 47 percent. The 30 percent decrease is the largest the county has recorded since it began counting every two years.

The figures behind that headline are less tidy. The drop came from roughly 1,300 permanent housing placements and about 100 new shelter beds, paid for mostly with state and federal grants, many of them one-time. The number of people entering homelessness for the first time each year went up, not down. Chronic homelessness rose. And the county's shelter system now carries an annual operating bill of about $15 million that does not go away when the count goes down. Lodi's Access Center, the city's main investment, has its operations funded by grants only through 2027.

How the count works, and what it leaves out

The point-in-time count is a one-night snapshot taken in late January, required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. It counts people in emergency shelter and transitional housing, plus people found outdoors, in vehicles and in encampments. It does not count people doubled up with family, people paying for a motel room themselves, or people already placed in permanent supportive housing. The county's own data system records about three and a half times as many people over a year as the January count finds in one night. The count is best read as a floor and a trend line, not a census.

The sheltered figure comes from bed records in the county's Homeless Management Information System and is reliable. The unsheltered figure comes from volunteers covering 3,281 square miles between 5 and 11 a.m. and is an estimate. The 2024 count was the first run by Applied Survey Research, a contractor used by ten California counties, and the county's planning documents say the new method likely corrected earlier undercounts. Part of the 2022-to-2024 jump is method rather than people. The 2026 count used the same method, so the 2024-to-2026 comparison is the cleanest the county has.

The count, 2017 to 2026

San Joaquin County Point-in-Time Count, 2017–2026

Source: San Joaquin Continuum of Care PIT reports; Lodi News-Sentinel (2017); Local News Matters (2022, 2024). No unsheltered count was taken in 2020 or 2021.

The sheltered line has stayed between about 960 and 1,470 for seven years. It moves with bed capacity, not with need: it dipped when pandemic spacing cut capacity in 2022 and rose 16 percent in 2026 as new beds opened and existing ones filled more consistently. All of the volatility is in the unsheltered line, which is the part of the count that responds to housing placements, encampment clearances and how well the count was run. Those three cannot be separated from the count alone.

Lodi

Lodi Point-in-Time Count, 2017–2026

Source: SJCoC PIT reports; City of Lodi Access Center RFP (2025); Lodi News-Sentinel; Stocktonia. Sheltered counts shown where the county reported them. The 2024 report lists Lodi at 416 total and 154 sheltered; the 2026 report's comparison table lists 395 and 133. The unsheltered figure, 262, is the same in both.

Lodi's unsheltered count went from 88 in 2017 to 139 in 2019, 208 in 2022 and 262 in 2024, before falling to 133 in 2026. The sheltered count has stayed in a 115-to-154 band, roughly the capacity of Hope Harbor, Lodi House and the Access Center's overnight beds. Lodi remains second to Stockton among the county's cities. Stockton counted 1,850 in 2026, Manteca 237 and Tracy 211, with 700 people in the unincorporated county, most of them sheltered.

What produced the drop

Between the 2024 and 2026 counts the Continuum of Care reports that about 1,300 permanent housing options came online, a mix of vouchers, permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing, along with roughly 100 new shelter beds. The number of people living in permanent housing programs rose 86 percent. People placed in permanent housing leave the count entirely. That is the intended result, and it is also the reason a falling count does not mean fewer people are being supported.

The county's annual system data, which the state publishes from the county's case management records, show the same thing from the other side. Exits to permanent housing rose 65 percent between 2020 and 2024, from 715 to 1,183 a year. The share of people who returned to homelessness within six months of a permanent exit fell from 10.8 percent to 8.6 percent. At the same time the number of people using the system in a year rose 39 percent, to 11,287, and the number experiencing homelessness for the first time rose 28 percent, to 5,452. The system is housing more people each year and taking in more people each year.

San Joaquin County Homeless System, Annual Figures: 2020 vs. 2024

Source: San Joaquin CoC, 2025 Regional Homeless Action Plan Update (draft, August 2025), from county HMIS data. The 2024 year runs October 2023 through September 2024.

Within the count itself, the four federally tracked groups split three ways. Veterans fell 43 percent, from 249 to 141. People in families fell 11 percent, from 454 to 404. Unaccompanied youth fell 22 percent, from 304 to 237. Chronic homelessness, meaning people with a disability who have been homeless a year or longer, rose 10 percent, from 1,078 to 1,191, and 69 percent of them were unsheltered. This is the group permanent supportive housing is built for and the most expensive group to house. The county had 789 permanent supportive housing beds in 2025 against 1,191 people who qualify.

Federally Tracked Subpopulations, 2024 vs. 2026

Source: 2026 San Joaquin County PIT Count Report, key findings.

Housed and unhoused, side by side

The count only shows the people still homeless. Put next to it the people the system is housing at the same moment, and the picture changes. HUD's inventory reports for the county list permanent housing beds, meaning supportive housing, rapid rehousing and housing vouchers run through the homeless system, at roughly 1,000 to 1,100 from 2018 through 2022. By January 2025 that figure was 2,582, nearly all of them occupied. The housed population and the counted homeless population were growing at the same time. By 2024–25 the system was housing about 2,500 people on the same night it counted 4,700 without housing.

People in Permanent Housing Programs and People Counted Homeless

Source: HUD CoC Performance Profile CA-511 (2018–2022 inventory and counts); 2025 Regional Homeless Action Plan (2025 inventory); 2024 PIT report. The 2025 inventory is paired with the 2024 count, which HUD carried forward as the county's 2025 figure. HUD had not published the 2026 inventory at the time of writing.

Two things follow. First, the drop in the 2026 count did not shrink the population the county is responsible for. It moved people from the unsheltered bar into the permanent housing bar, where they stay as long as the subsidy does. Second, the cost of the system scales with the housed and sheltered bars combined, not with the count. In 2018 the county was paying for about 2,300 beds of all types. In 2025 it was paying for about 4,280.

What it costs

State and federal money into the county

The state's accountability dashboard puts Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grants, known as HHAP, to the San Joaquin region at $60 million across the first five rounds, 2019 through 2025. Of that, $24.7 million went directly to the county; the rest went to Stockton and the Continuum of Care. As of the state's February 2026 update the county had obligated $17.8 million and spent $9.6 million. Encampment Resolution Fund grants added $11.2 million, of which $7.7 million was spent, serving 446 people. For the HHAP-funded programs across the region, the state reports 9,483 people connected to services and 1,718 housed between January 2023 and June 2025.

State HHAP Funds, San Joaquin County, Rounds 1–5

Source: California accountability dashboard, San Joaquin County homelessness page, February 2026. The $60 million regional total includes awards to the City of Stockton and the Continuum of Care.

HHAP Round 6, the current round, is $22.7 million for the region: $11.5 million to Stockton and $11.2 million to the county on behalf of the Continuum of Care. The county's plan sets aside about $2 million of that for prevention. Caltrans, separately, reports removing 509 encampments in the county between July 2021 and February 2026, with no dollar figure attached.

What the public record shows by year

There is no single figure for what homelessness costs San Joaquin County in a year. Housing and shelter grants are reported by program and by funding round, each on its own cycle. Enforcement and cleanup costs, meaning police and sheriff time on encampments, code enforcement, public works cleanups, Caltrans and CHP operations along the freeways and the Mokelumne, and jail days, are not reported as homelessness spending by any agency in the county. Statewide, Caltrans has paid private contractors more than $100 million for encampment clearances. Hospital and ambulance costs for unhoused patients are published by the state by facility but not totaled locally.

The chart below is what can be assembled from documents that report by year: HUD's Continuum of Care and Emergency Solutions Grant awards to the county, and the state HHAP and Homekey money reported by the City of Stockton in its own plans. It leaves out the county's HHAP rounds, which the state reports by round rather than by year, as well as Medi-Cal housing benefits, county general fund spending, the Access Center's grants, and all enforcement. It is a floor in the same way the count is.

Documented Homelessness Funding to San Joaquin County Agencies, by Fiscal Year

Source: HUD CoC Performance Profile CA-511 (CoC and ESG awards, 2018–2022); HUD FY2023 CoC Dashboard; City of Stockton HHAP Round 4 application, Table 3. Excludes county HHAP rounds 1–6, Encampment Resolution Funds ($11.2 million), Emergency Rental Assistance ($40.6 million to Stockton in 2021–22), Medi-Cal, Access Center grants ($23 million) and all enforcement and cleanup costs.

Even on that partial basis the documented annual figure roughly tripled between 2018 and 2023, from about $5 million to about $17 million, before adding the county's HHAP share, the Access Center or Medi-Cal. The county's own planning estimate for operating the shelter system alone is $15 million to $28 million a year.

The ongoing bill

The clearest statement of what the system costs to run is in the county's 2025 action plan. It estimates annual operating costs for the shelter system at $14.9 million at the low end and $28.2 million at mid-range, and lays out about $15 million a year in revenue it expects to use to sustain shelter operations over the next three years. About $8 million of that is HHAP, which the state funds a round at a time and has not committed to beyond Round 7. Medi-Cal, through the CalAIM housing benefits, is the single largest source that is not a grant.

Planned Annual Revenue for Sustaining Shelter Operations, 2025–2028

Source: 2025 Regional Homeless Action Plan Update. Total about $14.96 million a year, against an estimated $14.9 million to $28.2 million annual operating cost.

Two smaller county items show how individual projects are financed. In November 2025 the Board of Supervisors added $1.5 million in American Rescue Plan Act interest earnings to the Gospel Center Rescue Mission's New Life center in Stockton, bringing the county's share to $3.5 million for 110 beds, 27 of them medical recuperative care. The same month, in Lodi, the board approved roughly $600,000 for 12 behavioral-health respite beds at the Access Center and a long-term lease for 40 transitional housing units downtown.

Lodi's Access Center

Lodi's main homelessness investment is the Access Center at 710 North Sacramento Street. A temporary tent shelter has operated on the site since July 2022; the permanent building has been under construction since summer 2025. The city reported in June 2026 that eleven grants totaling more than $23 million had been assembled for the project, with about $9.3 million remaining. None of it is city general fund money. The sources are American Rescue Plan Act funds, state HHAP, Permanent Local Housing Allocation, federal Community Project Funding and, pending, a Caltrans encampment resolution grant. The county contributed $2.8 million in 2021, $2 million of it for development.

The construction contract with Bobo Construction began at $9.87 million and, with about $1.7 million in change orders, now stands near $11.8 million. The city's June 2026 target for completion was October 12, 2026; the News-Sentinel has since reported that completion is projected before the end of January 2027.

Operations are the longer question. Outreach Ministries International runs the center under a five-year agreement approved in June 2026. The first-year operating budget is $1.62 million, covered by grants through 2027. The city's projections put the cost at $1.75 million in 2028 and $2.13 million in the fifth year, or $74 per overnight client per night in 2027 rising to $98. The city's general fund is $96.2 million for 2026–27, with a projected $5.4 million deficit by 2030–31, and the council has not identified a source for the center's operations after the grants run out. Supervisor Steve Ding has said he wants the county to take ownership of the center. That proposal has not been formalized.

Lodi Access Center Projected Operating Cost

Source: Lodi News-Sentinel, “Who will pay for access center?” (October 2026), citing city projections. Grants cover operations through 2027.

What the center does with the money is also on the record. The operator reported 257 transitions from the shelter into housing or treatment programs over the 18 months ending June 2026, about 30 percent of residents each month, and the city's quarterly outreach reports show the center's teams engaging roughly 225 unsheltered people in a four-month period. The 2026 count's 168-person decrease in Lodi is in line with those figures.

Trends underneath the count

More people, for the first time

Nearly half of the people surveyed in 2026, 48 percent, said this was their first episode of homelessness, up from 44 percent in 2024. Countywide, 5,452 people entered the system for the first time in 2024. As long as inflow runs at that level the housing programs are a treadmill: 1,183 exits to permanent housing against 5,452 new entrants. The 2026 survey also found 72 percent had been homeless a year or more, so the population is both long-term and continually refreshed.

Local people, lost income

Ninety-two percent of people surveyed were living in San Joaquin County when they became homeless; 7 percent came from another California county and 1 percent from out of state. Before losing housing, 55 percent were in a home they or a partner rented or owned and 28 percent were staying with friends or relatives. Asked for the main cause, 25 percent named lost or reduced income, 10 percent alcohol or drug use, 9 percent eviction and 8 percent a divorce or breakup. Asked what kept them from housing, 67 percent said they could not afford rent and 64 percent said they had no job or not enough income. The county's plan counts 13,293 households earning under half the area median income that are severely rent-burdened, which is the pool the first-time entrants come from.

Out of tents and into cars

Where people sleep shifted with the new shelter capacity and with encampment clearances. The share sleeping outdoors fell from 41 percent to 35 percent and the share in tents from 31 percent to 14 percent, while the share in a shelter or transitional housing doubled to 27 percent. The share sleeping in a vehicle doubled too, from 10 percent to 20 percent. Vehicle residents are the hardest group for a dawn count to find, so the 2026 unsheltered figure is more likely to be low on this group than any other.

Where Survey Respondents Were Sleeping, 2024 vs. 2026

Source: 2026 San Joaquin County PIT Count Report, Figure 14. Percent of survey respondents (2024 N=624; 2026 N=249).

Older, and in poorer health

Fifty-nine percent of survey respondents were 45 or older and 36 percent were 55 or older; only 8 percent were under 25. Nationally about 20 percent of people counted are 55 and over, so the county's population skews considerably older. Forty-six percent reported a psychiatric or emotional condition, 43 percent a chronic health problem, 40 percent drug or alcohol abuse, 39 percent a physical disability and 38 percent PTSD. Eighteen percent had been in foster care, and 15 percent first became homeless before they turned 18.

Who was counted

Of everyone counted in 2026, 36 percent identified as white, 23 percent as Hispanic or Latino, 19 percent as Black, 8 percent as white and Hispanic, and 4 percent as multiracial, with American Indian or Alaska Native and Asian residents at about 2 percent each. Black residents are roughly 7 percent of the county's population, so they are overrepresented about three to one. That is a narrower gap than California as a whole, where Black residents are about 5 percent of the population and roughly 22 percent of the homeless count. Sixty-three percent of survey respondents were men.

How many make it out

The question most residents ask is how many people actually leave homelessness for a job and a home of their own. The county's data answer the housing half reasonably well and the employment half poorly.

On housing, the county system moved 1,183 people into permanent housing in the 2024 reporting year, up from 715 in 2020. Across the region, the state counts 1,718 people housed through HHAP-funded programs between January 2023 and June 2025, out of 9,483 connected to services. Once housed, most stay housed. HUD's performance measures for the county show that 95 percent of people in permanent supportive housing either remained there or left for other permanent housing in 2022, and the share of people who returned to homelessness within six months of a permanent exit fell from 15.7 percent in 2019 to 8.6 percent in 2024. Statewide, about 90 percent of people who exit to a permanent destination have not returned to the system six months later.

The harder number is the share of people in shelter who get to permanent housing at all. In the county's 2022 HUD profile, 11.3 percent of people leaving emergency shelter, transitional housing or rapid rehousing in a year went to a permanent destination. That rate has stayed between 9 and 12 percent since 2018. The rest exited to other temporary situations, to friends and family, to institutions, or to an unknown destination. The county's own measure of time spent in temporary programs without a permanent outcome rose from 69 days in 2020 to 94 in 2024. The system is better at keeping people housed than at getting them there.

Housing Outcomes, San Joaquin County System Performance Measures, 2018–2024

Source: HUD CoC Performance Profile CA-511 (2018–2022); 2025 Regional Homeless Action Plan (2024 return rate). Exit rate is the share of people leaving shelter, transitional housing or rapid rehousing who went to permanent housing; retention is the share in permanent supportive housing who stayed or moved to other permanent housing.

In Lodi, the Access Center reported 257 transitions from its shelter into housing or treatment programs over the 18 months ending June 2026, about 30 percent of residents in a given month. The city's outreach contractor reported, for the four months ending February 2025, 39 clients moved to housing, 17 to a program and 13 who found a job. Those are the only Lodi-specific outcome figures in the public record, and they do not distinguish permanent housing from transitional placements.

Employment is where the record thins out. The county's survey found 13 percent of people experiencing homelessness were employed in 2026, up from 4 percent in 2024, and 54 percent of the unemployed said they were looking for work; 28 percent said they were unable to work. The 2026 report attributes the change to the Continuum of Care's added emphasis on employment and self-sufficiency. What the county does not publish is the outcome: how many people left the system with earned income, how many held a job twelve months after being housed, or how many permanent supportive housing residents work. HMIS collects income at entry and exit, so the figure exists in the data; it is not among the measures the county reports. National evaluations of permanent supportive housing find that employment among residents stays low, typically 10 to 20 percent, because the program serves people with disabilities by design. Rapid rehousing, which the county runs for 532 households, is the program built around earned income, and it is the one whose employment outcomes would say most about whether people are transitioning to self-sufficiency rather than to a subsidy.

What the next ten years are likely to cost

No agency in the county has published a ten-year cost projection for homelessness. What exists are the pieces: the county's own operating-cost range for its shelter system, its bed pipeline, its count of people who qualify for permanent supportive housing, and Lodi's five-year budget for the Access Center. Put together with stated assumptions, they give a planning range rather than a forecast. The figures below are total system cost regardless of who pays, in 2027 dollars escalated at 3 percent a year, which is below what shelter operators have actually experienced since 2021.

Three cases are shown. The first holds the system at its January 2025 size: 1,346 emergency shelter beds, 789 permanent supportive housing beds and 532 rapid rehousing slots, with no new capacity. The second builds what the county has already planned: 588 shelter beds and 221 permanent housing units now in the pipeline, which the Continuum of Care expects to open within two years. The third adds what it would take to house the people the count says need it: roughly 400 more supportive housing units beyond the pipeline to cover the 1,191 people experiencing chronic homelessness, plus a prevention program sized to the inflow, about 2,000 households a year at the state's typical $5,000 per household. Housing Choice Vouchers administered by the Housing Authority are left out of all three, because they are federally funded on a separate budget.

Assumptions used

Emergency shelter at the county plan's low operating figure, $14.9 million for 1,346 beds, about $11,100 per bed per year, and the same rate for new beds. Permanent supportive housing at $22,000 per unit per year for subsidy plus services, a mid-range figure for Central Valley rents. Rapid rehousing at $10,000 per household per year. Prevention at $5,000 per household. Escalation of 3 percent a year. Capital costs are excluded; the Access Center building, the Be Well campus in Stockton ($137.5 million for Phase 1 and $38.2 million for Phase 2, both state-funded) and new shelter construction are one-time and separately financed.

Projected Annual System Cost, San Joaquin County, 2027–2036

LodiEye planning estimate from county-reported capacity, operating costs and need, escalated 3 percent a year. Not an agency forecast. Ten-year totals: hold current size, about $430 million; build the pipeline, about $560 million; house the chronic population and fund prevention, about $780 million.

The baseline case, simply keeping what exists, costs about $38 million a year to start and roughly $430 million over the decade. Building the pipeline the county has already committed to raises that to about $49 million a year and $560 million over ten years. Closing the chronic-homelessness gap and funding prevention at the scale of inflow runs about $68 million a year, or $780 million over ten years. For comparison, the identified recurring public sources in the county's own plan, meaning the federal Continuum of Care award, Emergency Solutions Grants, state HHAP through Round 7, Medi-Cal and behavioral health funding, come to roughly $29 million a year. The baseline is short by about $9 million a year even if HHAP continues at current levels, and the state has not committed to HHAP beyond Round 7.

The gap is the central fact. The county is operating a system that costs more each year than its identified ongoing revenue, with the difference covered by one-time money: pandemic funds, Homekey, encampment-resolution grants and the early HHAP rounds. The 2026 count fell because that one-time money was spent well. Keeping it from rising again means replacing that money with something recurring, and the county's plan identifies Medi-Cal as the largest candidate.

Lodi

Lodi's exposure is narrower and easier to state. The Access Center's operating budget runs $1.62 million in 2027, $1.75 million in 2028 and $2.13 million in its fifth year on the city's own projections. Carried forward at 3 percent, the ten-year operating total is about $21 million. Grants cover it through 2027, and the city reported about $9.3 million remaining across its eleven grants as of June 2026, part of which is committed to construction. If the county takes ownership of the center, as Supervisor Ding has proposed, the city's share could fall to the cost of its outreach contract, police and public works time, none of which is budgeted as a homelessness line today. If the county does not, the city faces adding a $2 million line to a general fund already projected to run a $5.4 million deficit by 2030–31. Either way, the roughly 250 people counted in Lodi represent a city-level operating cost on the order of $8,000 per person per year through the center alone, before county-funded housing, the 40 downtown transitional units and the respite beds the county is paying for.

One more figure belongs in any ten-year view. A 2015 Santa Clara County study, the most thorough cost accounting done in California, found the public cost of an unhoused person averaged about $5,000 a year across all residents but exceeded $80,000 a year for the most frequent users of hospitals, jails and emergency services, almost all of them chronically homeless. The county's chronic population grew 10 percent between the last two counts. That is the group where spending on housing and spending on enforcement and emergency care trade off most directly, and it is the group the county's current plan funds least.

What to watch

The first thing to watch is the funding cliff. The county's plan notes that 189 households on pandemic-era Emergency Housing Vouchers could be terminated within 60 days of that money running out, and that about 1,700 families on Housing Choice Vouchers are at risk. HHAP is funded one round at a time. The Access Center's operating grants end in 2027. The next county count is January 2028, and much of what produced the 2026 decrease expires before then.

The second is chronic homelessness, the one group that grew. The county has 789 permanent supportive housing beds for 1,191 people who meet the definition, and the beds are 92 percent occupied.

The third is inflow. Prevention is about $2 million of the $11.2 million county HHAP 6 allocation. First-time entries rose 28 percent between 2020 and 2024, and the county's plan has not yet measured its baseline for people entering homelessness directly from jails, hospitals and foster care.

The fourth is ownership of the Access Center. Whether the county takes over the building and its operating cost, as Supervisor Ding has proposed, decides whether Lodi's general fund absorbs a $2 million annual line by 2031.

The last is the annual numbers. The county reports people served, exits to permanent housing and returns to HUD every year. Those figures, not the biennial count, are the ones that show whether the system is gaining on the problem. Service providers in Lodi and Stockton, with contacts and bed counts, are listed on Lodi411's Homeless Outreach and Support Services page.

LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.

This LodiEye report was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic's Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:

Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval identified the public documents behind this report: HUD's 2025 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report and its Continuum of Care performance profiles for CA-511, the San Joaquin Continuum of Care's 2024 and 2026 point-in-time count reports and 2025 Regional Homeless Action Plan, the state's HHAP Round 6 regional plan and accountability dashboard, City of Lodi council and committee records, and reporting from the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, ABC10 and the Manteca Bulletin. Perplexity AI was used for initial source discovery; Claude was used for reading and analysis of the identified documents.

Credibility Validation: AI cross-referenced count figures across the county's own reports, HUD's published profiles and local news accounts, prioritizing the county's PIT reports and HUD data over secondary reporting. Where sources disagree, the disagreement is reported rather than resolved: the two published figures for Lodi's 2024 sheltered count, and the two completion dates reported for the Access Center. Spending figures are attributed to the specific document and date they come from, because the state, county and city each report on different cycles.

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude assisted in pairing the biennial count with the county's annual system data and HUD's housing inventory, which is the comparison that shows housed and unhoused populations growing at the same time; in assembling the partial funding-by-year series from documents that report on different schedules; and in identifying what the public record does not contain, in particular enforcement and cleanup costs.

Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring and formatting the report, including the twelve data visualizations, the jurisdiction and comparison tables, and the sequencing from the count to its causes to its cost.

Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, logical coherence, and balanced presentation. Throughout the process, the editor sets the report's goals, scope, and tone; creates and shapes draft content; reviews and edits the report; integrates independent fact checks; and reviews the AI cross-checks and validations. Multi-tool cross-checking across independent models and sources is the primary error-reduction mechanism.

Lodi411/LodiEye believes that transparency about how our research is produced — including our use of AI under human direction — strengthens trust with readers and the broader information ecosystem. Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.

References

• San Joaquin Continuum of Care, “2026 San Joaquin County Homelessness Point-in-Time Count,” Applied Survey Research, July 2026
• San Joaquin Continuum of Care, “2024 San Joaquin County Point-in-Time Count Report,” September 2024
• San Joaquin Continuum of Care, “2026 Point-in-Time Count Data for San Joaquin County,” release of May 11, 2026
• San Joaquin Continuum of Care, “Regionally Coordinated Homelessness Action Plan, 2025 Annual Update,” draft for public review, August 2025
• California Department of Housing and Community Development, “HHAP Round 6 Regionally Coordinated Homelessness Action Plan: San Joaquin Region”
• State of California Accountability Dashboard, “San Joaquin County: Homelessness,” updated February 26, 2026
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “CoC Performance Profile: CA-511 Stockton/San Joaquin County CoC,” 2018–2022
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “FY2023 CoC Dashboard: CA-511 Stockton/San Joaquin County CoC”
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “The 2025 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress, Part 1,” May 2026
• City of Stockton, “HHAP Round 4 Application,” Table 3, Landscape Analysis of Funding
• San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, “Board Approves Funding to Expand Homeless Recovery Program,” November 4, 2025
• Lodi News-Sentinel, “Who will pay for access center? Grants cover operations through 2027, but long-term funding remains uncertain,” October 2026
• Wes Bowers, “‘Meaningful progress’: Point-in-time count shows homeless numbers decreasing,” Lodi News-Sentinel, July 25, 2026
• Lodi News-Sentinel, “Latest homeless count breaks down increases in unsheltered population in Lodi and county,” July 2024
• Lodi City Council meeting of June 17, 2026, five-year agreement with Outreach Ministries International (summary via Citizen Portal)
• City of Lodi, “Request for Proposal for Access Center and Emergency Shelter,” 2025
• Lodi Committee on Homelessness, meeting agenda and provider reports, March 13, 2025
• Stocktonia, “New county-funded projects aim to curb homelessness in Lodi,” October 2, 2025
• Stocktonia, “Homeless counts dropped in these California counties this year,” August 27, 2026
• ABC10, “San Joaquin County data shows fewer people living unsheltered,” July 2026
• Manteca Bulletin, “Homeless numbers in SJ County plunge 30 percent in 2 years,” August 2026
• Local News Matters, “San Joaquin County sees dramatic increase in numbers of unsheltered homeless residents,” August 9, 2024
• Local News Matters, “Unsheltered count shows 50 percent increase in homelessness in Lodi,” June 2022
• Lodi News-Sentinel, “Unsheltered homeless on the rise in S.J. County,” April 8, 2017
• Lodi News-Sentinel, “Lodi secures $2.8M in county funds for homeless access center,” July 14, 2021
• San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, “San Joaquin County Receives $38.2 Million from State of California to Expand Behavioral Health Treatment Capacity,” March 16, 2026
• California Interagency Council on Homelessness, “Quarterly Data Report,” September 3, 2025 (statewide six-month return rates)
• Santa Clara County and Economic Roundtable, “Home Not Found: The Cost of Homelessness in Silicon Valley,” 2015 — [URL to be added at publish time]
• The Guardian, “Revealed: how companies made $100m clearing California homeless camps,” April 16, 2024
• CalMatters, “California's homelessness crisis, explained”
• Lodi411, “Homeless Outreach and Support Services: Lodi and San Joaquin County Resources”
• Corrections and source questions: editor@lodi411.com

Westside "F" Annexation: What 400 to 550 New Homes Would Mean for Lodi's General Fund

Lodi411 / LodiEye — Growth and Public Finance Brief — October 2026

Summary

On Wednesday, October 21, the Lodi City Council holds a public hearing on bringing about 96 acres of farmland west of Lower Sacramento Road into the city, between West Vine Street and West Kettleman Lane. The Council will consider asking the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), the county commission that rules on city boundary changes, to approve the annexation. It will also consider pre-zoning the land for homes, shops and a public site, and detaching it from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District. The applicant is Dobbins Properties, Inc. (Oct. 21 Council agenda, File 26-403; pre-zoning ordinance).

The zoning would allow roughly 400 to 550 homes. Whether those homes help or hurt the General Fund, the main account that pays for police, fire, parks and street services, depends mostly on one question: can Lodi's existing fire stations serve the area? If they can, the homes and an assumed 40,000-square-foot store bring in about $250,000 a year more than the City would spend serving them. Upkeep of the new streets, parks and storm basins, counted separately, takes about two-thirds of that. If the area needs its own engine company and Westside carries the full cost, the General Fund loses about $3.3 million a year; if the station is shared with other growth areas, the loss is about $1.3 million. The City already faces a forecast operating gap of $4.29 million this fiscal year (FY2026-27 budget presentation, File 26-279).

What the Council is considering

The ordinance pre-zones 20 parcels. Pre-zoning sets the zoning that will apply once the land is annexed (pre-zoning ordinance):

Density limits come from Lodi Municipal Code 17.18.020. City records describe the area three ways: 96.1 acres in the staff report, 95.3 acres in the LAFCo application, and 95.52 acres when the 20 parcels in the ordinance's parcel table are added together.

The two residential zones can hold up to about 550 homes, but only if the medium-density land is built at its 20-home maximum and a few homes go on mixed-use land. The estimates below test 400, 450, 500 and 550 homes.

How Lodi would collect property tax

California property owners pay a basic tax of 1% of assessed value, plus any voter-approved bond charges. The 1% is split among local agencies. Each agency's share in a given area is set under state law, often called its AB 8 factor. Schools usually receive about half.

Every piece of land sits in a tax rate area (TRA), a zone where the same set of agencies share the tax. When a city annexes land, the County and the city must agree on how much property tax moves to the city. Lodi and San Joaquin County amended their agreement on February 15, 2023 (agenda report and agreement). It pools the County's share with the share of any fire district leaving the area, here Woodbridge Rural. Lodi receives 10% of that pool on the land's current value and 40% of the pool on value added after annexation. Schools, Delta College, the mosquito district and other agencies keep their shares.

That means Lodi does not collect 40% of the whole 1% tax. At 500 homes, the area would generate roughly $3 million a year in new 1% tax. Lodi's share would be about $394,000.

Where the 20 parcels sit

County Assessor records place 14 parcels in TRA 099021 and six in TRA 099024 (County Assessor property search). Treasurer-Tax Collector records show the same areas for every parcel (tax search). On the state Board of Equalization's 2026 map, each parcel lies 99.6% to 100% inside the matching area (BOE TRA data; County parcel layer). Both areas include Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District, and TRA 099024 also includes Woodbridge Irrigation District. Both paid a total rate of 1.0801% in 2025-26: the 1% tax plus Lodi Unified and Delta College bonds (Auditor-Controller tax rates).

On the 2026 roll, the 20 parcels carry $8,103,926 in taxable value, including homeowners' exemptions that the state reimburses. That is the current value that Lodi's 10% share would apply to.

The County figures that are not yet public

The County Auditor-Controller calculates each agency's share every year (State Controller audit, January 2026) but does not publish the shares by tax rate area (Auditor-Controller property tax page). Until those figures for TRAs 099021 and 099024 are released, the estimates use published averages:

The 16.5% figure divides Woodbridge's FY2023-24 property tax revenue, $4,227,955 plus $22,499 in homeowners' relief (State Controller data), by 1% of the district's $2.57 billion certified value (Auditor-Controller certified values). That is higher than the 14.3% the 2011 study reported. Both are averages across the whole district, not the factor for these two areas.

For the 2023 Mariposa annexation near Stockton, the Auditor-Controller put the local fire district's share at 10.4% of the 1% tax, and the annexation's fiscal report put the share held by the County, the fire district and other County agencies together at about 40%. For Mariposa, that leaves at most about 29.6% for the County and other non-fire County agencies. Here, 29.6% and a 40% combined pool are illustrative high-case assumptions, not verified limits for Westside. For comparison, Auditor-Controller figures for other rural fire districts at city edges run from 10.4% to 12.8% (Mountain House fiscal analysis; LAFCo, February 2020).

Lodi's yearly property tax at 500 homes, by tax pool

Values: Woodbridge share only (14.3%) $170,640; County share only (18.68%) $222,906; combined low (29.7%) $354,405; combined default (32.98%) $393,545; combined high (40%) $477,314.

Source: Westside "F" fiscal model using the 2023 County-City agreement split and the shares in the table above.

Revenue and costs at buildout

The figures below are yearly amounts once all homes are occupied, in FY2026-27 dollars, using the default 32.98% tax pool.

Yearly revenue and costs at 500 homes

Revenue $1,616,773. Costs with existing stations $1,533,682 (services $963,084, fire $405,064, upkeep $165,534). Costs with a new engine company $5,094,329 (services $963,084, engine company $3,965,711, upkeep $165,534).

Source: Westside "F" fiscal model; FY2026-27 dollars at buildout.

Where the revenue estimates come from

• Home values. Single-family homes are valued at $629,950, the lowest advertised base price at Carrousel at Rose Gate in Lodi. Smaller homes use the county's September 2026 median sale price of $533,805 (Redfin).
• Residents. Household size (2.670 people) and vacancy (3.84%) come from the state Department of Finance.
• Vehicle license fee replacement. Since 2004, cities have received property tax in place of most vehicle license fees, and the amount grows with the city's assessed value. Lodi's FY2026-27 forecast is $8,833,900 (budget presentation). The estimate divides that by Lodi's total assessed value, a figure taken from a secondary property-data site because the County's certified city total was not available in the same form. Lodi Finance has not confirmed how annexed value counts toward that growth.
• Sales tax. The estimate counts half of each resident's average share of Lodi's sales tax and Measure L half-cent tax, plus a 40,000-square-foot store on the commercial land. No store has been proposed; that figure is an estimate.
• Special tax. CFD 2007-1 is a Community Facilities District, a special tax area that helps pay for public safety and park services in newer neighborhoods. Its maximum was $500 per single-family home in FY2015-16 and rises 2% a year, which works out to $621.69 in FY2026-27 (Resolution 2015-171). The Council packet does not show joining the CFD as a condition of development. Without it, the yearly result drops by $249,000 to $342,000.

Where the cost estimates come from

• City services. Department budgets are scaled to new residents using the FY2026-27 budget: Police $35.6 million, Fire $21.6 million, and General Fund Public Works $5.6 million (June 3 budget presentation, File 26-279). Police, Public Works and Fire are counted at full average cost per resident. Administration, community improvement and non-departmental costs are counted at a quarter to a half of their average cost, because much of that spending does not grow with population.
• New engine company. Twelve positions (three firefighters on each of three shifts, plus three relief positions), each costed at $317,976, plus $150,000 a year for station operations and apparatus replacement. That per-position cost is the midpoint between two City figures: $185,571, the salary and benefits of each of the 10 Measure L-funded firefighters, and $450,381, the Fire budget divided by four stations and 12 positions, which also carries administration, prevention and training (budget presentation). The total is about $3.97 million a year, within a range of $2.38 million to $5.55 million. Lodi runs four stations; Station 4 is on Lower Sacramento Road north of the site (Lodi Fire stations).
• Upkeep. About 2.1 miles of new streets are costed at $22,694 per mile a year for pavement, the statewide cost of keeping streets in good condition once a backlog is cleared, in 2022 dollars: $3.28 billion a year across 144,530 miles (Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment). New streets start with no backlog. The study's larger $8.54 billion figure, $59,088 per mile, includes 10 years of backlog repair; using it would add about $75,000 a year. Street lights and landscaping add $8,000 per mile. Parks are costed at 5 acres per 1,000 residents and $12,000 per acre, and storm basins at $25,000 a year. The lighting, park and storm figures are estimates pending Lodi's own costs.

How the tax pool changes the result

The 2023 agreement pools both shares, so the combined rows reflect its terms. The single-share rows show how much of the result rides on the County's share. With only the Woodbridge share, the surplus at 550 homes shrinks to about $6,000 before upkeep, and the area runs a deficit once upkeep is counted.

Against the $4.29 million gap

The City's June 3 forecast showed General Fund spending exceeding revenue by $4,291,170 in FY2026-27 and $5,638,810 in FY2031-32 (budget presentation, File 26-279). The recommended FY2026-27 budget was balanced in part with $4.3 million in programmed fund balance, money held from prior years, set aside to cover new labor contract costs.

With existing stations and before upkeep, the combined tax pools would cover about 4.8% to 8.0% of the FY2026-27 gap across 400 to 550 homes. At 500 homes, upkeep cuts the default case to about $83,000 a year, or 1.9% of the gap; the high case leaves about $167,000, or 3.9%. If the area needs its own engine company and Westside pays all of it, the shortfall adds about three-quarters of the current gap.

The City's February 2025 forecast assumed about 250 new homes a year (February 2025 forecast). Westside revenue narrows the gap only to the extent it is growth the forecast does not already count.

One-time fees and the fire station

New homes pay development impact fees once, when permits are issued. The money must go to building facilities and cannot pay for staff or operations. At the fees in effect for 2026, 500 homes would pay about $14.8 million in City impact fees, mostly for water, wastewater, storm drainage and parks (City fee schedule). The fire fee is $598 per single-family home and $504 per medium-density home. Fees are adjusted each year.

Fire capital at 500 homes: what fees cover

Westside fire impact fees $305,224; City fire impact fee fund balance (June 30, 2024) $332,428; estimated station and engine $14,000,000; unfunded $13,362,348.

Sources: City fee schedule, 2026; 2023-24 Impact Mitigation Fee Report. Station and engine cost is an estimate.

The $13 million station figure is an estimate. Manteca's Station 5 cost $4.5 million to build in 2020, and Manteca estimates its next station at $12 million (Manteca Bulletin). Pasadena now estimates more than $20 million per station (Pasadena Now). The $1 million engine estimate builds on Tracy's 2019 fee study. Even at the low end, Westside fees would cover a small share.

The City's fire fee fund is not a reserve for a new westside station. The fee report ties the fee program to expanding and relocating Station 2 and to repaying the cost of building Station 4 (2023-24 Impact Mitigation Fee Report).

Developers also pay a regional transportation fee, about $2.0 million at 500 homes, which the San Joaquin Council of Governments controls, not the City.

Water, sewer and electric bills

Westside homes would also pay the City for water, wastewater and electricity. Those charges go to the City's three utility funds, which are kept separate from the General Fund. A typical home would pay about $2,777 a year: $494 for water, $747 for wastewater and $1,536 for electricity. Water uses the City's metered rate, a $23.92 monthly base charge plus usage charges, with 1,500 cubic feet a month, the average City staff used in the February rate hearing report (City fee schedule; staff report, File 26-056). Wastewater is a $31.24 monthly charge plus $3.31 per 100 cubic feet of winter water use, after a 2.6% increase on July 1 (staff report, File 26-240). Homes are assumed to use about 937 cubic feet a month in winter, the average for metered homes in the City's 2023 rate study (2023 Water and Wastewater Rate Study). Electricity uses Lodi Electric's 2025 average home bill of $128.02 a month, from federal Energy Information Administration data (PowerBillFacts).

Assumes 96% of homes occupied, with average water use from City records; FY2026-27 rates.

These bills do not change the General Fund results. Under Prop. 218, the state rule for property-related charges, water and wastewater rates cannot bring in more than the cost of providing the service, and utility money stays with the utility. Lodi Electric sets its rates to cover its costs, including the payment to the General Fund described below.

The one link to the General Fund is the electric utility's payment in lieu of taxes. Lodi Electric pays about 10% of its revenue, roughly $7 million a year, to the General Fund for police, fire and parks (Lodi Electric). On Westside home bills, that would be about $74,000 a year at 500 homes. That money is already part of the "other General Fund revenue" in the buildout table above, so it is not counted twice.

Utility connection fees are one-time charges paid when homes connect to the water, wastewater and electric systems. At 500 homes they would total about $5.1 million and can be spent only on utility facilities (City fee schedule). The City's fee report says Lodi already has more wastewater treatment capacity than it needs, and it lists a southwest water tank as the water fee project (2023-24 Impact Mitigation Fee Report).

Over 30 years

The 30-year projection runs from FY2026-27 to FY2056-57. It assumes 500 homes, 100 sold a year starting in FY2029-30, City costs rising 3.5% a year, sales and other revenue rising 3%, and assessed value and the special tax rising 2%. The lines below leave out street, park and storm upkeep.

Yearly General Fund result at 500 homes, FY2029-30 to FY2056-57

Existing stations: +$185,880 in FY2034-35, turns negative again in FY2044-45, −$470,526 in FY2056-57. New station, Westside pays half: −$2,100,656 in FY2032-33, −$4,899,061 in FY2056-57. New station, Westside pays all: −$4,538,091 in FY2032-33, −$10,464,527 in FY2056-57.

Source: Westside "F" fiscal model. The new station is assumed to open in FY2032-33. Nominal dollars; excludes street, park and storm upkeep.

• Existing stations: The area runs small deficits while homes are being built, because property tax arrives a year after construction. It turns positive at about +$186,000 in FY2034-35, then the surplus shrinks each year and turns negative again in FY2044-45. Discounted at 3% a year, the 30-year total is −$1.00 million. With upkeep counted, this case runs a deficit every year.
• New station, Westside pays half: Yearly deficits run from $1.9 million to $4.9 million. The 30-year discounted total is −$44.2 million.
• New station, Westside pays all: The 30-year discounted total is −$98.3 million.

The long-term decline reflects the model's assumptions: assessed value and the special tax grow 2% a year, while costs grow 3.5%. Prop. 13 limits yearly increases in a home's assessed value to 2% until it sells, and the special tax rises 2% a year under its rate formula. The projection leaves out reassessment when homes sell, so actual results could be better.

What still needs answers

• County tax shares. The Auditor-Controller's shares of the 1% tax for TRAs 099021 and 099024. The office has provided tax rate area figures to LAFCo for past annexations (LAFCo record, April 2025).
• Woodbridge Irrigation District. Whether the district stays in TRA 099024 after annexation. Its share is not part of the County-City pool.
• Fire coverage. Whether Lodi Fire can meet its response-time standards from Station 4, or whether the reserved station site will be needed.
• Special tax. Whether joining CFD 2007-1 will be a condition of development.
• Fee zones. The area's storm drainage fee zone, and whether the South Wastewater Trunk Line fee applies.
• Vehicle license fee replacement. Lodi Finance's confirmation of how annexed value affects the property tax that replaces vehicle license fees.
• Acreage. Whether the area is 95.3, 95.52 or 96.1 acres.

Check the numbers yourself

• Hearing record: Oct. 21 Council meeting and File 26-403 attachments, including the pre-zoning ordinance with the parcel list.
• Current impact fees and water and wastewater rates: City Public Works fee schedule.
• Parcel tax rate area and value: County Assessor property search. Search by parcel number, such as 027-050-01.
• State tax rate area map: Board of Equalization map for San Joaquin County.
• Tax rates by area: Auditor-Controller assessed values and tax rates.
• County-City tax agreement: February 15, 2023 agreement and LAFCo's Lodi master tax sharing page.
• City budget and forecast: June 3, 2026 budget presentation and File 26-279.

About these estimates

Figures marked as coming from official records are taken from the sources linked in this report. Several inputs are estimates because no official number exists yet: the share of resident sales tax counted, the 40,000-square-foot store, how much of each department's costs grow with population, station and engine costs, park and storm upkeep, sales pace and growth rates. Results are yearly General Fund amounts unless labeled otherwise. Water, wastewater and electric utility funds are shown separately and do not change the General Fund results.

LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.

This LodiEye report was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic’s Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:

Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval located the Oct. 21 Council agenda item and pre-zoning ordinance, the 2023 County-City property tax agreement, the City's FY2026-27 budget presentation and five-year forecast, the CFD 2007-1 rate resolution, the 2021 impact fee program, the 2026 fee schedule and 2023-24 fee report, City utility rates, County Assessor and Treasurer-Tax Collector parcel records, State Board of Equalization tax rate area data, County Auditor-Controller tax rate and certified value reports, State Controller district revenue data and audit, and San Joaquin LAFCo fire district and annexation records.

Credibility Validation: Tax rate areas were checked parcel by parcel across three independent official sources: Assessor records, Treasurer-Tax Collector records, and a map overlay of County parcel boundaries on State Board of Equalization tax rate area boundaries. Budget, fee, special tax and agreement figures were taken from City of Lodi records. Where an official figure does not exist, such as each agency's share of the 1% tax in these two areas, the report uses published averages, shows a low, default and high value, and names the source of each.

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude assisted in building a fiscal model that estimates yearly General Fund revenue and costs at 400, 450, 500 and 550 homes, tests five property tax pool scenarios and three fire service cases, compares one-time impact fees with fire station costs, and projects results over 30 years. Inputs that are estimates rather than official figures are identified in the text.

Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the revenue and cost tables, the tax share table and the four charts.

Final Review: Before publication, three AI models from different developers reviewed the draft independently for factual accuracy, source strength, reasoning, overstatement and tone. Their findings were checked against the primary records, and confirmed errors were corrected in the model, text, tables and charts; the review and its resolutions are summarized in the Model Council Pre-Publication Review below. Throughout the process, the editor sets the report's goals, scope, and tone; creates and shapes draft content; reviews and edits the report; integrates independent fact checks; and reviews the AI cross-checks and validations.

Lodi411/LodiEye believes that transparency about how our research is produced — including our use of AI under human direction — strengthens trust with readers and the broader information ecosystem. Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.

Before publication, three AI models reviewed this report independently. Each received the same draft, the fiscal model and the parcel data, checked figures against the linked records, and returned a 1-to-5 readiness score with findings sorted as blocking, should fix or optional. Each finding was then checked against the primary record before any change was made.

Reviewers and scores: Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), 3 of 5, hold for revision; GPT-6.1 (OpenAI), 3 of 5, hold for revision; Gemini 3.8 Flash (Google), 4 of 5, ready after minor fixes.

Budget figures (Claude Opus, GPT): The draft's department costs, including General Fund Public Works at $5.8 million, did not match the department table in the City's June 3, 2026 budget presentation, File 26-279, which shows Public Works at $5,605,770. All department figures in the model were replaced with the presentation's numbers. The FY2026-27 forecast gap was corrected from $4,291,171 to the presentation's $4,291,170. The draft's "about $3.9 million in reserves" came from a secondary Citizen Portal account; it was replaced with the presentation's $4.3 million in programmed fund balance.

Fire staffing (Claude Opus): The draft's "57 staff" for Lodi Fire does not appear in the budget presentation or another current City record. It was removed. The engine company cost now rests on City figures: the $1,855,710 cost of 10 Measure L-funded firefighters and the Fire budget per station. That raised the estimate from $3.53 million to $3.97 million a year, and the article now gives its range.

Street upkeep (GPT, Claude Opus): The draft costed pavement at $59,088 per mile, derived from the statewide needs assessment's $8.54 billion figure, which includes 10 years of backlog repair. The same study puts the cost of keeping streets in good condition afterward at $3.28 billion a year, or $22,694 per mile. Because new streets carry no backlog, the lower figure is now the default and the higher one is described as a test. The $8,000-per-mile lighting and landscaping cost, previously counted but not described, is now stated. With these and the budget corrections, the existing-stations case at 500 homes moves from about −$5,000 to about +$83,000 a year after upkeep.

Fire station sources (Claude Opus): The Manteca Station 5 link gave no cost; it was replaced with a Manteca Bulletin report that the station cost $4.5 million in 2020. The article now says the City's fire fee fund is tied to Station 2 and Station 4 under the 2023-24 fee report, not to a new westside station.

Framing (GPT, Claude Opus): The summary now says the revenue includes an assumed store and that the net is before separate upkeep; table rows read "Net before upkeep." The new-engine loss now notes it assumes Westside pays the full cost and gives the shared-cost result. The Mariposa 29.6% and 40% figures are labeled illustrative comparisons, not Westside limits, and the 10.4% and 40% figures are credited to their separate sources. The gap range was recalculated across 400 to 550 homes. The 30-year section now gives the time span, says the lines exclude upkeep and that the existing-stations case runs a deficit every year with upkeep, describes the long-term decline as the result of the model's growth assumptions, and says the existing-stations line "turns negative again" rather than calling it the first negative year. The 250-homes assumption is dated to the February 2025 forecast, and the vehicle license fee estimate notes its secondary assessed-value source.

Chart format (Gemini): Negative values on the 30-year chart's axis now read "−$2M" instead of "$-2M."

Findings not adopted: Gemini said the article states 90% and 75% cost factors and puts Station 4 2.1 miles away. The article states neither; 2.1 miles is the length of new streets. Gemini's acreage point is already covered by the article's three acreage figures. Claude Opus and GPT flagged the chart license placeholder; it is replaced at publication.

After the review: Impact fees were updated from the 2021 adopted amounts to the City's 2026 fee schedule, which raised Westside fire fees from $254,342 to $305,224, and a section on water, wastewater and electric bills was added, using City staff reports and the 2023 rate study for typical water use.

Individual reviews are kept on file and are available on request at editor@lodi411.com.

References

• City of Lodi — City Council meeting, Oct. 21, 2026, File 26-403 (Westside "F" annexation).
• City of Lodi — File 26-403, Attachment 9, pre-zoning ordinance with parcel table (PDF).
• City of Lodi — Feb. 15, 2023 agenda report and amended County-City property tax agreement.
• City of Lodi — FY2026-27 General Fund budget presentation and five-year forecast, June 3, 2026, File 26-279 (PDF).
• City of Lodi — Council agenda, Feb. 26, 2025 budget forecast.
• City of Lodi — Ordinance 1977, Lodi Municipal Code 17.18.020.
• City of Lodi — Resolution 2015-171, CFD 2007-1 (Public Services) rate and method.
• City of Lodi — June 16, 2021 Impact Mitigation Fee Program update.
• City of Lodi — 2023-24 Annual Impact Mitigation Fee Report.
• City of Lodi — Fire Stations.
• San Joaquin County Assessor — property search.
• San Joaquin County Treasurer-Tax Collector — property tax search.
• San Joaquin County Treasurer-Tax Collector — property tax reports (FY2025-26 allocation).
• San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller — assessed values and tax rates.
• San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller — 2025-26 property tax rates (PDF).
• San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller — 2023-24 certified values by tax base (PDF).
• San Joaquin County GIS — tax parcels.
• California State Board of Equalization — San Joaquin 2026 tax rate area data.
• California State Board of Equalization — tax rate area map, San Joaquin County.
• California State Controller — San Joaquin County property tax apportionment audit, Jan. 2026 (PDF).
• California State Controller — Special district revenues, Woodbridge Fire Protection District, fiscal year 2024.
• San Joaquin LAFCo — Municipal Service Review, Rural Fire Protection Districts, Oct. 2011 (PDF).
• San Joaquin LAFCo — April 2023 agenda packet, Mariposa Industrial Park annexation (PDF).
• San Joaquin LAFCo — Mountain House Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis, Aug. 28, 2023 (PDF).
• San Joaquin LAFCo — February 2020 agenda packet (PDF).
• San Joaquin LAFCo — April 2025 staff report, Attachment 5 (PDF).
• San Joaquin LAFCo — City of Lodi master tax sharing agreement.
• California Department of Finance — E-5 population and housing estimates, Jan. 1, 2026.
• California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, 2022 (PDF).
• FCB Homes — Carrousel at Rose Gate, Lodi.
• Redfin — San Joaquin County housing market.
• City of Lodi — Public Works fee schedule (impact fees for 2026; water and wastewater rates, revised July 2026).
• City of Lodi — Summary of residential and small commercial electric rates.
• City of Lodi — Lodi Electric Utility, About Us.
• PowerBillFacts — City of Lodi average residential electric bill, 2025 (EIA Form 861).
• City of Lodi — Feb. 18, 2026 water rate hearing staff report, File 26-056.
• City of Lodi — June 17, 2026 wastewater rate hearing staff report, File 26-240.
• City of Lodi — 2023 Water and Wastewater Rate Study, File 23-144, Exhibit C (PDF).
• Westside "F" fiscal impact model, Excel workbook.
• Manteca Bulletin — New fire station in southwest will have familiar look, 2026.
• Pasadena Now — Pasadena Fire Department expansion plan.
• City of Tracy — Public safety fee study, 2019 update (PDF).

Questions, tips or corrections: editor@lodi411.com

Lodi's $14.1 Million Park Grant Push: Three Round 5 Applications, a Crowded Statewide Race, and What Council Is Approving

Lodi411 / LodiEye — Parks and Public Finance Brief — October 2026

Summary

On Wednesday, October 21, at 7 p.m. in the Carnegie Forum, the Lodi City Council will take up, on its consent calendar, resolutions authorizing three applications to Round 5 of California's Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program. The requests total about $14.1 million: $5.8 million for Lawrence Park, $4.3 million for Blakely Park and $4.0 million for Hale Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the concepts at a special meeting on October 6. The state has $188.5 million to award statewide, applications are due December 17, and awards are expected about six months later (Lodi News-Sentinel, Oct. 3, 2026; Lodi News-Sentinel, Oct. 18, 2026; California Grants Portal).

No local match is required, and the three applications would take 7.5 percent of the statewide pot. The strings come after the award: a 30-year operation-and-maintenance commitment that started running in July 2025, a deed restriction on the park land, reimbursement-based payment with 20 percent held until the park is finished, and full responsibility for any cost overrun (Round 5 Application Guide; Grant Administration Guide).

Measured as the straight-line half mile the grant uses, the three parks serve different neighborhoods. Blakely has the largest nearby population (about 8,850 people) and the least mapped parkland within a half mile (8.0 acres, or 0.90 acres per 1,000 residents). Hale and Lawrence sit about a quarter mile apart and share much of the same service area: about 6,760 and 5,810 residents, and about 19 acres of mapped parkland each, or 2.82 and 3.25 acres per 1,000. Those acreage figures include the project parks themselves and several recreation facilities; under stricter counting rules the Lawrence and Hale ratios fall to about 1 acre per 1,000 or less, and Blakely stays lowest under every counting rule.

On the new climate criterion, the state's own vulnerability rankings put all three parks in census tracts ranked High for extreme heat and drought, which is worth 3 of 5 points. None of the three is near a High sea-level-rise area. Lawrence sits at the edge of a High flood tract to the north: measured from the park boundary, that tract falls inside the half mile and would make a third vulnerability worth the full 5 points; measured from the center of the park, it falls just outside (Round 5 Application Guide; Vulnerable Communities Platform).

The statewide odds are long but not hopeless. Round 3 in 2019 funded about 11 cents of every dollar requested and Round 4 about 24 cents. If Round 5 demand matches the $2.3 to $2.4 billion of those rounds, the $188.5 million pot would fund about 8 cents on the dollar, so an applicant's rank on park need, income and the other nine criteria will decide the outcome (California State Parks; Round 4 award list). These figures are not the city's scoring or the state's official Community FactFinder results.

Key Numbers

• $188.5M — Available statewide in Round 5, from the 2024 Prop 4 climate bond
• $14.1M — Lodi's three requests combined, 7.5% of the pot
• Dec. 17 — Application deadline; awards expected summer 2027

What the city is asking for

Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services staff have been working on these since the start of the year. They held at least five community meetings at each park, plus online surveys and town halls, and worked with Unidos Progresando, Community Partnership for Families, the One Eighty Teen Center, Lodi Boosters of Boys/Girls Sports and the Boys and Girls Club to reach the neighborhoods around each site. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the concepts at a special meeting on October 6 (Lodi News-Sentinel, Oct. 3, 2026).

Source: City staff descriptions as reported by the Lodi News-Sentinel, Oct. 3 and Oct. 18, 2026.

How the state scores an application

Every application is scored out of 100 points on ten criteria, then ranked statewide. The state funds down the list until the money runs out. Several criteria are not scored against a fixed bar but against the other applications in the round. The park-acreage and household-income figures for each site are lined up against every other site in California, and the full points go to the sites at the top of the need ranking. A Lodi neighborhood that looks underserved by Lodi standards is being compared with South Los Angeles, Fresno and Kern County (Round 5 Application Guide).

The table lists each criterion and where each Lodi park stands under the published rules. These are not the city's own scores. Official figures come from the state's Community FactFinder, which depends on exact site placement, and a full comparison will not exist until every application in the state is filed and ranked.

Source: SPP Round 5 Application Guide, Project Selection Criteria 1 through 10; Community FactFinder Handbook for the income threshold; 2020 Census; Vulnerable Communities Platform.

The half-mile numbers

The grant measures need inside a straight-line half mile of the project site. The figures below measure that half mile from the edge of each park and count residents from 2020 census block groups.

Source: City of Lodi park boundaries; 2020 Census block groups; Census tract median household income.

Three findings hold up under every counting rule tried. Blakely serves the most people and has the least nearby parkland; its half mile contains no other mapped park, so it stays lowest whatever the state counts. Hale and Lawrence are about a quarter mile apart, share the Softball Complex, Zupo Field and Armory Park in their circles, and land within a few tenths of an acre of each other, so the two should be treated as similar rather than ranked. And the absolute ratios swing widely with the definition of parkland, so no single acres-per-1,000 figure should be read as the grant's number.

School playfields, which some access measures count, are not included, and several schools sit near Lawrence and Hale. Income here is a tract-level median, not household income for each block group, and the poverty count in criterion 2 is not shown. Final figures will come from the state's Community FactFinder run on the exact site pins.

Climate vulnerability near each park

Criterion 3 counts the high-ranking climate vulnerabilities within a half mile of the project site. The Community FactFinder takes those rankings from the state's Vulnerable Communities Platform, run by the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, and counts only areas the platform ranks "High" for extreme heat, wildfire, sea level rise, drought or flood (Round 5 Application Guide; Parks for California). The table shows the platform's rankings for the census tracts within a half mile of each park (Vulnerable Communities Platform).

Source: Vulnerable Communities Platform, current hazard rankings; Round 5 Application Guide scoring scale and half-mile rule; City of Lodi park boundaries.

Heat and drought do little to separate Lodi from the rest of the Valley. The platform ranks 161 of San Joaquin County's 173 census tracts High for extreme heat and 168 for drought, so nearly any site in the county starts with two vulnerabilities and 3 points. The remaining two points turn on a third hazard. For Lodi that is flood: the High flood tract north of downtown, along Lodi Lake and the Mokelumne River, begins about 2,520 feet from the Lawrence Park boundary, inside the 2,640-foot half mile, but about 2,810 feet from the center of the park. Where the city places its FactFinder pin inside Lawrence Park could decide whether the site earns 3 points or 5. Hale's boundary is about 3,440 feet from the same tract, and Blakely is not near any High flood area (Vulnerable Communities Platform).

Three rules outside the point table also shape the odds. Applications where most of the money goes to support amenities (restrooms, lighting, cameras, landscaping, shade, parking) are, in the state's words, less competitive than ones that create new recreation. Hale's list leans on shade, lighting, cameras and furniture; its recreation features are the building and the playground. Lawrence has the strongest mix of actual recreation features. A community building counts only if at least 75 percent of its floor area is designed for recreation; lobbies, meeting rooms, offices, storage and restrooms do not count, and two of the three Lodi projects include a building. And Prop 4 requires at least 10 percent of each round, about $18.9 million, to go to renovations of existing parks that improve access, including for people with disabilities. All three Lodi projects are renovations with inclusive playgrounds and ADA work, which is a small structural help (Round 5 Application Guide).

The Short Read

Blakely has the strongest case on park need: the most nearby residents, the least nearby parkland and the lowest nearby income. It also has a fee problem to solve: Enze Pool charges admission, and a $4.3 million application built around aquatics has to show fees that do not deter daily use. Lawrence has the strongest mix of recreation features and is the only one of the three that could pick up a third climate vulnerability, depending on where its site pin is placed. Hale and Lawrence overlap heavily in the neighborhoods they serve; in 2020 city staff put Hale's half-mile median household income at $35,200, the only one of four Lodi sites then under the state's severely disadvantaged line (Lodi News-Sentinel, 2020).

The odds

The program's own history is the best guide. Round 3 in 2019 drew 478 applications asking for $2.3 billion and funded 62 of them. Round 4 in 2021 drew 468 applications asking for $2.42 billion and funded 112, with 8 more added in 2023 from a supplemental appropriation. Round 5 has less money than either (California State Parks; Round 4 award list).

Statewide Park Program: dollars requested and dollars awarded, by round

Source: California State Parks program history and award announcements. Round 4 awarded figure combines the December 2021 and December 2023 announcements. Round 5 demand is not yet known; the bar shows the amount available.

Round 3 funded about 11 cents of every dollar requested ($254.9 million of $2.3 billion) and Round 4 about 24 cents ($590.2 million of $2.42 billion). If Round 5 demand looks like the last two, the $188.5 million pot would fund about 8 cents of every dollar requested, or roughly 38 to 46 projects at the average award size of those rounds. Lodi's three requests together would take 7.5 percent of the pot, so winning one project would be a solid result and winning all three would be ambitious.

Who else is in the race

There is no county or regional set-aside; every application competes against every other in the state. The applicant list is not public until after the deadline. The pattern from past rounds in this part of the Valley: Stockton has been funded in each of the last three award cycles (McKinley Park, $8.5 million in 2020; Columbus Park, $3.35 million in 2021; Van Buskirk Park, $7.0 million in 2023). Round 4 also funded Modesto's Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Park at the $8.5 million maximum, along with projects in Sacramento, Davis, West Sacramento, Vacaville, Fairfield, Livingston and Madera, and three Sacramento-area park districts. Past award patterns show repeat participation by large and experienced applicants, but the Round 5 applicant list will not be public until after the deadline (Round 4 award list; Round 3 awards).

Lodi's history with state park money

Lodi has done well with the smaller and less competitive state programs and has not yet cracked the big one.

Two things stand out. The Hale and Blakely concepts have been in front of the public since 2019; the Round 5 versions are the third pass at both parks, with Lawrence added. And the 2019 outreach meetings do not count this time. The Round 5 rules only credit meetings held after November 5, 2024, the day Prop 4 passed, which is why staff ran a full new round of meetings this year (Round 5 Application Guide).

What the money can and cannot pay for

The grant pays for construction and permanent features: site preparation, recreation equipment, park furniture, lighting, cameras, shade, buildings, and up to 25 percent of the grant for design, engineering, permits and the community meetings themselves (Grant Administration Guide).

It does not pay for upkeep. The state's list of ineligible costs includes repairs meant to keep an existing structure in use, routine operation and maintenance, programming, software, mowers, consumable supplies, and grant writing. The energy-efficiency items in the Blakely proposal qualify only as part of the pool rebuild, not as stand-alone fixes. A project must also create or renovate at least one recreation feature; an application made up only of restrooms, lighting and landscaping is ineligible (Grant Administration Guide).

Matching funds and what the city signs up for

No local match is required; the grant may fund the entire project. If the city's total cost is higher than the grant, the difference must be committed from other sources within four months of the deadline, by mid-April 2027, or the project has to be scaled down to what the grant alone can finish. The resolution before council certifies that the city has or will have the money to complete each project and to operate and maintain it (Round 5 Application Guide).

Source: Prop 4 Competitive Grant Administration Guide, Round 5, and SPP Round 5 Application Guide.

What happens next

The council item is on consent, so it will pass without discussion unless a council member or a member of the public pulls it. The next public decision about these three parks will come from Sacramento, and not before next summer.

LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.

This LodiEye report was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic’s Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:

Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval located the Round 5 Application Guide, Grant Administration Guide and Community FactFinder Handbook from California State Parks, the Round 3 and Round 4 award lists and announcements, the state grants portal listing, the Lodi News-Sentinel's coverage of the current applications and of the city's 2016, 2019, 2020 and 2023 park grant activity, and City of Lodi web pages on Prop 68 outreach and department history.

Credibility Validation: Program rules, point values, dollar thresholds and contract terms were taken from the state's own Round 5 documents. Project descriptions and dollar figures come from city staff as reported by the News-Sentinel. Lodi's earlier applications and awards were checked against the state's published award lists. Where a figure rests on an older source, such as the 2020 Hale Park income figure, it is dated in the text.

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude Opus and Sonnet assisted in organizing the ten scoring criteria into a single table, computing the historical funding ratios, measuring population, parkland and income within a half mile of each park from 2020 Census block groups and City of Lodi park boundaries, and matching each park against the Vulnerable Communities Platform climate rankings. The park-by-park readings in the scoring table are an assessment from public information, not the city's figures.

Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the scoring, half-mile and climate tables, the two date tables, and the funding chart.

Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, logical coherence, and balanced presentation. Throughout the process, the editor sets the report's goals, scope, and tone; creates and shapes draft content; reviews and edits the report; integrates independent fact checks; and reviews the AI cross-checks and validations. Multi-tool cross-checking across independent models and sources is the primary error-reduction mechanism.

Lodi411/LodiEye believes that transparency about how our research is produced — including our use of AI under human direction — strengthens trust with readers and the broader information ecosystem. Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.

References

• Lodi News-Sentinel — Lodi seeks $14 million in state park grants, Oct. 3, 2026.
• Lodi News-Sentinel — Lodi City Council could change how mayor, vice mayor are selected (includes the council parks item), Oct. 18, 2026.
• California State Parks — Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program, Round 5 page and program history.
• California State Parks — SPP Round 5 Application Guide, August 2026 (PDF).
• California State Parks — Grant Administration Guide for Proposition 4 Competitive Grant Programs, Round 5, August 2026 (PDF).
• California State Parks — Community FactFinder Handbook, Round 5, May 2026 (PDF).
• California State Parks — Round 4 project award list, Oct. 25, 2021 (PDF); Round 4 supplemental awards of $41.9 million, Dec. 28, 2023.
• California State Parks — Round 3 awards of $254.9 million, Feb. 25, 2020.
• Lodi News-Sentinel — Four Lodi park sites picked for state grant funds, Feb. 5, 2020.
• Lodi News-Sentinel — City of Lodi seeks grant for Blakely Park improvements, 2016.
• City of Lodi — Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services department history.
• City of Lodi — Prop 68 community meeting schedule for Hale and Blakely parks, 2019; Lodi Park Development Updates, Aug. 2019.
• California State Parks — $10 million for local park projects under the Outdoor Environmental Education Facilities program, including Lodi Lake Park Nature Area.
• Lodi News-Sentinel — Lodi set to tackle projects at Blakely, Hale parks, Jan. 2023.
• California Grants Portal — SPP Round 5 listing, Aug. 28, 2026.
• Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation — Vulnerable Communities Platform, VCP Tracts for Reports (open data portal).
• Parks for California — Community FactFinder methods, VCP climate-vulnerability layers.

Questions, tips or corrections: editor@lodi411.com

The Helium Problem: How a War in the Gulf Reached MRI Scanners, Chip Plants and Rockets

LodiEye — October, 2026

Overview

Most people know helium as the gas in party balloons. It is also the only substance that can cool an MRI magnet, a quantum computer or a research spectrometer to the temperature they need, the gas that keeps pressure in a rocket's fuel tanks, and a routine input in every modern computer chip factory. There is no substitute for most of those jobs.

Since March 2026, the world has been short of it. Iranian strikes on Qatar's Ras Laffan gas complex, which supplied about a third of the world's helium, shut it down; Russia and China then restricted their own exports. Seven months on, Qatar is shipping a fraction of what it did, prices have doubled to tripled, and some American customers are getting half their normal deliveries. The United States makes more helium than it uses, so the problem here is cost and rationing rather than running out. But American helium is being sent overseas at a record pace, the federal government sold its strategic reserve in 2024, and nothing of any size comes online before 2028. This report explains where helium comes from, who depends on it, what happened this year, and what it means for hospitals, research labs, the military and businesses, including those in San Joaquin County.

What helium does that nothing else can

Helium is the second-lightest element. It does not burn, does not react with anything, and stays liquid at a colder temperature than any other substance: about four degrees above absolute zero, or roughly 452 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. Its atoms are so small they slip through gaps no other gas can find, which is why it is the standard way to test for leaks.

Those properties put helium in a long list of unrelated places. The superconducting magnets inside MRI scanners, research instruments and particle accelerators only work when kept near absolute zero, and liquid helium is the only thing that gets that cold. Rockets use helium gas to keep pressure in their fuel tanks as the fuel drains out. Chip factories use it to carry heat away from silicon wafers, to cool the optics in their most advanced lithography machines, and to leak-test vacuum equipment. The American Physical Society put it simply in 2023: for low-temperature work, "there is no replacement for helium."^[1]

A note on units. This report follows the U.S. Geological Survey and uses million cubic meters for volumes and dollars per thousand cubic feet for prices. For scale, the whole world produced about 190 million cubic meters of helium in 2025.

Four plants in three countries

Helium forms underground from the slow radioactive decay of uranium and thorium, and it collects in some natural gas fields. It is only worth recovering where the gas is unusually rich in helium, or where the gas is already being chilled to make liquefied natural gas, since the chilling does most of the work. That is why production is so concentrated. The USGS puts 2025 world production at about 190 million cubic meters. The United States made 81 of that, or 43 percent, and Qatar 63, or 33 percent. Together those two countries supply three-quarters of the world.^[2]

Who makes the world's helium (2025)

Source: USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026. Million cubic meters. Some text copies of the USGS table show the U.S. figure as 381; that is a formatting error, and 81 is consistent with the rest of the document.

Within those countries, a few plants carry the load. ExxonMobil's Shute Creek plant at LaBarge, Wyoming, makes close to half of U.S. output and about a fifth of the world's, with an estimated 80 years of reserves.^[3] The old Hugoton gas field across Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, including the former federal reserve near Amarillo, adds more but is slowly running down. Qatar's three plants at Ras Laffan were, before the war, the largest helium complex in the world, and all of their output ships out as liquid in insulated tank containers.^[4] Russia's Amur plant was built to make 60 million cubic meters a year but has never come close; fires in 2021 and 2022 kept it dark for a year, and all of Gazprom's plants together produced 16.6 million in 2025.^[5] Algeria could make about 50 million but produced 11, because its gas plants are running well below capacity.

The ground is not the problem. The USGS counts 8,500 million cubic meters of reserves in the United States alone and tens of billions more in Qatar, Algeria and Russia, more than a century of supply at today's rate of use.^[2] The bottleneck is where helium-bearing gas actually gets processed, which depends on the economics of natural gas, whether plants are running, sanctions, and shipping.

Who uses it

The USGS breaks 2025 U.S. helium use into nine categories. Research and analytical instruments are the largest at 22 percent. Chips, fiber optics and controlled atmospheres together are 17 percent, lifting gas for balloons and blimps 17 percent, and MRI 15 percent.^[2]

What the United States uses helium for (2025)

Source: USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026. Percent of U.S. consumption. "Chips, fiber optics and controlled atmospheres" is one combined USGS category.

MRI used to be the largest single use, at 30 percent of U.S. consumption in 2019. Part of the drop is real, because new scanners use far less helium, and part is the USGS reshuffling its categories in 2023. Worldwide there is no official breakdown, but the estimates most often cited put computer chips at about a quarter of world demand and heading above 30 percent by 2030, with healthcare at roughly 30 percent.^[6] Industry consultant Phil Kornbluth has said chipmaking has overtaken, or is about to overtake, MRI as the biggest single use.^[7]

Computer chips

A chip factory uses helium to cool silicon wafers during etching, to dilute process gases, to cool the optics in its most advanced lithography machines, and to leak-test vacuum systems. As chips get smaller, they rely on it more, not less.^[8] The odd part is that helium costs almost nothing compared to everything else in a chip: about $6 of an $18,000 advanced wafer, under one percent. But a factory without it stops.^[9] The large Asian chipmakers recover 80 to 95 percent of their helium on site and keep months of inventory, which is why they have ridden out the shortage so far. Every large hard disk drive is also sealed with helium, and both Seagate and Western Digital reported 2026 production fully allocated with prices rising.^[10] IDTechEx projects that U.S. chip-industry demand for helium will nearly quadruple by 2035 as the factories funded by the CHIPS Act come online.^[8]

MRI scanners

A conventional MRI magnet holds 1,500 to 2,000 liters of liquid helium and uses something like 10,000 liters over its life.^[11] There are roughly 50,000 scanners installed worldwide. The newest designs need almost none: Philips' BlueSeal magnet holds 7 liters and passed 2,000 installations in November 2025, and Siemens' DryCool platform, cleared by the FDA in January 2026, needs less than a liter for its entire life.^[12] The catch is that old scanners cannot be converted, and only about 5,000 new scanners are sold each year, so the sealed designs are still a few percent of what is in use.

Liquid helium inside an MRI magnet

Sources: Radiology Today; Philips; Siemens Healthineers. Liters. The scale is logarithmic, meaning each gridline is ten times the one below; on a normal scale the two new designs would not be visible.

Rockets

Most rockets, including SpaceX's Falcon 9, use helium gas to keep their fuel tanks pressurized as the fuel drains. NASA's SLS moon rocket also uses it to purge its hydrogen lines. NASA's contract with Air Products for liquid helium at Kennedy Space Center covers 33 million liters for about $1.07 billion through October 2027.^[13] A manager at United Launch Alliance has estimated that the space industry takes 6 to 8 percent of North American helium and will need about 10 percent within five years.^[14]

Science

Anything that has to run near absolute zero depends on liquid helium: the magnets in the NMR spectrometers used by chemists and drug researchers, particle accelerators, fusion experiments, and the refrigerators that cool quantum computers. Several thousand U.S. research groups use instruments that cannot run without it; a typical research university has about two dozen.^[1] Research is roughly 10 percent of world demand, but when supplies are short, research labs sit at the bottom of the suppliers' priority lists, as one physicist put it, "alongside party balloon sellers."^[15]

Demand was soft before the war

In 2025 the world was using about 6.0 to 6.2 billion cubic feet a year while producers could make about 7.3 billion. There was so much spare helium that producers were pumping it into underground salt caverns in Texas and Germany for storage.^[16] Forecasts for future growth split by a factor of two: consultants who track physical trade expect about 2.5 percent a year, while market research firms expect 5 to 6 percent, driven by AI chips, new chip factories in Asia, rockets and quantum computers. Dollar figures for the market are not comparable with one another: the USGS values 2025 U.S. helium sales at about $970 million, while research firms put the whole world market anywhere from $4 billion to $6 billion, apparently including distribution, cylinders and surcharges.

What happened in 2026

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel struck Iran, and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz stopped almost immediately. On March 2, QatarEnergy halted all production at Ras Laffan after drone attacks and declared force majeure, a legal notice that it could not meet its contracts, two days later. On March 18 and 19, Iranian missiles hit Ras Laffan again, damaging two LNG trains, about 17 percent of Qatar's gas-export capacity. QatarEnergy's chief executive estimated three to five years to repair the damage.^[17] Because most of Qatar's helium is a byproduct of making LNG, the helium stops when the LNG tankers cannot load, whether or not the helium plants themselves are damaged. About 200 of the world's specialized helium shipping containers, each worth around $1 million, were stranded in the Gulf with liquid helium that boils away within five to seven weeks.

Sources disagree on how much supply was lost, mostly because they are measuring different things. Exiger and TrendForce say roughly a third of world supply went offline, which is Qatar's full share while the plants were dark.^[3] An analyst at AKAP Energy estimated in late March that about 30 percent of Qatar's 2026 output would be lost, which works out to about 11 percent of world supply for the full year.^[10] QatarEnergy itself says the physical damage will cut its helium exports by 14 percent until the damaged trains are rebuilt.^[18] All three can be true at once: a third of supply was gone in the spring, the loss for the year depends on how fast the undamaged plants come back, and a 14 percent cut lasts for several years.

Recovery has been slow. A peace deal was announced in mid-June, but an explosion during the Ras Laffan restart on June 21 injured dozens of workers, and shipping data through October show only limited, on-and-off traffic through Hormuz, with new attacks on ships.^[19] In early August, reports said one of the three Qatari plants had quietly restarted, with helium trucked overland to the Saudi port of Jeddah on the Red Sea, and the trade publication gasworld put Qatar's helium output at about 25 percent of normal.^[20] On October 18, 60 Minutes reported that no helium ships had left Qatar, that nearly two dozen ships had been hit since September trying to get through, and that Qatar says at least three years to full operation.^[21] Both accounts can be right if the Jeddah route moves small volumes by truck rather than ship. The fair summary is that Hormuz is partly and intermittently open, not back to normal, and Qatari helium is flowing at a fraction of its old rate.

Then two other producers closed their doors. On April 14, Russia put helium on its list of goods that need government approval to export, in force through the end of 2027.^[22] Russian helium was already banned in the European Union and the United States under sanctions, and nearly all of it goes overland to China. On July 10, China banned all helium exports with no end date.^[23] China imports about 85 percent of what it uses, more than half of it from Qatar, and has no national reserve, so the ban is defensive. But it removed one more flexible source from the world market.

What prices did

The USGS tracks a standard industry base price for pure helium. It sat at about $210 per thousand cubic feet from 2019 through 2021, rose to $390 at the peak of the last shortage in 2023 and 2024, and eased back to $330 in 2025 as the glut built.^[2] Within a week of the war starting, spot prices, meaning helium bought right now outside a long-term contract, were up 70 to 100 percent. Airgas, one of the largest U.S. distributors, declared force majeure on March 17, added a surcharge, and cut some customers to half their normal volumes.^[24] By October, spot prices in the hardest-hit regions had reached $1,000 to $1,200 per thousand cubic feet, Northeast Asia was paying more than twice North American rates, and long-term contracts were being renewed at 20 to 40 percent above the old ones.^[25] Kornbluth has warned that if the disruption drags on, prices could retest the record above $2,000 set during the 2022 to 2023 shortage.

Helium prices, 2019 to 2026

Sources: USGS; Fusion Worldwide; Energy News Beat. Dollars per thousand cubic feet. Blue columns are the USGS annual base price for pure helium. The orange bar is the reported range of spot prices in October 2026, a different measure shown for scale.

The fifth shortage in twenty years

The industry numbers its shortages. The first, in 2006 and 2007, and the second, in 2012 and 2013, came from plant outages and uncertainty about the sell-off of the federal reserve. The third, from 2018 to 2020, began when Qatar's neighbors cut it off in June 2017 and the trucking route for its helium closed for a month. The fourth, from 2022 to early 2024, combined an equipment failure at the federal reserve, the Amur fires in Russia, and maintenance in Qatar.^[26] Each of those ended within a year or two, either because new supply arrived or because demand fell. The 2026 shortage is different: it combines lost capacity, a blocked shipping lane and physical damage that will take years to fix, and it is happening after the federal reserve that cushioned two of the earlier shortages has been sold.

Where the United States stands

The country is protected in one way and exposed in another. In 2025 the United States produced 81 million cubic meters, used 51, exported 38 and imported 8, with imports coming mainly from Canada, Qatar and Algeria.^[2] American chip factories draw on helium from Texas, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma, and one semiconductor economist told NPR that even a doubling or quadrupling of helium prices "wouldn't impact semiconductors a whole lot."^[27]

U.S. helium in 2025

Source: USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026. Million cubic meters. The United States has been a net exporter every year since at least 2021.

But helium is a world market, and the shortage is global. In the first half of 2026, the U.S. share of Taiwan's helium imports jumped from under 4 percent to about 60 percent, and its share of South Korea's from 28 to 56 percent, as Qatar's share collapsed.^[28] Census data show U.S. helium exports up about 70 percent since the war began. Air Products pulled 40 percent of its third-quarter sales out of its Texas storage cavern, and a former Air Liquide executive told 60 Minutes that the caverns in Texas and Germany, filled during the 2025 glut, are now "running in reverse," with the amount left "a closely held secret."^[21] The 2022 shortage was caused by outages inside the United States. This one is caused by outages abroad pulling American helium overseas.

The government no longer holds any helium

For most of the last century the United States had a strategic helium reserve. It was created in 1925 for military airships, expanded during the Cold War, and stored in a natural underground formation called the Bush Dome near Amarillo, Texas. As recently as 2010 it supplied over half of U.S. demand and a third of the world's.^[29] Congress voted to sell it off in 1996 and again in 2013, and the sale closed in June 2024, when Messer, a German industrial gas company, paid $460 million for the field, the storage dome, a 423-mile pipeline and about a billion cubic feet of remaining helium.^[30] A privately owned processing plant at the site was left out of the sale; after a dispute among its owners, a Texas court placed it under a court-appointed receiver in November 2024, and it is still running that way. The USGS now lists the government stockpile as "None." In March 2025 the House Oversight Committee opened an inquiry into the sale, citing concerns raised by NASA and the fact that Messer supplies a plant in China from a U.S. source.^[31]

Helium is also missing from the government's critical minerals list, which determines which materials get priority under the Defense Production Act, tariff protection, and a place in the $12 billion Project Vault stockpile launched in February 2026. Helium was on the list in 2018, dropped in 2022, and left off the final list in November 2025. The USGS's reasoning was that the United States "meets its needs for these materials largely through domestic mining and processing," and its model found the expected economic loss from a helium disruption did not clear a $2 million threshold.^[32] Senators John Barrasso and Mike Lee objected in 2022 that the method "cannot capture foreign political risk" and specifically mentioned the Strait of Hormuz.^[33] As of October 20, 2026, no helium-specific bill, emergency order or stockpile action has been found. Economists at the Peterson Institute, the Payne Institute at the Colorado School of Mines, and others have called for a new reserve or a critical designation. So far that is advocacy, not policy.^[34]

What the shortage has done so far

Helium is a small input with a long reach. Direct U.S. helium sales are under $1 billion a year; the helium used in chipmaking worldwide is worth about $1 billion. No government or academic source has put a dollar figure on the activity that would stop if helium did. What is documented in 2026 is rationing rather than stoppage. Polar Semiconductor in Minneapolis, which makes chips for cars, servers and the military, was put on allocation by one of its three suppliers. Hospital systems saw deliveries cut by up to half in late March, and Premier, a purchasing group for 4,400 hospitals, named MRI as the most acute healthcare risk.^[35] No canceled MRI appointments, stopped chip lines or delayed defense programs attributable to helium have turned up as of October 20. Analysts had expected chip factories to be squeezed if Hormuz stayed closed 60 to 90 days. It has been seven months. The reason factories are still running is on-site recycling, months of inventory, and the diversion of American helium.

The military

The military's direct use of helium is small. The Defense Logistics Agency bought 27 to 32 million cubic feet a year in 2015, under 2 percent of U.S. consumption, and the figure peaked at 45 to 50 million during the Afghanistan war, when the Army flew surveillance blimps.^[36] Documented uses include lifting gas for surveillance aerostats, Air Force and Army depot maintenance, the rocket sled test track at Holloman Air Force Base, breathing gas for Navy deep-sea divers, MRI at military hospitals, and rocket launches. DLA also supplies cruise missile programs and the Space Force.^[37] NASA is the larger federal user, at 55 to 87 million cubic feet a year. No public source says how much helium goes into Minuteman or Sentinel missiles, Trident submarines, or the nuclear weapons labs.

The larger military exposure is indirect, through the things helium is used to make. Cliff Cain of the Topaz helium project told 60 Minutes that "you can't make modern warfare without helium," pointing to the fiber optics and electronics in missiles and hypersonic weapons, and said he had briefed the Pentagon that helium is "a single, critical point of failure."^[21] That overlaps with an August 2026 Pentagon push for contractors to speed up production of Patriot and THAAD interceptors, whose stocks are running low, though the memo does not mention helium.^[38] Suppliers say they put hospitals, rocket launches and defense contractors first, so most direct military uses are protected. The risk falls on defense-related research labs and smaller contractors further down the line. One other change matters: the old federal program that gave government users legal priority during shortages ended with the reserve. Federal and military buyers now stand in the same line as everyone else.

A related material, helium-3, has its own separate supply chain and is not directly affected by the 2026 crisis. It is used in the neutron detectors that screen cargo for nuclear material at ports and borders, and in the refrigerators that cool quantum computers. Almost all of it comes from the decay of tritium at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. World output is about 40,000 liters a year, and it costs $2,500 to $3,000 a liter, more than $10,000 purified.^[39] The supply is considered a limit on how fast quantum computing can grow, which is why the Department of Energy agreed in 2025 to buy three liters of helium-3 mined on the moon from a startup called Interlune, for delivery by 2029.

Research labs and hospitals

The 2026 shortage is repeating what research labs went through in 2022 and 2023, on a larger scale. In 2022, four of the five major U.S. suppliers declared force majeure and cut customers to 45 to 60 percent of their contracts. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory had to mothball five NMR spectrometers, Rutgers saw the price of a 100-liter container go from $930 to $2,000, and a survey of Canadian labs found 72 percent had trouble getting helium, with price increases of 25 to 400 percent.^[40] In 2026, Linde's force majeure left Massachusetts General Hospital's Martinos imaging research center without liquid helium, Messer raised Northwestern University's price to over $31.70 a liter, and the University of Colorado system, as of June, had been cut to 40 percent of its historical use with "no confirmed timeline for a return to normal supply."^[41] A University of Chicago lab doing breast cancer, immunotherapy and Alzheimer's research was offered half of last year's volume and told its backup supplier was about to run out. Without helium, the lab's director said, "we break the magnet."^[35] Warming up a superconducting magnet and cooling it back down can take 1,000 to 2,000 liters of helium and cost up to $25,000, so the instruments least able to survive an interruption belong to the customers at the back of the line.

Hospital MRI has been protected so far, as it was in 2022 and 2023, when the Radiological Society of North America said "patient care has not been compromised."^[42] Hospitals cannot outbid chipmakers, because they operate on regulated prices and thin margins, so their protection depends on supplier policy rather than purchasing power. The large physics labs hold their own inventories; no disruption at CERN, Fermilab or the other national labs has been reported.

Recycling decides who gets hurt

The clearest lesson from three shortages is that labs with recovery equipment survive and labs without it shut down. A campus system that captures helium as it boils off and re-liquefies it recovers 70 to 95 percent and cuts purchases by 80 to 90 percent. UCLA went from about $100,000 a year in helium to $10,000; Texas A&M went from $40,000 to $8,000 with a $240,000 system.^[43] Labs with these systems describe themselves as "cushioned" in 2026. The funding is patchy. The CHIPS and Science Act gave the National Science Foundation authority for a helium-recovery grant program with awards of $100,000 to $4 million, limited to one application per campus per year; the University of Wyoming's $645,000 award in September 2025 is typical.^[44] The NIH has stopped funding recovery systems. On the industrial side, chip factories in Japan and Taiwan recycle 90 to 95 percent, and a retrofit costs $300,000 to $1 million with payback in under two years at 2026 prices.

What this means in San Joaquin County

The county has no helium production and no large chip or rocket plant, so the effects here arrive through the same channels as everywhere else, in roughly this order of exposure:

• Hospitals. Every MRI scanner in the county that uses a conventional magnet depends on periodic liquid helium deliveries. Suppliers have said hospitals are first in line, and no U.S. hospital has reported canceling scans for lack of helium. The risk is not routine operation but refills after service events and the cost of new installations. A hospital replacing a scanner today has a choice between a conventional magnet and a sealed one that needs almost no helium.
• Colleges and labs. Any NMR spectrometer, research magnet or cryogenic instrument at a local campus is in the lowest priority tier, where cuts of 40 to 60 percent and doubled prices have been reported elsewhere. Whether a given lab has a recovery system is the single biggest factor in how it fares.
• Welders and fabricators. Helium is used as a shielding gas for aluminum and stainless welding. It is 8 percent of U.S. use and sits in the lower priority tiers. Higher prices and allocation are the likely effect; argon can substitute for some but not all work.
• Party and balloon retailers. Lifting gas is 17 percent of U.S. use and is served last. During the 2022 shortage, many retailers could not get helium at any price. The same pattern is likely while allocations last.
• Prices generally. Helium is a tiny share of the cost of a chip, a scan or a weld, so the shortage is unlikely to show up visibly in the price of things people buy. The risk is availability, not cost.

What comes next

New supply is coming, but slowly. North American Helium's Stewart Valley plant in Saskatchewan started up in September 2026 at about 2.1 million cubic meters a year, Canada's largest.^[45] A South African project was starting up at the end of September. Six small new U.S. plants opened in 2025. All of these together add a few million cubic meters a year, against the 63 million that Qatar supplied. The one project of Qatar's scale is the Dry Piney plant near Shute Creek in Wyoming, a $737 million to $1.3 billion facility approved in December 2025 that would add about 10 percent to world supply. Construction began in May 2026, and first output is expected between summer 2028 and early 2029.^[46] Analysts' base case is tight supply through 2027, easing in 2028 and 2029 as Dry Piney and Qatar's repairs come through.^[47]

The 2026 shortage settles an argument that had been going on since 2022. The government's model left helium off the critical list because the United States produces more than it uses. The last seven months show that being a net exporter does not protect domestic users when world prices triple and allied chip factories are bidding for the same gas, and that a single Wyoming plant making nearly half of U.S. output is its own kind of risk. The market had a cushion from the 2025 glut, stored in private caverns, and that cushion is being spent now with no public accounting of what is left. Whether Washington rebuilds some form of reserve, declares helium critical, or funds recycling equipment at scale will decide how the next shortage falls on the research labs and small businesses that have absorbed the cuts every time.

The longer trend runs the other way. Sealed MRI magnets, closed-loop recycling in chip factories and campus liquefiers each cut net helium use by 80 percent or more wherever they are installed, and the 2026 price spike is the strongest reason yet to install them. New uses in AI chips, rockets and quantum computing will grow, but on a base that is becoming steadily more recycled. The question for the next two years is not whether there is enough helium in the ground, since there is, but whether a thin, concentrated, container-limited supply chain can move it from where it is made to where it is needed while one of its three pillars is under repair.

LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.

This LodiEye report was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic's Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:

Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval identified the primary-source record on helium supply and demand — the U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral Commodity Summaries and trade data, Bureau of Land Management and Congressional Research Service reports on the Federal Helium Reserve and the critical minerals list, QatarEnergy and company releases, the trade publication gasworld and industry consultants, and 2026 news coverage of the Ras Laffan outage, Russian and Chinese export controls, and the effects on hospitals and research labs. Perplexity AI handled initial discovery and real-time retrieval; Claude analyzed the identified sources.

Credibility Validation: AI cross-referenced claims across independent sources, prioritizing government records and primary documents over secondary reporting. It identified and reconciled conflicting figures — the size of the Qatar outage, market dollar sizes, the Federal Helium System sale price, and a formatting error in text copies of the USGS production table — and flagged claims it could not verify, which were left out.

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude Opus and Sonnet organized the production, end-use, price and policy record into a single account, reconciled the differing accounts of Qatar's restart, and drew out the county-level implications.

Presentation: Claude drafted and structured the report and built the Kendo UI charts.

Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, logical coherence, and balanced presentation. Throughout the process, the editor sets the report's goals, scope, and tone; creates and shapes draft content; reviews and edits the report; integrates independent fact checks; and reviews the AI cross-checks and validations. Multi-tool cross-checking across independent models and sources is the primary error-reduction mechanism.

Lodi411/LodiEye believes that transparency about how our research is produced — including our use of AI under human direction — strengthens trust with readers and the broader information ecosystem. Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.

References

1. American Physical Society, letter to the U.S. Geological Survey on helium supply risk, March 2023. aps.org
2. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026, Helium. pubs.usgs.gov
3. Exiger, "Iran war disrupts one-third of global helium supply," March 2026. exiger.com
4. QatarEnergy LNG, Ras Laffan Helium operations page. qatarenergylng.qa
5. TASS, Gazprom helium output, July 30, 2026. tass.com
6. Future Markets, "The Global Helium Market 2025–2035"; Philips, BlueSeal helium use, November 2022. futuremarketsinc.com
7. MIT Technology Review, "The global helium market," February 25, 2024. technologyreview.com
8. IDTechEx, Helium Market report and October 2024 commentary. idtechex.com
9. TrendForce, "Asia chipmakers move to tackle helium strain," April 8, 2026; Smith, helium shortage update, April 9, 2026. trendforce.com
10. AGBI, "Qatari LNG shutdown puts 11% of global helium supply at risk," March 25, 2026. agbi.com
11. Radiology Today, "MRI Monitor: Keeping It Cool," May 2024. radiologytoday.net
12. Philips, BlueSeal Horizon release, November 2025; Siemens Healthineers, Magnetom Flow FDA clearance, January 2026. siemens-healthineers.com
13. NASA, liquid helium acquisition contract at Kennedy Space Center, November 2022. nasa.gov
14. gasworld, "North American space industry will need a lot more helium within five years," 2023. gasworld.com
15. Physics Today, "Helium users brace as shortages begin," April 2026. physicstoday.aip.org
16. gasworld, "The 2025 worldwide helium market." gasworld.com
17. Fortune / Associated Press, "Iran war helium shortage," March 21, 2026. fortune.com
18. Santiago & Co., "The real helium crisis begins after the ceasefire," 2026. santiagocompany.com
19. gasworld, "QatarEnergy confirms explosion during Ras Laffan restart," June 2026; PortCalls, "Strait of Hormuz reopens with US–Iran peace deal but shipping lines stay cautious," June 15, 2026. gasworld.com
20. AKAP Energy, "Qatar quietly restarts helium production at Helium 2, shipping via Jeddah," August 3, 2026; gasworld, "Hopes rise on Strait of Hormuz deal," August 2026. akapenergy.com
21. CBS News, 60 Minutes, "Helium in short supply as Iran war continues," transcript and article, October 18, 2026. cbsnews.com
22. Interfax, Russia adds helium to export licensing list, April 14, 2026. interfax.com
23. CIRS, "China temporarily bans helium exports effective immediately," July 2026; Geopolitechs, "Why China banned helium exports." cirs-group.com
24. Bloomberg, "Airgas curtails helium orders after Qatar LNG field damaged," March 24, 2026; Reason, March 16, 2026. bloomberg.com
25. Fusion Worldwide, "Helium shortage 2026"; Energy News Beat, "How impacted is the helium market from the Hormuz crisis," October 19, 2026. fusionww.com
26. U.S. International Trade Commission, "The Impact of Conflict on the Global Helium Shortage," executive briefing; gasworld, "Has Helium Shortage 4.0 come to an end?" usitc.gov
27. NPR / KASU, "Strait of Hormuz closure deflates global helium supply," April 3, 2026. kasu.org
28. Taiwan News, helium import shares, July 14, 2026. taiwannews.com.tw
29. National Research Council, "Selling the Nation's Helium Reserve," 2010. nationalacademies.org
30. Messer, completion of Federal Helium System acquisition, June 2024; gasworld, "US Federal Helium System sold with a whimper," 2024; Messer, receiver appointed for Cliffside helium enrichment unit, November 2024. messer-us.com
31. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, release on the Federal Helium System sale, March 12, 2025. oversight.house.gov
32. Congressional Research Service, In Focus IF13145 on the critical minerals list, January 2026; Federal Register, draft 2025 critical minerals list. everycrsreport.com
33. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Barrasso and Lee letter to Secretary Haaland, February 2022. energy.senate.gov
34. Peterson Institute for International Economics, "Bring back the helium reserve before the next shock hits," April 21, 2026; Payne Institute, March 23, 2026. piie.com
35. CBS News, 60 Minutes, "Iran war impacts helium needed for big tech," October 18, 2026. cbsnews.com
36. Bureau of Land Management, Report to Congress under Section 19 of the Helium Stewardship Act, September 2015. blm.gov
37. Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Aerospace Energy products. dla.mil
38. Al Jazeera, "Pentagon urges faster US weapons production amid stockpile concerns," August 9, 2026. aljazeera.com
39. U.S. Department of Energy Isotope Program, "Supply and Demand of Helium-3"; Interlune, DOE helium-3 purchase agreement, May 2025. isotopes.gov
40. Physics Today, "Helium is again in short supply," April 2022; "Helium prices surge to record levels as shortage continues," September 2023. physicstoday.aip.org
41. University of Colorado Procurement Service Center, helium supply update, week 14, June 2026. cu.edu
42. Radiological Society of North America, "Helium shortage for MRI," January 2023. rsna.org
43. Physics Today, "Helium shortage has ended, at least for now," June 2020. physicstoday.aip.org
44. National Science Foundation, Major Research Instrumentation program Track 3 update, April 2025; University of Wyoming, helium recovery grant, September 2025. uwyo.edu
45. North American Helium, Stewart Valley plant onstream, September 22, 2026. newsfilecorp.com
46. Cowboy State Daily, "Helium project aims to increase Wyoming's stake in global market to 30%," December 19, 2025; News Letter Journal, Dry Piney approval, December 17, 2025. cowboystatedaily.com
47. Investorideas, "Helium shortage 2026: Canada supply," May 14, 2026. investorideas.com

Who Controls Starshield? The Military Satellite Network Behind Ukraine’s Drone War

Lodi411 / LodiEye — National Security and Technology Brief — October 2026

In mid-October, Ukrainian drones flying faster than 100 miles per hour began losing their satellite link. Interceptors chasing Russian jet-powered Shahed drones dropped out of contact. Missions failed. Ukraine's Defence Ministry said the restriction arrived “without warning” (NPR).

The network involved is Starshield, the military version of SpaceX's Starlink internet service. Nearly a week later, nobody in Washington has publicly taken responsibility for the cap. Elon Musk says the U.S. military and the president decide its limits. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says no one at the White House ordered a slowdown. The Pentagon has said nothing on the record (NPR, Reuters).

The episode raises a question that reaches well beyond Ukraine. The United States is moving more of its spy-satellite, missile-tracking and battlefield communications work onto one privately built network. Who actually decides when that network is switched on, off or down?

Summary

Starshield uses Starlink's satellites, factories and rockets, adds encryption certified for classified data, and carries government sensors. The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the U.S. spy-satellite agency, says “hundreds of satellites” from its new SpaceX-built constellation are in orbit. SpaceX reported more than $6 billion in new multi-year Starshield contracts in the second quarter of 2026.

The public record on control conflicts. Musk says the U.S. government owns and controls Starshield. SpaceX's own securities filing says “we operate Starshield.” Nine senators have asked the Pentagon's inspector general to investigate the Ukraine cap and want a briefing by November 1.

NATO has no Starshield program of its own; Britain is the first ally known to run operational military traffic on it. China and Russia are building rival networks, but none comes close to Starlink's scale. So far, the deepest cuts to Ukraine's service have come from decisions inside the system, not from enemy weapons.

Key Numbers

• More than $6 billion — multi-year U.S. government Starshield contracts reported by SpaceX for the second quarter of 2026 (SpaceX Q2 release)
• “Hundreds” — NRO satellites from its SpaceX-built constellation on orbit after 14 launches (NRO)
• 160 km/h (100 mph) — speed above which Ukraine's terminals lost service in October (Interfax-Ukraine)
• About 1,000 — Starshield terminals used by the British military (Reuters)
• November 1, 2026 — deadline senators set for the Pentagon inspector general's first briefing (Senate letter)

What Starshield is

SpaceX describes Starshield as a network that “leverages SpaceX's Starlink technology and launch capability” for three jobs: Earth observation, communications, and carrying government equipment on its satellites, known as hosted payloads (SpaceX). It “uses additional high-assurance cryptographic capability to host classified payloads and process data securely.” High-assurance cryptography means encryption certified to protect classified military information.

The company's June 2026 prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission says Starshield is “built on the technology, manufacturing, and launch infrastructure that underpin Starlink” (SEC filing). Reporting on that filing lists target tracking, optical and radio reconnaissance, and early missile warning among the network's capabilities (Washington Technology).

Starshield runs on two layers that coverage often blurs:

• Shared commercial satellites. Starshield terminals can connect to ordinary Starlink satellites or to a separate, more secure Starshield constellation, according to a Pentagon source (Reuters). Britain's service uses the same satellites and ground stations as Starlink, with dedicated terminals and separate gateways (Reuters).
• Dedicated government satellites. These include the NRO spy constellation, first launched May 22, 2024 (NRO), and new Space Force data and tracking networks.

Internet routing records show how closely the two layers are tied. Starshield's network reaches the internet through Starlink's, a setup one analyst summarized as “separate at the satellite, shared at the network” (Quilty Space).

No official count of dedicated Starshield satellites exists. Experts quoted by CBC News and El País estimate about 250; TIME reports the exact number is unknown (CBC News, El País, TIME). Starlink itself has more than 11,000 satellites and about 13 million subscribers (Reuters).

Who controls it

The question at the center of the Ukraine dispute has no settled public answer. The accounts on record point in different directions.

These statements can partly coexist. The government may own and run some dedicated satellites while SpaceX operates the shared network and terminal service most users touch, including Ukraine. No public document shows which arrangement covers Ukraine's terminals.

The money

SpaceX's government business has grown quickly. About one-fifth of the company's 2025 revenue came from U.S. federal agencies (SEC filing). The largest known Starshield-related awards are below.

FIGURE 1. Largest known SpaceX Starshield-related awards (millions of dollars)

Values: 2023 Space Force task order, $70 million; 2021 NRO constellation, $1.8 billion; 2026 Space Data Network Backbone, $2.29 billion; 2026 air moving target tracking for Golden Dome, $4.16 billion. Sources: Air & Space Forces Magazine, Reuters, Breaking Defense.

• 2021 NRO constellation, $1.8 billion. Hundreds of spy satellites, with Northrop Grumman supplying sensors (Reuters, Reuters on Northrop). Reuters later reported that Troy Meink, then a senior NRO official, arranged the solicitation in a way that favored SpaceX (Reuters).
• 2023 Space Force task order, $70 million. The first Space Force Starshield contract (Air & Space Forces Magazine).
• May 26, 2026, Space Data Network Backbone, $2.29 billion. A joint Space Force and NRO communications network, formerly called MILNET, with a prototype due by the end of 2027 (Breaking Defense, Air & Space Forces Magazine).
• May 29, 2026, air moving target tracking, $4.16 billion. A space layer for the Golden Dome missile-defense plan, due by 2028 (Reuters).

Pricing has caused friction. During the 2026 U.S. campaign against Iran, SpaceX argued that LUCAS kamikaze drones should pay its aviation rate, raising the monthly charge per terminal from about $5,000 to $25,000. The Pentagon paid. An analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies told Reuters that “SpaceX certainly has the U.S. government over the barrel” (Reuters).

NATO and allies

NATO does not own satellites; it relies on what member countries provide (NATO). No public NATO document names Starshield. Allied use runs country by country:

• United Kingdom. The Ministry of Defence began moving operational traffic to Starshield around the start of 2026 (Reuters). By September it had about 1,000 Starshield terminals and had spent about £13 million on the service (Reuters).
• United States with allies. U.S. Marines used a Starshield terminal to carry data at several classification levels during a 2025 exercise in Finland meant to improve interoperability with NATO allies (U.S. Marine Corps).
• Germany. The federal government told the Bundestag in 2024 that the Bundeswehr had no access to Starshield (Bundestag). It now plans its own €8–10 billion network, SATCOMBw 4, with up to 40 satellites by 2029 (Euronews).
• Italy. A reported €1.5 billion SpaceX deal “was never taken up again,” Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said Oct. 15 (Il Fatto Quotidiano).
• Poland. Ukraine's largest Starlink funder has paid more than 480 million zloty for nearly 30,000 terminals since 2022 (Rzeczpospolita). After the October cap, Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski wrote to Musk: “As your European customers, we are watching you” (Reuters).
• European Union. Its own constellation, IRIS², plans 348 satellites with first launches in 2029 (Euronews).

How Ukraine came to depend on it

Ukraine's reliance on SpaceX predates Starshield and has been interrupted before. In 2022, Musk ordered Starlink switched off near Kherson as Ukrainian forces advanced. The Pentagon took over primary funding in mid-2023, and Ukraine had more than 50,000 terminals by April 2025 (Reuters). A December 2024 Pentagon contract expanded Ukraine's Starshield access to 3,000 terminals (The Verge, citing Bloomberg).

Ukraine uses Starshield for fast drones that ordinary terminals cannot serve: mid-range strike drones aimed at Russian supply lines and interceptors chasing jet-powered Shaheds (AP). In February 2026, Ukraine and SpaceX required every terminal in the country to be registered, cutting off Russian forces that had been using smuggled Starlink terminals (Reuters).

The October cap, checked against the record

Each entry below cites the original statement where one exists. Entries based only on unnamed sources say so.

Three conflicts remain open. Rubio says Ukraine lacks Starshield access, while the senators write that Ukraine had “unlimited speeds” before the cap, and the Pentagon's 2024 contract expanded that access. U.S. officials say service is restored; Ukraine says the cap remains above 160 km/h. And Zelensky's account of an intelligence pause directly contradicts Rubio's. The inspector general request asks about all three (Senate letter).

Could another country match it, or knock it out?

No other country fields a network on Starlink's scale. China is building the closest rivals; Russia's has just started.

FIGURE 2. Satellites in orbit, large broadband constellations, October 2026

Values: Starlink about 11,000; Eutelsat OneWeb about 650; Amazon Leo about 400; Qianfan 257 in the active catalog; Guowang 204 operational; Russia's Rassvet 38. Counts come from different dates in September and October 2026 and measure slightly different things. Dedicated Starshield satellites are not shown because no official count exists.

• China. The state-run Guowang network plans more than 13,000 satellites and is believed to serve military as well as civilian users (Guowang launch records). A second network, Qianfan, has 257 satellites in the active catalog (azmth tracker).
• Russia. Bureau 1440's Rassvet network has 38 satellites. Ukrainian military intelligence says Russian forces already used it over Ukraine for “several hours” (Janes). Beskrestnov estimates continuous coverage over Ukraine in about six months (Kyiv Post).
• Europe and U.S. competitors. Eutelsat's OneWeb has about 650 satellites and ordered 229 more in September (Airbus, azmth tracker). Amazon Leo has nearly 400 (Amazon).

The U.S. intelligence community's 2026 threat assessment says Ukraine's use of Starlink is “amplifying adversary views of the importance of defeating large constellations” (ODNI). The tools available differ sharply in effect:

The Secure World Foundation finds that “only non-destructive counterspace capabilities are being used in active conflicts” (Secure World Foundation). Ukraine's record bears that out. Russian jamming has slowed Starlink in places but has not shut it down. The largest disruptions — Kherson in 2022 and the October 2026 cap — came from inside the system.

What to watch

• The inspector general's response. Senators asked for written confirmation and a briefing by Nov. 1. Watch the Pentagon Inspector General and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
• Contract awards. The Department of Defense contract announcements and Space Systems Command news list new Starshield work.
• SpaceX disclosures. Quarterly filings on SEC EDGAR report Starshield contract totals and risk factors.
• NRO launches. The NRO launch page tracks the spy constellation.
• Ukraine's own statements. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence has reported each change in service.
• Allied alternatives. The EU IRIS² program and NATO's space policy page show whether Europe builds its own option.

The underlying policy choice is how much of a war a country is willing to run through a network it does not fully control. SpaceX's own filing warns that governments may hesitate if they believe service “could be restricted or suspended based on geopolitical considerations” (SEC filing). October showed what that risk looks like in practice.

LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.

This LodiEye national security and technology brief was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic's Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:

Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval identified the sources behind this brief: SpaceX's Starshield page, June 2026 SEC prospectus filing and second-quarter 2026 earnings release; National Reconnaissance Office launch releases; the October 15, 2026 Senate letter to the Department of Defense Inspector General; the 2026 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community; Bundestag Drucksache 20/13937; NATO's space policy page; the U.S. Marine Corps; the Secure World Foundation's 2026 Global Counterspace Capabilities findings; CSIS; and reporting by Reuters, AP, NPR, CBS News, NBC News, The Telegraph, Al Jazeera, Janes, Breaking Defense, Air & Space Forces Magazine and others. Perplexity AI was used for initial source discovery and real-time data retrieval; Claude was used for deeper analysis of identified sources.

Credibility Validation: Each entry in the October timeline was checked against the original statement where one exists, including the signed Senate letter, ministers' own posts and on-the-record remarks; claims resting only on unnamed sources are labeled as such. A widely repeated White House “totally false” quote could not be found in the cited reporting and is not used. Fedorov's restoration post was dated to October 14 from Interfax-Ukraine and Censor.NET. Contract values were matched to agency releases or primary reporting; the count of dedicated Starshield satellites is described only as an expert estimate. Constellation counts come from different dates and sources and are labeled as approximate. Developments are assessed as of October 19, 2026. Multiple AI models were used to independently verify key data points and flag inconsistencies.

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude Opus and Sonnet assisted in separating Starshield's shared commercial layer from its dedicated government satellites; comparing conflicting public statements about ownership and control; tracing the October timeline across U.S., Ukrainian and British officials; and distinguishing demonstrated counterspace effects from claimed or theoretical ones.

Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the control, timeline and counter-capability tables and the contract and constellation charts.

Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, logical coherence, and balanced presentation. Throughout the process, the editor sets the report's goals, scope, and tone; creates and shapes draft content; reviews and edits the report; integrates independent fact checks; and reviews the AI cross-checks and validations. Multi-tool cross-checking across independent models and sources is the primary error-reduction mechanism.

Lodi411/LodiEye believes that transparency about how our research is produced — including our use of AI under human direction — strengthens trust with readers and the broader information ecosystem. Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.

References

• SpaceX: Starshield
• SpaceX SEC free writing prospectus, June 4, 2026
• SpaceX Q2 2026 earnings release (SEC)
• National Reconnaissance Office: NROL-146, May 22, 2024
• National Reconnaissance Office: NROL-179 press release, June 2026
• U.S. Senate: Letter to DoD Inspector General on Starlink disruptions in Ukraine, Oct. 15, 2026
• Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Shaheen, Tillis release, Oct. 16, 2026
• Sen. Thom Tillis: release, Oct. 16, 2026
• ODNI: 2026 Annual Threat Assessment
• U.S. State Department: Russia Conducts Destructive Anti-Satellite Missile Test, Nov. 15, 2021
• NATO: NATO's approach to space
• U.S. Marine Corps: 2nd Marine Logistics Group mobile satellite communications
• Bundestag Drucksache 20/13937, Nov. 2024
• Secure World Foundation: The Counterspace Surge, 2026
• CSIS: What Are the Biggest Space Threats in 2026?
• Reuters: What is Starshield? Oct. 14, 2026
• Reuters: Order to limit Starshield for Ukraine came from inside White House, Oct. 15, 2026
• Reuters: Pentagon spars with SpaceX over Starlink price hike, May 26, 2026
• Reuters: UK adopts SpaceX's Starshield, June 2, 2026
• Reuters: UK deepens reliance on SpaceX, Sept. 10, 2026
• Reuters: SpaceX building spy satellite network, Mar. 16, 2024
• Reuters: Northrop Grumman working with SpaceX, Apr. 18, 2024
• Reuters: Air Force nominee arranged satellite contract, Feb. 7, 2025
• Reuters: Space Force awards SpaceX $4.16 billion, May 29, 2026
• Reuters: Musk ordered shutdown of Starlink, July 25, 2025
• Reuters: Starlink used by Russian forces deactivated, Feb. 5, 2026
• Reuters: Sikorski asks Musk, Oct. 14, 2026
• Reuters: US resumes intelligence-sharing, Oct. 18, 2026
• Reuters: US, China arm for space warfare, Sept. 2, 2026
• Reuters: Russian satellite linked to nuclear weapon program, Apr. 25, 2025
• AP: Ukraine in talks to lift speed limit, Oct. 16, 2026
• AP: Chinese researchers suggest lasers and sabotage, July 2025
• NPR: Ukraine says its satellite communications have suddenly been restricted, Oct. 14, 2026
• NPR: Ukraine says its Starshield access is back, Oct. 15, 2026
• NPR: Ukraine and the U.S. are at odds over Starshield, Oct. 18, 2026
• CBS News: Ukraine still unable to intercept Russian drones, Oct. 17, 2026
• NBC News: Zelensky on Meet the Press, Oct. 18, 2026
• The Telegraph: Musk approached Trump to slow down Starlink, Oct. 16, 2026
• Al Jazeera: Musk says US military controls Starlink's limits, Oct. 2026
• Interfax-Ukraine: Fedorov statement, Oct. 2026
• Türkiye Today: Rubio denies intelligence pause, Oct. 19, 2026
• Breaking Defense: SpaceX wins $2.29B, May 2026
• Air & Space Forces Magazine: Space Data Network Backbone
• Air & Space Forces Magazine: First Starshield contract
• Breaking Defense: SpaceX beating Russian jamming, Apr. 2022
• Quilty Space: Welcome to the SpaceX Data Network, May 2026
• Washington Technology: SpaceX S-1 government work, May 2026
• TIME: What is Starshield? Oct. 15, 2026
• CBC News: Starshield explainer, Oct. 2026
• El País: Ukraine needs Starlink satellites, Oct. 16, 2026
• The Verge: Starshield for more terminals in Ukraine, Dec. 6, 2024
• Euronews: Europe's answer to Starlink, Oct. 16, 2026
• Il Fatto Quotidiano: Crosetto interview, Oct. 15, 2026
• Rzeczpospolita: Poland's Starlink spending, Oct. 16, 2026
• Janes: Russian forces used Rassvet satellites, Sept. 7, 2026
• Kyiv Post: Rassvet network threat, Oct. 18, 2026
• Guowang launch records (Wikipedia)
• azmth: Qianfan tracker
• azmth: OneWeb tracker
• Airbus: Eutelsat orders 229 OneWeb satellites, Sept. 10, 2026
• Amazon: Amazon Leo mission updates

Contact: editor@lodi411.com

The Pentagon Is Testing a Havana Syndrome Device. Its Own Spy Agencies Say There Isn’t One.

LodiEye - October 2026

Summary

In late 2016, intelligence officers at the newly reopened U.S. embassy in Havana began reporting a strange sequence: a sudden, localized sound or a feeling of pressure, usually at night in their homes, followed by headaches, dizziness, ringing in the ears and trouble concentrating. Over the next five years similar reports came from Guangzhou, Moscow, Vienna, Berlin, Tbilisi, Hanoi, Bogotá, New Delhi and Washington itself. The government calls them anomalous health incidents. The public calls them Havana Syndrome.

Ten years on, three records sit side by side and do not agree. The medical record says the symptoms are real and often disabling, but that brain scans show no injury. The scientific record says pulsed radio-frequency energy is the most plausible external cause, but no device has ever been tied to an incident. The intelligence record is formally split: five agencies say foreign involvement is very unlikely, two dissent, and a House subcommittee says the majority finding was engineered.^[1][5]

Two things changed in 2026. The Pentagon has spent more than a year testing a pulsed radio-frequency device that the government bought covertly for an eight-figure sum, and in July it renamed its task force the Directed Energy Bio-Effects team and issued its first compensation payments. Meanwhile Canadian diplomats whose children fell ill in Havana are pressing Ottawa for an inquiry.^[9][10][16]

Where things stand

Roughly 1,500 reports were logged across U.S. agencies between 2016 and 2022. Most were later attributed to ordinary medical or environmental causes. A few dozen remain unexplained. No unclassified intelligence assessment has been issued since January 2025, and the Pentagon's device tests have not been made public.

How it unfolded

The incidents began in Havana, spread to roughly a dozen countries by 2021, and fell off sharply after the March 2023 intelligence assessment. One investigative team argues the first case actually dates to Frankfurt in 2014.^[7]

CIA officers at the Havana embassy report sound and pressure events at their residences and, later, at the Hotel Nacional and Hotel Capri.

Canadian embassy families in Havana begin reporting symptoms; 14 Canadians, including children, are eventually affected.^[17]

The State Department discloses the incidents, cuts embassy staff by about 60 percent and expels 15 Cuban diplomats.

CIA officer Marc Polymeropoulos is struck in a Moscow hotel room; he later retires early with chronic migraines.

A second cluster at the U.S. consulate in Guangzhou, China. Consular staff are evacuated; a visiting civilian, one officer's mother, also falls ill.

Reports in the United States: FBI and CIA personnel in Virginia and Florida, and a National Security Council staffer near the White House in November 2020.

A National Academies committee concludes directed, pulsed radio-frequency energy is the most plausible mechanism for the early cases.

The largest wave: Vienna, Berlin, Geneva, Belgrade, Paris, London, Bogotá, Hanoi, New Delhi, Taipei. A Hanoi case delays Vice President Harris; Bogotá cases precede a Blinken visit. The HAVANA Act is signed in October.

The intelligence community assesses foreign involvement as very unlikely. New reports drop sharply afterward.^[2]

NIH publishes two JAMA studies finding no MRI-detectable brain injury. The same month, The Insider, 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel place Russian GRU operatives at incident sites in Tbilisi and Frankfurt.^[6][7]

A House Intelligence subcommittee says it is increasingly likely a foreign adversary is behind some cases and that the intelligence community impeded its investigation.^[4]

Updated intelligence assessment: five agencies hold at very unlikely, two shift toward a foreign device.^[1]

CNN reports the Pentagon has been testing a covertly purchased pulsed radio-frequency device for more than a year.^[9]

The Pentagon issues nearly $3 million in first payments and renames its task force the Directed Energy Bio-Effects Cross-Functional Team.^[10]

Canadian diplomats say their children still suffer; former U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton says neither country properly investigated the Russia allegations.^[16][18]

Cities with first-reported incidents, by year

Source: LodiEye tally of locations named in public reporting and the Pentagon's list of affected postings. Counts are approximate; several posts have never been publicly confirmed.^[11]

Who was affected

The affected population is almost entirely U.S. and Canadian government personnel and their families, concentrated in roles a hostile intelligence service would have reason to target. That concentration is the strongest argument for an external cause. The absence of a single confirmed case outside government is the fact skeptics cite in reply.

• CIA officers in Havana, Moscow, Vienna, Tbilisi, Belgrade, Hanoi and New Delhi. The first Havana patient was a CIA officer.
• State Department diplomats and families in Havana, Guangzhou, Tbilisi and Vienna. Two Guangzhou officers, Mark Lenzi and Catherine Werner, went public after being evacuated.
• FBI agents, including counterintelligence personnel working Russian cases, at home and abroad.
• Defense Department staff, including a senior official at the 2023 NATO summit in Vilnius.^[12]
• White House staff. Olivia Troye, a former homeland security adviser to Vice President Pence, has described two episodes on the grounds.
• Children. The only cohort of children evaluated for brain injury is Canadian. No U.S. study of children has been published.

Two patterns bear on the question of cause. The early Havana cases skewed toward intelligence officers rather than consular or administrative staff, which a random environmental cause would not produce. And 2021 incidents clustered around high-level travel, which reads either as targeting or as heightened reporting under heightened attention. Both readings are on the record and neither has been settled.

What the doctors found

The clinical picture has been consistent since 2017: an abrupt onset event, then vestibular and cognitive symptoms, with a subset becoming chronic. Treatment has been symptomatic throughout because no mechanism has been established.

The first evaluations, at the University of Miami in 2017, found balance and cognitive abnormalities but no hearing-loss pattern consistent with sound exposure. The University of Pennsylvania's brain-injury center described 21 Havana patients in JAMA in 2018 as having a concussion-like condition without any head trauma, and in 2019 reported differences on MRI. Both Penn papers drew criticism for small samples and the lack of pre-exposure baselines. Canadian families, unable to get answers at home, flew to Penn on their own.^[19]

The definitive dataset is the National Institutes of Health study, which ran for nearly five years and was published as two JAMA papers in March 2024. The imaging study compared 81 people reporting incidents against 48 matched controls and found no significant differences in brain volume, structure or function after statistical correction. The clinical study compared 86 against 30 and found no biomarker differences. About 28 percent of the affected group were diagnosed with persistent postural-perceptual dizziness, a balance disorder in which brain networks that process position stop communicating properly, usually after a triggering event. The group also reported more fatigue, post-traumatic stress symptoms and depression.^[6][20]

NIH study enrollment, 2018–2024

Source: NIH Clinical Center findings published in JAMA, March 2024. Scans were taken a median 80 days after symptom onset.^[6]

The NIH study was not designed to test whether a weapon caused the symptoms, and its authors said so. Critics, including Stanford's David Relman, noted that 80 days is long enough for transient injury to resolve and that conventional MRI may not detect the kind of damage pulsed energy would cause. An internal NIH review later found some participants felt pressured to enroll, and the study was paused.

The balance-disorder finding is cited by both camps. It is real, disabling and treatable, and it is compatible with both an external trigger and a stress-related one.

The counting problem

The most consequential dispute in the record is administrative: who decided which reports counted, and by what criteria. Every intelligence assessment leans on the resulting small number of unexplained cases.

By early 2022 the government had logged roughly 1,000 reports; by late 2022 about 1,500 across all agencies. The CIA's January 2022 interim review attributed the large majority to pre-existing conditions, environmental factors or stress, leaving about two dozen unexplained. That same year the State Department and the interagency adopted a stricter case definition built around the acute onset: a sudden, localized sensory event with a directional quality, followed by symptoms, with no alternative explanation. Reports lacking the acute event were reclassified.

Advocates argue this excluded people who were asleep or did not register the onset, and that the smaller count was then used to argue no pattern existed. The House subcommittee says irregularities in medical-related processes are part of what it is investigating.^[5] Three groups fall outside every tally: dependents who were never formally evaluated, personnel who did not report for career reasons, and non-U.S. staff.

A cause that acts on a few dozen people looks like an attack. A cause that acts on 1,500 looks like something in the environment or the reporting process. The number is not a neutral fact. It is the product of decisions that remain largely classified.

Four explanations

Pulsed radio-frequency energy is the only external mechanism that expert panels have rated plausible. Functional illness is the only explanation that fits the full 1,500-report population.

Competing hypotheses

Source: National Academies, ODNI, NIH/JAMA, and the neurology review literature.

The physics behind the leading hypothesis is settled in one respect and open in another. Short, high-power radio pulses create tiny pressure waves in the skull that are perceived as clicks or buzzing. That is the microwave auditory effect, discovered by radar technicians in the 1940s and formalized by Allan Frey in 1961. Producing a perceived sound at a distance is within reach of a portable device. Producing tissue injury by heating takes far more energy and leaves burns that these patients do not have. Whether high-peak, low-average pulses can damage the inner ear or brain through mechanical stress without heating is the unresolved question, and no human data exist because no one has deliberately exposed people at those parameters.

The mechanism debate is unresolved because the two best datasets point different ways. The clinical history of the first cases fits an external trigger. The population-level data fit a functional explanation. Both can be true if the early cases were real attacks and the later wave mostly was not.

What the intelligence agencies concluded

The intelligence record moved from targeted attacks, in Secretary Tillerson's 2017 words, to very unlikely foreign involvement in 2023, to a formal split in 2025.

The March 2023 assessment had five agencies judging that available intelligence consistently points against adversary involvement, and that there was no credible evidence a foreign adversary has a weapon or collection device causing the incidents.^[2][3] The January 2025 update kept five agencies at very unlikely but recorded two dissents: one agency judged a roughly even chance that a foreign actor had used a novel device to harm a small subset of personnel, and another judged it likely a foreign actor has a radio-frequency capability that could cause the reported effects, though unlikely it was deployed in any reported case. Both dissents were low confidence.^[1]

The majority relies on sensitive reporting that adversaries appeared surprised by the incidents or denied involvement in private communications, and on the judgment that an adversary would use well-established mechanisms rather than a novel weapon. A CIA spokesperson has said Director Burns initially believed Russia was responsible before the agency's task force changed his view.^[13]

The case for a foreign actor

• Early victims were disproportionately intelligence officers.
• Two victims identified GRU operatives at incident sites years and a thousand miles apart.
• Two intelligence agencies shifted toward a device in 2025.
• The Pentagon bought and is testing a pulsed radio-frequency device.
• A House subcommittee says the 2023 assessment lacked analytic integrity.

The case against

• No signal has been recorded at any incident despite monitoring.
• No device has been tied to any incident.
• NIH found no structural brain injury.
• Adversaries appeared surprised in intercepted communications.
• Reports fell sharply once the government stopped signaling concern.

The House Intelligence Committee's CIA Subcommittee, led by Rep. Rick Crawford, released an unclassified interim report in December 2024 saying it had found reliable evidence that some incidents are the work of foreign adversaries, that the intelligence community impeded its investigation, and that the 2023 assessment was produced in a manner inconsistent with analytic integrity. Committee Democrats called the report sloppy and said it was released without being shared with them. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the intelligence community disagreed with many of its findings. A classified companion report was being finalized.^[4][14]

The Russian thread

The strongest public attribution work is a yearlong investigation by The Insider, 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published March 31, 2024. It placed operatives of GRU Unit 29155, the Russian military intelligence unit behind the 2018 Skripal poisoning and a string of sabotage operations in Europe, at the scene of incidents in Tbilisi and Frankfurt.^[7]

Travel logs and phone metadata placed the son of the unit's commander in Tbilisi at the time of 2021 incidents against U.S. embassy staff. Two victims, eight years and a thousand miles apart, identified unit members from photographs, one in Tbilisi and one in Frankfurt. Seven alleged unit members were tracked across Europe in the days before previously unreported incidents. The investigation also surfaced a Russian military document from around 2013 describing research on non-lethal acoustic weapons.^[8]

The intelligence community has not endorsed the attribution; the 2025 assessment postdates it and still has five agencies at very unlikely. Skeptics note that Unit 29155 operatives travel constantly, that photo identification years after the fact is unreliable, and that a working weapon in Russian hands since 2014 would likely have been used at scale rather than sparingly against mid-level personnel. Victims' advocates reply that the case-definition change removed incidents before attribution analysis began, and that the agencies most hostile to the attack theory had the most to lose from admitting their officers were targeted for years without a response.

Russia remains the only state for which named operatives have been placed at incident sites. China has been raised because of Guangzhou and later reports from Taiwan, but no public evidence ties either to a device.

The Moscow precedent

There is one documented case of an adversary irradiating American diplomats. From 1953 to 1976 the Soviet Union beamed microwaves at the U.S. embassy in Moscow from an apartment building about 100 meters away, striking the west face of the chancery most intensely between the third and eighth floors. The most accepted explanation is that the beams powered or triggered listening devices inside the building. The State Department commissioned a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, Abraham Lilienfeld, to compare 1,827 Moscow employees and their dependents against 2,561 at other Eastern European posts. His 1978 report found no difference in mortality, cancer or consistent illness.^[21][22]

Both sides cite it. It shows Soviet intelligence was willing to irradiate an embassy for decades. It also shows that continuous low-level exposure produced nothing like the acute onset of the Havana cases, which means any external cause would have to be a different kind of signal.

The technologies that exist

Separating what is documented from what is inferred matters here. Eight physical mechanisms have been proposed or are worth ruling out.

Directed-energy mechanisms and their fit

Source: National Academies (2020), ODNI expert panel (2022), U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory bioeffects literature.

The U.S. government has studied what pulsed radio energy does to tissue for seventy years, mostly in the open, because it needed exposure standards for its own radar and radio operators. The Air Force Research Laboratory's bioeffects program at Fort Sam Houston produced the dose models behind current safety limits and tested the Active Denial System on volunteers. The Navy funded MEDUSA, a project to weaponize the microwave auditory effect for crowd control, and dropped it as impractical. The record establishes that the United States believed the effect was weaponizable and tried.

The last row of the table is worth a second look. The 2023 assessment's own phrase was “weapon or collection device.” The intelligence community took seriously the possibility that victims were collateral to a radio-frequency intelligence-collection tool aimed at phones or rooms rather than people. That would explain why incidents clustered at intelligence officers' residences, why no adversary admitted an attack in private communications, and why the sensation stopped when the target moved. It has received little public attention.

The evidentiary gap

No incident has a recorded radio-frequency signature, despite monitoring equipment installed at U.S. posts after 2017. That absence is the hardest fact for the attack hypothesis to explain, and the most productive question for anyone covering the story to put to the agencies.

Radio energy leaves no residue. It is detectable only in real time, and a pulsed signal with high peak and low average power is easy to miss with equipment set for average power. Whether any monitor logged an event during a reported incident has never been stated publicly. There is also no accepted dose metric for non-thermal pulsed effects, which means no one can say what exposure would be needed to cause these symptoms, and therefore what a detector should be set to catch. The Pentagon's testing of the purchased device is the first opportunity to measure a candidate device's output against a human exposure model.

The asymmetry runs both ways. The attack hypothesis needs one captured signal or one device tied to one incident, and has neither after nine years. The functional-illness hypothesis needs to explain the first Havana cases, which preceded any warning or priming, and has not. Both sides are arguing from absence.

What changed in 2026

In January, CNN reported that Homeland Security Investigations had bought a device for an eight-figure sum in the final days of the Biden administration, with Defense Department funding, and that the Pentagon had been testing it for more than a year. The device produces pulsed radio waves. Debate and skepticism continue inside government over whether it has anything to do with the unexplained incidents, and it was not clear how the government learned the device existed.^[9]

In February the Pentagon restructured its task force to turn findings into treatments and countermeasures more quickly.^[11] On July 10 it renamed the team the Directed Energy Bio-Effects Cross-Functional Team, with a stated focus on non-kinetic threats, and announced it had paid nearly $3 million in compensation, the first Defense Department payments under the 2021 HAVANA Act.^[10][15] The name commits the Pentagon to a working hypothesis that the intelligence majority still rates very unlikely.

In Canada, eight former diplomats told Global News that they and their families, including children, suffered headaches, nosebleeds and loss of consciousness while posted in Havana from 2017, that children now have learning disabilities their parents attribute to the incidents, and that there has been no follow-up on the children. Ottawa stands by its 2024 report, which found no definitive common cause.^[16] In early October, John Bolton, who was U.S. National Security Adviser during the 2018 and 2019 wave, told the Globe and Mail that neither Canada nor the United States properly investigated the Russia allegations.^[18]

Compensation and classification

The HAVANA Act, signed in October 2021, authorizes one-time payments to employees, former employees and dependents with qualifying brain injuries incurred on or after January 1, 2016. The CIA and State Department began paying in 2022. The Pentagon did not begin reviewing applications until July 2025 and did not pay until July 2026. Canada has no compensation program; the diplomats' $28 million lawsuit, filed in 2019, is the only avenue.^[15][17]

The condition has no diagnostic code. It is not recognized in the International Classification of Diseases and is not a disease recognized by the medical community. That means veterans' disability ratings must be assigned under existing codes such as migraine or vestibular disorder, which cap benefits below what a traumatic brain injury rating would allow; workers' compensation requires a diagnosis; and any future count depends on a case definition that is administrative rather than clinical. The Government Accountability Office found in July 2024 that the Pentagon's coordination of care was inadequate and that affected personnel struggled to get through the military health system.^[23]

For readers here

No case has been reported in San Joaquin County, and nothing in this record suggests one. The story matters locally for two narrower reasons. The HAVANA Act covers any federal employee or dependent, including people from this region who serve overseas, and the Pentagon's new program is the first attempt at prevention rather than response. And the way the government counted, reclassified and compensated these cases is a working example of how a case definition, set administratively and out of public view, determines who gets care. That pattern is not unique to this story.

What remains open

• Whether any radio-frequency monitor at any post recorded a signal during a reported incident.
• How the roughly 1,500 reports were triaged, under what written criteria, and how many were reclassified in 2022.
• What the Pentagon's testing of the purchased device has shown, and who built it.
• Which two agencies dissented in January 2025, and whether their shift followed the device acquisition.
• What is in the House subcommittee's classified report.
• Whether any child of a U.S. employee has been evaluated or compensated.
• Whether Canada's promised child assessments took place.
• How many HAVANA Act claims each agency has paid and denied, and on what criteria.

If a portable device can produce disabling neurological symptoms through walls without leaving evidence, it is a counterintelligence problem at every overseas post. If it cannot, then several hundred people have been diagnosed, compensated and in some cases retired on the strength of a mechanism that does not exist, and the government has no good account of what happened to them. Either answer has consequences for how the next cluster, wherever it occurs, gets handled.

LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.

This LodiEye report was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic’s Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:

Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval located the declassified intelligence assessments of 2023 and 2025, the House Intelligence subcommittee's interim report, the NIH findings published in JAMA, Global Affairs Canada's report, the 1978 Moscow embassy health study, the Joint Force Quarterly review, and reporting by CNN, DefenseScoop, The Insider, Voice of America, Global News and the Globe and Mail.

Credibility Validation: Each claim was sorted by who made it and what supports it. Findings from the intelligence community, Congress, the NIH and the Cuban Academy of Sciences are presented as the positions of those bodies. The Insider's attribution work is presented as investigative reporting that the intelligence community has not endorsed. Figures that rest on press accounts rather than primary documents are identified as approximate.

Analysis and Synthesis: AI tools helped organize a decade of medical, scientific, intelligence and congressional material into a single account, and helped identify where the three records agree and where they do not.

Presentation: AI tools assisted with drafting, the tables, the timeline, the two charts and the HTML layout of this page.

Final Review: The founder reviewed the report for accuracy, tone and local relevance before publication.

Lodi411 describes its methods so readers can judge the work for themselves. Corrections and clarifications are welcome at editor@lodi411.com.

References

1. Primary Office of the Director of National Intelligence — Updated Assessment of Anomalous Health Incidents, approved for release Jan. 9, 2025.
2. Primary National Intelligence Council — Updated Assessment of Anomalous Health Incidents, March 1, 2023 (Federation of American Scientists mirror).
3. News Homeland Security Today — Intelligence agencies find it unlikely a foreign adversary caused Havana Syndrome cases, March 2023.
4. Primary House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence — CIA Subcommittee interim report release, Dec. 5, 2024.
5. Primary House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence — Chairman Crawford op-ed, “We Have Been Misled on Havana Syndrome,” December 2024.
6. Medical Applied Radiology — NIH finds no MRI-detectable brain injury in people with Havana Syndrome, March 2024 (summarizing JAMA, doi 10.1001/jama.2024.2413 and 10.1001/jama.2024.2424).
7. Investigative The Insider, with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel — “Unraveling Havana Syndrome,” March 31, 2024.
8. News The Debrief — Investigation links Unit 29155 to Havana Syndrome attacks, April 2024.
9. News CNN — Pentagon bought device through undercover operation some investigators suspect is linked to Havana Syndrome, Jan. 13, 2026.
10. News DefenseScoop — Pentagon disburses Havana Syndrome compensation, rebrands team focused on Directed Energy Bio-Effects, July 13, 2026.
11. News DefenseScoop — Pentagon eyes treatments and countermeasures as it reshapes AHI cross-functional team, Feb. 24, 2026.
12. News Military.com/dpa — Pentagon confirms senior official experienced symptoms at the Vilnius NATO summit, April 2, 2024.
13. News Sasha Ingber — A war of words between the intel agencies and Havana Syndrome victims, January 2025.
14. News Voice of America — Renewed concerns that U.S. adversary behind Havana Syndrome, Dec. 5, 2024.
15. News DefenseScoop — Pentagon reviewing payment applications from Havana Syndrome victims, July 14, 2025.
16. News Global News — Canadian diplomats react to Global Affairs statement on Havana Syndrome, 2026.
17. News The Globe and Mail — Cuba diplomats launch suit alleging Ottawa failed to address Havana Syndrome, February 2019.
18. News Encyclopaedia Britannica — Havana syndrome entry, with Globe and Mail news items of Sept. 28, Oct. 2 and Oct. 5, 2026.
19. News CTV News — Trudeau says diplomats in Cuba suffered real health problems, February 2019.
20. News Associated Press — New study finds no brain injuries among Havana syndrome patients, March 18, 2024.
21. Medical Elwood, J.M. — Microwaves in the cold war: the Moscow embassy study and its interpretation, Environmental Health, 2012.
22. Primary Lilienfeld et al. — Evaluation of Health Status of Foreign Service and Other Employees from Selected Eastern European Posts, 1978 (NTIS PB288163).
23. Primary House Committee on Oversight — Letter to the Department of Defense on anomalous health incidents, citing GAO-24-106593, Feb. 20, 2025.

Lodi City Council — Regular Meeting

Wednesday, October 21, 2026 — Invocation 6:55 p.m. | Regular Session 7:00 p.m.

Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Mayor Ramon Yepez | Mayor Pro Tempore Mikey Hothi | Councilmembers Cameron Bregman, Lisa Craig-Hensley, Alan Nakanishi

Summary

Thirteen days before an election that puts three of five Council seats on the ballot, the Council takes up the rules for how Lodi grows. The first public hearing introduces the “Phase 4” Development Code package: a new farmland mitigation fee, a park-land requirement for new subdivisions, a rewritten annexation process and the City’s first procedures for Williamson Act farmland contracts. The second asks the Council to send the 96.1-acre Westside “F” annexation, between West Vine Street and West Kettleman Lane west of Lower Sacramento Road, to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

The annexation was scheduled for October 7 but was never heard. Staff pulled it at the start of that meeting and moved it here. The proposed annexation resolution still says the Council held a hearing on October 7. The packet’s acreage figures, pre-zoning map and ordinance parcel table also disagree with one another.

The Consent Calendar, approved in one vote unless an item is pulled, holds seven sets of minutes reaching back to June 2024 and about $1.3 million in new or added contract authority. The largest piece is a $325,000 increase to the A1 Protective Services security contract for a two-month extension. That is about three times what two months cost at the most recent monthly bill the City disclosed. The calendar also includes $14.1 million in state park grant applications for Lawrence, Hale and Blakely parks.

On the Regular Calendar, the Council considers a district-by-district rotation for Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore beginning with the 2027 selection. No closed session, presentations or ordinances for adoption are listed.

Meeting Details

Date and Time: Wednesday, October 21, 2026. Invocation 6:55 p.m.; regular session 7:00 p.m.

Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Remote Viewing and Comment: Zoom webinar ID 821 7418 0304, passcode 123456; phone 1 253 215 8782 or 1 346 248 7799. The meeting also streams on the City’s YouTube channel (@cityoflodi_publicmeetings) and SJTV Channel 26.

Written Comment: Email councilcomments@lodi.gov, mail to City Clerk’s Office, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241, or hand-deliver to 221 West Pine Street. Email and hand-delivered comments must arrive at least two hours before the meeting. Written comments go to the Council and into the minutes but are not read aloud.

Public Comment Limits: Five minutes per speaker on non-agenda items, one appearance per person. The Council cannot act on items not on the agenda (Government Code §54954.2).

Pulling a Consent Item: The agenda says members of the public who want a consent item discussed separately should “refer to the Notice at the beginning of this agenda.” That notice lists ways to comment but does not explain how to ask that an item be pulled. In practice, a speaker can make the request during comment on the Consent Calendar.

Campaign Contribution Disclosure: Under the Levine Act, applicants and their agents who gave more than $500 in total to a councilmember in the past 12 months must disclose it on the record, in writing to the Clerk or aloud before the item. This applies to the Westside annexation applicant, Dobbins Properties.

Interpreters and Accommodations: Requests at least 72 hours ahead to Interim City Clerk Elizabeth Haglund, (209) 333-6702. A Spanish-language agenda is posted.

Agenda

C. Consent Calendar

• C.1 Approve seven sets of minutes: June 20, 2024; July 3, 2024; June 10, 2025 (special); June 17, 2025 (special); June 26, 2025 (special); September 16, 2026 (special and regular)
• C.2 Waive formal bidding; SNF Polydyne biosolids polymer, $468,000 (Public Works)
• C.3 Solenis polymer contract Amendment No. 2, +$100,000 (Public Works)
• C.4 Central Plume soil vapor project, change-order authority raised to $235,000 (Public Works)
• C.5 State park grant applications for Lawrence, Hale and Blakely parks (Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services)
• C.6 Waterproofing Associates roof repair Amendment No. 2, +$60,000 (Public Works)
• C.7 KONE elevator services Amendment No. 2, +$60,000 (Public Works)
• C.8 A1 Protective Services Amendment No. 4, extension to December 31 and +$325,000 to $2,781,000 (Administrative Services)
• C.9 No-parking zones on Turner Road and Stockton Street (Public Works)
• C.10 Lodi Avenue Resurfacing Project, plans and bid call (Public Works)
• C.11 Set November 4 hearing on sewer billing ordinance (Public Works)
• C.12 Set November 18 hearing on the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (Public Works)

F. Public Hearings

• F.1 Introduce Phase 4 Development Code amendments: agricultural mitigation fee, parkland dedication, annexation procedures and Williamson Act regulations (Community Development)
• F.2 Westside “F” annexation of about 96.1 acres, pre-zoning ordinance and detachment from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District (Community Development)

G. Regular Calendar

• G.1 Protocol Manual amendments: Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore rotation by district, and mentorship of newly elected members (City Attorney)

H. Ordinances

None listed.

C.1 Minutes

The Council approves seven sets of minutes prepared by Pamela Farris. Five are more than a year old. On September 16, 2026, the Council cleared 22 backlogged sets covering March 2024 through August 2026, and this batch continues that clean-up.

June 20, 2024 — Regular Meeting

The heading calls the meeting “Wednesday.” June 20, 2024 was a Thursday.

• Closed session: City Manager performance evaluation. No reportable action.
• Lodi Connect billing: Staff updated the Council on the new utility billing system from vendor SEW and listed six Phase 1 problems. Late fees charged during the transition will be removed.
• FY 2024/25 budget (major decision): Resolution 2024-113 adopted the budget, the annual appropriations (spending) limit, four new positions and the Investment Policy, 4-0, with Nakanishi absent.
• Discussion: Speakers asked how a cricket field would be funded. Then-Mayor Lisa Craig asked for a study session on the Investment Policy.
• The meeting also included a Love Lodi proclamation and adjourned in memory of police partner Nannette Singer.

July 3, 2024 — Regular Meeting (Hothi absent)

• Consent items:
  • Claims of $10,612,317.32.
  • Amendment 2 to the fire dispatch agreement with Stockton (Res. 2024-114).
  • A $92,061.33 California Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax Fund grant (Res. 2024-115).
  • Hutchins Street Square roof change orders and acceptance (Res. 2024-116).
  • Diede Construction operation and maintenance of the PCE/TCE groundwater plume system, $191,200 with a $69,389 appropriation (Res. 2024-117).
  • Paving and crack-seal project acceptances.
• Advanced Life Support: Agreement with the San Joaquin County Emergency Medical Services Agency (Res. 2024-118).
• New animal shelter (major decision): Haggerty Construction, $12,636,753 plus $950,000 in change-order authority; Division 1 construction management, $227,126; appropriation of $8,713,351 (Res. 2024-119).
• Downtown Specific Plan (major decision): RRM Design Group, $750,000, plus a $70,000 option for Rail Pros railroad work (Res. 2024-120).
• Discussion: Homelessness enforcement after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on public camping bans.

June 10, 2025 — Special Meeting

• Closed session: Threatened whistleblower-retaliation litigation from the attorney for Scott Carney. No reportable action.
• Res. 2025-90 (5-0): Amendment 2 with law firm Meyers Nave, adding $260,000 for employment matters and personnel investigations.
• Moss Adams Citywide Internal Controls Review (major discussion): The Council received the June 6, 2025 report. Priority recommendations:
  • a fraud hotline
  • an internal audit function
  • completing bank reconciliations for June through December 2024
  • a review of purchasing cards (CAL-Card)
  • centralized procurement
  • an investment committee
  Bregman sought release of the draft report. The City Attorney said that would require a waiver placed on a future agenda.
• Presentations: Utility service in the Sphere of Influence (the area Lodi expects to annex over time) and a planned 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line.

June 17, 2025 — Special Meeting

Law firm Colantuono presented ways to pay for growth: Community Facilities Districts (Mello-Roos special taxes), benefit assessments, development impact fees and park maintenance funding. No action was taken.

June 26, 2025 — Special Meeting

Closed session on the Carney matter, other litigation and the Acting City Manager’s evaluation. No reportable action.

September 16, 2026 — Special Meeting

Resolution 2026-203 approved the Electric Utility’s annual Power Source Disclosure, the state-required report on where Lodi’s electricity comes from, 3-0, with Bregman and Yepez absent.

September 16, 2026 — Regular Meeting

• Closed session: Bennitt and Leatham cases. Nothing reportable.
• Minutes backlog: 22 sets approved, March 2024 through August 2026.
• Consent items C.2–C.17 (Res. 2026-189 through 2026-202):
  • Division 1 Access Center construction management extended to March 31, 2027, with Bregman recused.
  • Quarterly investment report.
  • Lodi Unified Bridge after-school program agreement ($557,000/$657,000).
  • DeBenedetti Park bids.
  • A $25,000 alley mural.
  • Arts Commission quorum change.
  • A $72,080 Alcoholic Beverage Control enforcement grant.
  • Crossroads software assignment.
  • A $95,940 tobacco enforcement contract.
  • Quest jail intercom change orders.
  • Robertson-Bryan, $59,862.
  • A $158,000 bicycle/pedestrian project.
  • A $1 million on-call well and pump contract.
  • Well 8 abandonment, $320,000.
  • Civil Hydro Tech, $122,160.
  • Acceptance of the Hutchins Street Square pool repair.
• Access Center update: Craig-Hensley and Hothi will meet with San Joaquin County.
• Unpermitted food vendors: Task force update.
• League of California Cities: Craig-Hensley named voting delegate, Yepez alternate.

These minutes say “Interim City Clerk Solorzano” presented an item, while listing Haglund as the clerk present.

Consent Calendar Items

C.2 SNF Polydyne Polymer, $468,000

The White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility uses polymer to bind wastewater solids so they can be pressed into biosolids for disposal. Staff asks the Council to waive formal bidding under Lodi Municipal Code 3.20.070(5) and buy from SNF Polydyne, the lowest of four informal quotes. At 65 tons a year, staff estimates $156,000 annually from Wastewater account 53053003.

FIGURE 1. Informal polymer quotes. Source: Agenda item C.2 staff report, October 21, 2026 packet.

Values: SNF Polydyne (recommended) $1.20/lb; CarboNet $1.29/lb; Solenis (current supplier) $1.60/lb; Jenfitch $2.32 rising to $3.14/lb.

Open Issues to Watch

• The staff report calls this a three-year agreement, which matches $468,000 ($156,000 × 3). The contract term runs January 1, 2027 through December 31, 2030, which is four years, plus two one-year options.
• C.2 relies on informal quotes. C.3 describes formal requests for proposals (RFPs) for the same chemical.

C.3 Solenis Polymer, Amendment No. 2: +$100,000 to $870,000

This bridges supply from the current vendor through December 31, 2026, until the SNF contract begins. New dewatering equipment installed in April 2025 uses more polymer than the old equipment. Amendment 1, approved August 5, 2025, added $70,000. Staff says a first RFP did not produce a usable result.

Open Issues to Watch

• The contract expired September 30, 2026, so this extension is retroactive.
• The amendment document gives a November 15, 2023 start date and dates Amendment 1 “August 28, 2026.” The staff report gives September 30, 2023 and August 5, 2025.
• The amendment refers to an Exhibit 1 that is not in the packet.

C.4 Central Plume Soil Vapor Project: Change-Order Authority to $235,000

The Central Plume is underground contamination from the dry-cleaning solvents PCE (perchloroethylene) and TCE (trichloroethylene) beneath central Lodi. This $1 million contract with Innovative Construction Solutions, approved July 2, 2025, removes contaminated soil vapor. Crews found a concrete slab twice as thick as expected and two unknown concrete structures, which required more soil and sand work. The City Manager’s change-order authority would rise from $100,000 to $235,000, paid from the PCE/TCE Rates Fund (56599000.77020).

The $135,000 increase matches two actions from July 1, 2026: a $135,000 reimbursement to Pine Street Partners and a $135,000 credit on this contract.

C.5 State Park Grant Applications: $14.1 Million

The Council authorizes applications to Round 5 of the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP), run by California State Parks. The California Grants Portal lists $188.5 million available, with awards of $200,000 to $8.5 million and no local match. Applications are due December 17, 2026, according to State Parks.

TABLE 1. Park grant requests. Source: Agenda item C.5 staff report and concept attachments.

FIGURE 2. Each request falls below the program’s per-application maximum. Sources: C.5 staff report; California Grants Portal.

Values: Lawrence $5.8M, Blakely $4.3M, Hale $4.0M; maximum $8.5M per application.

The program requires community engagement. Staff reports at least five community meetings per park, with partners Unidos Progresando, Community Partnership for Families, One Eighty, Lodi Boosters and the Boys & Girls Club.

Open Issues to Watch

• The resolution certifies that Lodi has enough money to operate and maintain the finished projects. The staff report gives no estimate of that cost for a new pool, two buildings and a skate park.

C.6 Waterproofing Associates Roof Repair: +$60,000 to $160,000

This on-call roof repair contract began at $60,000, signed by the City Manager June 13, 2024. Amendment 1 added $40,000; the Council approved it March 18, 2026, and it was signed April 9. This amendment adds $60,000. Staff cites a forecast of a wet winter.

Open Issues to Watch

• The not-to-exceed amount has grown from $60,000 to $160,000, nearly triple, with the contract running to June 30, 2027.

C.7 KONE Elevator Services: +$60,000 to $160,000

This uses the final extension option, through June 30, 2027, and adds money for City Hall elevator repairs.

Open Issues to Watch

• The previous term ended June 30, 2026, leaving about three and a half months without an active contract.
• The amendment refers to an Exhibit 1 that is not in the packet.

C.8 A1 Protective Services, Amendment No. 4: +$325,000 to $2,781,000

A1 provides security guards and the Safety Ambassador program. This amendment extends the contract to December 31, 2026, or until a replacement contract is in place, and adds $325,000.

TABLE 2. A1 contract history. Source: C.8 staff report, Amendment 3 and change-order tracking sheet (packet pp. 88–94).

FIGURE 3. Council-approved ceiling by action. Source: C.8 change-order tracking sheet.

Values: $1,599,000 original; $2,414,000 after Amendment 1 (+$815,000); $2,456,000 after Amendment 2 (+$42,000); $2,456,000 after Amendment 3 (no added money); $2,781,000 after Amendment 4 (+$325,000).

What the City Has Spent

The staff report shows no spending. In written answers to companies bidding on the replacement contract, the City disclosed two figures (Security Services RFP, Addendum No. 2, July 27, 2026). It said “approximately $52,758.22 was billed during the last monthly billing period,” and that $372,351.04 was “spent on this contract last year.” The addendum does not say which month or year those cover, and the two do not line up: 12 months at the latest monthly rate would be about $633,000. No public City source shows the total paid to A1 since 2023.

The tracking sheet’s “Remaining Balance” of $387.20 (p. 94) is the gap between what the Council authorized, $2,456,000, and what was written into the contract, $2,455,612.80. It does not measure money left to spend.

Why $325,000 for Two Months

At the latest monthly bill, November and December would cost about $105,500. The request is about three times that. The staff report says: “Because the prior four-month extension did not increase the Agreement’s not-to-exceed amount, additional funding is now required.” If the ceiling was used up by June 30, the new money would also cover July through October, when Amendment 3 kept guards working with no added funding. Six months at $52,758.22 comes to about $316,500, close to the request. The staff report does not confirm that reading.

FIGURE 4. Request compared with billing-based estimates. Sources: C.8 staff report; Security Services RFP Addendum No. 2. Estimates multiply the disclosed monthly bill by the number of months.

Values: two months (November–December) at $52,758.22 = $105,516; six months (July–December) = $316,549; Amendment 4 request $325,000.

Replacement Contract

The City issued a new security RFP on June 18, 2026 (City bid posting). Addendum No. 1 set proposals due August 3, a staff recommendation September 3 and contract execution October 1. Addendum No. 2 lists an anticipated start of November 1, 2026. It says the City is rebidding because its security needs “do not align with the current contract’s scope of work.” No replacement contract has come to the Council.

Open Issues to Watch

• How much has the City paid A1 to date, and were July–October services billed beyond the approved ceiling?
• Exhibit 2 describes Safety Ambassador coverage as both 24 hours and 16 hours a day.
• The resolution is dated October 7, 2026, although this item was not on the October 7 agenda.
• When will the replacement contract come forward, and will it start before December 31?

C.9 No-Parking Zones on Turner Road and Stockton Street, $2,000

TABLE 3. New red-curb zones. Source: C.9 staff report and Exhibits A and B.

C.10 Lodi Avenue Resurfacing, Beckman Road to Guild Avenue

The Council approves plans and authorizes the bid call. The work includes a rubberized cape seal, grinding and repaving (mill and fill) and ADA-compliant curb ramps. Federal money programmed through the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) pays for the project. The estimate is about $1.45 million, and bids open November 18, 2026.

C.11 Set November 4 Hearing: Sewer Billing Ordinance

The ordinance would base residential sewer charges on average winter water use from December through March, dropping the highest month. Winter use is a common proxy for what goes down the drain because little water goes to landscaping in those months.

Open Issues to Watch

• The fiscal impact is listed as “Not Applicable.” The packet does not estimate revenue effects, show how individual bills could change or say when the change would take effect.
• The ordinance was approved as to form by Interim City Attorney John Luebberke. City Attorney Taryn Jones is now in the role.

C.12 Set November 18 Hearing: 2025 Urban Water Management Plan

State law requires larger water suppliers to update an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), a long-range water supply and demand plan, every five years. Suppliers need one to stay eligible for state water grants and loans. The California Department of Water Resources set July 1, 2026 as the due date for 2025 plans. Lodi hired Provost & Pritchard in July 2026, after the deadline. The prior plan was adopted August 4, 2021, and the draft is posted on the City website.

Open Issues to Watch

• The staff report header misdates the meeting as November 4, 2026.
• The report does not mention the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, the companion document that sets drought stages and responses.

Public Hearings

F.1 Phase 4 Development Code Amendments

Presenter: Cynthia Marsh, Deputy Director/City Planner. Action: Waive first reading and introduce the ordinance. Adoption would come at a later meeting, and the ordinance would take effect 30 days after that.

Lodi has not had a full set of local rules for annexation, the process for bringing county land into the city. The Council held an annexation workshop June 9, 2026. The Planning Commission recommended the package 5-0 on August 12 (Res. 26-07, Chair Hicks absent). At the request of the Building Industry Association (BIA), represented by John Beckman, staff held a second workshop on September 22. That workshop produced the “suggested changes” versions in Attachments 4 and 5. Staff cites California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions 15061(b)(3) and 15378.

What the Ordinance Does

• Chapter 15.69, Agricultural Mitigation Fee:
  • Applies when an annexation converts Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance or Unique Farmland.
  • Requires at least 1:1 mitigation: one acre preserved for each acre converted, through conservation easements in San Joaquin County held by a group such as the California Farmland Trust.
  • The fee amount will be set later by resolution after a nexus study, the analysis that legally ties a fee to the impact it pays for.
  • Paid at building permit. Land dedication is allowed instead.
• Chapter 15.70, Quimby Act Parkland:
  • The state Quimby Act lets cities require park land, or a fee in place of land, when land is subdivided.
  • Sets 5 acres per 1,000 residents, with an 8-acre goal that counts stormwater basins in master plans.
  • The in-lieu fee will be set later.
• Section 17.28.040, Planned Development (PD) overlay: A PD cannot be used to get around annexation requirements.
• Chapter 17.77, Boundary Changes:
  • Two stages: a Pre-Annexation Hearing before the Council, then a formal application.
  • Requires contiguity to the city, pre-zoning, a master plan and a showing that the annexation is fiscally neutral or better for the City.
  • A Council resolution must come before any LAFCO filing.
  • Applicants pay the cost of detaching from the rural fire district.
  • Denied applicants wait 12 months before reapplying.
• Chapter 17.78, Williamson Act: The Williamson Act lowers property taxes on farmland in exchange for keeping it in agriculture under self-renewing contracts (Government Code 51243). Before authorizing a LAFCO filing, the Council must choose a path for each contract:
  • nonrenewal, which lets the contract wind down over nine years
  • cancellation
  • City succession, with findings and a recorded owner agreement
  No development can occur until a contract expires or is cancelled.

Open Issues to Watch

• Section 17.77.050(C) of the revised text still says “The Planning Commission shall conduct” the hearing. Section 17.77.040(A) gives that hearing to the Council.
• Section 17.77.120 uses “Pre-Annexation Merit Hearing,” mixing the old and new names.
• Changes the staff report does not describe:
  • Section 17.77.100(J) shifts approval of substantial master plan changes from “the City Council” to “the City,” which could let staff decide.
  • “At minimum” is deleted from 17.77.060(D).
  • Required timing changes from “annexation application approval” to “annexation approval.”
• Both versions cite Government Code “5183.4.” The correct section is 51283.4, on tentative cancellation certificates.
• No fee amounts exist yet for farmland mitigation or park in-lieu fees.
• Staff says the Westside “F” annexation (F.2) relies on this package but is exempt from the pre-annexation hearing because it was filed in 2025. Its file number is PL2024-023 A, and Plan Lodi shows the application submitted March 13, 2025.

F.2 Westside “F” Annexation and Pre-Zoning

Applicant: Dobbins Properties, Inc. (PL2024-023 A). Presenters: Matt Diaz, Acting Planning Manager (contract planner), and Cynthia Marsh.

The Council is asked to:

• adopt a resolution authorizing an application to LAFCO
• detach the area from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District
• introduce an ordinance pre-zoning the land, which assigns City zoning that takes effect on annexation

LAFCO is the state-created county commission that approves city boundary changes.

The site covers 20 parcels plus the Taylor Road right-of-way, bounded by West Vine Street, West Kettleman Lane (Highway 12), South Lower Sacramento Road and county land to the west. City limits touch it on three sides. It has been in Lodi’s Sphere of Influence since 2008 and is Phase 1, the top priority, in the City’s Growth Management Plan. Staff and the Planning Commission find Lodi has about a two-year supply of entitled residential lots.

Proposed Pre-Zoning (Staff Report)

TABLE 4. Pre-zoning as described in the staff report and resolution. Source: F.2 staff report.

About 2 acres of the PF site will be reserved for a future fire station with a satellite police substation. Building and paying for the station are not conditions of the annexation. Environmental review relies on CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which covers projects consistent with a general plan that already has a certified environmental impact report (EIR). The 2025 General Plan Amendment EIR redesignated 19.91 acres here from Office to Mixed Use Corridor.

Why It Is Back on October 21

The annexation was F.1 on the October 7 agenda. At the opening of the regular session, staff announced that “public hearing item F1 on tonight’s agenda will be pulled and will be heard at the meeting of October 21st,” along with the Phase 4 code amendments (City of Lodi meeting video, October 7, 2026, at 46:10). The Council heard no testimony and took no vote. The City’s video is titled “2026-10-09 City Council Regular Meeting,” but the recording identifies itself as the October 7 meeting. October 7 minutes are not yet posted. The October 21 packet adds the pre-zoning exhibit and the Planning Commission resolution that were missing on October 7.

Outreach and the County Island

A 2025 owner poll found the western owners in favor and the eastern owners opposed. LAFCO advised dropping the opposed properties, which leaves an unincorporated “island” surrounded by city land. The survey map (p. 298) appears to show some opposed parcels still inside the boundary.

Staff held a community meeting on March 31, 2026. The Planning Commission recommended approval 5-0 on August 12, with one vacancy and one absence (Res. 26-08); speakers raised a private easement dispute and nearby owners’ interest in future annexation. A September 16 neighborhood meeting at an owner’s home covered property taxes, the development process and growth.

Williamson Act Contracts

Three parcels totaling about 40 acres are under Williamson Act contracts. Staff writes that “the contracts will remain in effect following annexation,” which means the City would take them over. The contracts must be nonrenewed or cancelled before those parcels can be developed.

FIGURE 5. Acreage by zoning district in three parts of the packet. Sources: F.2 staff report (p. 288); Attachment 4 pre-zoning exhibit (p. 297); Attachment 9 ordinance parcel table (p. 311).

Values: Staff report RLD 49.8, MCO 19.91, PF 10.0, GC 9.2, RMD 7.2 (96.1 total). Exhibit RLD 50.2, MCO 19.1, PF 9.6, GC 9.2, RMD 7.2 (95.3 total). Parcel table RLD 49.22, MCO 19.91, PF 0, GC 9.14, RMD 7.25, no zone listed (“None”) 10.0.

Open Issues to Watch

• Hearing that did not happen: The proposed resolution recites that “the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 7, 2026.” The item was pulled that night. Unless corrected, the resolution would put an inaccurate finding in the record.
• Exhibit not corrected: Staff calls the 95.3-acre figure a clerical error and says the correct total is 96.1 acres “as reflected in the corrected prezone exhibit.” The exhibit in the packet still shows MCO 19.1, PF 9.6 and RLD 50.2, totaling 95.3 acres.
• No parcel zoned PF: The ordinance parcel table leaves parcel 027-050-03 (10 acres, 345 E. Taylor Road) without a zone. No parcel is assigned PF.
• Missing parcel: The ordinance title lists 19 of the 20 parcels. It omits 027-050-01, the 20-acre RLD parcel at 179 E. Taylor Road.
• Outdated ordinance text: The ordinance still says “95.3-acre” and “West Kettleman Road.” Its electronic signature record is dated August 7, 2026, before the Planning Commission hearing.
• County zoning given three ways: AG-20 (staff report), AG-40 (ordinance), AU-20 (map).
• No Williamson Act decision: The resolution does not choose a Williamson Act path, as F.1’s proposed Section 17.78.050 would require. It also does not state whether the City will succeed to the contracts, which Government Code 56738 requires an annexation proposal to state.
• No master plan or fiscal analysis: F.1’s proposed Sections 17.77.070 and 17.77.100 call for both. The packet includes neither. The fiscal section says only that applicant deposits cover processing costs.
• Map conflicts: The General Plan map shows the 10-acre site as Open Space while the pre-zone is PF. The resolution’s parcel table says “Taylor Rd Right-of-Way West of West Dr”; elsewhere the packet says Westgate Drive.
• Farmland fee not set: The staff report cites the City’s agricultural mitigation program, but F.1 leaves the fee amount for a later resolution.

Regular Calendar

G.1 Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore Rotation; Mentorship of New Members

Presenter: City Attorney Taryn Jones.

Lodi Municipal Code 2.04.070 requires the Council to choose a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore from among its members each year. On January 28, 2026, the Council directed staff to write a rotation by district. Members did not want a Mayor with less than a year on the Council. Mayor Yepez asked that the Mayor Pro Tempore mentor new members. Staff plans a broader clean-up of the Protocol Manual near the end of 2026.

The Rules

• 3.3a: The Mayor Pro Tempore’s district becomes Mayor if that member has served at least 12 consecutive months.
• 3.3b: If not, the next district in order (1 through 5) whose member has served 12 months takes the mayoralty.
• 3.3c: The next district in order becomes Mayor Pro Tempore.
• 3.3d: If that district holds the mayoralty or is vacant, the following district becomes Mayor Pro Tempore.
• Override: The Council can set the rotation aside by a 4/5 vote.
• Start: “Starting in the 2027 calendar year.”
• 3.1: “The Mayor Pro Tempore shall act as a mentor to any newly-elected members.”

TABLE 5. Standard rotation as presented by staff. Source: G.1 staff report.

Districts 1, 2 and 3 are on the November 3 ballot, according to the City’s candidate filing status page:

• District 1 (open seat; Nakanishi is not running): Carouba, Hayre and Sywassink.
• District 2: incumbent Craig-Hensley and Duncan.
• District 3: Anderson, Barth and incumbent Bregman.

Yepez (District 4) and Hothi (District 5) serve through 2028 (City of Lodi council districts).

Open Issues to Watch

• Under the standard rotation, whoever wins the open District 1 seat would become Mayor Pro Tempore for 2027, weeks after taking office. The 12-month rule applies only to the Mayor. Under Section 3.1, that new member would also mentor any other newcomers.
• When 3.3b applies, “next District in the numerical sequence” does not say whether to count from the Mayor Pro Tempore’s district or the new Mayor’s.
• A member skipped under 3.3b does not get a later turn.
• Lodi usually picks officers in December. The text does not say whether a December 2026 selection counts as “2027.”
• The resolution still has a “[CITY CLERK’S NAME]” placeholder. It also includes contract boilerplate letting the City Attorney make revisions that “do not alter the compensation or term.” Attachment 1, labeled a redline, shows no markup.

References

• City of Lodi, City Council agenda packet, October 21, 2026
• City of Lodi, Spanish-language agenda, October 21, 2026
• City of Lodi, Agenda Center
• City of Lodi, City Council meeting video, October 7, 2026
• City of Lodi, Public meetings video channel
• City of Lodi, Security Services RFP bid posting
• City of Lodi, Security Services RFP, Addendum No. 1
• City of Lodi, Security Services RFP, Addendum No. 2 (July 27, 2026)
• City of Lodi, Plan Lodi city expansion and annexation
• City of Lodi, Council districts
• City of Lodi, Filing status of 2026 general election candidates
• San Joaquin LAFCO, Local Agency Formation Commission
• California State Parks, Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program
• California Grants Portal, Parks and recreation grants
• California Department of Water Resources, Urban Water Management Plans
• California Legislative Information, Government Code, Williamson Act contracts (§51243)
• California Legislative Information, Government Code §56738, annexation and Williamson Act contracts
• FindLaw, Government Code §51283.4, tentative cancellation certificates
• California Department of Conservation, Williamson Act program

Prepared for Lodi411 by Don Bradford. Source: City of Lodi City Council agenda packet for October 21, 2026, including staff reports, agreements, exhibits and minutes; City of Lodi meeting video of October 7, 2026; and City of Lodi Security Services RFP addenda.

Lodi Improvement Committee — October 13, 2026

Regular Meeting · Tuesday, October 13, 2026 · 6:00 p.m.

Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Members Lyndsy Davis, Dawson Hayre, Emanuel "Mono" Geralis, Christine Tran and Hector Soto. Officers are not confirmed: the September 8 vote for a temporary Chair and Vice Chair has no minutes yet.

Summary

Last month the bylaws dominated. This month's agenda has none of it. The bylaws rewrite, the officer election, the City Council update and the minutes are all missing from the October 13 Lodi Improvement Committee agenda. What's left is a review of the 2026 goals, a staff update on federal grants, and planning for November and December (October 13 packet).

A funding round for local nonprofits opens this winter. The staff memo says Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) public services applications "will be provided this year." The City will publish a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) before a public workshop at the November meeting. In September the same sentence said "will not be provided this year" (September 8 packet).

The public record doesn't yet show what happened September 8. That agenda included a proposal to replace the committee with a "Lodi Community Advisory Committee on the City's Strategic Vision," a possible recommendation of the change to the Council, and a vote for a temporary Chair and Vice Chair. The October agenda reads "Minutes – None." The meeting was held: a third-party summary of the video describes the Lodi Committee on Homelessness presentation (Starbridge meeting summary). No Council agenda posted since then includes the bylaws.

Last year's grants fell short. The City's 2025-26 CDBG performance report shows $282,568 spent of $655,037 available. Four funded projects reported no results, including the Salas Park senior housing project (2025-26 CAPER). The goals matrix in this packet is the same one the committee had in September, word for word.

Meeting Details

Date & Time: Tuesday, October 13, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.

Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Remote Access: Zoom webinar ID 880 2451 7154, passcode 191272. By phone: 1-669-444-9171 or 1-253-215-8782. Livestream on the City of Lodi public meetings channel.

Agenda Contact: Kari Chadwick, Community Development Program Specialist, (209) 333-6711

Agenda Signed By: David Hanham, Community Development Director. This is his first LIC agenda.

Written Comment: Email LICcomments@lodi.gov, mail to Community Development Department, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241, or drop off at 221 W. Pine Street, at least three hours before the meeting. Written comments go to the City Council and into the minutes. They are not read aloud.

Accessibility and Interpreters: Request disability accommodations or language interpreters from Kari Chadwick, (209) 333-6711, at least 72 hours before the meeting. Solicitudes de interpretación: (209) 333-6711, con 72 horas de anticipación.

Committee Role: The committee helps staff carry out the City's five-year Consolidated Plan for federal CDBG money. Its work includes outreach, feedback on the grant process, and recommendations to the Council on funding priorities. It also works on Lodi's quality of life and appearance through annual goals.

Correspondence: The packet has no letters, emails or public comments. The staff memo is the only written communication.

Agenda

1. Roll Call

The committee failed to meet in June (agenda posted late) and in August (no quorum, adjourned at 6:01 p.m.), so attendance is worth watching.

2. Minutes — None

September 8 minutes are not included. Their absence leaves the bylaws recommendation and officer election without an official record.

3. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items

Five minutes per speaker, one appearance per person.

4. LIC 2026 Annual Activities Updates and Task Assignments

Discussion of the 2026 goals matrix (packet pages 6–8).

5. Regular Business — Topics for Upcoming Meetings

November: 2027-29 CDBG application overview and NOFA. December: not yet set.

6. Committee Member and Staff Comments

Non-agenda items, five minutes per speaker.

7. Adjournment

The agenda was posted at least 72 hours ahead, as Government Code §54954.2(a) requires.

Item 4 — The 2026 Goals

The matrix has four goal areas. Each goal has an owner, the member responsible for it, and task lines with an assignee, the member doing the work (October 13 packet, pp. 6–8).

Task lines by goal area: Informational Updates 1 of 1 unassigned; Community Well-Being 3 of 6 unassigned; Community Improvement 1 of 4 unassigned; Administration and Transparency 2 of 3 unassigned. Source: October 13 packet, pp. 6–8.

Open Issues to Watch — Item 4

• No changes since September. All three pages of the goals matrix match the September 8 packet line for line, including the misspellings "Evironmentally," "colaborate" and "prior too."
• The Council update is overdue. The first of two required Council updates was due at the second meeting in August. That meeting adjourned without a quorum, and no presenter has been named for either update. December is the next opening on the matrix's own schedule.
• No one is assigned to CDBG outreach. A funding round opens this winter, and the goal created to spread the word to nonprofits (1.B) has neither an owner nor a liaison.
• Who owns what after September 8? If the committee elected new officers or recommended the bylaws rewrite, the matrix does not reflect it.

Item 5 — November and December

November: 2027-29 CDBG application workshop. This is the session for nonprofits planning to apply for the next two-year cycle of public services grants. The City's CDBG page called 2026-27 a "renewal year" for public services, so 2027-29 is the next open competition (City of Lodi CDBG program page). The memo says the NOFA will be posted online and in the Lodi News-Sentinel before the workshop. As of October 12 no notice had been posted. Last cycle's application window ran from December 8, 2025 to January 27, 2026.

December: open. Several items are already waiting: the Council update the goals require, the two department briefings, and three guests the committee invited in July for September who were pushed aside by the homelessness presentation.

Open Issues to Watch — Item 5

• The memo reverses itself without saying so. In September it said public services applications "will not be provided this year." In October it says they "will be provided this year." The October version matches the City's CDBG page, but the memo does not acknowledge the change.
• Timing is tight. The NOFA has to be published in the newspaper before the November 10 meeting so applicants can attend the workshop with the rules in hand.

The Staff Memo

Kari Chadwick's three-page memo has four parts: the new funding round, the 2026-27 Annual Action Plan, the 2025-26 awards and the 2025-26 performance report (October 13 packet, pp. 3–5).

• 2026-27 Annual Action Plan. The Council adopted it June 3 after public review from May 2 to June 3, 2026. HUD's 2026-27 allocation to Lodi is $665,263.
• 2025-26 awards. Lodi received $655,037. City policy sends 40% of the grant, after administration, to community-based organizations (CBOs). HUD caps public services at 15% and administration at 20%. The split was $405,000 for capital projects, $98,000 for CBO programs and $130,000 for administration, with $22,037 carried forward into 2026-27 capital projects.
• Scoring. Three LIC members scored the public services applications on April 24, 2025. The Council approved the awards June 18, 2025.
• Graffiti abatement received $15,000 from administration funds because it no longer qualified as a capital project.

2025-26 figures are from the memo. 2026-27 figures are from the June 3, 2026 Council packet, which kept the same five nonprofits at the same public services amounts. It also funds $235,000 for Public Works, $115,000 for the Salas Park housing project and $84,263 in capital projects not yet chosen.

Open Issues to Watch — Staff Memo

• The memo lists the wrong year's awards. Its "2025-26 CDBG Program Year Proposals" section covers a year that ended June 30. The 2026-27 awards that fund the current year are not listed.
• The CAPER date has passed. The memo still says the report "will be submitted to HUD by September 30th." It also says public review began August 15. The Council staff report and the City's CDBG page say August 17.
• An item is missing from the action list. It reads "1) Update 2026 Annual Activities, 3) determine topics." The September item 1, the Council update, was removed and the rest were not renumbered.
• Typo. The memo calls the paper the "Lodi New Sentinel."

What the 2025-26 Grants Delivered

The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is the City's yearly report to HUD on what CDBG money produced. The LIC memo doesn't report these results, even though committee members scored the public services applications (2025-26 CAPER).

2025-26 results as a percent of each project's goal. Four projects show 0%. Source: 2025-26 CAPER, Table 1.

Source: 2025-26 CAPER, Table 1. The four zeros are in the "Actual" column.

• Spending pace. The City spent $282,568.19 of the $655,037 available, about 43%. Only 20.8% went to the designated low-income target area. The plan called for 51%.
• Housing. CDBG paid for predevelopment work on Salas Park senior housing for very low-income seniors and veterans. The CAPER expects the housing results to show up in the 2026 program year.

2025-26 CDBG funds: $282,568 spent and $372,469 unspent at year-end, out of $655,037 available. Source: 2025-26 CAPER, CR-15.

Open Issues to Watch — CAPER

• Math error. The CAPER's public services summary shows 22,982 of 24,530 people served and calls it "12%." The correct figure is about 94%.
• Administration totals don't match. The CAPER lists $110,000 for planning and administration. The LIC memo lists $95,000, plus $20,000 for fair housing and $15,000 for graffiti, all under administration.
• The report can't be downloaded from the CDBG page. The CDBG page lists "2025-26 CAPER (PDF)" with no link, and its 2025-26 legal-notice links open the 2024-25 notices. Readers can find the report in the September 2 Council packet.
• Unfinished projects ahead of a new round. Ask whether the Salas Park, Lodi House and Salvation Army security projects have started before new applications are scored.

How We Got Here

The rewrite still pending

The September packet's proposed bylaws would make the committee a "Lodi Community Advisory Committee on the City's Strategic Vision." The new body would have seven seats filled by other City commissions plus the Mayor, with the Mayor as automatic Chair. It would meet quarterly instead of monthly. It would lose its crime, blight and infrastructure duties and its own fund account. The draft's approval line still names Interim City Attorney John Luebberke. Taryn Jones has held the job since September 21 (September 8 packet, pp. 11–21).

The Lodi Arts Commission, one of the bodies that would fill a seat, recommended its own bylaws change in August: a quorum of five when all nine seats are filled and four when eight or fewer are. That proposal also awaits City Attorney review (Arts Commission August 12 minutes, in the September 16 Council packet).

The homelessness committee had reworked its September presentation to give more weight to all its partner organizations, not mainly the Lodi Access Center (LCOH August 13 minutes). According to the video summary, the talk covered building trust, shelter, moving people into permanent housing or rehabilitation, how the homeless count works, and the roles of the Lodi Access Center, the Salvation Army and Family Promise (Starbridge meeting summary).

Who's Who for the Coming Meetings

City staff

• David Hanham, Community Development Director. He began in city government in 1997 in Livingston as assistant city manager, city planner and economic development director. He later worked at KB Home, ran a consulting firm in Turlock, and led community and economic development in Chowchilla (Lodi News-Sentinel). He came to Lodi from Pinole, where he was planning manager from December 2019 (LinkedIn).
• Kari Chadwick, CDD Program Specialist. She runs the CDBG program and writes the committee's memos. She is the likely presenter at the November workshop.

Committee members

• Lyndsy Davis was Chair through July. Her term ends March 1, 2027 (May 1, 2024 Council minutes). She co-owns the beautification goal.
• Dawson Hayre has been Vice Chair since February. He owns the youth and animal-services goals.
• Emanuel "Mono" Geralis handles Report-A-Concern, the homelessness resource flyer and beautification. His term ends March 1, 2027 (City boards portal).
• Christine Tran owns the Earth Day and town hall goals.
• Hector Soto joined in March 2026. His term ends March 2, 2028.

Likely November applicants

Current public services grantees would usually reapply for 2027-29:

• Community Partnership for Families of San Joaquin runs the Lodi Family Resource Center. Its executive director, Lynsay Nuss, is a former LIC member (CPFSJ).
• PREVAIL runs the Propel Program, which reached 14 of its 50-person goal.
• Second Harvest of the Greater Valley provides food assistance.
• LOEL Senior Center runs Meals on Wheels.
• The Salvation Army Lodi Corps runs the Hope Harbor shelter.
• San Joaquin Fair Housing provides fair housing education and enforcement.

Guests still waiting for a date

• Rick Freeman, Lodi Adopt-A-Child. Freeman leads this all-volunteer group, whose Christmas Wish program served nearly 1,000 children in December 2025 (Lodi News-Sentinel via Yahoo; Lodi Adopt-A-Child).
• Lynsay Nuss, Community Partnership for Families. Because her organization is a current grantee, a December slot after the workshop would work well.
• Bailey Caswell. Caswell is a Lodi marketing and communications professional who works with the Downtown Lodi Business Alliance, Lodi Arts and Lodi Open Studios (Downtown Lodi; Lodi Open Studios).

Partner bodies

• Lodi Committee on Homelessness. A community stakeholder group chaired by Lisa Meyers-Hill. The LIC distributes its resource flyer under goal 3.B (LCOH packet; City homelessness initiatives).
• Lodi Arts Commission. The LIC's liaison seat is empty.
• Greater Lodi Area Youth Commission, Parks and Recreation, and Tree Lodi. Named partners for the youth and Earth Day goals.

Questions to Ask Tuesday

• What did the committee decide September 8 on the bylaws and on officers, and when will those minutes come back for approval?
• When will the 2027-29 NOFA be published, and who on the committee will carry the outreach task?
• Will December be used for the overdue Council update?
• Where do the Salas Park, Lodi House and Salvation Army security projects stand?

References

Meeting record

• LIC agenda packet, October 13, 2026 (8 pages)
• LIC agenda packet, September 8, 2026 — July 14 and August 11 minutes, proposed bylaws, goals matrix
• LIC cancellation notice, June 9, 2026
• LIC packet, March 10, 2026 — February 10 minutes
• LIC Agenda Center

City Council records

• Council packet, October 7, 2026 — January 28 Strategic Vision workshop minutes; no LIC bylaws item
• Council packet, September 16, 2026 — August 19 minutes (City Attorney appointment), Arts Commission bylaws minutes, LIC appointments; no LIC bylaws item
• Council special meeting, September 16, 2026 — no LIC bylaws item
• 2025-26 CDBG CAPER — attachment to the September 2, 2026 Council packet
• Council packet, August 5, 2026, item G.4 — hiring of the committee's staff department director
• Council packet, June 3, 2026 — 2026-27 Annual Action Plan
• Council packet, March 18, 2026, item C.5 — Hector Soto appointment

City pages

• CDBG program page — watch here for the 2027-29 NOFA
• Lodi Improvement Committee page — still lists Jennifer Rhyne as contact
• Report-A-Concern form
• Lodi Committee on Homelessness packet, September 10, 2026 — August 13 minutes
• Homelessness initiatives
• City boards portal — Lodi Improvement Committee
• City of Lodi public meetings livestream

News and organizations

• Lodi News-Sentinel — "Lodi City Council to consider next community development director," August 1, 2026
• Starbridge — City of Lodi meeting summaries (September 8 LIC meeting)
• David Hanham — LinkedIn
• Community Partnership for Families of San Joaquin
• Lodi Adopt-A-Child
• Lodi News-Sentinel via Yahoo — Lodi Adopt-A-Child
• Downtown Lodi Business Alliance
• Lodi Open Studios

Prepared for Lodi411 by Don Bradford. AI-assisted analysis with human editorial review against the primary source packet (Lodi Improvement Committee agenda packet, October 13, 2026, 8 pp.) and the City Council and committee records linked above. Residents are encouraged to use the linked City of Lodi sources of record and to review staff reports at the Community Development Department, 221 West Pine Street.

Harvest at $8.40: What Record Diesel Costs Lodi’s Vineyards and Orchards

Lodi411 / LodiEye — Energy and Agriculture Deep Dive — October 2026

Summary

California diesel hit a record $8.44 a gallon on Sept. 22, in the middle of the wine grape, almond and walnut harvests. It still averaged $8.39 on Oct. 11 (San Diego Union-Tribune, AAA). The world lost refined diesel faster than refiners could replace it, and California's own refinery closures widened the gap.

Washington rejected a diesel export ban on Oct. 3. It chose a G7 stock release, a dyed-diesel tax order and a Trump–Putin deal that lets Russian diesel into world markets through April 7, 2027 (Treasury). Energy analysts expect the Russian barrels to do little for U.S. prices (Associated Press). None of those steps does much for a tractor that already runs on untaxed farm diesel.

At $8.40 pump diesel, UC Davis cost-study figures put the added fuel-related cost at about $127–$150 an acre for a Lodi vineyard and $79–$104 an acre for a custom-harvested almond orchard. Across San Joaquin County's bearing grape, almond and walnut acres, that adds up to roughly $22.5M–$29.3M a year, before costs that contractors and suppliers pass along.

Key Numbers

• $8.36 — Stockton–Lodi diesel average on Sept. 20, a record and up $1.48 in 30 days (AAA via B. Mello Ag)
• $3.26 — rise in California diesel over one year, or 65% (UC Davis CalAg)
• $60,000–$70,000 — extra weekly diesel spending reported by one 10,000-acre San Joaquin County farm (KCRA 3)
• About half — share of California's wine grape crop that entered harvest without a buyer contract (Associated Press)

Diesel runs the harvest. Tractors, mechanical grape harvesters, nut shakers, sweepers and the trucks that haul fruit to wineries and hullers all burn it. This year the price peaked in the same weeks San Joaquin County growers needed the most of it.

Brandon Sywassink, general manager of Manna Ranch, told KCRA 3 that his tractors use 1,500 to 2,000 gallons of diesel a day, and that his trucks use about 1,000 more. The farm spends $100,000 to $140,000 a week on diesel, including $60,000 to $70,000 more than a year ago (KCRA 3). Stuart Spencer, executive director of the Lodi Winegrape Commission, put it plainly: “We just can’t continue absorbing these costs and stay in business” (KCRA 3).

Where the shortage came from

The shortage started with lost supply, not a jump in demand. The Gulf states and Russia supplied almost 45% of the diesel moving by sea in February. By August, their combined net exports had fallen 1.6 million barrels a day after shipping through the Strait of Hormuz was constrained and Russian refineries were damaged (International Energy Agency). In March, the 32 International Energy Agency (IEA) member countries agreed to the largest emergency stock release in the agency's history, 400 million barrels (IEA).

Russia then banned diesel exports in July. In September, Reuters reported the ban would likely run through the end of October (Reuters, July 8, Reuters, Sept. 16). Buyers in Europe and Latin America turned to the United States. U.S. diesel exports reached a record 1.6 million barrels a day in August, up from about 1 million in February (Reuters, citing Kpler). Refineries ran at 97% to 98% of capacity, and the national average diesel price reached a record $6.53 (FleetOwner).

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the federal energy statistics agency, expects distillate inventories to fall below 100 million barrels in October for the first time since 2003 (EIA). Distillate is the fuel category that includes diesel and heating oil.

Why California pays the most

California runs its own fuel market. It has a cleaner-burning fuel standard, little pipeline connection to Gulf Coast refineries, and fewer refineries than a year ago. Phillips 66 closed its 138,700-barrel-a-day Los Angeles refinery in October 2025, and Valero's 145,000-barrel-a-day Benicia refinery stopped refining in early 2026 (EIA).

UC Davis agricultural economists put California diesel at $8.25 a gallon for the week of Sept. 21. That was up $3.26 from a year earlier and $1.72 above the national average, and the highest price on record in both current and inflation-adjusted dollars (UC Davis CalAg).

Renewable diesel keeps fuel flowing, not prices down

Renewable diesel is made from fats, used cooking oil and vegetable oils, and it runs in diesel engines without blending limits. The California Energy Commission (CEC), the state's energy agency, reports that renewable diesel and biodiesel supplied most of the diesel sold in California by 2023 (CEC). Aemetis, a California biofuel producer, told investors in August that more than 80% of the state's roughly 4 billion-gallon diesel market is already renewable (Aemetis).

That share keeps trucks and tractors fueled, but it does not shield buyers from the spike. The CEC found that alternative diesel prices are tied to petroleum diesel benchmarks, so increases spread beyond fuel made from crude oil (CEC). Supply growth has also stalled. U.S. renewable diesel output hit a record 263,000 barrels a day in June with no new capacity announced (Argus Media), and EIA cut its production forecast in October (Biomass Magazine). Imports remain very low because the federal 45Z clean-fuel tax credit does not cover imported biofuels (farmdoc daily).

On Sept. 28, Gov. Gavin Newsom directed the CEC to collect renewable diesel data and consider reporting its prices separately from petroleum diesel (Office of the Governor). In Washington, the White House pressed for more small-refinery exemptions from federal biofuel rules, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted exemptions worth 1.76 billion compliance credits for 2025 (Reuters, USA Today).

Washington chose stock releases over an export ban

President Trump said on Sept. 22 that he backed a ban on diesel exports (Reuters). Energy Secretary Chris Wright warned that a ban would not work and could raise gasoline and jet fuel prices, and he asked refiners for voluntary help instead (Reuters, Sept. 23, Reuters, Sept. 24). On Oct. 3, after the G7 nations agreed on a coordinated stock release, Trump ruled out a ban (IANS).

What a ban would have done

Refineries make gasoline and diesel from the same barrel of crude. If they cannot sell diesel abroad, storage fills, they cut runs, and gasoline supply falls with it. Wood Mackenzie, an energy consulting firm, modeled a ban as cutting U.S. diesel output by about 800,000 barrels a day and raising East Coast gasoline by about 26 cents a gallon (Wood Mackenzie). Goldman Sachs analysts expected U.S. diesel to fall about 25 cents a gallon a week at first, then gasoline to climb about 30 cents once storage filled (S&P Global). Oxford Economics estimated U.S. diesel could drop about 30% within weeks, but unevenly (Investor's Business Daily).

California would have gained less than the East Coast. The state's premium comes mainly from its own refinery losses and its special fuel blend, which other regions cannot easily ship here (EIA).

The Trump–Putin diesel deal

On Oct. 9, President Trump said he had reached a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call. Russia would supply more than 300,000 metric tons of diesel immediately, 500,000 tons in November, 1 million tons after that and 3 million more tons later, depending on the condition of Russia's refineries (Associated Press, CNBC). Trump described the volumes as going “to the U.S. and global markets,” not to the United States alone (KCRA 3). The White House did not say who would pay for the diesel or when it would arrive (Associated Press).

The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which administers U.S. sanctions, issued General License 135 the same day. It authorizes transactions related to the sale, delivery, offloading and importation of Russian-origin diesel, including into the United States, through 12:01 a.m. Eastern time on April 7, 2027. It does not authorize debits to U.S. bank accounts of Russia's central bank, National Wealth Fund or Finance Ministry (General License 135).

Russia's state news agency TASS reported that on Oct. 10 the government partially lifted its July export ban and allowed 500,000 metric tons onto the world market “at this stage.” Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said Russia was ready to supply 300,000 tons in October, 500,000 in November and 1 million in December, and that monthly supplies could later reach 3 million tons (TASS).

Calculated for this report. Tons converted at 7.46 barrels per metric ton (Argus Media conversion factor). U.S. use of about 3.6 million barrels of diesel a day as reported by the BBC. Tranche amounts from Trump and Novak (AP, TASS).

Effect on U.S. prices

Diesel futures dipped when the deal was announced, but the AAA national average held at $6.28 a gallon (Associated Press). Energy analysts said the barrels would mostly move between buyers. “If we get diesel from Russia, basically it means that their existing customers are not going to get it and they’ll have to go somewhere else, and that will keep the price basically where it is now,” said Michael Lynch of the Energy Policy Research Foundation (Associated Press). Clayton Seigle of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the deal would not be “enough to materially lower prices in the United States or Europe.” Daniel Sternoff of Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy said renewed Russian exports could help stabilize global prices and “take the edge off,” but “will not substantially lower them” (Associated Press).

Russia's ability to deliver is uncertain. Vortexa data cited by maritime analyst Michelle Wiese Bockmann show Russian diesel and gasoil exports falling from about 850,000 barrels a day in the first quarter to 190,000 in the third quarter (NV). The International Energy Agency estimates Russian diesel production has fallen nearly 30% (BBC). The California Energy Commission wrote that drone attacks on Russian refineries in early August had turned Russia into a net importer of refined products (CEC).

Russian Diesel Exports Compared With the Promised Volumes

Blue bars show actual exports; orange bars show promised volumes. Actual exports: Vortexa data via Michelle Wiese Bockmann (NV). Pledges converted to barrels per day for this report at 7.46 barrels per ton over a 30- or 31-day month (Argus, TASS). The 3-million-ton month is Novak's stated possibility, not a scheduled delivery.

What it means for California supply

The first reported Russian cargo after the deal, the Greek-flagged tanker Minerva Zen, carried about 280,000 barrels and listed Wilmington, North Carolina, as its destination. It left St. Petersburg on Sept. 22, before the deal, and there is no evidence it was arranged under it (NV). Lynch said the best case was “a tiny dip in prices locally in places like the New York-New Jersey area, Philadelphia maybe” (Associated Press).

California adds its own barrier. Diesel sold in the state must meet California Air Resources Board (CARB) rules: 15 parts per million sulfur and an aromatic hydrocarbon standard of 10% by volume, or a certified equivalent formulation (CARB). Any Russian cargo would have to meet those rules or be blended to meet them. For scale, California imported 3.7 million barrels of diesel in the third quarter of 2025 (CEC). The 300,000-ton first tranche equals about 2.2 million barrels for all buyers worldwide. California's benefit, if any, would come through world prices rather than direct deliveries.

Sanctions and legal questions

The 2022 Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act bans U.S. imports of Russian energy products “in a manner consistent with any implementation actions issued under Executive Order 14066.” To end the ban, the president must certify to Congress that Russia has agreed to withdraw its forces under terms Ukraine accepts, poses no immediate threat to any NATO member and recognizes Ukraine's right to choose its own government. The law also requires consultation with congressional committees 45 days before certification and a 90-day review period (Public Law 117-109).

Seven senators, Republicans Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis and John Curtis and Democrats Jeanne Shaheen, Richard Blumenthal and Ron Wyden, said the decision “runs directly counter to that law” and that the administration failed to consult Congress (Politico). Tillis said, “I do believe there’s a legitimate case for saying the president’s not following the law” (Politico). Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the agreement works through existing legal channels (BBC). On Sept. 18, Trump signed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, which authorizes tariffs of up to 500% on Russian imports and up to 100% on goods from certain countries that buy significant Russian crude oil or natural gas (Morgan Lewis).

Abroad, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the deal a gift to Putin. European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said suspending sanctions “provides Moscow with more revenues to wage war” (BBC). Seigle said the deal “does certainly let Moscow off the hook in terms of revenue squeeze” (Associated Press). He also called it a “great benefit to Russia and to Putin” as Moscow tries to sell summer-grade diesel before it needs winter grades (Associated Press).

What it means for Lodi growers

Analysts expect little change at the pump, so the deal does not change the farm cost estimates below. For scale, every 10-cent drop in pump diesel would cut about $4 to $5 an acre from the vineyard estimate and $2.5 to $3.2 an acre from the custom-harvest almond estimate. The license runs through April 7, 2027, which covers the period when growers set 2027 crop budgets (General License 135).

Harvest at $8.40: San Joaquin County farms

San Joaquin County's 2025 crop report put gross agricultural production at more than $3.35 billion, seventh among California counties (County Agricultural Commissioner). Almonds covered 121,000 bearing acres, grapes 67,800 and walnuts 70,200. Grapes produced 472,000 tons at an average of $575 a ton, and grape acreage fell 18.65% from the year before (2025 Crop Report).

Local prices climbed through harvest

AAA's Stockton–Lodi diesel average rose from $6.99 on Aug. 23 to a record $8.36 on Sept. 20 (Aug. 24 report, Sept. 21 report). A Chevron station in Linden posted diesel at nearly $10 a gallon on Sept. 18 (San Francisco Chronicle).

Stockton–Lodi Diesel Average, Aug. 23 to Sept. 20, 2026

AAA metro averages from weekly B. Mello Ag reports (Aug. 24, Aug. 31, Sept. 14, Sept. 21). Sept. 6 is not shown. The dashed series marks the $8.40 benchmark used below.

Farm diesel used off the road is dyed red and is exempt from the 48.2-cent state and 24.4-cent federal excise taxes, so it runs about 75 cents to $1 below the pump price. Those taxes are fixed per gallon, so nearly all of the $3.26 increase still reaches the farm. California's percentage-based sales tax adds about 42 cents on top of that increase (UC Davis CalAg).

What growers are paying

James Chinchiolo, president of the San Joaquin County Farm Bureau, grows walnuts in Linden and cherries in Lodi. He told the San Francisco Chronicle his farm spent $27,000 on fuel last year and expects about $10,000 more this year. He expects $30,000 to $50,000 more in ripple costs from suppliers, and his walnut-shaking contractor told him its prices were going up nearly 20% (San Francisco Chronicle). The California Farm Bureau asked state leaders for fuel-cost relief on Oct. 2 (California Farm Bureau).

Farm budgets at $8.40 and above

UC Davis cost-and-return studies list the diesel a grower burns per acre and what custom harvesters and haulers charge. The 2021 Lodi winegrape study books 19.45 gallons an acre of grower diesel, $425 an acre for machine harvest and $22 a ton for hauling to the winery (UC Davis Lodi study). CalAg assumes fuel makes up 15% to 20% of custom harvest charges and 25% to 35% of short-haul trucking rates (UC Davis CalAg). The figures below apply those shares at three pump prices, against a year-earlier price of $5.16 a gallon. That baseline reproduces CalAg's $3.26 rise.

At $8.40, a 100-acre Lodi vineyard pays roughly $12,700 to $15,000 more in fuel-related costs, about 3% to 4% of 2025 average gross revenue. For a grower whose fruit has no buyer, nothing offsets that cost.

Almonds take less added fuel cost per acre than grapes, but they start from weaker margins. The 2024 UC Davis almond studies show net returns of minus $4,280 an acre in the Sacramento Valley and minus $5,189 in the southern San Joaquin Valley before this year's spike (UC Davis CalAg). Almond handlers pay growers in installments that run into the following year, while the fuel bill comes due during harvest (UC Davis CalAg).

Added Diesel-Related Cost per Acre, by Crop and Pump Price

Each column spans the low and high estimate; labels show the high end. Modeled from UC Davis cost studies and CalAg fuel shares (CalAg, UC Davis).

The county totals multiply per-acre estimates by bearing acres from the 2025 crop report and assume prices hold for a full crop year (2025 Crop Report). They leave out dairy, cherries, tomatoes and other crops, along with costs that suppliers pass along. CalAg estimated that a full year at current prices would cost California farms about $1.05 billion more than 2025 prices (UC Davis CalAg).

Why the grape market makes it worse

About half of California's wine grape crop entered this harvest without buyer contracts, compared with 70% to 80% under contract in a typical year (Associated Press). Lodi grower Bill Berryhill could not find buyers for grapes from 200 of his 500 acres and plans to pull 50 acres after harvest (Associated Press). Spencer told CBS Sacramento that the Lodi region is down about 30,000 acres from 10 years ago and that this year's crop is “very light” (CBS Sacramento).

A light crop raises fuel cost per ton. A vineyard needs the same tractor passes and harvest runs per acre whether it yields 5 tons or 8 tons. CalAg notes that a crop half the usual size roughly doubles fuel cost per ton (UC Davis CalAg).

Ripple effects across the county

• Custom harvest and hauling: CalAg's fuel shares imply custom harvest rates 10% to 13% higher and hauling rates 16% to 23% higher when costs pass through in full (UC Davis CalAg).
• Trucking: Southern California carriers report record fuel bills squeezing margins (San Bernardino Sun, San Diego Union-Tribune). Carriers that haul for local packers, wineries and fertilizer dealers face the same fuel prices.
• School districts: A Fresno Unified fuel purchase on Sept. 15 cost 80% more than a year earlier, and Madera Unified spent $145,000 more on diesel from March to September (ABC30). Bus fleets and public works crews in San Joaquin County buy the same fuel.
• Farmworkers: Kyle Collins of Allied Grape Growers said the grape downturn reaches field workers, with a “trickle effect in the economy” (Associated Press). Unpicked fruit means fewer hours.
• Sales tax: The $3.26 increase carries about 42 cents more in sales tax per gallon. That money goes to state and local budgets, but local buyers pay it (UC Davis CalAg).

What relief reaches farms

Most federal relief misses the field. Off-road equipment already runs on untaxed dyed diesel, so Executive Order 14435 helps mainly with farm trucks on highways. The order also directs the Agriculture Secretary to work with cooperatives and rural fuel distributors to keep dyed diesel available in high-demand areas (White House). Analysts called the overall benefit limited (Yahoo Finance). The G7 release and the Russian diesel license work on world prices over weeks or months. The governor's Sept. 28 actions focused on gasoline blends and price transparency, not diesel tax relief (Office of the Governor).

What comes next

EIA forecasts that retail diesel will average $5.19 a gallon nationally in 2026 and $4.49 in 2027. It expects the diesel crack spread, the gap between diesel and crude prices, to stay above $2 a gallon through November and then narrow, if tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz returns to normal. EIA also expects Russian refinery outages to affect world markets through the first half of 2027 (EIA). California will likely keep a wider premium because it has less refining capacity than a year ago.

For growers, the 2026 harvest bill is largely set. The next test is the 2027 crop budget, when growers plan pruning, spraying and replanting and lenders review operating lines.

What residents can watch

• Local and state pump prices: AAA California fuel prices, including the Stockton–Lodi metro average.
• Weekly federal prices: EIA Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update. Compare the same survey dates.
• Forecasts: EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook, updated monthly.
• Farm fuel costs: UC Davis CalAg diesel market report.
• Russian diesel license status: Treasury OFAC Russia-related sanctions and general licenses.
• Crop values and acreage: San Joaquin County crop reports.

LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.

This LodiEye energy and agriculture deep dive was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic's Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:

Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval identified the sources behind this report: International Energy Agency and U.S. Energy Information Administration supply, inventory and price data; the UC Davis CalAg September 2026 diesel market report and the 2021 UC Davis Lodi winegrape cost study; the San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner's 2025 crop report; AAA price data, including Stockton–Lodi metro averages compiled weekly by B. Mello Ag Services; the California Energy Commission's June 2026 market update; White House, Treasury and Governor's Office actions, including the text of Treasury's General License 135 and the 2022 Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act; California Air Resources Board diesel standards; and reporting by KCRA 3, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Associated Press, CBS Sacramento, Reuters and others. Perplexity AI was used for initial source discovery and real-time data retrieval; Claude was used for deeper analysis of identified sources.

Credibility Validation: Each figure was checked against its original source before use. Grower accounts were checked against the outlets that reported them, news descriptions of the Russian diesel license were checked against the license text, and the one conflict found is shown in a labeled note in the article, and policy dates were checked against the White House, Treasury and Governor's Office documents. Claims that could not be tied to a verifiable source were removed. Prices are current as of Oct. 11, 2026; county acreage and values describe 2025 production; the vineyard inputs come from a 2021 study. Per-acre and county figures are modeled estimates built on stated assumptions, not reported losses. Multiple AI models were used to independently verify key data points and flag inconsistencies.

Analysis and Synthesis: Claude Opus and Sonnet assisted in separating global supply losses, California refining constraints, renewable diesel pricing and federal policy as distinct causes; converting announced Russian diesel tonnages to barrels and comparing them with recent Russian exports and U.S. use; building the per-acre cost model from UC Davis study inputs and CalAg fuel-share assumptions at $8.40, $9.00 and $10.00 diesel; scaling it to county bearing acreage; and tracing how fuel costs pass through contractors, haulers and public budgets.

Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the price-milestone, policy, Russian-volume and farm-cost tables and the three charts.

Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, logical coherence, and balanced presentation. Throughout the process, the editor sets the report's goals, scope, and tone; creates and shapes draft content; reviews and edits the report; integrates independent fact checks; and reviews the AI cross-checks and validations. Multi-tool cross-checking across independent models and sources is the primary error-reduction mechanism.

Lodi411/LodiEye believes that transparency about how our research is produced — including our use of AI under human direction — strengthens trust with readers and the broader information ecosystem. Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.

References

• International Energy Agency: Oil Market Report, September 2026
• International Energy Agency: Largest-ever oil stock release, March 2026
• U.S. Energy Information Administration: Short-Term Energy Outlook press release, October 2026
• U.S. Energy Information Administration: STEO petroleum products outlook
• U.S. Energy Information Administration: Refinery capacity and West Coast closures
• FleetOwner: U.S. diesel prices hit $6.53
• Reuters: Ban on U.S. diesel exports would hurt, not help, analysts say — Sept. 22, 2026
• Reuters: Russia bans diesel exports — July 8, 2026
• Reuters: Russia set to extend diesel export ban until end of October — Sept. 16, 2026
• El País: Diesel export ban plan and Europe's energy crisis — Sept. 26, 2026
• IRU: Diesel prices surpass previous 2026 records
• Mexico Business News: Proposed U.S. diesel export ban threatens Mexico's fuel supply
• Valor International: U.S. diesel export ban could hit Brazil hard — Sept. 23, 2026
• American Action Forum: A diesel export ban won't solve high fuel prices
• UC Davis CalAg: September 2026 California Diesel Market Report
• UC Davis: 2021 Sample Costs to Produce Winegrapes, Crush District 11 (Lodi)
• AAA: California average fuel prices, Oct. 11, 2026
• San Diego Union-Tribune: Diesel devastation — Oct. 5, 2026
• San Bernardino Sun: Southern California truckers stung by record diesel prices — Sept. 25, 2026
• B. Mello Ag Services: California diesel and fuel prices — Aug. 24, 2026
• B. Mello Ag Services: California diesel and fuel prices — Aug. 31, 2026
• B. Mello Ag Services: California diesel and fuel prices — Sept. 14, 2026
• B. Mello Ag Services: California diesel and fuel prices — Sept. 21, 2026
• San Francisco Chronicle: Soaring diesel prices are hammering California farmers
• KCRA 3: Soaring diesel prices hit San Joaquin County farmers during harvest — Sept. 10, 2026
• California Energy Commission, Division of Petroleum Market Oversight: Gasoline and Diesel Market Update — June 2026
• Aemetis: Second-quarter 2026 earnings call transcript — Aug. 6, 2026
• Argus Media: U.S. run on renewable diesel prompts no new capacity
• Biomass Magazine: EIA reduces forecast for renewable diesel production
• farmdoc daily: Projected biomass-based diesel production and imports, 2026–2027
• Reuters: White House pushes more refinery waivers — Aug. 26, 2026
• USA Today: Small refineries get biofuel blending exemptions — Aug. 31, 2026
• Office of Gov. Gavin Newsom: Actions to help lower prices — Sept. 28, 2026
• Reuters: Trump says he backs idea of a ban on diesel exports — Sept. 22, 2026
• Reuters: Wright says diesel export ban would not work — Sept. 23, 2026
• Reuters: Energy secretary seeks refiners' help — Sept. 24, 2026
• IANS: Trump rules out U.S. diesel export ban — Oct. 3, 2026
• Reuters: G7 to release 100 million barrels through IEA — Oct. 2, 2026
• The White House: Executive Order 14435, Emergency Tax Relief on Diesel Fuel — Oct. 5, 2026
• Yahoo Finance: Dyed diesel action could help farmers, but benefits limited
• CNBC: Trump-Putin Russian diesel arrangement — Oct. 9, 2026
• Politico: Senators demand Trump end Russia diesel deal — Oct. 11, 2026
• NEFI: Jones Act waiver extension
• State News Foundation: Rep. Tim Burchett files two diesel bills
• U.S. Treasury OFAC: General License 135 text — Oct. 9, 2026
• Associated Press: Trump strikes deal with Putin to get diesel — Oct. 9, 2026
• ABC News (Associated Press): Russian diesel unlikely to have much impact on prices, experts say
• KCRA 3: Trump announces deal with Russia in attempt to lower diesel prices
• TASS: Russian government partially lifts diesel export ban — Oct. 10, 2026
• NV: Russian diesel tanker heads toward U.S. as analysts question export capacity — Oct. 11, 2026
• BBC News: Trump announces deal for Russian diesel as Zelensky calls it a 'gift to Putin'
• BBC News: Trump faces growing backlash over plans to import diesel from Russia
• California Energy Commission: FAQ on California gas prices and the impacts of the Iran war
• California Air Resources Board: About the California diesel fuel regulations
• California Energy Commission: Q3 2025 Quarterly Petroleum Supply and Pricing Report
• Argus Media: Americas Base Oils methodology (conversion factors)
• Public Law 117-109: Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act — April 8, 2022
• Politico: Tillis says Trump's Russian diesel deal may be illegal — Oct. 11, 2026
• Morgan Lewis: President signs Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026
• Wood Mackenzie: U.S. considers diesel export restrictions — Sept. 25, 2026
• S&P Global: Goldman Sachs on a U.S. diesel export ban — Sept. 28, 2026
• Investor's Business Daily: How a diesel export ban would affect Europe
• San Joaquin County: 92nd Annual Crop Report release — Sept. 15, 2026
• San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner: 2025 Annual Crop Report
• CBS Sacramento: Lodi wine grape early harvest
• The Mercury News (Associated Press): California wine grape glut — Sept. 22, 2026
• California Farm Bureau: Letter urging fuel cost relief — Oct. 2, 2026
• ABC30: Near-record fuel costs hitting Valley school district budgets

Contact: editor@lodi411.com

Pneumonic Plague: The Siberia Case and California's Own Record

LodiEye — October 2026

A laboratory technician in Siberia died on October 2 of a pneumonia that Russian authorities have not identified, and because she worked at an anti-plague research institute, the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention both opened files on the case. The word plague carries six centuries of weight, and it is worth separating that weight from what the disease actually is now. Plague never left California. It lives in ground squirrels and chipmunks across the Sierra and the coastal ranges, it produces a handful of human cases in the state each decade, and it is curable with antibiotics that have been available since the 1940s. It is also the reason Los Angeles saw the last urban plague epidemic in the United States, in 1924, and the last person-to-person transmission of the disease this country has recorded. San Joaquin County sits outside the zone where plague circulates, and no human case has ever been recorded here.

What the disease is

Plague is caused by Yersinia pestis, a bacterium that lives among wild rodents and the fleas that feed on them. Bubonic, septicemic and pneumonic plague are three forms of one disease, not three diseases. Which form a person gets depends on how the bacteria entered the body.

Bubonic plague follows a flea bite and produces the swollen, painful lymph nodes called buboes. It accounts for more than 80 percent of U.S. cases. Septicemic plague is bloodstream infection, with fever and sepsis. Pneumonic plague is infection of the lungs, and it arrives two ways: by inhaling the bacteria, or when untreated bubonic or septicemic infection spreads into the lungs on its own.

Two things make the lung form the one public health agencies watch. It is the only form that passes from person to person, through respiratory droplets. And it moves quickly, with pneumonia developing within roughly 24 to 36 hours. An influenza-like illness with bloody sputum is the warning sign. Without prompt antibiotics, patients progress to respiratory failure and death, and untreated pneumonic plague is almost always fatal.

Transmission requires close, sustained contact. CDC's clinical guidelines estimate that a person with pneumonic plague will on average infect about one other person. That is a different category of contagion from measles or COVID-19.

In the United States, the most common route to a human pneumonic case is not another person. It is a cat. House cats that hunt in country where plague circulates can bring the infection home, and a sick cat with respiratory symptoms can transmit it by droplet to the person handling it. That is how the most recent U.S. death happened.

How it is treated

Before antibiotics, fatality rates across all forms of plague ran between 66 and 93 percent. Sulfonamide drugs in the 1930s changed that, and patients with pneumonic plague who had been considered beyond help began surviving. The disease has been curable for about eighty years.

CDC published updated treatment guidelines in 2021, replacing recommendations a private working group had issued in 2000. The older guidance offered essentially two first-line drugs. The 2021 version widens the list.

Source: CDC, Antimicrobial Treatment and Prophylaxis of Plague, MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 2021.

Timing governs the outcome. Antibiotics need to start within about 24 hours of the first symptoms, which is why clinicians in endemic areas are instructed to treat on suspicion rather than wait for a laboratory result. The Arizona case described below illustrates what happens when the diagnosis arrives late.

For people who have been exposed, CDC recommends seven days of prophylaxis. Exposure means close contact, under six feet and sustained, with a pneumonic patient or animal, or direct contact with infected fluids or tissues. Pre-exposure prophylaxis is not considered necessary for first responders and health care workers as long as standard and droplet precautions hold. Isolation for a pneumonic case uses negative pressure, droplet precautions and N-95 respirators.

Two limits are worth stating plainly. There is no vaccine of proven effectiveness against primary pneumonic plague. And there is no evidence of meaningful antibiotic resistance among the strains circulating in natural foci.

How often it happens in the United States

The United States averages seven human plague cases a year, with a range from zero to seventeen. Since 2000, about fifteen cases have been fatal. The last decade shows no trend upward or downward.

Plague arrived in this country through San Francisco in 1900, on rat-infested steamships. Early epidemics hit port cities. After the last of them, the bacterium moved from urban rats into rural rodent species and became permanently established across the western states. CDC places current cases in two regions: northern New Mexico, northern Arizona and southern Colorado; and California, southern Oregon and far western Nevada.

The high-water mark of the last decade was 2015, with eleven cases across six states by September and three deaths, two of them tied to exposure at Yosemite National Park. Nothing since has come close.

Sources: CDC, Arizona Department of Health Services, New Mexico Department of Health, El Dorado County Public Health.

The Arizona death is the one that matters for understanding the pneumonic form. A young man died in July 2025, and the diagnosis came only after his death. CDC published the case report on October 1, 2026. He had work-related contact with two sick indoor cats, both showing respiratory symptoms consistent with pneumonic plague. It was Arizona's first pneumonic plague death since 2007, in a state that had reported only eight human plague cases in the twenty-five years from 2000 through 2024.

New Mexico carries the highest rates in the country. State health officials reported in June 2026 that a Santa Fe County woman in her fifties had died, the state's first human case of that year. New Mexico recorded three human cases in 2025 and one fatal case in 2024.

How often it happens worldwide

Global plague incidence has fallen sharply over twenty-five years and has been roughly flat for the last decade. WHO published updated figures on September 29, 2026. Between 2019 and 2025, ten countries reported suspected human plague cases and six reported confirmed cases, for a total of 3,847 suspected cases and 423 deaths. That is a case fatality rate of 11 percent. Most cases came from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Madagascar, where plague remains endemic in some areas.

Average annual reported plague cases worldwide, by period

Calculated from WHO totals: 2,334 cases annually on average from 1999 through 2008; 2,886 cases total across 2013 through 2018; 3,847 suspected cases total across 2019 through 2025. WHO notes that plague also occurs in countries that do not report cases, so these figures reflect surveillance capacity as well as disease activity.

Africa accounts for more than 90 percent of global human plague cases. Peru is the other country where the disease is permanently established, though its numbers are small, roughly 40 cases across the 2013 to 2018 period, the same as the United States over that span.

The annual totals move with individual outbreaks rather than with any underlying trend. One year dominates the last decade.

Reported plague cases by outbreak, 2016 through 2023

Source: WHO African Region plague surveillance. Mad. is Madagascar; DRC is the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Deaths by outbreak, in the same order: 26, 238, 9, 1, 31, 19, 7, 15. The 2017 Madagascar epidemic is the outlier on the chart and the reason the case fatality rate varies so widely between outbreaks.

Madagascar's 2017 epidemic is the relevant one for pneumonic plague. It was urban, and roughly 70 percent of its cases were the pneumonic form, which is unusual. Madagascar's near-annual outbreaks are normally bubonic and rural. WHO recorded 2,348 confirmed, probable and suspected cases with 202 deaths, a case fatality rate of 8.6 percent. The outbreak ran through the capital, spread to Seychelles in one traveler, and was brought under control with antibiotics and contact tracing.

California's record

California has the deepest American record of pneumonic plague, and it is where the last person-to-person transmission in the United States occurred.

The disease entered through San Francisco in 1900. Those first outbreaks involved domestic rats, rat fleas and people. The bacterium then crossed into wild rodents, and was first isolated from native ground squirrels and woodrats in California in 1908. That jump created the permanent reservoir the state still has.

Oakland, 1919

A pneumonic outbreak traced to an index patient who hunted and skinned ground squirrels. Thirteen of the fourteen human cases were fatal.

Los Angeles, 1924

A second pneumonic outbreak, thirty-two cases with thirty-one fatal, running from late September to containment in mid-November. The California Department of Public Health ties it to an outbreak among domestic rats, with infected squirrels found near San Luis Obispo County as late as July of that year pointing to squirrels as the original source. This was the last urban plague epidemic in the United States and the last documented human-to-human plague transmission in the country.

The 1924 outbreak is also a difficult chapter in public health history. It centered on Mexican-American residents of the Macy Street district. The disease was not referred to by name even after city health officers confirmed it, and the response involved physically isolating Hispanic neighborhoods from white ones.

After 1924

California has had no primary pneumonic outbreak since. What it has had is occasional secondary plague pneumonia and a small number of cat-associated cases. In March 1984 a Claremont veterinarian developed bubonic plague with secondary plague pneumonia, the first person since 1924 to acquire plague pneumonia in Los Angeles County. One of his patient cats had symptoms consistent with pneumonic plague. CDC noted at the time that since 1959 four veterinarians and one veterinary assistant had confirmed plague infections, and that a veterinarian in Santa Clara County died.

Where plague lives in California now

The California Department of Public Health's plague compendium is the authoritative statement, and it is specific: plague is found in many foothill and mountainous regions of the state but is absent from the Central Valley and the southeastern desert regions. Since 1970, plague-positive rodents have been found in 34 of California's 58 counties. From 1927 through 2019, 63 human plague cases with exposure in California were reported, almost all of them connected to rodent activity in the wild and most commonly to California ground squirrels.

Recent human cases in the state have all been bubonic and all have survived. Two people were exposed in Yosemite in 2015, the state's first cases since 2006. An El Dorado County resident was infected in 2020, likely in South Lake Tahoe. In August 2025 another South Lake Tahoe resident tested positive, probably from a flea bite while camping.

The state runs animal surveillance every year, and the 2024 results are the most recent published. CDPH reported no human plague cases and no domestic pet cases in 2024. It tested 533 wild rodents and 140 carnivores and feral pigs from 31 counties, and detected plague activity in nine: Alpine, El Dorado, Inyo, Lassen, Mariposa, Mono, Plumas, Sierra and Siskiyou.

Share of California specimens testing positive for plague exposure, 2024

Source: California Department of Public Health, Vector-Borne Disease Section Annual Report 2024. Sample sizes: 533 wild rodents, of which 8 were positive across six counties; 140 carnivores and feral pigs, of which 18 were positive across five counties; 669 fleas collected from wild rodents across nine counties, none positive. Carnivores test positive more often because a coyote or bear that eats infected rodents is exposed repeatedly and survives, which makes them useful sentinels for where the bacterium is active.

San Joaquin County

No human plague case of any form has ever been recorded in San Joaquin County. The documented record here is thin, and that is itself the finding.

A U.S. Public Health Service county-by-county survey from the plague-prevention campaign of the early 1900s states flatly that there is no record of human plague in San Joaquin County. Nothing in the state record since has changed that.

There is one historical rodent finding. During the federal ground-squirrel eradication program, Public Health Reports for the week ending January 14, 1911 recorded plague-infected ground squirrels found on January 4 and January 9 of that year at the Hughes ranch, one mile southwest of Ripon. That appears to be the only plague detection in the county in the primary record. It came during the brief window when infected squirrels were spreading outward from the Bay Area, before the valley foci died out.

The county sits almost entirely on the valley floor, inside the zone CDPH describes as free of plague. San Joaquin County does not appear in the state's 2024 plague testing table; no rodents, carcasses or carnivores from the county were submitted that year. The San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District lists plague among the vector-borne diseases within its mandate, and the district participates in other state surveillance programs. In 2024 it submitted four western blacklegged ticks for Lyme disease testing, and four deer mice have been tested for hantavirus across the 2015 to 2024 window, all negative.

The closest confirmed plague activity in recent years is Mariposa County, in the Yosemite area, roughly 90 miles southeast, and El Dorado County in the Tahoe Basin, roughly 100 miles northeast. Both are foothill and mountain habitat. Calaveras and Tuolumne counties, immediately east, submitted samples to the state in 2024 — ten carnivores from Calaveras, and 97 rodents plus four carnivores from Tuolumne — with no positives reported.

One gap in the public record is worth naming. The CDPH compendium maps the 34 counties with plague-positive rodents since 1970 in a figure rather than a list, and that figure is not reproducible from the document's text. Whether San Joaquin is formally inside or outside the 34-county count is therefore unconfirmed from publicly available material.

What this means for people here

The exposure group is people who hike, camp or hunt in the Sierra foothills and above, not people at home in the valley. California ground squirrels are abundant across San Joaquin County, but abundance is not infection, and the county has no record of Y. pestis in its rodent population in more than a century.

The route that has produced pneumonic cases in California and Arizona is worth knowing for anyone who takes an outdoor cat to the foothills or has one that roams there. A cat that catches and eats an infected rodent can develop pneumonic plague and transmit it to the person caring for it. Standard advice from state and county health departments covers the rest: avoid contact with wild rodents dead or alive, keep pets away from rodent burrows, use flea control, and seek veterinary care promptly for a sick pet after a trip to plague country.

The Siberia case

Darya Shipilova, a 28-year-old laboratory technician at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute of Siberia and the Far East, was hospitalized on September 29 and died early on October 2. The institute's own materials say it was founded in 1934 to combat plague and later expanded to other dangerous diseases including cholera and anthrax.

Rospotrebnadzor, Russia's consumer and public health watchdog, diagnosed her with pneumonia of unknown etiology. It said tests of biological material found no microorganisms linked to her professional activity, and that no accidents involving pathogenic microorganisms had been recorded at the institute. About 200 contacts were placed under medical observation or isolation. Parts of the hospital where she died were cordoned off, more than 60 colleagues remained isolated inside the institute building, and a mask mandate was imposed at the Irkutsk Aluminium Plant in Shelekhov.

Several things have been reported but not confirmed. The independent Russian outlet People of Baikal reported she may have contracted pneumonic plague from a broken test tube while collecting samples, attributed to unnamed sources close to regional security services. Alexei Tsydenov, head of the neighboring republic of Buryatia, posted that she had died of plague, then edited the post to add the word possibly. On October 6 the Daily Mail reported a second unidentified death at an Irkutsk district hospital; that claim has not been independently confirmed and Russian authorities have not acknowledged it.

WHO spokesman Christian Lindmeier told a United Nations briefing there is no indication of anything resembling a pandemic, and noted that the institute studies dangerous pathogens in a part of Siberia where plague occurs naturally in wild animals. Russia has not requested a WHO expert deployment. On October 6, Russian officials told WHO under the International Health Regulations that no case of plague had been recorded in Irkutsk, in her or in anyone else; that roughly 200 contacts had tested negative for dangerous pathogens; and that medical monitoring of contacts had concluded. WHO rates the risk moderate to low for Irkutsk, low for Russia and very low for Europe. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control reported no secondary cases. A U.S. State Department spokesperson said there had been reports of a fatal case of suspected pneumonic plague in Irkutsk oblast, and CDC said it is monitoring reports while the circumstances remain unconfirmed.

What remains unknown is whether she was infected with plague at all, and if she was, whether it came from the lab or from the wild. Irkutsk sits in country where the bacterium circulates naturally in rodents, so a natural infection is not implausible. Lisa Morici, a microbiologist at the Tulane University School of Medicine, has noted that her death may turn out to be unrelated to her workplace entirely. There is no evidence that any strain involved would resist antibiotics, and no evidence that the institute does biological weapons work.

Two things make the case hard to read from outside. Russian officials have been evasive: one authority issued a travel warning for Shelekhov on October 3 and deleted it less than two hours later, and several Russian media reports on the situation have disappeared from news websites. Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan tightened health controls in response.

The most useful signal available is the absence of secondary cases. Pneumonic plague has a short incubation period. More than a week after the death, anyone infected by close contact with her would be showing symptoms. None have been reported.

Sources

• CDC, Antimicrobial Treatment and Prophylaxis of Plague: Recommendations for Naturally Acquired Infections and Bioterrorism Response, MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 2021.
• CDC, Plague: Maps and Statistics.
• CDC, Plague: Clinical Care.
• CDC, Notes from the Field: Fatal Pneumonic Plague — Coconino County, Arizona, July 2025, MMWR, October 1, 2026.
• CDC, Plague Pneumonia — California, MMWR, 1984.
• California Department of Public Health, California Compendium of Plague Control.
• California Department of Public Health, Vector-Borne Disease Section Annual Report 2024.
• El Dorado County, Resident Tests Positive for Plague, August 2025.
• New Mexico Department of Health, New Mexico reports first case of human plague in 2026, June 11, 2026.
• World Health Organization, WHO reports latest global trends in cholera, meningitis and plague, September 29, 2026.
• WHO African Region, Plague in the African Region.
• U.S. Public Health Service, Public Health Reports, Vol. XXVI, February 3, 1911.
• Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Siberian Anti-Plague Institute Staff Isolated After Worker's Death, October 5, 2026.
• PBS NewsHour, How Russia and the world are responding to a possible case of pneumonic plague after lab worker death, October 2026.
• The Conversation, The death of a Russian plague researcher, explained by a microbiologist, October 6, 2026.
• San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District, sjmosquito.org.

LodiEye performs a news-media function for Lodi and San Joaquin County, alongside the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee and CalMatters. It reports on public records, government proceedings and matters of community concern, and publishes that reporting for a general readership.

This report was produced with AI assistance under the editorial direction of the founder. AI systems were used in five capacities.

Source Discovery

Locating primary documents, agency publications and contemporaneous news coverage relevant to the subject, including CDC and WHO publications, California Department of Public Health surveillance reports, and historical Public Health Service records.

Credibility Validation

Checking claims against the originating agency or publication rather than secondary summaries, and separating confirmed facts from reported but unverified claims, particularly in the coverage of the Irkutsk case.

Analysis and Synthesis

Comparing figures across jurisdictions and time periods, calculating rates and averages from published totals, and identifying where the public record is incomplete.

Presentation

Drafting, structuring and charting, including the data visualizations in this report.

Final Review

Verification of figures, sources and framing by the editor before publication.

The AI systems used were Claude, from Anthropic, and Perplexity.

Corrections and additions are welcome. Write to editor@lodi411.com.

Data Centers in California: New State Laws, Local Moratoria, and What They Mean for Lodi and San Joaquin County

LodiEye — October 2026

Summary

Data centers are large buildings filled with computer servers that run cloud services and artificial intelligence. California is building them and restricting them at the same time. The California Energy Commission estimates that data centers now draw about 1,000 megawatts, roughly 2 percent of peak demand on the state’s main power grid, and projects about 4,500 megawatts by 2040. Pacific Gas and Electric says developers have asked it to serve 12.7 gigawatts of new data center load, more than twelve times what operates statewide today, though only a small share of those requests have signed agreements.^[1][2][3]

Cities and counties have responded quickly. Monterey Park, Coachella and Calexico have adopted permanent bans, and Alhambra voters decide on one November 3. Three counties and about twenty cities have adopted urgency moratoria, which are temporary freezes on new approvals that state law allows for 45 days and up to two years with extensions. About a dozen more jurisdictions are drafting restrictions. San Jose, Santa Clara, Pittsburg and Vernon continue to permit and build.^[10]

On September 21, Governor Newsom signed seven laws on data centers. Together they require data centers to pay for the grid upgrades and power supply they need, end the shortcuts that let some projects skip state environmental review, require public reporting of energy and water use, and require water supply studies before approval. Most take effect January 1, 2027.^[4][5]

San Joaquin County has no data center applications and no data centers in its unincorporated areas. On September 1 the Board of Supervisors ordered a six-month study and asked its lawyers whether a temporary moratorium would hold up legally. Lodi has no data center rules. A proposal to place one near the White Slough wastewater plant was raised at the City Council in May and withdrawn by June. Lodi’s electric system is the main physical limit on any future proposal.^[11][16]

Status as of October 6

San Joaquin County has not adopted a moratorium. The county said the board would consider a 45-day moratorium in October, and no vote had been reported as of this writing. Oakland’s City Council and the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors were both scheduled to act on moratoria on October 6.

Where California stands

There is no official count of data centers in California. The Energy Commission says the state has more than 200 active data centers and that it does not keep a tally. Industry and commercial directories list between 287 and 296. The differences come from what is counted. Directories include every listed site, while cities count only the larger facilities that needed specific permits.^[1][7]

Most of the existing facilities are in Silicon Valley. San Jose says it has about 20 active sites of the size that requires a city permit. In August the city’s project list showed eight more under review and three recently approved. Several are sized just under 100 megawatts, the point at which state oversight of backup power plants becomes stricter. San Jose is writing uniform standards for these projects and expects to bring them to its City Council in December.^[8][9]

The clearest measure of developer interest is the list of requests utilities receive for new service. PG&E’s list has moved sharply from quarter to quarter. It is better read as a sign of demand than as a forecast of what will be built. At the end of June, only four projects totaling 490 megawatts, or about 0.5 gigawatts, had signed agreements. PG&E’s chief executive told analysts in July that the company expects to serve 1.8 gigawatts of new data center load by 2030.^[2][3]

PG&E data center service requests, mid-2025 to June 2026

Gigawatts of requested load. One gigawatt is 1,000 megawatts. Source: PG&E filings and Utility Dive.

PG&E argues that new data center load, priced correctly, lowers bills for everyone else by spreading fixed grid costs over more sales. The company says each gigawatt could reduce customer bills by 1 percent or more. That is a company projection. Whether it holds depends on the rates regulators set, which is what several of the new state laws address.^[2]

Bans and moratoria across the state

The local response began in the San Gabriel Valley early this year and spread to the Imperial and Coachella valleys, the Bay Area and the Central Valley. Most of these actions came before any developer had filed an application. Many cities found that their zoning codes had no definition of a data center, which in some places meant one could be approved as an ordinary industrial building.

Monterey Park voters approved a citywide ban on June 2 by a wide margin. Coachella’s council banned large data centers on August 26, and Calexico’s adopted a ban on September 16. Alhambra already bars data centers in its office and industrial zones and has placed Measure DB on the November 3 ballot to extend the ban citywide. In Los Angeles County, the planning director issued a memo on September 17 halting very large data centers in unincorporated areas while a permanent ordinance is written.^[26][27][31]

Local actions on data centers in California, by type

Counts of cities and counties as of early October 2026. Many entries rest on a single tracker maintained by a data center industry vendor and have not each been checked against city records.

Not every local government has moved to restrict. Tulare County adopted its moratorium on a 4–1 vote, with one supervisor favoring case-by-case review. San Jose continues to seek projects, and Pittsburg approved a 99-megawatt data center in 2024 that is going forward under a legal settlement described below.^[29][23]

The seven state laws

The package signed on September 21 reversed the state’s position from a year earlier, when the governor vetoed a water-reporting bill and signed only a study of whether data centers shift costs to other ratepayers. That study is due from the California Public Utilities Commission on January 1, 2027.^[7]

What each law does

Source: Governor’s office, Mayer Brown and CalMatters.^[4][5][6][7]

The legislative session ended August 31, so no further state bills are pending this year. No lawsuit against the new laws has been reported. Attorneys who advise the industry expect challenges to specific provisions. In Congress, the House passed a bill on September 16 that asks state regulators to consider making large data centers pay the full cost of the power and grid capacity they add. It does not require them to do so, and it is now in the Senate.^[5][25]

What the courts have decided

The most important rulings so far come from Imperial County, where a developer proposed a campus of about 950,000 square feet and 330 megawatts near the City of Imperial. The county approved an early step, the merging of parcels, without a new environmental study. The City of Imperial and the Sierra Club sued.

On September 9, Judge Brooks Anderholt overturned that approval. He found that the county should have completed environmental review of the whole project before approving any part of it, and ordered a full environmental impact report before grading or construction. The developer has said he will appeal.^[20]

A second ruling went the other way. Imperial County had adopted its own moratorium in June. On August 21, Judge Jeffrey Jones ordered the county to set it aside. State law allows an urgency moratorium only when there is a current and immediate threat to public health, safety or welfare, and the judge found the county’s written findings did not show one. The county has said it is preparing a replacement.^[21][22]

The same developer has two other cases pending: a federal civil rights suit against the City of Imperial and several of its officials, and a suit against the Imperial Irrigation District over its refusal to supply water. Neither has produced a ruling.

In Contra Costa County, the Center for Biological Diversity sued Pittsburg over its 2024 approval of a 99-megawatt data center. The case settled in December 2025. The developer agreed to use 100 percent renewable electricity apart from backup generators, to cool with recycled water, to install solar panels and to pay $750,000 into a climate resiliency fund. In return, the group agreed not to oppose the first phase.^[23][24]

San Joaquin County

The county says it has no active data center applications and no data centers operating in its unincorporated areas, and that its code has no rules written for them. Supervisor Robert Rickman, whose district includes Ripon, Tracy, Mountain House and rural south Manteca, brought the issue to the board. On September 1 the supervisors voted 5–0 to have the Community Development Department study the effects of large data centers on water, electricity, farmland, public safety and county finances. The department asked for six months.^[11][13][15]

The board also asked County Counsel whether an urgency moratorium could be legally supported, and to return with one if so. Accounts of that vote differ. The county’s own announcement and Stocktonia both say no moratorium was adopted and that the board would consider one in October. The Lodi News-Sentinel reported that a 45-day moratorium was approved. The county’s announcement is the official record of the action.^[11][12][14]

Anything the county adopts would apply only outside city limits. Each city decides for itself. Stockton’s City Council voted 7–0 the same day to remove data centers from its economic development plan while it holds listening sessions in each district. That vote did not ban data centers or pause them. Stockton already has one, a floating facility on a barge at the Port of Stockton that employs ten people. No data center rules or applications were found in Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon, Escalon or Mountain House.^[12]

San Joaquin County and its neighbors

Source: county and city announcements, local news reports and the SAVRN tracker.^{[10][11][12][28]}

With restrictions in place or pending on several sides of the county, developers looking for sites without them may turn to cities here that have large industrial areas and no data center rules. That is a possibility. No applicant has announced such a plan.

Lodi

The Lodi City Council discussed data centers on May 6. Councilmember Cameron Bregman raised the idea of siting one on city-owned land near the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility and said it could bring the city up to $20 million a year. Mayor Ramon Yepez opposed a very large data center for Lodi, and Councilmember Lisa Craig-Hensley described the idea as a low priority. Electric Utility Director Jeff Berkheimer told the council that the distribution system needed to serve a data center at that location does not exist today. By June, after public opposition, Bregman had withdrawn the idea.^[16][17][30]

Lodi has no ordinance on data centers and no moratorium. The subject has come up again in this year’s City Council campaign ahead of the November 3 election.^[30]

The limit set by the power lines

Lodi Electric Utility is owned by the city and buys much of its power through the Northern California Power Agency. Its power arrives over PG&E transmission lines, and those lines can deliver only so much. According to PG&E’s application for the Northern San Joaquin 230 kV Transmission Project, the existing lines can serve about 180 megawatts of local load, and the project would raise that to about 420 megawatts. The Public Utilities Commission approved the project in July. Construction is expected to start in 2028, with the line in service in 2031.^[18][19]

Lodi’s power import limit compared with one data center

Megawatts. A 99-megawatt data center is the size approved in Pittsburg and common among San Jose proposals. Import limits are from PG&E’s project application.

A single data center of 99 megawatts would equal more than half of what the lines can deliver today, before counting the homes and businesses Lodi already serves. Until the new line is in service, a project of that size could not be served. After 2031 the question becomes one of policy and price.

What the state laws change in Lodi

Beginning January 1, 2027, any data center proposed in Lodi would need at least an initial environmental study, even on land where zoning would otherwise allow it outright. The applicant would have to tell the city how much power the project would use and how much noise it would make. Because the city is also the water supplier, the water-use estimates required before a business license would come to City Hall as well. From 2028, the project would need a water supply assessment paid for by the applicant.^[5][6]

The rate laws are different. SB 886 and AB 2383 work through the Public Utilities Commission, which regulates PG&E and other investor-owned utilities. Lodi Electric Utility is not regulated by the commission. Its rates are set by the City Council. Based on published summaries of the laws, protections that keep a data center’s costs off other customers’ bills would have to be written locally in Lodi. The bill text should be read to confirm whether any provision reaches city-owned utilities.^[5][18]

What the Imperial County ruling means for a local moratorium

The ruling against Imperial County’s moratorium turned on its written findings. Public concern about a project was not enough to show an immediate threat. If the county or a city here adopts a moratorium, findings tied to specific local evidence would be easier to defend. Examples include groundwater conditions, Delta water supply, or a documented limit on the power system such as Lodi’s. Dixon and Brawley both defined a data center by size in megawatts and square feet, which gives an ordinance a clear boundary.^[21][28]

The arguments on each side

The Data Center Coalition, the industry’s trade group, says it shares the goal of responsible growth and warns that heavy regulation could send investment to other states. It cites its own commissioned figures showing several hundred thousand California jobs tied to the industry. Cities that welcome data centers point to tax revenue. San Jose estimates $7.5 million to $8.4 million a year in utility tax for every 100 megawatts of load.^[7][8]

Opponents point to water use, diesel backup generators, noise, and the risk that other customers end up paying for grid upgrades. They also note that a finished data center employs few people. The Stockton facility has ten workers. Environmental groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity have used lawsuits to win conditions on projects, and the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability opposes data centers anywhere in the San Joaquin Valley.^[12][24]

Lawmakers who wrote the new laws say local bans and public opposition changed what was possible in Sacramento. Some supporters say the laws should have gone further.^[7]

Dates to watch

• October 2026: The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors may consider a 45-day moratorium. Moratoria in Calaveras County (October 9) and Riverbank (October 13) expire unless extended.
• November 3, 2026: Alhambra votes on Measure DB. Lodi holds its City Council election.
• December 2026: San Jose’s data center standards go to its City Council.
• January 1, 2027: Most of the seven state laws take effect. The Public Utilities Commission’s study of cost shifting is due.
• Early March 2027: The county’s six-month study period ends.
• January 1, 2028: New data center electric rates are due. Water supply assessments become mandatory.
• 2031: The Northern San Joaquin 230 kV line is scheduled to enter service.

What remains unknown

• Whether San Joaquin County will adopt a moratorium, and what evidence its findings would cite.
• The outcome of the October 6 votes in Oakland and Mendocino County.
• Whether the state’s new rate requirements reach city-owned utilities such as Lodi Electric Utility in any form.
• Whether any developer has approached Lodi, Stockton or other cities in the county since the May discussion.
• The accuracy of local entries that rest only on the industry tracker, including a reported ban in Irwindale that could not be confirmed.
• Whether the developer in Imperial County files an appeal, and how other courts treat moratoria adopted elsewhere.
• How the Public Utilities Commission will design the new rates, which will decide whether data centers lower or raise other customers’ bills in PG&E territory.

LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.

This LodiEye report was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic’s Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:

Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval identified the public record on data centers in California: the Energy Commission’s data center page, PG&E’s quarterly filing, the Governor’s signing announcement, the Public Utilities Commission’s project page for the Northern San Joaquin 230 kV line, county and city announcements, court coverage from Imperial County, and reporting by CalMatters, KQED, KPBS, Stocktonia, the Lodi News-Sentinel and others.

Credibility Validation: Official records were preferred over secondary accounts. Where sources disagreed, as with the September 1 county vote, the disagreement is stated and the official record is identified. Entries that rest only on an industry-maintained tracker are labeled as such. Figures commissioned by the industry are identified as industry figures.

Analysis and Synthesis: AI tools helped connect the statewide laws and court rulings to conditions in San Joaquin County and Lodi, including the limit on Lodi’s power imports and the difference between utilities regulated by the state and a city-owned utility.

Presentation: AI tools assisted with drafting, the tables, the three charts and the HTML layout of this page.

Final Review: The founder reviewed the report for accuracy, tone and local relevance before publication.

Lodi411 describes its methods so readers can judge the work for themselves. Corrections and clarifications are welcome at editor@lodi411.com.

References

1. Primary California Energy Commission — Data Centers.
2. Primary PG&E Corporation — Second-quarter 2026 results, filed with the SEC.
3. News Utility Dive — PG&E says it has 12.7 GW in data center pipeline.
4. Primary Office of the Governor — Data center laws signing announcement, Sept. 21, 2026.
5. Legal analysis Mayer Brown — California’s data center laws, September 2026.
6. Legal analysis Mondaq — California enacts seven data center bills.
7. News CalMatters — Newsom clamps down on California data centers, September 2026.
8. Primary City of San Jose Office of Economic Development — Data centers and large energy project uniform standards.
9. News KQED — San José weighs data center benefits as residents raise environmental concerns.
10. Industry tracker SAVRN — California data center moratorium tracker.
11. Primary local San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors — Announcement on large-scale AI data centers, Sept. 2, 2026.
12. Local news Stocktonia — Stockton residents push back on data centers, Sept. 2, 2026.
13. Meeting summary CitizenPortal — San Joaquin supervisors order six-month study.
14. Local news Lodi News-Sentinel — San Joaquin County puts data centers on hold.
15. Local news Manteca Bulletin — Rickman seeks temporary moratorium on data centers.
16. Local news Lodi News-Sentinel — The data debate powers up in Lodi.
17. Meeting summary CitizenPortal — Lodi council opens preliminary discussion on data centers.
18. Primary California Public Utilities Commission — Northern San Joaquin 230 kV Transmission Project, Decision 26-07-042.
19. Local news Lodi News-Sentinel — Lodi transmission upgrade gets green light.
20. News KPBS — Court overturns approval of Imperial County data center, Sept. 9, 2026.
21. Local news The Desert Review — Imperial County reviews next steps after court sets aside moratorium.
22. Primary Imperial County — Update on data center moratorium, August 2026.
23. Primary City of Pittsburg — AVAIO data center settlement agreement.
24. Advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity — Pittsburg settlement announcement, Dec. 16, 2025.
25. News Utility Dive — House passes ratepayer protection bill.
26. News LAist — Alhambra adds data center ban measure to November ballot.
27. News LA Public Press — Monterey Park votes to ban data centers, June 2026.
28. Local news FOX40 — Dixon City Council imposes 45-day moratorium on new data centers.
29. Local news Valley Voice — Agencies take action after outcry against data center construction.
30. Local news Lodi News-Sentinel via Yahoo News — Bregman backtracks on data centers.
31. Local news Los Cerritos News — Los Angeles County moves to ban large AI data centers in unincorporated areas.

Lodi City Council — Regular Meeting

Wednesday, October 7, 2026 — Closed Session 6:15 p.m. | Regular Session 7:00 p.m.

Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Mayor Ramon Yepez | Mayor Pro Tempore Mikey Hothi | Councilmembers Cameron Bregman, Lisa Craig-Hensley, Alan Nakanishi

Summary

The Council’s only public hearing Wednesday would start the formal annexation of about 96.1 acres on Lodi’s west side, between West Vine Street and Kettleman Lane, west of Lower Sacramento Road. Applicant Dobbins Properties is asking the Council to pre-zone the land for homes, commercial uses, a mixed-use corridor along Kettleman, and a 10-acre public facility site that includes a 2-acre fire station reservation, then send the request to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the county board that approves city boundary changes. The packet says staff corrected the acreage figures to 96.1 acres and 19.91 mixed-use acres, but the pre-zoning map printed in the packet still shows the old 95.3-acre breakdown, and the Planning Commission resolution listed as Attachment 6 is missing from the packet.

The Regular Calendar and Ordinances sections are empty. Everything else sits on the Consent Calendar, which the Council approves with one vote unless someone pulls an item. That calendar holds eight sets of minutes reaching back to January 2025, a 180% increase to a planning consultant contract three months into its term, a $240,543 sole-source library software contract, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) purchasing rules, an after-the-fact extension of an expired transit advertising contract, and the Electric Utility’s year-end financial report.

The Electric Utility finished FY 2025/26 with $47.6 million in cash, 160% of its reserve target, but spent about $684,000 more than it took in. Its forecast reserve falls to 119% of target by FY 2029/30 as spending on the 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission connection ramps up, and it assumes 2% rate increases in FY 2029, 2030, and 2031.

The Council meets in closed session at 6:15 p.m. for the City Manager’s initial performance review and two lawsuits filed by former City Manager Scott R. Carney.

Meeting Details

Date and Time: Wednesday, October 7, 2026. Closed session 6:15 p.m.; invocation 6:55 p.m.; regular session no sooner than 7:00 p.m.

Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Remote Viewing and Comment: Zoom webinar ID 821 7418 0304, passcode 123456; phone 1 253 215 8782 or 1 346 248 7799. The meeting also streams on the City’s YouTube channel (@cityoflodi_publicmeetings) and SJTV Channel 26.

Written Comment: Email councilcomments@lodi.gov, mail to City Clerk’s Office, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241, or hand-deliver to 221 West Pine Street. Email and hand-delivered comments must arrive at least two hours before the meeting. Written comments go to the Council and into the minutes but are not read aloud.

Public Comment Limits: Five minutes per speaker on non-agenda items, one appearance per person. The Council cannot act on items not on the agenda (Government Code §54954.2).

Interim City Clerk: Elizabeth Haglund. The agenda’s interpreter-request contact is still listed as Olivia Nashed, (209) 333-6702.

Agenda

Closed Session (6:15 p.m.)

• C-2(a) Public employee performance evaluation, Government Code §54957(b): initial review of the City Manager.
• C-2(b) Existing litigation, §54956.9(d)(1): Scott R. Carney v. City of Lodi, San Joaquin County Superior Court No. STK-CV-UWM-2026-0003828.
• C-2(c) Existing litigation: Scott R. Carney v. City of Lodi, No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0044713.

Closed session lets the Council discuss personnel and litigation privately under the Brown Act, California’s open-meetings law. Any reportable action is announced at C-4 when the Council returns to open session.

B. Presentations

B.1 Public Power Week, October 11-17, 2026. Mayor Pro Tempore Hothi presents the proclamation; Electric Utility Administrative Assistant Paige Valim accepts. The American Public Power Association (APPA) theme this year is “Your Community. Your Utility. Your Power.” Lodi Electric Utility (LEU), a city-owned utility serving Lodi since 1910, holds its 30th annual open house on October 15.

B.2 Fire Prevention Week, October 4-10, 2026. Councilmember Craig-Hensley presents. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) theme, “Charge into Fire Safety. Safe Charging Is a Superpower,” focuses on lithium-ion batteries in phones, e-bikes, and scooters. The staff report misspells the presenter as “Craig-Henley,” and the proclamation’s signature date is blank.

C. Consent Calendar

• C.1 Approve eight sets of minutes: January 30, 2025; May 28, 2025; June 3, 2025; June 18, 2025; August 27, 2025; January 28, 2026; July 28, 2026; September 2, 2026
• C.2 BKF Engineers Amendment No. 1, on-call neighborhood and planning services, +$144,000 to $224,000 (Community Development)
• C.3 Purchasing Policy revisions adding FTA procurement requirements (Budget)
• C.4 Sole-source agreement with Civica North America for the Spydus library system, $240,542.96, and $130,660 appropriation (Library)
• C.5 Revised improvement agreement, Blayke-Maisyn Estates, Tract 4163 (Public Works)
• C.6 Addendum No. 1 with San Joaquin County for the Sunnyside water line interconnect (Public Works)
• C.7 LCTOP certifications and authorized agent forms, Free Student Fares (Public Works)
• C.8 Vacate excess Pleasant Avenue right-of-way next to 228 First Street, keeping a utility easement (Public Works)
• C.9 Extend the Valley Outdoor Advertising transit ad agreement through December 31, 2026 (Public Works)
• C.10 Electric Utility FY 2025/26 quarterly financial update, Q3 and Q4 (Electric Utility)

D–E. Public and Council Comments on Non-Agenda Items

F. Public Hearings

F.1 Westside “F” Annexation (PL2024-023 A): resolution to file with LAFCO and detach from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District; introduce an ordinance pre-zoning 9.2 acres General Commercial (GC), 19.91 acres Mixed Use Corridor (MCO), 10 acres Public and Community Facilities (PF), 49.8 acres Residential Low Density (RLD), and 7.2 acres Residential Medium Density (RMD). CEQA determination: Guidelines §15183.

G. Regular Calendar — no items | H. Ordinances — no items | I. Adjournment

The September 2 Council set an October 7 public hearing on the agricultural mitigation fee, parkland, planned development overlay, boundary change, and Williamson Act code amendments. That ordinance does not appear on this agenda, even though F.1 depends on the Williamson Act procedures it would create.

C.1 — Minutes

The Council is still clearing a minutes backlog. On September 2 it approved 26 sets at once; this week’s batch includes minutes 20 months old. Approved minutes become the official record of what the Council decided, so the older sets matter for the Carney litigation, the Access Center, and budget history.

a) January 30, 2025 — Special Joint Meeting with Boards and Commissions

The Council met with members of City boards and commissions from 4:04 to 5:21 p.m. for training by attorney Michael Colantuono on running public meetings: agendas, public comment, decorum, and handling disruptions. The training was informational; no action was taken. The minutes list only then-Mayor Pro Tempore Yepez among Councilmembers present.

b) May 28, 2025 — Special Meeting, FY 2025/26 Budget

Budget staff, led by Jennelle Baker, walked through the enterprise, special revenue, and capital budgets for FY 2025/26. Staff reported the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) had put the Hydrogen Hub project on hold and the Electric Utility had lost a key account. Discussion covered transit, street funding, Harney Lane, and money for homeless services and the Access Center. The Council agreed to redirect a $745,000 skate park appropriation from 2023 to urgent park maintenance while Kofu Skate Park is repaired, discussed cricket fields, and expected a July budget amendment for unallocated capital. A closed session on labor negotiations produced no reportable action. Councilmember Nakanishi arrived at 4:24 p.m.; Councilmember Yepez was absent.

c) June 3, 2025 — Special Meeting, Growth Planning

Staff presented growth options within the Sphere of Influence (SOI, the area LAFCO expects Lodi to eventually serve) and the General Plan update. Discussion noted a 15-year gap since the last Municipal Service Review. Mayor Pro Tempore Hothi relayed developer complaints and asked for monthly meetings with builders. Councilmember Craig-Hensley raised Harney Lane and Highway 99 Measure K funding. Speakers included Greg Costa, Zahd Khan, and Mike Carouba. No action was taken. Councilmember Yepez was absent.

d) June 18, 2025 — Regular Meeting

Closed session. The Council discussed an April 12, 2025 email from the attorney for then-City Manager Scott Carney asserting whistleblower and retaliation claims and requesting a litigation hold, plus the Acting City Manager’s evaluation. No reportable action.

Consent calendar, 4-0 (Nakanishi absent), Resolutions 2025-91 through 2025-104, including:

• ClearGov budget software, three years, $107,955
• 2025 Wildfire Mitigation Plan
• Tree Lodi Residential Shade Tree Program, $233,205 (Resolution 2025-94)
• Backup generators at the Holt facility, $642,600.84; Quest jail intercom, $140,000
• Multi-way stop at Century Boulevard and Scarborough Drive; Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA, state gas-tax) paving; Measure K bicycle claim; $250,000 striping
• SB 1383 biomass memorandum of agreement (state organic-waste law)
• Release of the February 2025 draft internal controls report, waiving the draft-record exemption in Government Code §7927.500
• Set July 16 hearings on the wastewater ENR (construction-cost index) adjustment, the General Plan Subsequent EIR, and the 8.81-acre Maverik annexation

The Antonio Amador Measure L committee appointment was pulled.

Public hearings: CDBG 2025/26 Action Plan (Resolution 2025-105; Community Development Block Grant, the federal housing and neighborhood grant); Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District 2003-1 levy (2025-106); Police military equipment use policy required by AB 481 (2025-107).

Regular calendar: After an Access Center update, the Council repealed Resolution 2023-204, which had authorized a request for proposals for Access Center operations, so the City could partner with San Joaquin County (Resolution 2025-108). It gave the Lodi Chamber of Commerce $35,000 toward forming a downtown Property-Based Business Improvement District (PBID), with reporting but no repayment required, 3-0 with Hothi recused as a downtown business owner (Resolution 2025-109). Staff updated the Council on Turner Road traffic after complaints from residents near Vintage Church. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

e) August 27, 2025 — Special Closed Session

The Council met on anticipated litigation involving Scott Carney. Adam Lindgren of Meyers Nave reported the Council gave direction to counsel.

f) January 28, 2026 — Special Meeting, Strategic Vision and Protocol Manual (Kirst Hall)

The Council reviewed its Strategic Vision priorities: fiscal health, infrastructure, parks, public safety, economic development, downtown, housing, public well-being, and future financial needs. On the Protocol Manual, the Council directed staff to have the Mayor Pro Tempore become the next Mayor, rotate the offices by district, allow a 4/5 vote to override the rotation, require one year of Council service before serving as Mayor, and have the Mayor Pro Tempore mentored by the Mayor. Staff also reviewed SB 707, the 2025 Brown Act update: remote public comment by Zoom since January 1, 2026 and a meeting-disruption policy due by July 1, 2026. Adjourned 3:46 p.m.

g) July 28, 2026 — Special Closed Session

City Attorney recruitment, 9:07 a.m. to 12:42 p.m. No reportable action. Councilmember Nakanishi absent. City Manager Kara Reddig and Interim City Attorney Luebberke attended.

h) September 2, 2026 — Regular Meeting

Closed session (Bennitt, both Carney cases, Leatham, Interim City Clerk recruitment): no reportable action.

Consent, 5-0, approved 26 sets of minutes and:

• Set an October 7 hearing on the agricultural mitigation, parkland, and Williamson Act code ordinance after Building Industry Association CEO John Beckman asked that it be pulled; City Manager Reddig suggested a workshop first
• Set the October 7 annexation hearing (described then as 95.3 acres with 19.1 mixed-use acres), 4-0 with Bregman recused
• Resolution 2026-183 temporarily delegating Interim City Clerk authority to the City Manager after Walfred Solorzano’s September 17 departure
• Resolution 2026-184, Transportation Development Act (TDA) claim: $2,071,203 Local Transportation Fund and $61,987 State Transit Assistance
• Accepted mold abatement at 2 North Sacramento Street
• Resolution 2026-185, Division 1 construction management Amendment 3 for the animal shelter (Bregman recused)

Public comment covered human trafficking awareness, a concern about automated license plate readers (Nathaniel Atherstone), an unpermitted structure on Jamestown Court, and Randy Stewart’s petition for a charter with an elected strong mayor. Staff reported $2 million in state funding for the Fire Department secured through Assemblymember Heath Flora.

Actions: CDBG year-end performance report (CAPER, Resolution 2026-186); appointed Christina Castro Public Works Director effective October 5, 2026 (2026-187); rebid fire alarm monitoring, not to exceed $360,000 (2026-188); adopted Ordinance 2049 amending the CalPERS contract, 5-0. The Council adjourned in memory of Marybeth Jansen Bradford.

Open Issues to Watch — C.1

• Backlog. Minutes from January 2025 are only now coming forward. Lodi has no posted standard for how quickly minutes must follow a meeting.
• The October 7 code hearing is missing. The September 2 minutes set an October 7 hearing on the agricultural mitigation and Williamson Act ordinance. It is not on this agenda, and no continuance notice appears in the packet.
• Typos in the official record. The June 18, 2025 minutes print a resolution number as “20255-102.” Corrections should be made before approval.
• Carney record. The June 18, 2025 and August 27, 2025 minutes record the first closed sessions on the Carney claims; both lawsuits return to closed session this week.

C.2 — BKF Engineers On-Call Planning Contract

Community Development picked BKF Engineers from a pool of firms qualified through a Request for Qualifications. The contract began July 1, 2026 at $80,000, exactly the City Manager’s signing authority, so it never went to the Council. Three months in, staff asks to add $144,000, a 180% increase, for a total not to exceed $224,000.

BKF fills in after the departure of the Neighborhood Services Manager, who ran the City’s federal, state, and local housing grant programs, including CDBG. It also helps manage the Planning Division, because the Deputy Director/City Planner served as Interim Community Development Director for about seven months. A new Community Development Director has since been appointed. Staff cites long-range planning, Development Code amendments, annexations, and current applications. Funding comes from account 27082000.72450.

Open Issues to Watch — C.2

• Contract sized to avoid Council review. An $80,000 starting amount that matches the City Manager’s limit, followed by a 180% increase within one quarter, suggests the need was known in July.
• No hours, rates, or end date. The packet does not show BKF’s hourly rates, how much of the $80,000 is spent, or how long $224,000 is expected to last.
• Grant compliance. If BKF staff administer CDBG, the City should say who signs federal grant reports while the manager position is vacant.

C.3 — Purchasing Policy: Federal Transit Rules

An FTA audit of Lodi’s transit program found the City’s Purchasing Policy, last revised July 1, 2026, did not spell out federal procurement rules. Any purchase paid with FTA money, such as GrapeLine buses, must follow them. The revisions add:

• Rolling stock rules for buses and vans, including Buy America pre-award and post-delivery reviews: more than 70% of component cost must be domestic and final assembly must occur in the U.S.
• A statement that cooperative purchasing (buying off another agency’s contract) does not waive federal checks.
• An Independent Cost Estimate (ICE), the City’s own estimate prepared before bids arrive, and cost or price analysis above the federal Simplified Acquisition Threshold.
• A Federal Clauses Checklist and SAM.gov checks that a vendor is not suspended or debarred from federal work.

Local thresholds stay the same: City Manager authority $80,000, department directors $40,000, adjusted yearly by the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index; public works up to $75,000 by purchase order, $75,000-$220,000 informal bids, over $220,000 formal bids.

Open Issues to Watch — C.3

• Outdated federal threshold. The policy states the Simplified Acquisition Threshold as $150,000. The federal figure rose to $250,000 in 2018 and to $350,000 on October 1, 2025, per the Federal Acquisition Regulation threshold table. Federal rules let a city set a lower threshold, but the policy presents $150,000 as the federal number.
• Old section numbers. The policy cites 2 CFR 200.318-200.326 using numbering from before the 2024 rewrite of the federal grant rules. Cost and price analysis now sits at 2 CFR 200.324; the policy cites 200.323.
• Undated. The draft’s revision date reads “October XX, 2026.” Fixing these points before adoption avoids a repeat audit finding.

C.4 — Spydus Library System, Sole Source

The Lodi Public Library would replace its TLC integrated library system, the software behind its catalog, checkouts, holds, and patron accounts, with Civica’s cloud-hosted Spydus. The contract covers data migration, training, hosting, backups, security monitoring, support, and two professional service days a year. Staff asks to appropriate $130,660 from Library fund balance built up through FY 2025/26 vacancy and operating savings (account 12090000.72450).

Subscription costs rise 3% a year. FY 2026/27 cost: $130,660 (implementation plus Year 1).

Open Issues to Watch — C.4

• Three years or five? The staff report and resolution call this a five-year, $240,542.96 agreement. Section 2.6 of the contract runs October 31, 2026 to October 31, 2029, three years, with one two-year option. Section 4.17 says the agreement controls over its exhibits, so Years 4 and 5 pricing is not locked in unless the City exercises the option.
• The vendor wrote the sole-source justification. The justification letter is signed by Civica’s Vice President of Sales, dated October 1, 2026, and speaks in the first person about “our requirements.” It names no competing systems the Library evaluated.
• Getting the data out. The contract has no specific exit clause for exporting catalog and patron records in a standard format if the City leaves Civica, beyond the general 10-day document delivery in Section 4.19.
• Liability limits. Civica’s liability is capped at 150% of the prior 12 months of charges, and data-breach liability at $2 million.
• Template details. The pricing proposal says “ex GST,” an Australian sales-tax term; support hours are 8 a.m.-5 p.m. Eastern; exhibit letters don’t match the agreement’s references; the agenda title reads “(240,543)” without a dollar sign.

C.5 — Blayke-Maisyn Estates, Tract 4163

This five-lot subdivision, plus a remainder parcel, sits on the east side of Lower Sacramento Road between Tejon Street and Yosemite Drive (APN 029-060-66). The Council approved the final map August 20, 2025. The developer, the Shah Family Revocable Trust, needs a revised improvement agreement, the contract that guarantees streets, utilities, and frontage get built. The revision adds Dalbir Johal as a second-party guarantor backing the surety bonds and adds the developer’s contractor for insurance purposes. Security stays at $184,400 performance bond and $184,400 labor and materials bond, with 365 days to finish. The lots are annexed into Community Facilities District (CFD) 2007-1, CFD 2007-1 (Public Services), which charges new development an annual special tax to help pay for City services.

Open Issues to Watch — C.5

• The contractor’s name is blank in the agreement.
• Exhibits C (billing) and D (insurance), which the agreement references, are not in the packet.

C.6 — Sunnyside Water Line Interconnect

Sunnyside Estates is a 21-lot county subdivision north of Harney Lane and east of Lower Sacramento Road. Its water system is run by San Joaquin County through the Sunnyside Water and Street Lighting Maintenance District. In 2000 the City agreed to supply Sunnyside with Lodi water through a 10-inch line, under agreement A-00-918 (Council authorization October 20, 1999; signed October 17, 2000). A 40-year U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service loan and grant paid for the County’s system, and the agreement stays in force while that loan is outstanding.

Addendum No. 1 has the County replace about 1,600 feet of aging main and build a new 8-inch line to the City’s 8-inch main in Tehama Drive. A second connection “loops” the system so water can reach a hydrant from two directions, improving fire flow and keeping homes in service during a break. The County pays all costs, finishes within one year, pays a $6,760 fee for a 6-inch meter, and keeps paying outside-city water rates. Sunnyside’s original wells have been destroyed, so the neighborhood depends entirely on Lodi water.

Open Issues to Watch — C.6

• Outdated City signature block. The addendum misspells the City Manager as “Kara Redding,” lists Olivia Nashed as City Clerk, and lists Sean Nathan as Interim Public Works Director, though Christina Castro became Director October 5. The County signed in September.

C.7 — Free Student Fares, LCTOP Grant

The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is a state program, administered by Caltrans, that spends cap-and-trade money on transit service that cuts greenhouse gases. Lodi uses it to pay for free GrapeLine rides for K-12 students, a program in place since 2019. Students took 97,539 trips in 2025. The FY 2025/26 allocation covers the program through November 2028 and requires no local match. Staff estimates it replaces 136 to 271 car trips a day.

The authorized-agent form names City Manager Kara Reddig, Interim Public Works Director Sean Nathan, and Transportation Manager Julia Tyack. The Caltrans certifications require a dedicated bank account within 30 days of receiving funds, annual activity reports each October 30, a closeout report, and greenhouse-gas reporting under state Air Resources Board guidelines.

Open Issues to Watch — C.7

• The form names Sean Nathan as Interim Public Works Director, a title that changed October 5.
• The October 30 annual report is due three weeks after this vote.

C.8 — Pleasant Avenue Right-of-Way, 228 First Street

Pleasant Avenue’s right-of-way is 70 feet wide, but the street and sidewalk use less than that. Property owner Eric Peters asked the City to give up a 16.6-foot strip, 1,616 square feet, behind the sidewalk next to his parcel at 228 First Street. The City would keep a public utility easement (PUE) over the strip for existing overhead lines and future utilities. The street dates to the 1887 Burr’s Addition map; the City vacated nearby pieces in 1909 and 1957. Staff uses the summary vacation procedure in Streets and Highways Code §8334 and §8334.5, which lets a council vacate excess right-of-way without a public hearing. No fiscal impact.

C.9 — Transit Advertising Contract Extension

Valley Outdoor Advertising sells ads on GrapeLine buses and the City’s 11 bus shelters and pays the City the greater of a revenue share (46% this year) or a minimum annual guarantee (MAG) of $50,000, paid monthly at $4,166.67. The agreement expired September 30, 2026. Amendment No. 2 would extend it through December 31, 2026 on the same terms while the City finishes a new procurement: proposals due October 9, Council award December 2, new contract January 1, 2027. Revenue goes to account 60000000.57321.

Projection column applies the revenue-share percentages in Valley Outdoor’s 2021 proposal to the gross revenue in its own “Estimated Five-Year Cash Flow.” Actual payments came to 78% of that projection.

The City received less than the guaranteed minimum in three of five years. Staff attributes the shortfall to deductions the contract allows, including replacement glass panels at shelters and interior bus ads. The 2021 contract ran October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2024, with two one-year options and a five-year maximum. Amendment No. 1 (November 12, 2024) extended it to September 30, 2025; Extension No. 1 (September 3, 2025) to September 30, 2026.

Open Issues to Watch — C.9

• Past the five-year cap. Section 2.7 limits the agreement to five years including options. The term from October 2021 through September 2026 used all five; this amendment goes beyond that limit.
• Retroactive. The contract lapsed September 30, a week before the vote. The packet doesn’t say whether ads stayed up or payments continued in the gap.
• Stale signature block. Amendment No. 2 lists Walfred Solorzano, who left September 17, as attesting Interim City Clerk.
• Deductions. The packet does not total the deductions that pushed payments below the guarantee. The new RFP is the chance to limit them.
• Vendor proposal language. Valley Outdoor’s 2021 proposal, reprinted in the packet, cites its “great relationship with many of the decisionmakers in Lodi” and says two Councilmembers helped one of its prospective clients. Evaluators of the new proposals should score on revenue and service.

C.10 — Electric Utility Year-End Financial Report

Lodi Electric Utility is a city-owned utility; its customers used about 447 million kilowatt-hours in FY 2025/26. This report covers the year that ended June 30, 2026; the attached exhibit is dated September 2, 2026.

Other revenue fell short because the Council approved a $2.5 million multi-year write-off of delinquent utility accounts, and about $830,000 in Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credit sales and about $700,000 in cap-and-trade auction proceeds slipped into FY 2026/27. Non-power spending came in low because of vacancies among line workers, metering, and engineering staff. Capital spending reached only 55% of budget: the California Public Utilities Commission’s approval of the 230 kV project came late (about $1.6 million rolls forward) and the Electric Vehicle Master Plan started late (about $883,000 rolls forward). The Utility sent the General Fund $12.1 million in FY 2025/26: a $7.8 million payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) and $4.3 million for City services.

Cash and Reserves

Cash totaled $47,579,404 on June 30: operating and capital funds $30,510,792, public benefits $11,409,715, greenhouse gas $4,848,996, impact fees $1,164,816, solar surcharge $375,133, and a negative $730,048 in the LCFS fund because money moved to EV projects before the state payment arrived. The Council’s reserve target is $29,719,600.

Available cash: FY26 $47,579,404; FY27 $39,134,784; FY28 $39,569,112; FY29 $39,421,568; FY30 $37,911,650. Days of cash: 195, 145, 145, 141, 129.

The forecast assumes all budgeted positions are filled, 230 kV bonds are issued by the end of FY 2027/28 and reimburse earlier project spending, and rates rise about 2% a year in FY 2029, 2030, and 2031. The last base rate increase took effect July 1, 2024.

Capital Plan

Totals: FY26 actual $4,793,814; FY27 budget $6,093,000; FY28 $8,475,000; FY29 $15,335,000; FY30 $16,790,000. The 230 kV Interconnection Project accounts for $33.45 million of the four forward years.

The 230 kV Interconnection Project would build a new 230-kilovolt connection between Lodi’s system and the regional transmission grid. The Utility plans to finance it with bonds in late FY 2027/28.

Rates Compared With PG&E

Lodi rates include the Energy Cost Adjustment (ECA), a pass-through charge for power costs. Residential $0.2298/kWh vs. PG&E $0.3991 (42% lower); commercial $0.2013 vs. $0.3943 (49%); industrial $0.1555 vs. $0.3318 (53%); system average $0.1999 vs. $0.3777 (47%).

Sales totaled 447,093,866 kWh against a 442,897,875 budget, as industrial use beat its estimate by 7%. The Risk Oversight Committee met six times January-June, buying forward power, gas, and resource adequacy capacity, approving the FY 2027 reserve target, and approving Amendment 1 to Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) Project Agreement No. 3. The Utility completed its 2026 Wildfire Mitigation Plan and convened an AMI 2.0 working group on next-generation smart meters. Forward hedges cover 86% of expected load in Q4 2026, falling to 68% by Q3 2027, all above the committee’s targets.

Open Issues to Watch — C.10

• $70 million or $51.5 million? The staff report says capital projects total “nearly $70 million over the next 5 years.” The five-year table in the exhibit adds to $51.5 million including FY 2025/26 actuals, $46.7 million for the four forward years. Even with the $3.5 million rollover, the figures don’t reconcile.
• Spending outran revenue. Expenses exceeded revenue by about $684,000, and $1.5 million of the shortfall was one-time timing that comes back in FY 2027.
• Reserves decline. The reserve falls from 160% to 119% of target by FY 2029/30, before 230 kV construction peaks. Staff says reserves are “sufficient through Fiscal Year 2028.”
• Typo. The exhibit prints the impact fee budget as “320.930.”

F.1 — Westside “F” Annexation and Pre-Zoning

Applicant: Dobbins Properties, Inc. | File: PL2024-023 A

Area: 20 parcels plus the Taylor Road right-of-way, about 96.1 acres, bounded by West Vine Street (north), Kettleman Lane/Highway 12 (south), and South Lower Sacramento Road (east); east boundary excludes the county homes along Lower Sacramento Road

Current status: Unincorporated San Joaquin County, county agriculture zoning, inside Lodi’s Sphere of Influence since 2008

Council actions: (1) resolution authorizing a LAFCO application and detachment from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District; (2) introduce the pre-zoning ordinance; (3) direct staff to file with LAFCO

Planning Commission: Recommended approval 5-0 on August 12, 2026 (one vacancy, one absence)

Staff: Contract planner Matt Diaz and Deputy Director Cynthia Marsh

What Annexation and Pre-Zoning Mean

Annexation moves land from county to city control. State law, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, requires a city to “pre-zone” land before LAFCO acts, so owners know what city zoning will apply. The pre-zoning must match the General Plan. Annexation would detach the area from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District; the Lodi Fire Department would serve it. Development still needs master planning, subdivision maps, and further public hearings, and the applicant pays the fees.

Proposed Pre-Zoning

The parcel-list total excludes the Taylor Road right-of-way, which accounts for the remaining roughly 0.6 acre of the 96.1-acre area.

Lodi’s 2025 General Plan Amendment redesignated the 19.91 Kettleman acres from Office to Mixed Use Corridor, and its Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) studied the change. Staff relies on CEQA Guidelines §15183, which skips new environmental review when a project matches a General Plan already covered by a certified EIR, unless the site has impacts that EIR didn’t study. The area is Phase 1 of the City’s Growth Management Plan and is bordered by the City on three sides, with water, sewer, roads, and electric lines at its edges.

Fire Station and Public Site

The annexation would be conditioned on reserving about two acres for a future west-side fire station, which staff expects to share a building with a police substation. Building and paying for the station are not conditions of the annexation, and the packet gives no cost or timeline.

Owner Support and the County Island

A 2025 landowner poll, run by the City and the applicant at LAFCO’s direction, found the western properties in favor and the eastern properties, mostly homes along Lower Sacramento Road and Taylor Road, opposed. LAFCO advised cutting the eastern properties out, which leaves an unincorporated county “island” surrounded by Lodi. Staff held a community meeting March 31, the Planning Commission hearing August 12, and a neighborhood meeting at an owner’s home September 16. Commission speakers raised a private easement dispute and asked about joining later annexations.

Williamson Act Farmland

Three parcels totaling about 40 acres, the northern Taylor Road parcels, are under Williamson Act contracts. Under these contracts owners keep land in farming in exchange for lower property taxes; contracts run 10 years and renew automatically each year unless an owner gives notice of nonrenewal. Lodi’s code has never had procedures for taking over these contracts after annexation. Staff says the pending “Phase 4 Code Amendments” would let the City assume, nonrenew, and cancel them. The contracts would stay in place after annexation, and the land can’t be developed until they end. The Attachment 7 map also shows prime farmland on the General Commercial parcel.

Open Issues to Watch — F.1

• The “corrected” map isn’t in the packet. Staff says acreages were corrected to 19.91 mixed-use acres and 96.1 total “as reflected in the corrected prezone exhibit.” The Pre-Zoning Exhibit printed as Attachment 4 still shows 50.2 RLD, 9.6 PF, and 19.1 MCO, which add to 95.3 acres. The ordinance and the map disagree on three of five zones.
• Planning Commission resolution missing. Attachment 6 is listed but not included; the packet jumps from Attachment 5 to Attachment 7. The Council can’t see the conditions the Commission recommended.
• Largest parcel missing from the ordinance title. The ordinance title lists 19 parcel numbers and omits 027-050-01, the 20-acre parcel at 179 E. Taylor Road. Finding C in the ordinance still says “95.3-acre.” The ordinance was approved as to form August 7, before the Commission hearing and the corrections.
• Which county zone? The staff report calls current zoning “AG-20,” the ordinance “AG-40,” and the zoning map legend “AU-20” (Agriculture-Urban Reserve). The ordinance also refers to “West Kettleman Road.”
• The Williamson Act ordinance isn’t here. The code amendments that would let Lodi assume and cancel contracts were set for hearing tonight on September 2 but aren’t on the agenda. The fire station site parcel sits inside the contracted area on Attachment 7.
• Survey map can’t be read. The Attachment 5 poll map is printed in grayscale; “in favor” and “no response” are nearly the same shade, so readers can’t verify which owners supported annexation.
• Property tax split. The packet doesn’t mention the property tax exchange agreement the City and County must negotiate before LAFCO processes the application, or the cost of serving the area.
• Fire district name. The September 2 minutes say “Woodbridge Fire Protection District”; this item says “Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District.”

References

• City of Lodi, City Council meeting calendar, agendas, and packets (Legistar)
• City of Lodi, Agenda Center
• City of Lodi, Public meetings video channel
• City of Lodi, Lodi Electric Utility
• City of Lodi, Transit (GrapeLine)
• City of Lodi, Bids and RFPs, including the transit advertising solicitation
• San Joaquin LAFCO, Local Agency Formation Commission
• California Department of Conservation, Williamson Act program
• Caltrans, Low Carbon Transit Operations Program
• Acquisition.gov, Federal acquisition threshold changes effective October 1, 2025
• eCFR, 2 CFR 200.324, Contract cost and price
• NFPA, Fire Prevention Week

Prepared for Lodi411 by Don Bradford. Source: City of Lodi City Council agenda packet for October 7, 2026, including staff reports, agreements, exhibits, and minutes.

The FBI Jobs Breach, ShinyHunters, and What It Means for San Joaquin County

LodiEye — October 2026

Summary

In late September 2026, a hacking and extortion group called ShinyHunters said it had broken into FBIJobs.gov, the FBI’s recruiting website, altered the site and stolen sensitive records on FBI employees and job applicants. The FBI first said it was investigating claims of unauthorized activity. It later called the matter a cyber incident and said it was contacting people who may be affected. Internal notices reported by news organizations told employees that names, home addresses, job titles and Social Security numbers were exposed.^[7][11]

Journalists who examined samples of the stolen data reported records tied to real FBI or Justice Department personnel, including family contact information and medical or psychiatric material. That supports the conclusion that a serious theft occurred. It does not prove every claim the hackers have made. Their statements that they took records on nearly all FBI personnel, a large number of applicants, and 2 to 3 terabytes of data in total have not been confirmed in full.^[10][12]

The hackers say they got in through Oracle PeopleSoft, a widely used software package for payroll, human resources and finance, and then moved into other FBI-managed systems. The FBI has not confirmed that account. The claim came during a documented ShinyHunters campaign against a serious PeopleSoft security flaw, one that lets an attacker into a system over the internet without a password. Oracle released a fix on June 10. Google’s Mandiant security unit later documented attackers getting past temporary network blocks at organizations that had not installed the fix.^[3][6]

Two developments followed in the last days of September. Dutch police and the FBI announced that a 24-year-old Amsterdam man, described by the FBI as one of the group’s alleged leaders, had been arrested on September 15, about a week before the FBI breach became public. Separately, ShinyHunters told several news outlets it does not plan to publish or sell the FBI data and called the episode a “marketing campaign.” That statement cannot be verified, and the data remains in the group’s hands. On October 1 the group’s leak site was back online, listing two new corporate targets.^{[9][22][25][26]}

For San Joaquin County, the incident is a reason to check local systems. It is not evidence of a local breach. County documents show the county uses PeopleSoft for human resources and has been working on an upgrade, and older materials describe PeopleSoft-based employee self-service, finance and payroll functions. The county’s current software version, whether the system can be reached from the internet, and whether the June fix is installed are not public.^[14]

Status as of October 2

A serious theft of FBI personnel data is supported by internal notices and by samples that journalists checked independently. The specific PeopleSoft entry path, the claimed 2-to-3-terabyte volume and the final number of affected people remain unconfirmed. ShinyHunters says it will not publish the FBI data, a statement that rests on the group’s word alone. One alleged leader is in custody in the Netherlands, and the group remains active. No publicly disclosed compromise of San Joaquin County systems through this PeopleSoft flaw was identified.

The FBIJobs incident

The public evidence comes with different levels of certainty. This section separates what the FBI has acknowledged, what its internal communications reportedly say, what journalists checked independently, and what ShinyHunters alone claims.

Confirmed or corroborated

• The FBI acknowledged a cyber incident involving FBIJobs.gov and said it had not yet determined whether the point of entry was an FBI system or a supporting third party.
• The application portals were taken offline after the public claim and were still unavailable on September 28.^[27]
• The bureau sent organization-wide communications and advised employees to take added security precautions.
• News organizations authenticated portions of sample data against public records or sources familiar with FBI personnel. One outlet reported receiving a sample covering roughly 5,000 employees.^[7][10][27]
• In a September 29 statement, the FBI said it was working around the clock on the incident and was in regular communication with anyone who may be affected.^[24]

Still alleged

• That a previously unknown PeopleSoft flaw provided the initial access.
• That the attackers moved from the recruiting environment into AWS GovCloud or other FBI-managed systems, including systems the group says hold background-check, medical and investigative information.^[27]
• That the group removed 2 to 3 terabytes and obtained records covering nearly all FBI employees and many applicants.
• That every sampled record originated in an FBI-managed system and not in a connected or third-party environment.
• That the group will not publish, sell or otherwise use the data, as it now says.^[25]

What the available evidence establishes

Source: FBI statements and reporting by AP, CBS News, TechCrunch, NPR and Reuters.^{[7][8][10][12][13]}

Timeline

The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) warns that ShinyHunters uses large-scale data theft and extortion, following an attack that affected a learning-management system.^[1]

Oracle publishes its security alert for the PeopleSoft flaw, catalogued as CVE-2026-35273, and urges customers to install the fix.^[3]

Dutch police arrest a 24-year-old Amsterdam man on suspicion of participating in a criminal organization, in an investigation into ShinyHunters. The arrest is not made public until two weeks later.^[9][23]

ShinyHunters claims the FBIJobs compromise. The recruiting and special-agent applicant portals become unavailable.

The FBI says it is aggressively investigating and has not determined whether the entry point was an FBI or third-party system.^[7]

Mandiant reports renewed mass exploitation of CVE-2026-35273 across government, health care, education, agriculture, transportation and other sectors.^[6]

Reporting reveals an internal FBI cyber-incident notification and employee exposure. A reported memo says the bureau is operating under a broad worst-case assumption.^[11][12]

ShinyHunters tells news outlets it never intended to publish or sell the FBI data and describes the confrontation as a “marketing campaign.” Dutch police confirm the September 15 arrest.^[24][25]

The FBI and Dutch National Police formally announce the arrest. Brett Leatherman, assistant director of the FBI Cyber Division, calls the suspect one of the group’s alleged leaders, says he and others allegedly breached more than 140 organizations and took at least $70 million in extortion payments since last year, and urges remaining members to contact the bureau.^[9][22][23]

The ShinyHunters website goes offline after the group’s deadline for the FBI to alter or withdraw its May advisory expires. The cause is not disclosed.^[13]

The group’s leak site returns at a new address. ShinyHunters tells Cybernews the outage came from its own upgrades and attacks by rivals, not an FBI takedown. The site lists O’Reilly Automotive and Dexcom as new targets, without sample data, and threatens to publish by the end of Friday, October 2.^[26]

Why the breach matters

The material described in the reporting is valuable for more than identity theft. Home addresses and family details can be used for intimidation or physical targeting. Employment, assignment, medical and psychiatric information can support tailored phishing, impersonation, profiling and attempted recruitment by hostile intelligence services. ShinyHunters now says it will not publish or sell the data. Even if that holds, the group still has it, and samples already shared with journalists and other parties cannot be recalled.^[25]

• Personal safety: Employees and relatives may face harassment, publication of their home details or threats.
• Counterintelligence: Detailed biographical and medical information can identify pressure points and make deceptive approaches more convincing.
• Operational security: Assignment or unit information can reveal relationships and organizational patterns even without case files.
• Long-term fraud: Social Security numbers, addresses and employment histories keep their value after passwords are changed.
• Institutional trust: Limited or delayed disclosure leaves employees and applicants uncertain about the protective steps they need to take.

The known target was the jobs portal. That is not proof that the attackers reached FBI investigative systems. The exposed personnel information is still unusually useful for targeting people, their families and the people they work with.

Who ShinyHunters is

ShinyHunters is a changing cybercriminal brand or cluster, not a stable organization with fixed membership. The name has been associated with high-volume data theft, leak sites and extortion since at least 2020. Google tracks the cluster involved in the PeopleSoft campaigns as UNC6240 and describes it as financially motivated.^[6]

The FBI’s May advisory says the group specializes in large-scale breaches and extortion and may use real or exaggerated access claims to pressure victims. The advisory warns of threatening communications, harassment and, in some cases, swatting, meaning false emergency calls meant to send armed police to a victim’s home. It advises victims not to pay or engage, to preserve evidence and to report activity to IC3 or an FBI field office.^[1]

On September 29, the FBI and Dutch National Police announced the arrest of a 24-year-old Amsterdam man whom the FBI described as one of the group’s alleged leaders. Dutch police said he was arrested on September 15 on suspicion of participating in a criminal organization. That places him in custody about a week before the FBI breach was announced, and the FBI has not tied the arrest to that breach. Dutch police also said the arrest was not part of their investigation into the breach of the Dutch telecom company Odido. ShinyHunters has denied any connection to the man. The group’s return on October 1 with new claims against O’Reilly Automotive and Dexcom indicates it is still operating. Neither claim came with sample data, and neither company had responded publicly when Cybernews reported them.^{[9][22][23][24][26]}

Common access paths associated with recent campaigns

Source: FBI/IC3 and Google Cloud/Mandiant.^[1][6]

The PeopleSoft campaign

Oracle’s June security alert identifies CVE-2026-35273 in the Updates Environment Management component of PeopleSoft Enterprise PeopleTools versions 8.61 and 8.62. PeopleTools is the underlying platform that PeopleSoft applications run on. Oracle rated the flaw 9.8 out of 10 on the standard severity scale and said an attacker with network access, and no login, could compromise PeopleTools. Oracle advised customers to apply the update without delay and warned that blocking network traffic is not a long-term substitute for correcting the flaw. The flaw is also listed in the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s catalog of vulnerabilities known to be exploited in real attacks.^[3][4][5]

Mandiant reported that UNC6240 exploited the flaw between May 27 and June 9, before any fix existed, primarily against higher-education institutions. In September, Mandiant found a renewed campaign in which the group disguised one character in the web address of the vulnerable component, known as PSEMHUB, to slip past firewall rules written to block that exact address. The campaign planted web shells, which are hidden programs that give an attacker continued access, on dozens of systems across higher education, technology, IT services, health care, agriculture, transportation and government.^[6]

This campaign makes the attackers’ PeopleSoft account plausible. It does not prove that CVE-2026-35273 was the FBI entry point. ShinyHunters has described the FBI exploit as a new flaw, while Mandiant’s September evidence concerns an adapted attack on the flaw already fixed in June. Until the FBI or a forensic investigator publishes technical findings, both possibilities remain unproven.

Immediate checks for PeopleSoft operators

1. Determine whether any environment runs affected PeopleTools versions or contains the PSEMHUB application, including test, training, disaster-recovery and forgotten internet-facing instances.
2. Apply Oracle’s CVE-2026-35273 update. Do not treat a firewall rule or path block as a replacement for patching.
3. Disable the Environment Management Hub in multi-server configurations, or remove PSEMHUB in single-server configurations, when it is not required and Oracle guidance permits it.
4. Search WebLogic and PIA logs for /PSEMHUB/, encoded variants such as /%50SEMHUB/, external POST requests to /hub, and unexpected JSP or JSPX files.
5. Inspect PSEMHUB.war and PORTAL.war for web shells, preserve evidence and rotate credentials accessible from the PeopleSoft tier if compromise is found.^[6]

Risk to San Joaquin County

County government

San Joaquin County’s Information Systems Division publicly identified an upgrade of its PeopleSoft Human Capital Management system, the county’s human resources software, and its underlying infrastructure as a budget objective. County benefits materials have also directed employees to PeopleSoft Employee Self-Service. Historical Oracle and vendor materials describe PeopleSoft-based finance, payroll and human-resources functions and remote employee access controls.^[14]

Those records establish that the county uses the product. They do not establish that it is vulnerable today. Public materials reviewed for this report do not show the county’s current PeopleTools version, whether PSEMHUB exists or is exposed, whether the June patch was installed, or whether older descriptions of the system remain accurate. The county has also pursued broader work on its business systems, so historical case studies should not be read as a current network diagram.

Local status as of October 2

No publicly disclosed San Joaquin County compromise through CVE-2026-35273 was identified. The absence of a public report is not evidence that every local system is patched or unaffected.

Cities and local agencies

The county’s local governments have prior experience with disruptive cyber incidents. Lodi suffered ransomware attacks in 2018 and 2019 that affected phones, financial services, the city’s core business software and computer-aided dispatch. The city refused a demand of 75 bitcoins, rebuilt its systems and later strengthened backup and recovery capabilities. A vendor case study says dispatch restoration took four days and a failed backup process caused the loss of one week of business-system data. Because that account is marketing material, it is best read alongside independent reporting and the Civil Grand Jury record.^{[15][19][20][21]}

The 2021–22 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury found that Lodi met eight of nine cybersecurity expectations and operated a strong awareness program with monthly training and quarterly phishing exercises. The one item not met was a completed, current business-continuity plan. The report also found the county itself met eight expectations but lacked a documented ransomware policy at that time. These are 2022 findings, not current assessments. Agencies may have completed or revised plans since then.^[15]

Local cyber incidents and preparedness findings

Source: San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury, Superior Court, U.S. Department of Education, ABC10, WBUR, Stateline and Rubrik.^{[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]}

Schools and colleges

Schools and colleges are particularly exposed because their learning, identity and administrative systems are closely connected. The U.S. Department of Education reported that the 2026 Canvas incident involved unauthorized access to usernames, email addresses, courses, enrollment information and messages, while Instructure, the company that makes Canvas, said it had no evidence that passwords, birth dates, government identifiers or financial data were exposed. Delta College was among the institutions that experienced disruption.^[17][18]

Health care and businesses

Mandiant identified health care, agriculture and transportation among the sectors in the renewed PeopleSoft campaign. All three are important locally. The technical risk depends on a combination of conditions: an affected PeopleTools component, a system reachable from the internet, incomplete patching, and access from the PeopleSoft servers to HR, payroll, student, patient or financial records. Smaller organizations can also be affected through payroll providers, software platforms and other vendors even if they are never targeted by name.^[6]

Residents

• Anyone who applied for an FBI job through the affected portal should follow formal FBI instructions, treat unexpected contacts as suspicious and consider freezing credit with all three nationwide credit bureaus.
• People whose court information may have been involved in the 2024 incident should use the court’s official incident page and identity-protection process.^[16]
• Customers of O’Reilly Auto Parts and users of Dexcom glucose monitors should watch for official notices from those companies. As of October 1 the breach claims against both were unverified.^[26]
• Accurate personal details in a call, text or email do not prove the sender is legitimate. Verify through a known telephone number or official website.
• Use unique passwords and phishing-resistant multifactor authentication where available. Keep in mind that a user’s own login protections do not repair a vulnerable public server.

Actions for local organizations

Within 24 hours

• Inventory every PeopleSoft and PeopleTools instance, including nonproduction and disaster-recovery systems, and record owner, version, internet exposure and patch state.
• Confirm the Oracle June security update is installed and review whether the Environment Management Hub (PSEMHUB) is required.
• Begin targeted log and file-system searches using Mandiant’s published indicators and preserve relevant logs before retention windows expire.
• Notify executive leadership, legal counsel, privacy staff, the cyber insurer and incident-response partners if suspicious activity is found.

Within 30 days

• Map what data each public-facing system can reach and remove unnecessary connections to HR, payroll, medical, financial and law-enforcement records.
• Set alerts for bulk database queries, unusual service-account use and large outbound transfers from administrative systems.
• Require independent verification for help-desk password resets, changes to multifactor authentication, new connected apps and requests made by telephone.
• Review vendor contracts for patch ownership, log access, incident-notification deadlines, evidence preservation and subcontractor responsibilities.
• Verify backups through restoration tests, monitor backup failures and maintain protected recovery copies that production administrators cannot alter.

Questions for governing boards

• What deadline applies when an actively exploited flaw affects an internet-facing government system?
• Who may approve a workaround in place of a vendor patch, and how quickly must that exception expire?
• Which official owns the risk when a department, software vendor, cloud provider and implementation contractor share a system?
• How long are records on unsuccessful applicants, former employees, patients, students and vendors retained, and who approves deletion?
• When were continuity, disaster-recovery and ransomware plans last exercised, as opposed to last updated on paper?

What remains unknown

The FBI investigation and incident response remain active. The points below may change as forensic results, notices to affected people and reports to Congress become public.

• The FBI’s confirmed initial-access method and whether a third-party provider was the entry point.
• Whether CVE-2026-35273, a different PeopleSoft flaw or another weakness was used against FBIJobs.gov.
• The final number of affected employees, former employees and applicants, and the validated volume of data taken.
• The exact systems from which the sampled medical, psychiatric, assignment and family records originated.
• Whether all affected people and Congress have received every legally required notification.
• Why the ShinyHunters site went offline on September 30. The group attributes it to its own upgrades and attacks by rivals; that has not been independently confirmed.
• Whether the group will keep its stated commitment not to publish or sell the FBI data.
• What role, if any, the man arrested in the Netherlands had in the PeopleSoft campaign, and whether further arrests will follow.
• Whether the claims against O’Reilly Automotive and Dexcom are accurate.
• The current PeopleTools versions, exposure and patch status of San Joaquin County and other local PeopleSoft users.

LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.

This LodiEye report was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic’s Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:

Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval identified the public record behind the incident: the FBI/IC3 advisory of May 15, Oracle’s security alert and June patch update, Google Cloud/Mandiant research on the PeopleSoft campaign, reporting by the Associated Press, CBS News, NBC News, TechCrunch, NPR, Reuters and the security trade press, and local records including the county Information Systems Division budget, the 2021–22 Civil Grand Jury cybersecurity report and the Superior Court’s incident notice.

Credibility Validation: Each claim was sorted by who made it and what supports it. Statements by ShinyHunters are treated as allegations unless corroborated by the FBI, a primary technical advisory or independent examination of the data. The Rubrik account of Lodi’s ransomware recovery is identified as a vendor case study and read alongside independent reporting and the Grand Jury record.

Analysis and Synthesis: AI tools helped connect the national incident and the PeopleSoft campaign to documented local use of the same software, and to earlier local incidents, without drawing conclusions about local systems that the public record does not support.

Presentation: AI tools assisted with drafting, the evidence and incident tables, the timeline and the HTML layout of this page.

Final Review: The founder reviewed the report for accuracy, tone and local relevance before publication.

Lodi411 describes its methods so readers can judge the work for themselves. Corrections and clarifications are welcome at editor@lodi411.com.

References

1. Primary FBI/IC3 — “Cyber Criminal Group Attacks Learning Management System,” May 15, 2026.
2. Primary FBIJobs — Applicant Portal FAQ.
3. Primary Oracle — Security Alert risk matrix for CVE-2026-35273.
4. Primary Oracle — June 2026 Critical Security Patch Update.
5. Primary CISA — Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog.
6. Technical research Google Cloud/Mandiant — “ShinyHunters Renewed Mass Exploitation Campaign Targeting Oracle PeopleSoft,” Sept. 25, 2026.
7. News / FBI statement Associated Press/PBS — FBI investigates hackers’ claim, Sept. 22, 2026.
8. News CBS News — Group claims theft of FBI personnel and applicant data, Sept. 23, 2026.
9. News CBS News — Dutch arrest and FBI incident update, Sept. 29, 2026.
10. News / sample review TechCrunch — Initial FBIJobs claim and sample verification, Sept. 22, 2026.
11. News / internal notice TechCrunch — FBI internal cyber-incident notification, Sept. 28, 2026.
12. News NPR — FBI response and personnel concerns, Sept. 29–30, 2026.
13. News Reuters — ShinyHunters site goes offline after deadline, Sept. 30, 2026.
14. Primary local San Joaquin County Information Systems Division — Budget objectives, including the PeopleSoft HCM upgrade.
15. Primary local San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury — “Cybersecurity: Local Defense Against a Global Threat,” 2021–22.
16. Primary local San Joaquin County Superior Court — Cybersecurity incident notice.
17. Primary U.S. Department of Education — Canvas cybersecurity incident alert, updated May 29, 2026.
18. Local news ABC10 — Canvas disruption at San Joaquin Delta College, May 6, 2026.
19. News WBUR/Here & Now — Lodi ransomware response, Aug. 29, 2019.
20. News Stateline — Lodi response, ransom refusal and recovery costs, Feb. 4, 2020.
21. Vendor case study Rubrik — City of Lodi recovery case study.
22. News CyberScoop — Alleged ShinyHunters leader arrested in the Netherlands, Sept. 2026.
23. News BleepingComputer — FBI tells ShinyHunters members to turn themselves in after recent arrest, Sept. 2026.
24. News / FBI statement NBC News — FBI sends warning to cybercrime group after Dutch arrest, Sept. 2026.
25. News Nextgov/FCW — ShinyHunters says it won’t publish FBI data, Sept. 2026.
26. News Cybernews — ShinyHunters claims O’Reilly Automotive and Dexcom breaches, Oct. 1, 2026.
27. News Help Net Security — FBI job portals remain offline after ShinyHunters claims breach, Sept. 28, 2026.

The Kelvin Wave Is Here: What the Tide Gauges Show, From San Diego to Stockton

Lodi411 - October 2026

Based on NOAA Tides and Currents and California Data Exchange Center gauge records through the morning of October 1

Summary

For a month, the 2026 El Niño's Kelvin wave has been reported as something on its way. The tide gauges show it has already arrived. On October 1, water at San Diego ran 1.21 feet above the predicted tide and Los Angeles ran 1.08 feet above it. San Francisco ran 0.79 feet above, and Port Chicago, on Suisun Bay at the mouth of the Delta, ran 0.75 feet above. All four readings were still rising.

Measured against the average of the last three Septembers, the gauges are about 11 inches high in Southern California and 6 to 7 inches high in the Bay and Suisun Bay. The signal has reached the San Joaquin River at Stockton, where the September average stage ran about 3 inches above the previous three Septembers. The September and October 2026 tide readings are NOAA preliminary data. NOAA has not yet completed its quality review, and the figures may shift slightly once it does.

The wave will not flood Lodi. What it does is raise the starting water level for every tide and storm this winter, across the Bay and into the Delta channels that drain the Mokelumne. The winter's highest tides arrive November 24–26 and December 23–25. Researchers expect two to four more Kelvin waves before spring.

What a Kelvin Wave Is, and Is Not

Along the equator, the trade winds normally pile warm water up in the western Pacific. During El Niño those winds weaken or reverse in bursts. Each burst releases some of that water as a slow eastward pulse called an equatorial Kelvin wave (NOAA Fisheries). When the pulse reaches the Americas it cannot continue east. It splits and runs north and south along the coastline as a coastally trapped Kelvin wave, keeping the shore to its right in the Northern Hemisphere (Los Angeles Times).

The wave is a bulge in the upper ocean, not a breaking wave. North Carolina State University marine scientist Dillon Amaya described it as "a bulging of the nearest 20 to 30 kilometers of the ocean that propagates up the coastline." He added: "There's no mass transport here. It's not transporting water. It's transporting a signal, and that signal is an elevated sea state" (ABC7 San Francisco). Swimmers and boaters will not notice it (Los Angeles Times). It is not a tsunami, and there is no moment when it "hits." It raises the baseline the tides ride on, for weeks or months at a time (Yahoo News, via The Sacramento Bee). NOAA puts the typical rise from one wave at 6 to 12 inches (USA Today).

How This Wave Got Here

NOAA's Climate Prediction Center logged downwelling Kelvin waves, the warming kind, starting in December 2025, January 2026, March 2026 and June 2026 (NOAA CPC, September 28 update). The milestones since then:

• March–May: Satellite data showed raised, warmer water moving across the Pacific to just off Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. By May, seas near Peru stood nearly 6 inches above average (Yahoo News, via The Sacramento Bee).
• May–June: Smaller pulses reached California. NOAA research scientist Nate Mantua said those impacts would likely be minor compared with fall and winter (NOAA Fisheries).
• Late August: A larger wave reached the northern tip of South America and turned north (The Guardian).
• September 14: The wave was off Mexico's west coast. The Los Angeles Times estimated about seven days from Cabo San Lucas to San Diego, then two to three days to Los Angeles and two to three more to San Francisco (Los Angeles Times).
• Late September: NOAA research oceanographer Andrew Leising said the wave was "probably just reaching us now" (The Mercury News).

What the Gauges Measured in September

NOAA publishes a predicted tide for every coastal gauge. The predictions come from astronomy alone: the pull of the moon and sun. Anything the gauge measures beyond that prediction is the tide anomaly, or residual. It captures what astronomy cannot: swell, wind, air pressure, river outflow and slow ocean changes like a Kelvin wave. LodiEye computed daily average anomalies from NOAA's six-minute readings at four California gauges. They run from San Diego to Port Chicago, the last NOAA tide station before the Delta.

FIGURE 1. Daily average of observed water level minus NOAA's predicted astronomical tide, in feet, at four California gauges. October 1 covers readings through 9:36 a.m. Pacific time. September 2026 readings are NOAA preliminary data, subject to later quality control. Source: NOAA Tides and Currents water level and prediction records for stations 9410170, 9410660, 9414290 and 9415144. LodiEye calculation.

The chart shows two events. The first is the mid-September bump in Southern California: San Diego peaked at +1.07 feet on September 14 and Los Angeles at +0.99 feet the same day. It lines up with swell from Hurricane Marie. On September 8 that swell, on top of a 6-foot tide, flooded homes on the Long Beach Peninsula and along Dana Point's Beach Road. Laguna Beach, Dana Point and Carlsbad declared local emergencies, and Orange County activated its emergency operations center (Los Angeles Times). The bump faded within a week. The Bay Area gauges showed a smaller, less distinct rise.

The second event is the rise that began September 27 and was still climbing on October 1. It appeared at every gauge at once. It pushed San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco to their highest daily anomalies of the period, and Port Chicago to within 0.03 feet of its September 22 high. That fits Leising's timeline. On September 28 Daniel Swain of University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources said ocean levels off Southern California were already about a foot higher because of El Niño (USA Today). The gauges agree. Swell from Hurricanes Polo and Odalys added to Southern California water levels the same week (The Mercury News). The late-September rise is therefore not all Kelvin wave, but the Bay and Suisun Bay gauges, sheltered from that swell, rose too.

Highest readings are in feet above mean lower low water (MLLW), the average of each day's lower low tide and the zero point of a tide chart. The three-September average uses September 2023, 2024 and 2025. September 2023 was itself an El Niño month, so this baseline is conservative. Source: NOAA Tides and Currents. LodiEye calculation.

How 2026 Compares With 1997 and 2015

Any single anomaly reading carries a built-in offset. NOAA's predictions are referenced to the sea level of the 1983–2001 tidal epoch, and the ocean has risen since then. Comparing the same month across years removes the seasonal pattern. The table above shows the remaining offset in recent normal years: about a quarter-foot at these gauges.

FIGURE 2. September monthly average of observed minus predicted water level, in feet. 1997 and 2015 were two of the strongest El Niño years of the modern record before 2026; 2023 was a moderate-to-strong El Niño. Years through 2025 use NOAA verified hourly heights; 2026 uses preliminary six-minute data. Source: NOAA Tides and Currents. LodiEye calculation.

September 2026 is the highest September of the six at every gauge. San Diego ran +0.84 feet against +0.73 in September 2015 and +0.38 in September 1997. San Francisco ran +0.57 feet against +0.50 in 2015 and +0.17 in 1997. Port Chicago ran +0.57 feet against +0.44 in 2015 and +0.14 in 1997. Part of the gap with 1997 is three decades of sea-level rise. Part is timing: in 1997 the coastal signal arrived later, and the bigger anomalies came in winter.

Why the Delta Gauge Matters More Than the Beach

Coastal coverage of the Kelvin wave has focused on beaches, seawalls and rail lines. For Lodi the useful question is what happens inside the Bay and the Delta in winter, when ocean levels, tides and river floods stack on top of each other. The 1997–98 record answers it.

FIGURE 3. Monthly average water above predicted tide, in feet, at San Francisco and Port Chicago during the 1997–98 and 2015–16 El Niño winters, with September 2026 shown for reference. November values and February 2016 were not retrieved and are left blank rather than estimated. Source: NOAA Tides and Currents verified hourly heights. LodiEye calculation.

In 1997–98, San Francisco's monthly anomaly climbed from +0.17 feet in September to +0.99 feet in February. Port Chicago climbed from +0.14 feet to +1.50 feet. Port Chicago sits where the Sacramento and San Joaquin river outflows meet the tide. In a wet February, storm runoff pushing out against the incoming tide raises its anomaly well beyond what the ocean alone would produce. Ocean height from the El Niño adds to that. The 2015–16 winter shows the other outcome. Its fall anomalies were high, but the Port Chicago anomaly fell to under +0.30 feet by December and January. The ocean signal alone did not carry the winter.

The lesson for Lodi: the Kelvin wave sets the floor, and the storms decide the ceiling. In September 2026, Port Chicago's average was already four times its September 1997 level. Any wet winter now starts from that higher floor.

The Signal at Stockton

NOAA has no tide-prediction station at Stockton, but the state's California Data Exchange Center records river stage on the San Joaquin River at Rough and Ready Island, on the Port of Stockton waterfront. River stage is the water-surface height at a gauge. Comparing the same station across Septembers, when river flows are at their annual low and tides dominate the reading, gives a rough local check.

• Average stage, September 2026: 5.11 feet, against 4.97 in 2023, 4.73 in 2024 and 4.81 in 2025.
• Difference: about 0.27 feet, or roughly 3 inches, above the three-year September average.
• Highest September 2026 reading: 7.34 feet, against 7.08 to 7.29 in the three prior Septembers.

Stockton stage also responds to river flow, export pumping and wind, so this is a consistency check, not a clean Kelvin-wave measurement. It points the same way as the Bay gauges, slightly below Port Chicago's September excess of about 0.32 feet, consistent with a signal that weakens as it moves up the Delta (California Data Exchange Center, station RRI).

What Comes Next

No agency issues a formal probability for Kelvin waves. The forecasts that exist come from researchers and from the El Niño outlook that drives the waves:

• More waves: Amaya expects three to four more Kelvin waves this fall and winter, and says Bay Area water levels may not return to normal until spring 2027 (ABC7 San Francisco). Swain expects two or three more (USA Today).
• The driver: NOAA's Climate Prediction Center still gives a greater than 90% chance that this El Niño is very strong through fall and winter (NOAA CPC). CPC's September 10 discussion put the chance of a historic-strength event for October–December at 75% (NOAA CPC). The next discussion is October 8.
• The stacking risk: NOAA's Michael Jacox said Kelvin waves are not always hazardous on their own. They do damage when they coincide with very high tides, storm surge and rain. Jonathan Warrick pointed to January through March as the months with California's biggest storms, largest waves and some very large tides (The Guardian).

King tide dates: California King Tides Project. Reservation date: EBMUD.

The Lodi Focus

The Kelvin wave reaches Lodi only indirectly. The Mokelumne River drains through the North Delta to the San Joaquin and out through Suisun Bay. When the Bay runs high, Delta channels drain more slowly at low tide. Water levels against Delta levees stay higher through each tide cycle. The lower Mokelumne below Thornton feels the tide.

What to watch: a major storm landing during a king tide window while Port Chicago is running half a foot or more above prediction. That combination raises water against Delta levees for reasons that have nothing to do with how much rain falls in Lodi itself. Releases from Camanche are capped at 5,000 cubic feet per second when the flood reservation is encroached (EBMUD). The river's downstream outlet is a Delta whose starting level is already elevated.

None of this changes what residents should do. It changes how early they should do it. Readers can watch the same gauges this report uses:

• NOAA Port Chicago gauge: the Delta-mouth reading, with observed and predicted tides on the same chart.
• NOAA San Francisco gauge: the Bay reading, with observed and predicted tides on the same chart.
• California Data Exchange Center, San Joaquin River at Rough and Ready Island: Stockton's river stage.
• California King Tides Project: the winter's highest-tide dates.
• San Joaquin County flood protection information: evacuation maps and preparedness guidance.
• FEMA Map Service Center: check whether a property sits in a mapped flood zone before the 30-day waiting period on new flood insurance policies runs into storm season.

LodiEye will continue tracking the gauges, the ENSO forecast and the Mokelumne reservation schedule through the 2026–27 water year. Readers with local observations can reach us at editor@lodi411.com.

LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.

This LodiEye civic climate brief was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic's Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:

Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval identified reporting on the 2026 Kelvin wave from the Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, USA Today, ABC7 San Francisco, The Mercury News and The Sacramento Bee, along with NOAA Fisheries and NOAA Climate Prediction Center material.

Data Retrieval and Analysis: Tide anomalies were computed directly from NOAA Tides and Currents observed water levels and astronomical predictions for San Diego (9410170), Los Angeles (9410660), San Francisco (9414290) and Port Chicago (9415144). September 2026 and October 1 values use NOAA preliminary six-minute data. Earlier months use NOAA verified hourly heights against hourly predictions. Stockton stage figures come from California Data Exchange Center 15-minute records for station RRI, compared only within that station. Months that could not be retrieved are left blank, not estimated.

Presentation: AI assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report, including the three inline chart visualizations and the two tables.

Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, arithmetic, and balanced presentation. Throughout the process, the editor sets the report's goals, scope, and tone; creates and shapes draft content; reviews and edits the report; integrates independent fact checks; and reviews the AI cross-checks and validations. Multi-tool cross-checking across independent models and sources is the primary error-reduction mechanism.

Lodi411/LodiEye believes that transparency about how our research is produced — including our use of AI under human direction — strengthens trust with readers and the broader information ecosystem. Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.

Sources

• NOAA Tides and Currents: Observed water level, San Francisco (9414290), September 1–October 1, 2026 (same query structure used for 9410170, 9410660 and 9415144, with product=predictions for astronomical tides and product=hourly_height for historical months)
• NOAA Tides and Currents: San Diego station 9410170
• NOAA Tides and Currents: Los Angeles station 9410660
• NOAA Tides and Currents: San Francisco station 9414290
• NOAA Tides and Currents: Port Chicago station 9415144
• California Data Exchange Center: San Joaquin River stage at Rough and Ready Island (RRI), September 2026 (same query used for September 2023, 2024 and 2025)
• NOAA Climate Prediction Center: ENSO Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions, September 28, 2026 (Kelvin wave timeline; greater than 90% chance of very strong El Niño)
• NOAA Climate Prediction Center: ENSO Diagnostic Discussion, September 10, 2026 (75% historic-strength probability for October–December)
• NOAA Fisheries: Ocean Indicators We're Tracking for El Niño's Arrival on the West Coast, September 3, 2026
• Los Angeles Times: Kelvin wave poses new threat to SoCal coastal cities, September 14, 2026
• The Guardian: Concern mounts over slow-moving, planetary-scale Kelvin wave heading for California, September 28, 2026
• The Guardian: California rushes to prepare for massive Kelvin wave and predicted sea level rise, September 30, 2026
• USA Today: Powerful planetary wave takes aim at West Coast as El Niño rages, September 29, 2026
• ABC7 San Francisco: El Niño-driven Kelvin wave could raise Bay Area sea levels 1 foot in October, September 18, 2026
• The Mercury News: What is a Kelvin wave, and should we be worried? September 29, 2026
• Yahoo News (The Sacramento Bee): El Niño Kelvin waves pose risks for California, but beware of hype, September 15, 2026
• California King Tides Project: Statewide king tide dates, 2026–27
• EBMUD: EBMUD's Mokelumne River Project in Perspective (flood reservation schedule and 5,000 cfs encroachment release limit)
• San Joaquin County Public Works and OES: Flood Protection Information
• FEMA Map Service Center: Special Flood Hazard Area lookup

Contact: editor@lodi411.com

Measure L Citizens’ Oversight Committee

Wednesday, September 30, 2026 — 6:00 p.m.

Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240

Chair John Beckman (District 2) | Vice Chair Antonio Amador (District 1) | Members Toni Lish (District 4), Chris Young (District 5) | District 3 vacant

Summary

Lodi’s Measure L oversight committee meets Wednesday to receive a rebuilt draft of the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Measure L Annual Accountability Report. Measure L is the half-cent local sales tax Lodi voters approved in November 2018. The ballot estimated $5.4 million a year. In FY 2024/25 it brought in $9.1 million.

The committee reviewed a draft for this same fiscal year on December 8, 2025. The dollar figures have not changed. Staff has moved the report into the City’s ClearGov budget software and added historical department, General Fund, and staffing sections. The committee takes no action on the report Wednesday; staff will ask for a recommendation to the City Council at the next meeting, more than 15 months after FY 2024/25 closed.

The report shows the Measure L fund spent $208,107 more than it took in during FY 2024/25, its first deficit year. The balance fell to $1,580,709, leaving $124,625 above the required 16% reserve. The new ClearGov version also introduces errors: a summary table drops Parks entirely, the Fire section counts the Library’s Measure L librarian in every year, and several charts labeled “FY25 Expenditures” show budget figures instead of actual spending. FY 2025/26 ended June 30, 2026, but the report includes only that year’s adopted budget, with no actual results or year-end fund balance.

Meeting Details

Date & Time: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.

Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240 (in person; the agenda lists no remote option)

Agenda Contact: Jamie Bandy, Administrative Services Director, (209) 269-4642

Report Author: Jennelle Baker-Bechthold, Budget Manager

Committee Members: Chair John Beckman (District 2), Vice Chair Antonio Amador (District 1), Toni Lish (District 4), Chris Young (District 5); District 3 is vacant, per the FY 2025/26 roster printed in the report

Staff Reports: On file for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi

Accessibility and Interpreters: Disability accommodation requests go to the City Manager’s Office at least 72 hours before the meeting. Language interpreter requests go to Jennelle Baker-Bechthold, (209) 333-6722, at least 72 hours in advance. Solicitudes de interpretación: (209) 333-6722, con 72 horas de anticipación.

Committee Authority: Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) §3.30.150(A) directs the committee to review the annual accountability report and report its findings to the City Council and residents. Its review is limited to Measure L revenue and spending after each fiscal year closes; it has no role in writing the budget.

Agenda

A. Call to Order / Roll Call

B. Approve Minutes — January 15, 2026 Special Meeting

Prepared by Administrative Assistant–Confidential Monica Calderon. The January meeting took up Chair Beckman’s proposed changes to the Measure L section of the Municipal Code and voted 3-0 (Young absent) to recommend them to the City Council. Details and corrections below.

C. Receive Draft Fiscal Year 2024/25 Measure L Annual Accountability Report

Receive only. Staff will ask the committee to recommend the report to the City Council at its next meeting, and the Council would accept it at a later date. Strategic Vision 3A (Fiscal Health). No fiscal impact.

E. Adjournment

The printed agenda has no Item D. Agenda posted at least 72 hours in advance under Government Code §54954.2(a).

Item B — January 15, 2026 Minutes

The special meeting ran from 6:03 to 6:26 p.m. Chair Beckman, Vice Chair Amador, and Member Lish attended. Member Young was absent. Budget Manager Baker-Bechthold and Administrative Assistant Monica Calderon staffed the meeting.

Chair Beckman presented the Municipal Code changes he wanted to take to the City Council. The January agenda packet showed the proposal. It would widen the committee’s review from Measure L revenue and spending to “all sales tax expenditures.” It would change the test from spending “for the purposes set forth in this ordinance” to spending “in the spirit of the ballot language presented to the voters.” And it would drop the clause confining the committee to Measure L revenue. Beckman had already presented a letter on the proposal to the City Council on December 17, 2025.

Baker-Bechthold gave a history of Measure L and said the City complies with the current code language. She reviewed historical allocations by department, and the committee received a February 6, 2019 Council Communication on six Measure L-funded positions. Staff’s visual showed eight Measure L-funded Fire positions, two Police positions eliminated “due to MOUs” (memoranda of understanding, the City’s labor contracts with employee groups), and rising salary and benefit costs. The committee voted 3-0 to recommend the amendments. No one spoke during public comment.

Open Issues to Watch — Item B

• Wrong meeting date in the header. The draft minutes are headed “Wednesday, September 30, 2026,” the date of this week’s meeting, not January 15, 2026.
• Wrong minutes approved. The January minutes record approval of the “January 15, 2026” minutes. The committee approved its December 8, 2025 minutes that night.
• The recommendation is not in the record. The motion says the committee recommended “proposed Measure L Municipal Code amendments” but does not state or attach the language. Readers of the official minutes cannot tell what the committee endorsed.
• Motion wording. “The above motion carried Committee Member Amador, seconded by…” omits who moved it. Item lettering jumps from C to F.
• Six firefighters or eight? Staff described eight Measure L Fire positions. The accountability report lists six firefighters for both FY 2024/25 and FY 2025/26.
• What happened next? Nothing in this packet reports whether the City Council has scheduled or acted on the committee’s January recommendation.

Item C — FY 2024/25 Measure L Annual Accountability Report

Report at a Glance

Fiscal year covered: July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025

Required by: LMC §3.30.140. The report must show (a) revenue collected and (b) the amount and general purpose of spending by category.

Format: New ClearGov layout, 30 pages. It adds 10-year-style department history, General Fund context, and a General Fund position schedule from FY 2019 through FY 2025.

Prior review: A draft for the same year, in the old format, went to the committee December 8, 2025. The revenue, spending, and fund balance figures are unchanged.

Committee action: Receive only; recommendation to Council at the next meeting.

Revenue

Measure L collected $9,100,526 in FY 2024/25, down $130,952 (1.4%) from FY 2024. Staff budgeted $9.2 million, cut the estimate to $8.6 million at mid-year, and finished $500,000 above the revised figure. Tax receipts have now fallen two straight years and sit about $217,000 below the FY 2023 high.

The City’s sales tax consultant, HdL, attributed the drop to weaker sales of autos, building and construction materials, business and industry goods, fuel, and general consumer goods. Restaurants and hotels grew.

Measure L is a transactions and use tax. That means it applies to goods delivered into Lodi, including online orders, and all of it stays with the City. Because of AB 147 (2019), which requires large online sellers to collect the tax, Measure L brought in about 57.2% as much as the City’s 1% share of the base sales tax, even though its rate is half as large.

Total revenue: FY 2019 $1,453,364 (partial year) · FY 2020 $6,762,083 · FY 2021 $8,456,915 · FY 2022 $9,176,719 · FY 2023 $9,340,813 · FY 2024 $9,231,478 · FY 2025 $9,100,526. Source: FY 2024/25 Draft Accountability Report, p. 7.

Interest earnings were $421 for the year on a fund that started with $1.79 million. The report does not say whether Measure L receives a share of the City’s pooled-cash interest.

The report has no receivables schedule. California’s tax agency, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), sends sales tax to cities after a delay, so a June 30 balance normally includes money owed but not yet received. The report does not disclose that amount or the accounting basis for the $9.1 million.

Spending by Recipient

The report presents FY 2024/25 spending three ways: by service type (Table 1), by category (Table 2), and by department (ClearGov tables). Reconciled, they agree on $9,308,633. Police and Fire received 81.9% of it, nearly all for salaries, benefits, and overtime.