Lodi City Council Agenda - August 19, 2026
Lodi City Council Agenda Analysis
Wednesday, August 19, 2026 — Closed Session 6:00 p.m. | Invocation 6:55 p.m. | Regular Session 7:00 p.m.
Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240
Summary
This looks like a routine consent-heavy meeting and it is not. Three items on one agenda restructure the top of Lodi city government: a permanent City Attorney is hired at $272,000 on a three-year term (G.1), the City Clerk stops reporting to the City Council and starts reporting to the City Manager (H.1), and a third recruitment is added to the same search firm, taking Mosaic Public Partners from $40,000 to $103,000 across the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk searches (C.6). After H.1 passes, the City Attorney becomes the only Council-appointed officer left.
The night's most contested item is G.2, a $616,700 tree maintenance award to Elite Maintenance & Tree Service of Ceres. West Coast Arborists, the current contractor, which has held Lodi's tree work for roughly 20 years across successive contract terms, filed a bid protest challenging Elite's tree-inventory qualifications. The item was continued from June 17 after what the staff report describes as a City comment-card failure that silenced Elite at its own award hearing — though the approved June 17 minutes record no such failure, and instead show the item pulled at WCA's request with Council asking staff to verify Elite's references. The head-to-head comparison is Elite's $616,700 against WCA's $684,920 on identical two-year scope, both below the $784,700 engineer's estimate.
Important finding: the packet does not record what already happened. G.2's staff report is the unrevised August 5 document. It narrates the June 17 continuance and stops there, never noting that Council took up the award on August 5, 2026 and split 2–2 with Councilman Bregman absent, then voted 4–0 to bring it back on August 19 (Lodi News-Sentinel). Its draft resolution still certifies passage at a meeting held August 5. Bregman is the decisive vote on August 19.
Meeting Basics
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Location | Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240 |
| Times | Closed Session 6:00 p.m.; Invocation 6:55 p.m.; Regular Session 7:00 p.m. |
| City Council | Mayor Ramon Yepez (District 4); Mayor Pro Tempore Mikey Hothi (District 5); Councilmember Cameron Bregman (District 3); Councilmember Lisa Craig-Hensley; Councilmember Alan Nakanishi |
| Agenda signed by | Walfred Solorzano, Interim City Clerk |
| Remote participation | Zoom Webinar ID 821 7418 0304, passcode 123456; phone (253) 215-8782 or (346) 248-7799 |
| Additional public locations | Isla Paraíso S'Arenal Castell, 10, Via de Ronda — 07740 Es Mercadal, Illes Balears, España, and 1679 N Bayview Rd, Waldport, OR 97394 |
| Broadcast | SJTV Channel 26; live and archived webcast at lodi.gov; open session on the City's YouTube channel |
| Written comment | councilcomments@lodi.gov, or City Clerk, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241 — must arrive no later than two hours before the meeting |
| Source document | Regular agenda packet, 184 pages, generated August 13, 2026 |
What to Watch For
Two out-of-state remote locations, one of them in Spain
The agenda's first page lists two “Additional Locations”: Isla Paraíso S'Arenal Castell, 10, Via de Ronda - 07740 Es Mercadal, Illes Balears, España, on the island of Menorca, Spain, and 1679 N Bayview Rd, Waldport, OR 97394, on the Oregon coast. The Oregon address was added in the City's August 14 revision and was not on the agenda first published. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, posting an address like this means a Council member intends to take part in the meeting from there, and the public is entitled to attend and speak at that address. With five members on the Council, two of them appear to be taking part from out of state. The agenda does not say which members, and it lists no staff at either location.
An item still missing from the printed agenda
Consent item C.4 is entirely absent from the printed agenda listing — the list jumps from C.3 straight to C.5 — even though its staff report and a six-page citywide salary schedule sit at packet pages 60 through 68. A resident reading the agenda would have no way to know the Council is adopting a pay schedule that night. The City's August 14 revision fixed the same kind of problem with C.14, whose title had been blank, but left C.4 out.
Interim officials are signing nearly every document
Kara Reddig as City Manager (with Aaron M. Busch shown as Interim City Manager on a May 28, 2026 letter), John M. Luebberke as Interim City Attorney, Walfred Solorzano as Interim City Clerk, and Sean Nathan as Interim Public Works Director. Several attachments still carry Olivia Nashed as City Clerk, indicating stale document templates.
Salary schedule contradicts the employment contract
The pay schedule in C.4 lists the City Attorney classification at $303,680.67. The appointment in G.1 the same night is at $272,000 — roughly $31,680, or 10.4 percent, below the schedule Council adopts on the same agenda.
Three active lawsuits, and two math corrections
Closed session covers one Bennitt case and two separate Carney cases filed in 2026. On the open agenda, C.3 corrects a Gann appropriations-limit miscalculation spanning two fiscal years, and C.13 corrects a contract award entered $2,700 low because of a transposition error.
A $60,000 legal investigation the packet never explains
C.7 discloses a $60,000 contract with Hirschfeld Kraemer, LLP for “Investigation Services” in Human Resources. Nothing in the 184-page packet explains its subject. It sits alongside three interim executives, a City Attorney vacancy, a City Clerk vacancy, and two employment-related lawsuits.
The staff report and the approved minutes disagree about June 17
G.2 attributes the June continuance to a comment-card failure that denied Elite and the public a chance to speak. The approved June 17, 2026 minutes never mention any comment-card problem. They record the tree award as consent item C.15, pulled at the request of Jason Pinegar of West Coast Arborists, followed by extended Council debate, with Councilman Nakanishi speaking in favor of awarding to WCA and Councilman Bregman asking staff to verify Elite's references. The minutes also state that staff would return the item on July 1, 2026 — it did not appear until August 5. Those minutes were themselves only approved on August 5, 2026, as part of a large backlog (August 5, 2026 packet).
The current tree contract ran a year longer than Council planned
West Coast Arborists' existing contract 322028 was authorized in April 2021 as the 2021-2023 Tree Maintenance Project — a two-year term plus two optional one-year extensions, a four-year maximum ending around mid-2025 — and executed on August 4, 2021. Rather than exercising those options, the City and WCA signed three contract amendments negotiated directly with the company carrying the term through June 30, 2026, the last adding $400,000 to a stated not-to-exceed $2,768,804. Every extension traces back to a Council authorization, so this is a structural observation rather than an irregularity: a four-year contract became a five-year one, one amendment at a time.
Between $180,000 and $430,000 in extra work with no Council vote on record
Reconstructed Council change-order authority on contract 322028 reaches $1,965,324 through May 2025, against actual cumulative change orders of $2,190,324 by June 30, 2026. Two of the City's own resolutions also cite cumulative authority figures — $1,335,324 in April 2024 and $1,790,324 in May 2025 — that exceed the sum of the actions they themselves itemize, by $250,000 and $55,000. This is a question for Public Works and Finance, not yet a finding.
A $400,000 Council decision with no meeting record
Of the eight Council actions that built contract 322028's change-order authority, six can be traced to an adopted resolution and a recorded vote. Two cannot. The April 3, 2024 and May 1, 2024 regular meetings have never had their minutes approved — Lodi's backlog batches approve February 21, 2024 and then skip to August 22, 2024 — so the May 1 action adding $400,000 and authorizing Amendment No. 2 has no resolution number, no mover, and no vote tally in the public record. That it passed is known only because City staff signed the amendment two weeks later.
The ordinance's title changed between readings; its text did not
The first reading, on August 5, 2026 as item G.6, was titled “Transfer the Appointment Authority for the City Clerk to the City Manager.” The August 19 second reading reads “Transfer the Oversight, Direction, And Control.” The operative code language is identical in both. The August 19 staff report never states the introduction date, and its certification block leaves the ordinance number blank.
Money at a Glance
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| C.1 — April 2026 Register of Claims | $25,280,648 ($16,817,546 accounts payable + $8,463,102 payroll) |
| C.2 — May 2026 Register of Claims | $19,187,660 ($14,282,290 accounts payable + $4,905,370 payroll) |
| City cash and investments, 4/30/2026 | $276,591,887 |
| City cash and investments, 5/31/2026 | $283,151,589 |
| G.2 — Tree maintenance award | $616,700 plus $100,000 change-order authority |
| G.4 — Parking structure vehicle security | $250,000 combined authority |
| C.11 — Sidewalk change-order authority increase | $400,000, plus a $180,000 appropriation |
| C.5 — Armis cybersecurity renewal | $75,748 (agreement to $151,496) |
| G.1 — City Attorney annual salary | $272,000 |
| C.6 — Recruitment contract ceiling | $103,000 |
| C.14 — Downtown Business Alliance holiday grant | $20,000 |
| C.8 — Police PARTNERS' Foundation vehicle donation | $37,015.26 |
Register of Claims composition for April and May 2026, split between accounts payable and payroll. Source: C.1 and C.2 Treasurer's Reports, packet pages 9 through 20.
How to Weigh In on August 19
Everything below comes from the agenda's own notice pages. If you only read one section of this report, this is the one that lets you act on it.
If you want to speak in person
The meeting is at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street. The public part starts at 7:00 p.m. The 6:00 p.m. closed session is not open to the public — Council meets privately on lawsuits and personnel, then comes back out and reports what, if anything, it decided. There is an invocation at 6:55. Arrive by about 6:45 if you want to fill out a card without rushing.
To speak on an item, you fill out a comment card before that item is called and hand it in. This is worth taking seriously on August 19, because the City says a comment-card mix-up is what derailed this exact meeting's biggest item two months ago. In the staff report for the tree contract, the City writes that on June 17, “through an unintentional issue with the comment cards, no other members of the public (including Elite) were given an opportunity to speak on the item.” Council continued the item partly to make sure the public was heard. If you turn in a card and are not called, say so.
Five minutes is the limit for comments on things that are not on the agenda, one turn per person. On those, Council can only send the matter to staff or put it on a future agenda — it cannot vote on it that night.
One gap you should know about
The consent calendar note tells you that if you want an item pulled out for separate discussion, you should “refer to the Notice at the beginning of this agenda.” That Notice lists the ways to submit a comment, but it never explains how to pull an item. If you want C.4, C.6, C.7, or C.14 discussed instead of swept through in a single motion, say so on your comment card and to the Clerk before the consent calendar is called.
If you want to write instead
| How | Where | Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| councilcomments@lodi.gov | No later than two hours before the meeting | |
| City Clerk's Office, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241 | Must arrive by the same cutoff | |
| Hand delivery | City Clerk's Office, 221 West Pine Street | No later than two hours before the meeting |
The agenda says “two hours prior to the meeting” without saying which start time it means. The closed session begins at 6:00 p.m., so send it by 4:00 p.m. Wednesday and you are safely inside either reading.
Two things to expect. Written comment will not be read aloud — it goes to the Council members and into the official minutes, but nobody hears it in the room. And it becomes a public record. If you want your words spoken at the meeting, you have to show up or join by Zoom.
If you want to join remotely
Zoom Webinar ID 821 7418 0304, passcode 123456. By phone: 1 (253) 215-8782 or 1 (346) 248-7799. The full link is in the agenda's first-page notice.
There is also an unusual option this month. The agenda lists two “Additional Locations” where a Council member intends to participate from — one on Menorca, Spain, and one at 1679 N Bayview Rd, Waldport, Oregon. Under the Brown Act, a posted address like that is a public meeting location, and any member of the public is entitled to attend and comment from it. That is almost certainly of no practical use to anyone in Lodi, but it is the law, and it is why those addresses have to be printed at all.
If you only want to watch
SJTV Channel 26, live and archived video at lodi.gov, or the City's public meetings channel at youtube.com/@cityoflodi_publicmeetings. The archive is the practical way to check what was said about an item after the fact.
If you need an accommodation or an interpreter
Both require 72 hours' notice, so for this meeting that means requesting by Sunday, August 16. The agenda lists the contact as Olivia Nashed at (209) 333-6702 — she resigned as City Clerk at the end of July, so treat the phone number, not the name, as the reliable part; it reaches the City Clerk's Office. Language interpreter requests go to the same number. Solicitudes de interpretación de idiomas deben ser recibidas por lo menos con 72 horas de anticipación.
The items most likely to matter to you
- G.2, the $616,700 tree contract — the one contested item, already tied 2–2 once, and the one where public comment failed last time.
- H.1, the City Clerk ordinance — second reading, so this is your last chance to comment before it takes effect. It moves control of the City Clerk from the elected Council to the City Manager.
- G.3, the Finance Committee rules — this one creates two additional resident seats on the committee that reviews City finances. If you have ever wanted a formal seat at the table, that is what is being created here.
- C.14, the $20,000 downtown holiday grant — small, but it is Council members spending their individual district funds rather than money awarded through a competitive process.
One legal duty worth flagging
If you are a party to a decision on the agenda, or an agent for one, and you have given a Council member more than $500 in total in the past 12 months, the Levine Act requires you to disclose it — in writing to the Clerk beforehand or out loud when the item comes up. This applies most directly to the two companies competing on G.2.
Closed Session (6:00 p.m.)
Five subjects, all under Government Code exceptions. Read together, the closed session is dominated by legal-department and City Clerk personnel matters — the same subject area as open-agenda items C.6, G.1, and H.1.
A note on the agenda's lettering. Lodi uses the letter C in two unrelated senses on the same agenda, distinguished only by hyphen versus period. C-1, C-2, and C-3 are the three procedural steps of the closed session: Call to Order and Roll Call; Announcement of Closed Session; and Adjournment to Closed Session. C.1 through C.14 are the consent calendar items in open session. The five closed-session subjects below are lettered a) through e) underneath C-2. This is a long-standing Lodi convention: the December 6, 2023 agenda uses C-1, C-2, and C-3 for closed-session steps while numbering consent items C.1 through C.18. The hyphen-versus-period distinction holds only on the agendas, however. Lodi's minutes collapse both series to hyphens, so the June 7, 2023 minutes contain two different items both labeled C-1 — Call to Order and Roll Call in the closed session, and Receive Register of Claims on the consent calendar — roughly forty pages apart in the same document. Anyone citing a Lodi item by number needs to say which document and which series they mean. Note also that the closed-session block is not always three steps — the June 17, 2026 minutes run C-1 through C-4, with C-4 being Return to Open Session and Disclosure of Action, a step this agenda's C-block does not itemize.
| Item | Authority | Subject |
|---|---|---|
| a) | Existing litigation, §54956.9(d)(1) | Christopher Bennitt v. City of Lodi, et al. — San Joaquin County Superior Court No. STK-CV-UCP-2025-1701 |
| b) | Existing litigation, §54956.9(d)(1) | Scott R. Carney v. City of Lodi — No. STK-CV-UWM-2026-0003828 (writ of mandate) |
| c) | Existing litigation, §54956.9(d)(1) | Scott R. Carney v. City of Lodi — No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0044713 (other employment) |
| d) | Performance evaluation, §54957(b) | Initial review of the Interim City Attorney |
| e) | Public employment, §54957(b) | Interim City Clerk recruitment |
Items (b) and (c) are two separate 2026 filings by the same plaintiff — a writ of mandate action and an employment action. C.1 independently shows the City Attorney division at 81.8 percent of its budget with $1,204,896 spent against $912,179 the prior year, a 32 percent year-over-year increase in legal spending.
What changed since June. The June 17, 2026 closed session covered the same two Carney cases plus one anticipated-litigation matter. The Bennitt case is new to the closed-session agenda since then, and its case number indicates a 2025 filing, so it is either newly served, newly at a decision point, or newly escalated to closed-session discussion (June 17, 2026 minutes, reprinted in the August 5, 2026 packet).
Presentations
B.1 — Building and Code Staff Appreciation Day Proclamation
Mayor Yepez will proclaim September 1, 2026 as Building and Code Staff Appreciation Day. The proclamation recognizes Building Division and Code Enforcement staff for plan review, permit processing, inspections, code enforcement, and customer assistance, and notes the continuing-education burden of keeping current with the California Building Standards Code. No fiscal impact. Signed by Mayor Yepez on August 19, 2026.
Consent Calendar (C.1 – C.14)
The consent calendar runs C.1 through C.14, fourteen items. The printed agenda omits C.4's listing, but its staff report is in the packet. Attachments consist of two treasurer's reports, the Gann calculation, the salary schedule, two contract amendments, a purchases report, a donation packet, three project acceptance exhibits, a capital improvement sheet, and the Downtown Business Alliance request letter.
Earlier Council Decisions Described in This Packet
The staff reports, resolutions, and exhibits in this packet together document a substantial decision trail. The June 17, 2026 entry is the most consequential, and the August 5 entry is the one the packet omits.
| Date | Documented action | Where it appears |
|---|---|---|
| July 16, 2025 | Resolution 2025-123 — original Armis / ePlus purchase, adopted unanimously (Craig-Hensley, Hothi, Nakanishi, Yepez, Mayor Bregman; no noes, none absent) | C.5, packet page 50 |
| Aug 20, 2025 | Resolution 2025-146 established the Finance Committee: 2 Councilmembers plus 1 resident | G.3 |
| Sept 3, 2025 | Resolution 2025-147 created the recruitment-firm eligibility list of three firms | C.6 |
| Nov 19, 2025 | Resolution 2025-199 (stormwater trash, $600,000 authority) and Resolution 2025-201 (Hale Park, $180,000 authority) | C.9, C.10 |
| Jan 7, 2026 | Awarded parking-structure stair sealing to Waterproofing Associates — at an incorrect amount due to a transposition error | C.13 |
| May 20, 2026 | Resolution 2026-100 — Mosaic Amendment No. 1, ceiling raised to $72,500 | C.6 |
| June 3, 2026 | Downtown Lodi Business Alliance presented its holiday-program report and funding request | C.14 request letter |
| June 17, 2026 | Tree contract continued. A West Coast Arborists representative reiterated the protest during public comment; “through an unintentional issue with the comment cards, no other members of the public (including Elite) were given an opportunity to speak.” Council deferred the item to gather more information and ensure comment was heard. | G.2 |
| June 17, 2026 | Adopted the FY 2026/27 budget, including the erroneous appropriations limit; Budget Resolution 2026-141 | C.3, C.11 |
| Aug 5, 2026 | Not documented in this packet. Council took up G.2 and the motion to award to Elite failed on a 2–2 tie — Craig-Hensley and Nakanishi aye, Yepez and Hothi no, Bregman absent — after which Council voted 4–0 to bring it back August 19 with a full body. The staff report in this packet stops at June 17. | External record only |
C.1 — Treasurer's Report and Register of Claims, April 2026
Register of Claims: $25,280,648 — $16,817,546 in accounts payable plus $8,463,102 in payroll. This is a cash-basis report. Cash and investments fell from $282,985,140 on March 31 to $276,591,887 on April 30, on $18.05 million of inflows against $24.44 million of outflows.
| Fund | Balance |
|---|---|
| 100 General Fund | $45,097,818 |
| 560 Water Utility | $70,592,559 |
| 500 Electric Utility | $35,851,605 |
| 655 Insurance | $30,744,741 |
| 530 Wastewater Utility | $23,607,934 |
| 431 Impact Mitigation Fees | $21,777,137 |
| 300 Streets | $21,245,092 |
| 350 Community Programs | ($1,922,832) |
| 103 Measure L | ($912,587) |
| 101 CFD 2007-01 | ($562,360) |
| 650 Fleet | ($452,002) |
Where the money sits: Wells Fargo investments $125,147,566; LAIF $52,163,202; Farmers & Merchants money market $37,584,334; PARS Pension Trust $32,588,601; US Bank debt service $14,005,408; CalTrust $11,721,115; PARS OPEB Trust $3,013,261. The interest earnings line shows ($135,877) — a negative mark reflecting unrealized valuation loss.
Revenue year to date (10 months, 83 percent of the year elapsed): $220,322,173 of $281,089,859 amended, or 78.4 percent, versus $201,628,061 the prior year. General Fund revenue is $49,628,863, or 73.0 percent of $67,945,000, with taxes only 69.8 percent collected — consistent with property-tax timing. Staff flags three variances: Library Fund at 251.5 percent from unbudgeted investment earnings, Public Safety at 258.8 percent because a FY25 state grant was recognized in FY26, and Capital Outlay at 4,672.7 percent from a revenue lease bond drawdown for the Animal Shelter capital project.
Expenditures year to date: $221,194,400 of $351,276,165 amended, or 63.0 percent. General Fund is $53,441,794, or 74.9 percent. Public safety runs hot relative to the calendar — Police 82.4 percent, Fire 80.3 percent — while capital-heavy funds lag badly: Water Utility 29.4 percent, American Rescue Plan 29.6 percent, Community Programs 32.9 percent, Streets 42.6 percent. The City Attorney division stands at 81.8 percent, $1,204,896 of $1,472,220, against $912,179 the prior year.
April accounts payable by fund, largest first: General Fund $5,544,605; Electric Utility $3,187,099; Wastewater Capital Outlay $1,206,011; Capital Outlay/General Fund $886,809; Grants Community Improvement $534,031; Environmental Compliance $422,029. April payroll: General Fund $3,710,330; Electric Utility $1,185,625; Wastewater $863,899; Measure L $837,542.
C.2 — Treasurer's Report and Register of Claims, May 2026
Register of Claims: $19,187,660 — $14,282,290 accounts payable plus $4,905,370 payroll. Cash and investments rose to $283,151,589 on $26.77 million of inflows against $20.21 million of outflows.
Note a rollforward discontinuity between the two reports: eight of the fourteen listed funds open in May at a figure different from where they closed in April. The General Fund closes April at $45,097,818 but opens May at $45,121,816, a gain of $23,998; Water Utility closes at $70,592,559 and opens at $70,590,528, down $2,031; smaller gaps appear in the Library, Streets, Electric, Wastewater, Fleet, and Insurance funds, netting $8,478 overall. Total cash ties cleanly — $276,591,887 closing April equals opening May — so these are almost certainly post-close reclassifications between funds rather than errors, but the packet does not disclose or explain them.
The General Fund jumped from $45,121,816 to $52,816,451, a gain of $7.7 million on $13.49 million of inflows — the April and May property-tax apportionment. CFD 2007-01 nearly cleared its deficit, moving from ($562,360) to ($38,439) on $523,920 of inflows. Water Utility fell from $70,590,528 to $68,585,192 on $3.18 million of capital draws. Community Programs remained negative at ($1,880,674), Measure L at ($722,266), and Fleet at ($470,743).
Portfolio at May 31: the Farmers & Merchants main account swung positive to $1,663,278; money market $41,308,480; PARS Pension Trust grew to $33,428,373; PARS OPEB $3,090,909; Wells Fargo $125,433,656; LAIF unchanged at $52,163,202. The interest earnings line deepened to ($582,067) — a fair-value trend worth tracking across future reports.
May accounts payable concentrations: Electric Utility $3,873,650; Water Utility $1,662,999; Water Capital Outlay $1,325,278; Employee Benefits $990,144; Environmental Compliance $438,537. May payroll: General Fund $2,170,665; Electric $670,038; Measure L $568,166; Wastewater $455,245.
Total City cash and investments at three month-end dates, showing the April dip and the May property-tax recovery. Source: C.1 and C.2 Treasurer's Reports.
C.3 — Amend the FY 2025/26 and 2026/27 Appropriations (Gann) Spending Limit
This is a correction of a staff calculation error. Article XIII B of the California Constitution requires an annual appropriations limit, the “Gann Limit,” computed with state-provided population and inflation factors. Council adopted the limits alongside the budgets on June 4, 2025 and June 17, 2026. Staff then identified an administrative error in the calculation that compounded across both years.
| Year | Incorrect | Revised | Difference | Appropriations subject to limit | Headroom |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY 2025-26 | $156,531,082 | $156,012,900 | $518,182 | $63,161,060 | $92,851,840 |
| FY 2026-27 | $164,049,380 | $163,850,153 | $199,217 | $66,080,780 | $97,769,383 |
Attachment A shows the mechanics. For FY 2025-26: prior limit $147,014,606 multiplied by a population factor of 0.9970 and an inflation factor of 1.0644 gives a combined factor of 1.0612, adding $8,998,294 to reach $156,012,900. For FY 2026-27: $156,012,900 multiplied by population 1.0007 and inflation 1.0495 gives 1.0502, adding $7,837,253 to reach $163,850,153.
Why this is small, and why it still counts
Lodi appropriates roughly 40 percent of its constitutional ceiling, so the correction has no compliance or budget effect — no expenditures are authorized and no appropriations change. But this is the second consent item on the same agenda documenting arithmetic error in an adopted Council action, alongside C.13. And the FY 2026-27 figure is internally inconsistent within the item itself: the staff report body, the summary table, and Attachment A give it as $163,850,153, $163,850,163, and $163,850,153 respectively — a $10 discrepancy inside a correction item.
C.4 — Adopt City of Lodi Pay Schedule Dated August 19, 2026Not on printed agenda
Background. CalPERS will only treat pay as reportable “compensation earnable” if it appears on a publicly available pay schedule satisfying all eight elements of California Code of Regulations §570.5: governing-body adoption, a position title for every position, the payrate, the time base, public posting, an effective date, five-year retention, and no cross-references. Government Code §§20636 and 20636.1 require the schedule to be public. If an agency cannot produce a compliant schedule, the CalPERS Board may set the payrate itself. Staff notes the City Manager brings updated schedules forward from time to time. Stated fiscal impact: none.
Attachment 1 is a six-page citywide salary schedule at packet pages 62 through 67, covering every classification with Steps 0 through 4 annual rates plus part-time hourly rates. Selected executive and appointed rates:
| Position | Effective | Annual rate |
|---|---|---|
| City Attorney | 01/05/2026 | $303,680.67 |
| City Manager | 06/22/2026 | $285,000.00 |
| City Clerk | 01/05/2026 | $162,842.15 |
| Assistant Electric Utility Director | 01/06/2025 | $236,721 – $287,736 |
| Construction / Maintenance Supervisor | 01/05/2026 | $235,007.24 (single step) |
| Electric Distribution Operations Supervisor | 01/05/2026 | $218,356.58 – $229,274.76 |
| Community Development Director | 01/06/2025 | $201,619.74 |
| Economic Development Director | 01/05/2026 | $198,198.00 |
| Administrative Services Director | 11/19/2025 | $195,261.52 |
| Assistant City Attorney | 01/06/2025 | $187,527.62 – $227,941.00 |
| Deputy Fire Chief | 07/06/2026 | $172,345.14 – $209,486.60 |
| City Engineer / Deputy Public Works Director | 01/05/2026 | $163,155.53 – $198,198.61 |
| Deputy City Attorney II | 01/06/2025 | $150,681.53 – $183,154.29 |
| Assistant City Clerk | 01/05/2026 | $74,622.50 – $90,704.08 |
| Deputy City Clerk | 01/05/2026 | $65,303.37 – $79,376.67 |
| Administrative Clerk | 01/06/2025 | $45,113.40 – $54,835.65 |
Where the $303,680.67 came from
That number is not an estimate or a placeholder. On March 4, 2026, Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-46 raising then-City Attorney Katie Lucchesi's base pay to exactly $303,680, on a 4–1 vote — Bregman, Craig-Hensley, Nakanishi, and Hothi in favor, Mayor Yepez against. The same night, Resolution No. 2026-47 raised then-City Clerk Olivia Nashed's pay to $162,842, which is the other appointed figure on this schedule. Both items had first come to Council on February 18, 2026, where Council voted 5–0 to hold them and seven related pay items over to March 4. The schedule Council is asked to adopt on August 19 still carries both of those numbers, with a January 5, 2026 effective date, for two officials who have since left. (February 18 and March 4, 2026 minutes, reprinted in the August 5, 2026 packet)
Three things to note
First, the City Attorney line at $303,680.67 sits about $31,680 above the $272,000 Council is asked to approve in G.1 the same night. Second, the City did update the City Manager line to $285,000 with an effective date of 06/22/2026 — the exact day Kara Reddig started — so the City clearly does refresh these lines when a new appointee's pay is settled. It has not done so for the City Attorney line, even though the new City Attorney's salary is being approved at this same meeting. Third, the item's complete absence from the printed agenda means the public had no published notice that a citywide pay schedule was being adopted — the agenda text runs C.3 directly to C.5.
C.5 — Amendment No. 1, ePlus Technology: Armis Cybersecurity Renewal, $75,748
Extends the Armis Essentials Asset Vulnerability Management platform through June 29, 2027, adding $75,748 for a total agreement not to exceed $151,496.
Background. Council originally bought Armis on July 16, 2025 under Resolution No. 2025-123, adopted unanimously — packet page 50 records ayes from Craig-Hensley, Hothi, Nakanishi, Yepez, and Mayor Bregman, with no noes, absences, or abstentions. The original agreement was executed September 17, 2025 with a term of June 30, 2025 through June 29, 2026 and a hard cap of three years total including extensions. The original term ran out June 29, 2026, and Amendment No. 1 extends it to June 29, 2027, so the coverage period is continuous on paper — but the Council authorization for it is being adopted roughly seven weeks after the prior term ended. The staff report itself describes the term as having “expired on June 30, 2026,” one day off from the agreement's own end date.
How the City will buy it. Armis sells only through value-added resellers, so the City buys through ePlus Technology, Inc. of Herndon, Virginia. Competitive bidding is waived under Lodi Municipal Code §3.20.045 for state and local agency contracts, riding state contract CA-SLP Armis 26-70-0059U. ePlus quote No. 23477270, dated April 1, 2026 and expiring June 26, 2026, prices the renewal at exactly $75,747.36:
| Line | Product | Term | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ARMIS Asset Management, 10,000–14,999 assets / 1–5 network ports | 06/30/2026 – 06/29/2027 | $75,747.36 |
| 002 | ARMIS VIPR — Vulnerability Prioritization and Remediation, 2,500–9,999 assets | same | $0.00 |
| 003 | ARMIS Premium Success — 24/7/365 enhanced support, dedicated manager | same | $0.00 |
Lines 002 and 003 are bundled at no charge. Funding comes from IT account 10020400.72450. Signatories are Kara Reddig as City Manager for the City and Don McLaughlin, Senior Vice President of Contracts, for ePlus. Exhibit C requires $1 million each in commercial general liability, auto, and workers' compensation coverage plus $2 million in technology errors and omissions insurance with explicit breach-response, regulatory-fine, and credit-monitoring coverage.
Worth knowing
The asset-count tier — 10,000 to 14,999 monitored assets — is a rare public data point on the size of Lodi's connected-device estate. Note also that the amendment's signature block lists Olivia Nashed as City Clerk while the agenda itself is signed by Interim City Clerk Solorzano.
C.6 — Amendment No. 2, Mosaic Public Partners: Recruitment Ceiling to $103,000
Note that the staff report's own MEETING DATE field reads August 5, 2026 — a carry-over error.
| Date | Action | Ceiling | Driver |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sept 3, 2025 | Resolution 2025-147 — eligibility list of three recruitment firms | — | Executive, department-head, and hard-to-fill vacancies |
| Oct 30, 2025 | Original agreement with Mosaic | $40,000 | City Manager recruitment (completed) |
| May 20, 2026 | Resolution 2026-100 — Amendment No. 1 | $72,500 | City Attorney recruitment, concluding with G.1 tonight |
| Aug 19, 2026 | Amendment No. 2 (this item) | $103,000 | City Clerk recruitment, adding $30,500 |
Both the City Attorney and City Clerk vacancies are described in the staff report as unforeseen at the time of the preceding agreement. Funding is in the FY 2026-27 budget. Amendment No. 2 will be signed by Kara Reddig as City Manager and Greg Nelson, Founder and Managing Partner of Mosaic.
Mismatched attachments and a $1,500 gap
Amendment No. 2 recites the original agreement date as “October 30, 2026” when it should be 2025, and dates Amendment No. 1 to June 5, 2026 while the staff report says Council authorized it on May 20, 2026 — dates that do not reconcile across the packet. Separately, $72,500 plus $32,000 equals $104,500, but the new ceiling is $103,000, an increase of $30,500, implying roughly $1,500 of unspent room under the prior ceiling is being absorbed. The May 20, 2026 staff report shows there is no such room: the $40,000 original agreement was for the City Manager recruitment, and the City Attorney search then committed $32,000 for the recruitment plus $9,500 for outreach — $41,500, already $1,500 over the original ceiling. That is the same $1,500. The May 20 report also puts the City Attorney search quote at $31,000, carrying the ceiling to $72,500. The May 20, 2026 date and Resolution 2026-100 in this packet were checked against that packet and are correct.
Context. C.7 independently confirms this trail: Table 4 lists contract 326110, Mosaic Public Partners, original $40,000, Amendment 1 of $32,500, revised total $72,500, signed by the City Manager. Read alongside H.1, the City is paying a search firm $32,000 to recruit a City Clerk while simultaneously changing who that Clerk answers to.
Two ceilings raised by amendment rather than re-bid: the Mosaic recruitment ceiling (C.6), from $40,000 to $103,000, and the sidewalk repair ceiling (C.11), from the $375,000 Council authorized in April 2025 to $559,520. Source: C.6, C.7, and C.11 staff reports.
C.7 — Quarterly Report of Purchases $30,000–$60,000 Through June 30, 2026
Required by Lodi Municipal Code §2.12.060(T). Staff notes that future reports will use a $40,000 to $80,000 band to match the recently updated Purchasing Policy thresholds, which means fewer purchases will be listed for Council and the public to see.
What we can now say about the Hirschfeld Kraemer contract
The largest single contract on this list is $60,000 to Hirschfeld Kraemer, LLP for “Investigation Services,” charged to Human Resources, with no subject or explanation given. Hirschfeld Kraemer is a California employment-law firm that public agencies commonly hire to run independent personnel and workplace investigations, which fits the charge code. It is worth being clear about what this is not: Lodi's long-running outside investigation into the allegations raised by former City Manager Scott Carney has been handled by a different firm, Meyers Nave (Stocktonia, The Record). So this appears to be a second, separate investigation. A search of Lodi's 2026 agendas, resolutions, and Legistar records, and of local news coverage, turns up no mention of the firm anywhere else in the public record. Personnel investigations are confidential by law, so the silence may be entirely proper — but residents can see the $60,000 and nothing else.
| PO | Contractor | Description | Dept | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2260311 | DC Frost Associates | Primary #2 Collector System | PW Wastewater | $59,442 |
| 2260257 | Lodi Motors | 2026 Honda Accord, unmarked unit 05-076 | Police | $40,503 |
| 2260267 | Central Valley Low Income Housing Corp. | Furnishings, Reimagined Housing on Main Street | Community Development | $30,000 |
Table 2 — Cal-Card purchases: empty this quarter.
| Contract | Contractor | Description | Dept | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 326169 | Hirschfeld Kraemer, LLP | Investigation Services | Human Resources | $60,000 |
| 326160 | Eaton Drilling Co. | Well 8 removal and abandonment | PW Water | $55,996 |
| 326180 | RRM Design Group | On-call planning services | CDD Planning | $50,000 |
| 326163 | Jonathan Grigsby | 2025-2027 citywide locksmith services | PW Facilities | $47,000 |
| 326190 | Hach Company | Maintenance of mandatory regulatory online analyzers | PW Wastewater | $35,346 |
| 326149 | Kermit E. Allen | Ballet instructor | Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services | $30,000 |
| 326168 | Fireworks & Stage FX America | July 4th fireworks | Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services | $30,000 |
| 326182 | Esperanza Pevehouse | Young Bakers Academy | Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services | $30,000 |
| Contract | Action | Contractor | Original | This action | Prior additions | Revised total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 322028 | Change Order 9 | West Coast Arborists | $673,480 | $45,000 | $2,145,324 | $2,863,804 |
| 326011 | Change Order 1 | United Cerebral Palsy | $117,096 | $44,566 | — | $161,662 |
| 320110 | Amendment 2 | Business Recovery Services | $39,942 | $45,000 | $54,000 | $138,942 |
| 325041 | Amendment 1 | Waterproofing Associates | $60,000 | $40,000 | — | $100,000 |
| 326110 | Amendment 1 | Mosaic Public Partners | $40,000 | $32,500 | — | $72,500 |
The Waterproofing Associates amendment is printed in the packet as “40,0000” — an extra zero. Table 5, utility inventory purchases between $30,000 and $250,000: DMC Power LLC, power press and head assemblies, $124,976; Stella-Jones Corporation, inventory, $39,442 and $30,258; General Pacific, inventory, $34,540 — all Electric Utility Warehouse.
Two entries that raise questions
First, West Coast Arborists' contract 322028 shows a revised total of $2,863,804: original $673,480, previous change orders $2,145,324, this change order $45,000. The numbers add up, but the growth needs the right reading. The packet nowhere states this contract's term or start date — earlier Council actions and the City's own contract records supply both, and are set out immediately below. This is an on-call annual tree maintenance contract, the kind where each year's pruning cycle is added by change order against unit prices — cumulative growth well beyond the original award is the normal mechanism, not evidence of runaway scope. WCA has held Lodi's tree work for roughly 20 years, and Interim Public Works Director Sean Nathan told Council it was renewed through multiple successive contract terms rather than one long agreement (Lodi News-Sentinel), so 322028 is one term inside that history, not the whole 20 years. It also cannot be compared against Elite's $616,700, which covers a two-year initial term; the like-for-like comparison is WCA's own bid of $684,920 against Elite's $616,700, a $68,220 gap on identical scope. Second, the $60,000 outside-counsel Investigation Services contract with Hirschfeld Kraemer in Human Resources is not explained anywhere in the packet, yet it sits at the top of the price range Council reviews alongside three interim executives, two vacant appointed offices, and two Carney lawsuits.
How the tree contract grew: every Council vote
The change-order authorizations behind this line item are on the public record, spread across five years of Lodi agendas, Laserfiche resolutions, and Legistar matter attachments.
| Date | Action | Cumulative authority |
|---|---|---|
| April 21, 2021 | Resolution 2021-97 — approved plans and specifications for the 2021-2023 Tree Maintenance Project: a two-year term plus two optional one-year extensions, a $900,000 award ceiling, $80,000 in change-order authority, and authority for the City Manager to award | $80,000 |
| August 4, 2021 | Contract executed with West Coast Arborists, Inc. — date recited in the signed Amendment No. 2 | — |
| September 21, 2022 | Resolution 2022-211 — plus $330,324 | $410,324 |
| March 1, 2023 | Resolution 2023-44 — plus $200,000, with a $200,000 storm appropriation, after the January 2023 storms | $610,324 |
| June 7, 2023 | Resolution 2023-105, consent C-9 — plus $200,000 and extension through June 30, 2024 via Amendment No. 1, which WCA conditioned on a 6.3 percent CPI increase to its rates. Adopted 5–0 by roll call within a single consent motion covering items C-1 through C-33 | $810,324 |
| December 6, 2023 | Resolution 2023-271, consent C.14 — plus $355,000 and a $30,000 appropriation | $1,165,324 |
| April 3, 2024 | Consent C.11 — a $30,000 appropriation only, no new change-order authority. A separate action from the December 2023 item, which its own text treats as completed history. No resolution number, mover, or vote exists in any public record — these minutes have never been approved | $1,165,324 |
| May 1, 2024 | Consent C.10 — plus $400,000, authorizing Contract Amendment No. 2. Also unminuted; that the action passed is established only by the amendment signed two weeks later | $1,565,324 |
| May 7, 2025 | Consent C.7 — the same request, pulled by staff before any vote. No resolution adopted | $1,565,324 |
| May 21, 2025 | Resolution 2025-072, consent C.6 — plus $400,000, authorizing Contract Amendment No. 3 and extending the term to June 30, 2026. Adopted 3–0, moved by Hothi, seconded by Nakanishi, with Craig-Hensley and Yepez absent | $1,965,324 |
Two things stand out
The duplicate May 2025 filing was not an error, and only one filing counts. The request went on the May 7, 2025 consent calendar as C.7 and was pulled by staff before any vote — the minutes for that meeting record “Item C.7 was pulled by staff” and give it no resolution number, while every other consent item that night carries an explicit adoption line. Staff refiled the identical request two weeks later as C.6 on May 21, 2025, where it was adopted as Resolution 2025-072 on a 3–0 vote with Craig-Hensley and Yepez absent. The last $400,000 of change-order authority on this contract, and the extension of its term to June 30, 2026, were therefore approved by three of five Council members.
Two of the authorizations have never been minuted. The April 3, 2024 and May 1, 2024 regular meetings are the only two dates in this trail with no adopted minutes in any public record. Lodi's minutes backlog batches bracket them — approving February 21, 2024 on one side and August 22, 2024 on the other — but skip both dates, and neither appears in any minutes-approval item through the August 19, 2026 agenda. The City's own Legistar meeting record for May 1, 2024 still reads that the minutes “have not been finalized yet.” The result is that the $400,000 increase authorizing Amendment No. 2 has no recorded vote, no mover, and no resolution number anywhere in the public record; that it passed at all is established only by the amendment City staff signed two weeks later.
Two quarterly Report-of-Purchases entries show the contract's actual position. Through December 31, 2025, change order 8 added $400,000 against previous adds of $1,728,223, for a revised total of $2,801,703 — that row appears as consent item C.3 in the February 18, 2026 packet. Through June 30, 2026, change order 9 added $45,000 against previous adds of $2,145,324, for $2,863,804 — the row in this item's Table 4. Both are signed by the City Manager, department 505, Public Works.
What this proves, and what it doesn't
- 322028 is the 2021-2023 Tree Maintenance Project contract. The December 6, 2023 minutes name that contract explicitly when adding change-order authority, and the original $673,480 award sits comfortably under the $900,000 ceiling the City Manager was authorized to award within — which explains why there is no separate Council award action to find.
- The growth was Council-authorized, repeatedly, and driven partly by disaster. The March 2023 increase followed January 2023 storms that downed hundreds of trees, with WCA crews working continuously from January 3 and roughly $220,000 left on the contract at the end of 2022. Council had declared a local emergency with up to $500,000 available. This is the ordinary mechanism for an on-call contract that pays set prices per job, not evidence of runaway scope.
- On an annualized basis the increase is far smaller than the raw multiple suggests. The contract ran from August 4, 2021 through June 30, 2026, just under five years. Its original $673,480 covered a two-year base term, roughly $337,000 a year; the revised $2,863,804 across the full amended term works out to roughly $585,000 a year. That is on the order of a 70 percent rise in annual run rate, not the fourfold increase the cumulative totals imply. With both endpoints now documented, this is arithmetic rather than inference.
- The term was extended three times, by negotiated amendment rather than by the options Council approved. Instead of exercising the two one-year options in Resolution 2021-97, the City and WCA executed three amendments negotiated directly with the company: No. 1 on June 14, 2023 (term through June 30, 2024), No. 2 on May 15, 2024 (term through June 30, 2025, plus higher per-job prices), and No. 3 in 2025 (term through June 30, 2026, plus $400,000, to a stated not-to-exceed $2,768,804). Amendment No. 3 is signed by Acting City Manager Christina Jaromay and WCA President Patrick Mahoney, attested by City Clerk Olivia Nashed and approved as to form by City Attorney Katie O. Lucchesi. This resolves the apparent expired-contract problem — change orders 8 and 9, in late 2025 and mid-2026, fall inside the amended term. What remains is the governance point: a contract Council structured to run at most four years ran five, one authorization at a time. No extension past June 30, 2026 was found, consistent with the 2026-2028 replacement now before Council as G.2.
- What is still unexplained is a much smaller number than it first appeared. Reconstructed authority reaches $1,965,324 through May 2025, against actual cumulative change orders of $2,190,324 by June 30, 2026. That leaves roughly $180,000 with no located authorizing action in the window between, and no matching item in Legistar's index for it. Two further inconsistencies sit inside the City's own paperwork: the April 2024 resolution states cumulative authority of $1,335,324 where its itemized actions total $1,085,324, a $250,000 difference, and the May 2025 resolutions state $1,790,324 against an itemized $1,735,324, a further $55,000. Depending on how those are read, the unexplained amount is between roughly $180,000 and $430,000 — far less than the roughly $1.2 million the packet alone appears to show. This belongs to Public Works and Finance as a question, not as a finding.
Consent Calendar, Continued (C.8 – C.14)
C.8 — Accept $37,015.26 Donation from Lodi Police PARTNERS' Foundation for a Chevrolet Colorado
The Lodi Police PARTNERS' Foundation, a California nonprofit, is donating $37,015.26 to buy a 2027 Chevrolet Colorado pickup for the PARTNERS' volunteer program, replacing a 2008 Dodge Ram 1500, unit 05-D100, license 1429579.
Existing Foundation-donated fleet: the 2008 Dodge Ram 1500, a 2015 Chevrolet LS Equinox, a 2016 Ford Transit Connect, and a 2019 Ford Transit Connect.
Replacement justification. From the City Manager's Special Request dated June 10, 2026, signed by Lt. Sean Blandford, Police Fleet Coordinator, and approved by Kara Reddig as Acting City Manager: the Dodge is 18 years old with roughly 130,000 miles (VMRS history shows 128,973), against replacement guidelines of 4 years or 90,000 miles. Lifetime repair and maintenance total $19,992.78, though the VMRS summary's own components, $14,197.20 in repairs plus $5,795.68 in preventive maintenance, sum to $19,992.88 — a 10-cent internal discrepancy in the City's report. Estimated residual value is under $1,000. The largest repair categories were facility and labor allocations, body and glass at $2,594, and fuel-system work at $2,325. The vehicle will be purchased from Chase Chevrolet. A copy of the Foundation's check drawn on Farmers & Merchants Bank is included in the packet.
Disposition. Under Resolution 2015-54, when the retired vehicle leaves the fleet the City either forwards the sale or auction proceeds to the Foundation or transfers title of the 2008 Dodge Ram to the Foundation, so the Foundation can continue funding the program.
Accounting runs through revenue account 64300000.57702 and expense account 64399100.77040. Note that the fiscal impact table on packet page 122 shows the expense account as 64399000.77040 — a digit mismatch with the recommended action. No General Fund impact.
C.9 — Accept Improvements: Stormwater Trash Collection Project, Phase 5 (2025)
The rule behind this. Lodi discharges stormwater to the Mokelumne River under the statewide small MS4 general permit. The State mandates capture of all trash, down to cigarette-butt scale, before discharge, with a compliance deadline of December 2030. Roughly one-third of Lodi's storm drainage system discharges into the Mokelumne. This was Phase 5 of a multi-phase program; the device was installed in the storm drain line at River Point Circle.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Authority | Resolution 2025-199, November 19, 2025 — award plus change orders not to exceed $600,000 |
| Bid opening | December 17, 2025 — 2 bids received |
| Engineer's estimate | $451,400 |
| Swierstok Enterprises Inc. dba Pro Builders (Orangevale) | $368,400 — $83,000 below estimate |
| ARB, Inc. (Pittsburg) | $501,960 — $50,560 above estimate |
| Contract executed | February 19, 2026 |
| Change Order No. 1 | $32,340.99 |
| Final contract price | $400,740.99 — 8.8 percent over award |
Change Order No. 1 expanded the asphalt removal and replacement limits and increased asphalt section thickness to match existing street conditions, coordinated with the homeowners association that maintains the private street. Funded from Wastewater Capital, project PWWW-21003. The ongoing cost is a small increase in storm drainage maintenance for emptying the device. On acceptance the City Engineer files a Notice of Completion, which starts the 30-day stop-notice window.
The final price landed $199,259 under the $600,000 authority, and the project came in under the engineer's estimate even after the change order.
C.10 — Accept Improvements: 2025 Hale Park Court Improvements
Hale Park's basketball and handball courts were last resurfaced in 2013, against a typical ten-year surface life. The project resurfaced about 18,000 square feet: cleaning and prepping concrete, filling cracks and joints, applying a textured single-color surfacing system with new textured game lines, and repairing or replacing chain-link fencing original to the park.
The courts were rearranged, not just resurfaced
- Basketball Court #1 — restriped to the existing configuration
- Handball Court — restriped to the existing configuration
- The existing basketball half-court became a new pickleball court
- The existing Basketball Court #2 became a new soccer court
Authority came from Resolution 2025-201, November 19, 2025, for $180,000 combined. Bids were opened January 21, 2026. The staff report says “the following two (4) bids” — a typo; four bids were received.
| Bidder | Base | Alternates | Total | Versus estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engineer's Estimate | $120,000 | $23,000 | $143,000 | — |
| Viramontes Construction (Woodbridge) | $118,000 | $23,000 | $141,000 | ($2,000) |
| Bobo Construction (Elk Grove) | $126,080 | $28,072 | $154,152 | +$11,152 |
| Swierstok Enterprise (Orangevale) | $146,000 | $32,000 | $178,000 | +$35,000 |
| Guerra Construction Group (Santa Clara) | $273,000 | $173,485 | $446,485 | +$303,485 |
The contract was executed with Viramontes for the $118,000 base plus Bid Alternate No. 2, fencing with W-beam posts replaced, at $15,000, for a total of $133,000. The final price was $132,410 — under contract, because Bid Item No. 3, an allowance for authorized additional work, was not fully used. Funded by Community Development Block Grant funds from HUD. Staff cites minimal maintenance savings but reduced claims exposure from poor court surfaces.
Cross-reference: C.11 includes an additional $1,300 of Hale Park concrete repairs, so the park appears in two separate consent items on this agenda.
C.11 — Additional Change Order Authority, 2025-2027 Sidewalk and Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Program: $400,000 Plus a $180,000 Appropriation
Background. The City maintains an on-call contract for citywide curb, gutter, sidewalk, ramp, and miscellaneous concrete work, used primarily by the Streets Division but also by Parks, Water and Wastewater, Transit, and Facilities.
| Date | Action | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| April 16, 2025 | Council authorized award not to exceed $335,000 plus change orders not to exceed $40,000 | — |
| June 18, 2025 | City Manager executed contract with Tom Mayo Construction, Inc. (Stockton) | $119,520 |
| April 29, 2026 | Change Order No. 1 — exhausted the City Manager's full change-order authority | $40,000, total $159,520 |
| August 19, 2026 | Requested: an additional $400,000 in change-order authority, for $440,000 total and a contract ceiling of $559,520 | — |
| Scope | Amount |
|---|---|
| FY 2026/27 sidewalk and concrete needs — new State TDA Bicycle and Pedestrian funds | $180,000 |
| FY 2026/27 sidewalk and concrete needs — previously appropriated TDA Bicycle and Pedestrian funds | $50,000 |
| Transit Station | $65,000 |
| Stockton Street and Poplar Street curb ramps with Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons | $30,000 |
| Well #5 and Well #20 | $8,100 |
| Hale Park | $1,300 |
| Identified subtotal | $334,400 |
| Unallocated remainder for department requests | $65,600 |
Appropriation accounts: Hale Park 20072202.72531 under FY27 Budget Resolution 2026-141; Wells 56052004.72352 under Resolution 2026-141; Transit 60199000.77020, project PWTR-22003, under FY22 Resolution 2021-164; Sidewalk TDA 33199000.77020, project PWST-26001, under FY26 Resolution 2025-121; and Beacons Gas Tax 2103 at 30299000.77020, project PWST-24002, under FY24 Resolution 2023-125. The new appropriation is $180,000 to TDA Capital 33199000.77020, project PWST-26001.
A funding swap buried in the project sheet
The CIP sheet at packet page 137, project PWST-26001, CIP List Project #344, documents a change the staff report narrative does not spell out: “Reduce Measure K funding by $100K and increase TDA Bike/Ped by $180K Reso 8/19/26.” The sheet shows a total project cost of $455,000 — $225,000 in FY 25/26 plus $230,000 in FY 26/27 — financed by Fund 303 Measure K at $100,000 and Fund 331 LTF Pedestrian/Bike at $355,000.
Analysis
The $119,520 figure is an initial funding allocation on a unit-price on-call contract, not the contract's authorized scope: Council's April 16, 2025 action already contemplated a not-to-exceed award of $335,000 plus $40,000 in change orders, or $375,000. So the honest framing is that authorized exposure moves from roughly $375,000 to $559,520, an increase of about 49 percent — not that a $119,520 contract grew 368 percent, even though the $119,520 to $559,520 arithmetic is correct on its face. The growth still happens through change-order authority rather than a new bid, and it is funded partly by shifting $100,000 of Measure K sales-tax money out of the project while adding $180,000 of state TDA bicycle and pedestrian money in. The Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon curb ramps at Stockton and Poplar tie directly into high-injury-network work. One small gap: the packet never gives the resolution number for the April 16, 2025 authorization it relies on, citing that action only by date and dollar amount, and the number could not be confirmed from the public record.
C.12 — Set a September 2, 2026 Public Hearing for the 2025-26 CDBG CAPER
Sets a public hearing for September 2, 2026 on the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the Community Development Block Grant program year July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026. Lodi received $655,037 in CDBG entitlement funds that year.
The CAPER reports against the 2025-26 Annual Action Plan adopted in June 2025, which is year two of the City's 2024-2028 Consolidated Plan. Staff reports activity advancing all six strategic goals: improve public and community facilities; preserve and increase affordable housing; support critical public services; encourage fair housing practices; reduce homelessness; and planning and administration.
Public review window: August 17 through September 2, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. Comments from the review period and the hearing are compiled into the final CAPER submitted to HUD.
Is the length of that window reasonable? Yes, by the City's own standard. HUD does not fix a comment period for this annual performance report the way it does for the annual spending plan; it leaves the length to the city's own participation rules. Lodi has used 15 days for every recent report — 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25 all ran 15 days (City block grant page). The August 17 to September 2 window is 17 days, so it clears the City's own practice with two days to spare.
Note that the draft CAPER itself is not attached to this packet — only the hearing-setting item. As of August 16 the draft and its legal notice had not yet appeared on the City's block grant page, which still showed only last year's report and this year's spending plan. The review period was set to open August 17, so the document may go up right at the deadline — but a 17-day comment window is only as useful as the date the document actually becomes readable. C.10's Hale Park courts were funded by this program and should appear in the report's list of completed public facilities.
C.13 — Accept Improvements: Parking Structure Stair Re-sealing, and Correct the Award from $76,980 to $79,680
This item does two things at once: accepts the improvements and corrects a Council award amount.
The scope was removal and replacement of deteriorated concrete sealant on the Transit Station parking structure stairs. The failing sealant was allowing water intrusion into the World of Wonders classroom below, in the museum's leased space.
Bids were received November 5, 2025. On January 7, 2026 Council awarded the work to Waterproofing Associates, Inc. of Lodi at $76,980. That figure was wrong: a transposition error — 76,980 instead of 79,680 — expressly stated to be no fault of the contractor. This item corrects the award of record to $79,680.
The work is complete and conforming. The final contract amount is $79,680 with no change orders. Before-and-after photographs are Exhibit A. Funded by Transportation Development Act funds, project PWTR-26003. The stated benefit is lower long-term maintenance and reduced claims exposure from water seeping into the WOW classroom.
A pattern worth noting. With C.3's Gann miscalculation, this is the second consent item on a single agenda correcting arithmetic in a previously adopted Council action. Separately, C.7 Table 4 shows a different Waterproofing Associates contract, number 325041, amended from $60,000 to $100,000 in the same quarter.
C.14 — $20,000 Non-Profit Fund Allocation to the Downtown Lodi Business Alliance for the 2026 Holiday ProgramTitle added Aug 14
The ask. $20,000 in combined City Council Non-Profit Fund district allocations to the Downtown Lodi Business Alliance, requested by letter dated July 22, 2026 from DBA President David Claxton, EIN 42-4062752. The DBA had already presented its report and request at the June 3, 2026 Council meeting.
| Council member | District | Account | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Councilmember Cameron Bregman | 3 | 10005001.72613 | $10,000 |
| Mayor Ramon Yepez | 4 | 10005001.72614 | $5,000 |
| Mayor Pro Tempore Mikey Hothi | 5 | 10005001.72615 | $5,000 |
| Total | — | — | $20,000 |
The letter states each member “has individually committed to supporting this effort” and asks that the commitments be formalized — meaning Council is ratifying pledges already made by three of five members. Districts 1 and 2 contribute nothing.
Use of funds. Overhead string lighting above School Street is the single largest holiday-program cost. The projected 2026-27 funding gap for installing the temporary lighting is $17,792; the remaining $2,208 is a reserve for other event and decorating costs. In 2024 and 2025 the DBA partnered with Lodi Electric Utility and private investors to install, maintain, and remove the lighting.
2026 holiday events: Small Business Saturday and Tree and Street Lighting on November 28, 2026; the Holiday Scavenger Hunt for Archie the Bear on December 5, 2026; and After-Hours Shopping Night on December 18, 2026.
Where the DBA sits in City government. The DBA sits on the Downtown Specific Plan Steering Committee, the Economic Development Plan Steering Committee, and the PBID Steering Committee, and reports that it is working directly with Lodi Electric Utility on a permanent decorative-lighting plan for School Street — which implies a future capital ask.
DBA board: David Claxton (President), Dave Kirsten (Vice President), Lisa Sheeran (Treasurer), Cynthia Estrella (Secretary), Sam Rehmke, Mike Windham, Wes Rhea, and JP Doucette.
Analysis
On the agenda the City first published, this $20,000 grant had no title at all — the listing showed only “Res. C.14” and “Attachment 1 - Request Letter.” The revised agenda issued on August 14 added the full title, so a resident reading the agenda can now see what the item is. Combined with the district-discretionary funding mechanism and the DBA's seats on three City steering committees, this is the consent item most likely to draw scrutiny. The recurring temporary-lighting gap also raises the question of what a permanent installation would cost and who pays for it.
Public Comment, Council Comments, and Public Hearings
Section D covers public comment on non-agenda items, limited to five minutes per person with one appearance, under Government Code §54954.3 and Council Protocol Manual section 6.3l. Council may only refer such matters to staff or to a future agenda. Section E is Council comments on non-agenda items.
Section F, Public Hearings: none are scheduled on this agenda. C.12 sets the next one for September 2, 2026 on the CDBG CAPER.
Regular Calendar (G.1 – G.4)
G.1 — Appoint Taryn Jones as City Attorney and Approve the Employment Agreement Effective September 21, 2026
Background. The City Attorney position became vacant effective April 11, 2026. The City retained an executive recruitment firm — Mosaic, whose ceiling was raised to $72,500 specifically for this search under C.6. Council and multiple interview panels participated in selection and chose Taryn Nicole Jones as the preferred candidate, then directed the firm to negotiate terms. John M. Luebberke has served as Interim City Attorney, and his initial performance review is on tonight's closed session as item (d).
What prior agendas add. Katie O. Lucchesi resigned in March 2026, and Council appointed Luebberke of Herum Crabtree Suntag as Interim City Attorney by Resolution 2026-62 on April 1, 2026 as item G.1, on a unanimous 5–0 vote, moved by Hothi and seconded by Craig-Hensley (April 1, 2026 minutes, reprinted in the August 5, 2026 packet). Tonight's item therefore closes a vacancy that has run just over five months.
The main terms: appointment effective September 21, 2026, an initial three-year term, and a base salary of $272,000.
| Provision | Term |
|---|---|
| Salary | $272,000 per year, paid in 26 equal installments like department heads |
| Term | Three years from the effective date; the employee is at-will, serving at the pleasure of Council |
| Salary protection | The City may not reduce salary or benefits except citywide and by no more than the average reduction for all employees, or after a written negative evaluation with direction and an opportunity to improve |
| Future negotiations | Must occur in writing through the HR Manager or an outside third-party facilitator — not directly with Council |
| Automobile | None — no vehicle and no allowance; travel is reimbursed per City policy |
| Evaluation | At least annually against criteria developed jointly with Council; Council may use an outside facilitator |
| Holidays | 36 floating hours, pro-rated for 2026, plus 10.5 fixed paid holidays |
| Vacation | Credited as if in the 11th year of continuous service at 4.62 hours per pay period; 40 hours granted at hire; cash out up to 40 hours per year subject to conditions; lump-sum payout at separation |
| Sick leave | 96 hours per year at 3.70 hours per pay period, no accrual cap; 40 hours granted at hire |
| Administrative leave | 80 hours per calendar year, pro-rated for 2026, fully cashable; paid out at separation |
| Deferred compensation | City matches up to the highest percentage given any bargaining group, and never less than 3 percent of base |
| Health | City pays up to 90 percent of the medical premium by enrollment category for the lowest-cost HMO in ZIP 95240 effective 1/1/2026; the employee pays the difference for richer plans. Opt-out cash or deferred-compensation payment: $692.81 per month family, $532.92 employee plus one, $305.22 single, with proof of other group coverage |
| Other insurance | Vision, dental, long-term disability, chiropractic, and life per the 2012 Executive Statement of Benefits |
| Retirement | Full CalPERS; the employee pays the member contribution, Classic or PEPRA |
| Professional costs | City pays State Bar dues including the Public Law Section, San Joaquin County Bar dues, legal subscriptions, MCLE, and League of California Cities / City Attorneys Department conference travel |
| Resignation | 45 days' written notice; no severance |
| Termination | Majority vote, with or without cause, at a noticed meeting, with §54957(b) rights respected. Cannot be removed during the first 120 days following any change in Council membership except on a four-fifths vote |
| Severance | A lump sum equal to six months' salary, roughly $136,000, plus six months of continued health coverage. Forfeited for retirement, insubordination, incapacity, dereliction of duty, conviction of a crime of moral turpitude or personal gain, or breach |
| Abuse of office | Severance and criminal-defense payments are subject to Government Code §53260 and §§53243 through 53243.4, and must be repaid upon conviction involving abuse of office as defined in §53243.4 |
| Exclusive employment | Full-time; outside employment only with written Council approval. Volunteer service, nonprofit boards, temporary judge or hearing-officer work, and personal property management are allowed outside City jurisdiction without approval; inside the City, prior disclosure and Council approval are required |
| Conflicts | No investment or participation in business ventures inside City limits without Council approval, except publicly traded stock; must file conflict-of-interest statements at appointment, annually, and at separation |
| Indemnification | City defends and indemnifies per Government Code §825 et seq., surviving termination, excluding willful wrongdoing |
| Venue | Lodi, San Joaquin County; the prevailing party recovers attorney's fees |
Analysis
The $272,000 base is roughly $31,680, or 10.4 percent, below the $303,680.67 City Attorney rate on the pay schedule Council adopts the same night in C.4 — a below-schedule hire. The 120-day post-election removal protection requiring a four-fifths vote is meaningful given Lodi's 2026 election cycle: a newly seated Council could not remove the City Attorney by simple majority in its first four months. The no-car provision is unusual; many California city executives get a car or a car allowance. And the requirement that future salary talks run through the HR Manager or a third-party facilitator, rather than Council directly, is a deliberate buffer between the City Attorney and individual Council members.
Attachment notes: the agreement retains “his/her” placeholder pronouns throughout, and the attestation block names Walfred Solorzano as Interim City Clerk, with John Luebberke approving as to form. Its citation of Lodi Municipal Code §2.14.010 for the City Attorney's duties is correct and unrelated to H.1: Chapter 2.14 governs the City Attorney, Chapter 2.13 governs the City Clerk.
G.2 — Reject Protest and Award the 2026-2028 Tree Maintenance Contract to Elite Maintenance & Tree Service: $616,700 Plus $100,000 in Change OrdersContinued from June 17 and August 5
This is the most contested item on the agenda, returning after a procedural failure on June 17.
Scope. An on-call contract for structural pruning, maintenance trimming, stump grinding, emergency calls, City tree removal, pest control, and tree planting citywide for FY 2026/27 and FY 2027/28. The term is two years initially plus two optional one-year extensions, for a four-year maximum. If extensions are exercised, staff must return to Council to identify funding and increase change-order authority. The stated objective is a safe and healthy urban forest at lower cost.
| Bidder | Location | Bid | Versus estimate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engineer's Estimate | — | $784,700 | — |
| Elite Maintenance & Tree Service | Ceres | $616,700 | ($168,000) |
| West Coast Arborists, Inc. | Anaheim | $684,920 | ($99,780) |
| Professional Tree Care Company | Berkeley | $999,750 | +$215,050 |
| New Image Landscape Company | Fremont | $1,155,050 | +$370,350 |
Elite is $68,220 below West Coast Arborists and 21 percent below the engineer's estimate.
Responsive bids for the 2026-2028 Tree Maintenance Project compared against the engineer's estimate. Source: G.2 staff report, packet page 160.
The protest — Exhibit A, West Coast Arborists letter dated May 8, 2026
From Patrick Mahoney, President, West Coast Arborists, Inc. of Anaheim, addressed to Alice Bernardino, Associate Civil Engineer, copying the City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney. WCA acknowledges being second-lowest and that Elite is low by approximately $70,000.
The argument rests on Section 6-20.16 of the Special Provisions, “Tree Inventory Experience,” quoted in the letter:
“The Contractor shall have at a minimum two (2) years of experience in collecting tree inventories for cities and other public agencies and developing inventory databases, including an extensive program that simplifies the management of the City's Urban Forest. The Contractor shall have developed a complete and comprehensive database in at least two (2) California cities.”
WCA argues these are material requirements, not discretionary preferences, because the scope expressly includes maintaining the City's tree inventory database, GIS integration, GPS-based data collection, and inventory reporting. It alleges Elite lacks four things: two years of municipal or public-agency tree inventory experience; urban forest inventory database development experience; GIS-compatible inventory system maintenance experience; and comprehensive tree inventory database projects for at least two California cities. WCA asserts that if Elite cannot substantiate compliance, its bid is materially nonresponsive and Elite cannot lawfully be a responsible bidder.
WCA made four requests: conduct a responsibility review; require verifiable documentation; disclose the California cities and agencies for which Elite completed qualifying inventory projects; and refrain from award pending full evaluation. WCA also asked to review Elite's qualification documentation before any final award, and for written confirmation the protest was received.
The City's response — Exhibit B, May 28, 2026
From Alice Bernardino, on letterhead listing Aaron M. Busch as Interim City Manager, John M. Luebberke as Interim City Attorney, Olivia Nashed as City Clerk, and Sean Nathan as Interim Public Works Director. Staff's findings:
- Contacted multiple references provided by Elite, consisting of California public agencies, which confirmed Elite has maintained their tree inventories for more than two years on a GIS-compatible system.
- Met with Elite for a live demonstration of its tree care management software, viewing actual databases in use for multiple California agencies.
- Confirmed the software can collect the data specified in the contract documents.
The conclusion is to reject WCA's protest and award to Elite. Notably, the response does not name the reference agencies — the specific disclosure WCA requested.
June 17 Council meeting — two accounts that do not match
A WCA representative reiterated the protest during public comment and asked Council to award to WCA instead. Per the staff report: “Through an unintentional issue with the comment cards, no other members of the public (including Elite) were given an opportunity to speak on the item.” Council pushed the item to a later date both to gather more information on WCA's claims and to ensure public comment was sufficiently heard. On that account, Elite, the recommended awardee, was silenced at its own award hearing by a City administrative error.
The approved minutes tell it differently. The June 17, 2026 minutes — approved on August 5, 2026 as part of a large backlog, and reprinted in the August 5 packet — record the tree award as consent item C.15, “pulled at the request of Jason Pinegar, of West Coast Arborists.” They contain no mention of any comment-card failure. What they record instead is a substantive debate:
- Pinegar cited WCA's qualifications, emergency response record, and twenty-year history in Lodi; argued that WCA is the current tree contractor at some of the agencies Elite listed as references and that Elite's work at those agencies is landscape rather than tree service; and asserted that “the low bidder has not completed an entire year of tree maintenance service for a city.” He added that he had received nothing on Elite's software.
- Interim City Attorney Luebberke confirmed postponement was permissible; Interim Public Works Director Nathan covered the City's termination rights and the bid history.
- Baker and Luebberke addressed the Finance Committee's local-preference differential; Craig-Hensley spoke against evergreen contracts while supporting the staff recommendation; Bregman asked for verification of Elite's references; Nakanishi spoke in favor of awarding to WCA; and Busch asked what specifically Council wanted investigated.
- The minutes close: “No action was taken on this item. Staff will bring the item back to Council on the July 1, 2026 agenda.” It did not return until August 5, five weeks later than the minutes state.
- And it was never placed on the July 1 agenda at all. Council did meet that night, with a full agenda of eight consent items, a public hearing, and nine regular items. The tree contract is not on it — the words “tree maintenance,” “Elite,” and “West Coast Arborists” appear nowhere in that packet (July 1, 2026 packet). So this was not a case of the item being listed and pulled a second time. It was simply not scheduled, and seven weeks passed between the June 17 continuance and the August 5 hearing with no public explanation of the delay.
Which account is correct matters, because the staff report's version frames the continuance as a curable procedural defect while the minutes frame it as Council asking for substantive verification it had not received.
Elite's response — Exhibit C, June 24, 2026
From Jose Flores, Regional Tree Care Operations Manager, addressed to the Mayor and Council. Key assertions:
- Elite submitted the lowest responsive bid, “approximately $60,000 below the next bidder” — the actual gap is $68,220 — while meeting all minimum qualifications.
- Current public-agency clients: Fresno Unified School District, Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority, City of Clovis, and Merced County School District. This is the closest the packet comes to the client disclosure WCA demanded. Only one of the four is a California city, though the Roseville selection noted below is a second.
- Operational facilities in Ceres, Tracy, and Lincoln, enabling Northern California deployment, with crews and equipment pre-staged ahead of forecast severe weather.
- Recently selected through competitive procurement to maintain part of the City of Roseville's urban forest — Roseville has roughly 55,000 trees and Elite was selected for a section of approximately 18,000 trees — following evaluation of qualifications, staffing, safety programs, operational capability, and technology platform.
- During Lodi's evaluation Elite participated in an interview demonstrating its GIS and GPS-based tree inventory and management software, with real-time tracking of work activities, inventories, inspections, service requests, and reporting.
- Argues the competitor's concerns “are inconsistent with the findings reached through the City's own evaluation process” and asks Council to place significant weight on staff's recommendation.
Staff's final position and the money
Since June 17, staff internally re-reviewed the original qualification verification and reached the same conclusion: Elite meets the bid specifications. The recommendation stands — award $616,700 for the two-year initial term plus $100,000 in change-order authority so other departments, commonly Parks, Transit, and Facilities, can use the contract. Actual annual spending will not exceed adopted-budget amounts, and extension funding returns to Council.
Funding comes from Landscape and Trees Miscellaneous Contract Services, account 30156004.72499, out of the adopted FY 2026/27 operating budget. FY 2027/28 and any extensions depend on future budget adoption.
What this means, and what is still unanswered
- Council has already failed to act on this once, and the packet does not say so. On August 5, 2026 the motion to award to Elite died on a 2–2 tie: Craig-Hensley and Nakanishi in favor, Mayor Yepez and Mayor Pro Tem Hothi opposed, Bregman absent. Council then voted 4–0 to reconsider on August 19 with all five members expected, per the Lodi News-Sentinel. Bregman is therefore the decisive vote. The staff report in this packet is the unrevised August 5 document, and its draft resolution still certifies passage at a regular meeting held August 5, 2026.
- What West Coast Arborists stands to lose is real, but the C.7 total is the wrong way to measure it. C.7 shows WCA's contract 322028 at a revised total of $2,863,804 across nine change orders. Prior agendas now date that contract precisely — executed August 4, 2021, extended by three amendments through June 30, 2026 — so the cumulative total works out to roughly $585,000 a year against an original run rate near $337,000. It still cannot be set against Elite's $616,700 two-year initial term, roughly $308,000 a year against an engineer's estimate of $784,700 for the same two years. The comparable head-to-head is WCA's own bid, $684,920 versus Elite's $616,700, a $68,220 gap on identical scope.
- The structural point survives without the percentage. WCA has held this work for roughly two decades across successive terms, and Interim Public Works Director Sean Nathan told Council it was renewed through multiple contract terms rather than one long agreement. Councilwoman Craig-Hensley's stated rationale on August 5 was exactly that: “Council has made a point of saying we don't want evergreen contracts” (Lodi News-Sentinel). The story is incumbency duration and repeated renewal, not a suspicious change-order curve.
- Data continuity is the unaddressed risk. WCA has been maintaining Lodi's GPS and GIS tree inventory. The packet contains no migration plan, no data-export right, no identifier-preservation clause, and no acceptance test for transferring the City's tree inventory from West Coast Arborists' software to Elite's. Staff verified that Elite's software can collect the required data; nothing in the record establishes how Lodi's existing tree records get there intact, who owns the historical data, or what happens to unique tree IDs.
- The reference list is asymmetric, but narrower than it looks. WCA asked the City to disclose Elite's qualifying California cities. Staff declined to name references in Exhibit B; Elite's own letter names Clovis and a recent Roseville selection alongside Fresno Unified, Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority, and Merced County School District. Both Clovis and Roseville are California cities, so the two-cities threshold is not obviously unmet. The real question is narrower: whether the Roseville engagement, recent and covering maintenance of a roughly 18,000-tree section rather than building a citywide database, satisfies the specification's requirement of having developed “a complete and comprehensive database” for two years or more. The packet never squarely answers that. Staff separately told Council on August 5 that it contacted Roseville, Clovis, Shafter, Kern County, the Sierra Resource Conservation District, Fresno Unified, and the Merced County Office of Education, and viewed GIS inventories Elite built for Shafter and Fresno Unified (Lodi News-Sentinel) — a disclosure that exists in the oral record but not in this packet.
- Change-order authority is still the pattern to watch, on its own terms. Elite's award carries $100,000 of authority up front, and both optional one-year extensions require Council to return for funding and additional authority. C.11 shows the same mechanism at work on sidewalks. That is a governance observation about how Lodi structures on-call contracts; it does not require characterizing WCA's cumulative total as improper.
- Procedural cure — and a question about what actually needs curing. Council should confirm on the record that the comment-card failure is cured, since that defect is the staff report's stated reason for the continuance. But the approved June 17 minutes never mention a comment-card problem at all, and instead record Council asking staff to verify Elite's references. If the minutes are the operative record, the outstanding condition is the reference verification, not the public-comment opportunity — and staff's answer to it is an internal re-review that names no agencies.
- The item is also five weeks overdue on its own schedule. The June 17 minutes state staff would return it on the July 1, 2026 agenda. It did not appear until August 5. Nothing in either packet explains the slip.
- Levine Act. Given a contested award between two bidders, the agenda's Levine Act disclosure requirement for campaign contributions over $500 aggregated across 12 months is live for this item.
G.3 — Repeal and Replace the Finance Committee Resolution
Background chain, from the resolution's own recitals: in March 2025 Council received a report on finance committees in other jurisdictions; in June 2025 Council received an Internal Controls Review with recommendations to better protect City assets and improve timely financial processing and reporting; and on August 20, 2025 Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-146 establishing the Finance Committee as a standing advisory body of two Council members and one Lodi resident with financial expertise. That single community seat has been filled since October 2025, when Council appointed Lodi resident Gary Woehl to it (Legistar matter 25-432).
The change. Repeal Resolution 2025-146 in its entirety and replace it, expanding community representation from one seat to three. The new composition is five members: two City Council members plus three members who are either Lodi residents or people who work or own a business in Lodi, possessing education, experience, or professional expertise in finance, accounting, budgeting, auditing, banking, investments, or related fields.
Membership rules. No more than two sitting Councilmembers at any one time. Reappointments may occur at the annual Council Reorganization each January. Per Resolution 2003-156, members must be registered voters of San Joaquin County.
Structure and scope, unchanged in substance but reorganized for clarity. The Committee is a standing, advisory body and is explicitly not an administrative or policymaking body. It is charged with reviewing internal-controls policies and procedures; recommending new or updated financial policies; reviewing City investments in coordination with the City Treasurer; reviewing annual comprehensive financial statements; and recommending on budget policy. The City Treasurer serves as Secretary and must ensure the Committee has adequate information. Chair and Vice Chair are selected at the first regular meeting each calendar year. The Committee is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Lodi Municipal Code, the City Council Protocol Manual, and this resolution, and may adopt its own consistent rules.
The resolution is effective immediately on adoption. If approved, staff returns to Council with an appointment process and recommendations to fill the two new community seats. Fiscal impact is no significant cost, with minimal administrative support for meeting coordination and recruitment.
Analysis
The composition flips from Council-majority, two of three, to community-majority, three of five — a real change in who holds the majority on the body that reviews the City's financial controls and investments. Note the eligibility expansion beyond residents to include people who work in or own a business in Lodi, which broadens the talent pool but also admits non-residents with commercial interests in City decisions to a committee reviewing City finances. The San Joaquin County voter-registration requirement carried over from Resolution 2003-156 partially constrains that. The forthcoming appointment process is the item to track — nothing has been posted yet, and the staff report is explicit that recruiting for the two new seats is a separate, later Council action. When it comes, state law requires the City Clerk to post the openings publicly before the appointments are made, and applications go through the City's boards and commissions page.
G.4 — Approve Plans and Specifications, Authorize Bid Advertisement, and Authorize Award Plus Change Orders for Lodi Parking Structure Vehicle Security Upgrades: $250,000 Combined
Background. The Lodi Station Parking Structure was built in the early 2000s after the Lodi Transit Station building was relocated to the adjacent property. Over recent years the structure has seen a significant increase in graffiti, property damage, and loitering. The City responded by increasing private security patrols at both the garage and the Transit Station, and the staff report states plainly that “with these additional efforts problems still persist.”
Project scope — vehicle access control: a roll-up gate at the Elm Street (northern) entrance, and two entrance and exit gates at the Pine Street entrance. The purpose is to control vehicles entering and exiting and to make on-site security more effective. During downtown events the Elm Street entrance can be opened to maximize parking access.
Schedule and money. Plans and specifications are on file in Public Works. The planned bid due date is September 9, 2026. The project estimate is $225,000, with total not-to-exceed authority including change orders of $250,000. Council is delegating award to the lowest responsive bidder plus change-order execution, so the contract will not return for a separate award vote.
| Source | Amount |
|---|---|
| Transit Capital (PWTR-23001) | $200,000 |
| State of Good Repair Funds (PWTR-23001) | $100,000 |
| Less design contract already spent | ($37,750) |
| Remaining available | $262,250 |
No General Fund impact, and the project is expected to reduce vandalism-related maintenance costs.
How this connects to other items
This is the third parking-structure or transit-facility item on a single agenda: C.13 accepts the stair re-sealing at the same structure for $79,680 in TDA funds, and C.11 programs $65,000 of concrete repairs at the Transit Station. Combined transit-facility work on this one agenda approaches $400,000. A $37,750 design contract was already spent before Council saw the construction item, which is worth noting as a delegation-of-authority pattern. Access-control gates on a public parking structure also raise practical questions the packet does not address: hours of closure, the effect on transit riders and downtown evening parking, and whether Elm Street gate operations will be published.
Ordinances
H.1 — Second Reading: Amend LMC Chapter 2.13 to Transfer Oversight of the City Clerk from the City Council to the City Manager
Background. Under the Lodi Municipal Code the City Manager is chief executive officer and may appoint and remove department heads — except the City Attorney and City Clerk, who are currently appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the City Council through employment agreements made with the Council. This ordinance moves the City Clerk into the City Manager's chain of command. This is the second reading. The first reading was on August 5, 2026 as item G.6, prepared by the same author and titled “Waive the First Reading and Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.13 of the Lodi Municipal Code to Transfer the Appointment Authority for the City Clerk to the City Manager” (August 5, 2026 packet). The August 19 title instead reads “Transfer the Oversight, Direction, And Control,” though the operative code language is identical in both. The August 19 staff report never states that introduction date, and its certification block leaves the ordinance number and both the introduction and adoption dates blank — on a second reading, where those are precisely the facts a member of the public would need in order to verify what is being adopted.
The actual textual change from Attachment 2, the redline at packet page 182, with struck text shown in brackets:
“The city clerk shall be appointed by and report to the city manager [council]. The city manager [council] shall prescribe the qualifications, additional duties, and compensation of the city clerk. The city clerk shall report his or her own advice, recommendations, and requests directly to the city council. The city clerk may be removed, promoted, or demoted by the city manager, subject to all applicable rules and regulations which may be adopted by the city council. The city clerk is the custodian of the city seal and shall perform the functions and duties of the city clerk as specified in California Government Code §40801 et seq. and other state and local statutes.”
So four powers move to the City Manager: appointment, the reporting line, prescribing qualifications, duties and compensation, and removal, promotion or demotion. Two safeguards remain: the Clerk still reports advice, recommendations, and requests directly to the City Council, and the statutory duties under Government Code §40801 et seq. — custody of the seal, records, elections, and minutes — are preserved and untouched.
Why staff says it is needed. Aligning the Clerk's appointment and reporting structure with the City's administrative organization will “promote greater operational efficiency, strengthen day-to-day coordination with executive management, and provide greater consistency in the administration of City operations while preserving the City Clerk's statutory duties.” No fiscal impact.
Standard terms. No mandatory duty of care, severability, repeal of conflicting ordinances, and an effective date 30 days after adoption, with summary publication at least 5 days before and 15 days after adoption per Government Code §36933(c)(1) in lieu of full-text publication.
Analysis — why this is the most consequential item on the agenda
- Institutional independence. The City Clerk is the custodian of records, the elections official, and the officer who receives Levine Act disclosures, conflict-of-interest filings, public comment, and public records requests. Moving hiring, compensation-setting, and firing authority from five elected officials to one appointed administrator changes who the Clerk is accountable to for exactly those functions. The retained right to report directly to Council preserves a channel, but not job security.
- Only the City Attorney remains Council-appointed after this ordinance. G.1 locks in that appointment the same night with a three-year term and a four-fifths-vote removal shield for 120 days after any change in Council membership.
- Timing. Council is simultaneously spending $32,000 to recruit a City Clerk (C.6), discussing Interim City Clerk recruitment in closed session (item e), and changing who controls the position (H.1). Whoever is hired through the Mosaic search will report to the City Manager, not Council — a material term of employment being set before the recruit is selected.
- Ordinance defects. The signature and certification blocks at packet page 183 name Olivia Nashed as City Clerk, while the agenda and the G.1 employment agreement are attested by Walfred Solorzano, Interim City Clerk. The introduction and adoption dates are left blank in the certification. Both Attachment 1, the clean version, and Attachment 2, the redline, end with a page 3 of 3 containing only “(Supp. No. 68),” an artifact of the codification export.
Adjournment and Standing Notices
- The agenda was posted at least 72 hours in advance per Government Code §54954.2(a).
- Levine Act disclosure: applicants, parties, and their agents who have made campaign contributions totaling more than $500 in the aggregate to a Council member in the past 12 months must publicly disclose the amount and names, either in writing to the Clerk before the item or verbally at the item. This is directly relevant to G.2, a contested award between two bidders, and arguably to C.14.
- Public comment channels: in person; email to councilcomments@lodi.gov; mail to City Clerk, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241; or hand delivery to 221 West Pine Street. Email, mail, and hand-delivered comment must arrive no later than two hours before the meeting, will be given to Council and included in the official minutes, but will not be read aloud.
- Non-agenda public comment is limited to five minutes per item, one appearance per person. Council may only refer such matters to staff or to a future agenda.
- Accessibility: alternative formats and disability accommodation through the City Clerk's Office with at least 72 hours' notice; language interpreter requests 72 hours ahead. Contact Olivia Nashed at (209) 333-6702.
- Broadcast: SJTV Channel 26; live and archived webcasts at lodi.gov; open session viewable on the City of Lodi public meetings YouTube channel.
Problems With This Packet
- An item missing from the printed agenda. C.4 is missing entirely from the printed agenda item list — the listing jumps C.3 to C.5 — even though its staff report and six-page citywide salary schedule sit at packet pages 60 through 68. The item is fully present inside the packet, but a resident reading the agenda itself would not know a pay schedule was up for adoption. C.14 had the same kind of problem, a completely blank title, and the City fixed that one in its August 14 revision while leaving C.4 out.
- Stale and blank resolution dates. The C.6 and G.2 draft resolutions both certify passage at a “regular meeting held August 5, 2026,” the C.6 staff report header reads “MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026,” and the C.5 resolution's date fields are blank. None were updated when the items rolled to August 19.
- The packet is not a complete record of G.2's history. It reproduces the August 5 staff report unchanged, so the August 5 hearing and its 2–2 failed vote appear nowhere in the 184 pages. A reader working only from this packet would not know the item has already failed once.
- Scanned-only attachments. Fifty-six of the packet's 184 pages are images rather than text, including the West Coast Arborists protest letter at pages 162 through 164 and the police vehicle-replacement justification behind C.8 at pages 123 through 126. These are not searchable in the published PDF, which limits what a member of the public can find by keyword.
- The minutes backlog explains why this agenda has no minutes item. On July 15, 2026, consent item C.1 approved 26 sets of minutes reaching back to November 1, 2023; on August 5, 2026, Council approved 18 more, including June 17, 2026. Several 2023 through 2026 actions relied on in this analysis were therefore only formally recorded within the last month. The catch-up did not finish the job, however: of the 22 regular meetings Lodi held in 2024, only four have approved minutes that can be located.
Areas for Further Investigation
The contested tree contract (G.2)
- The August 5 record. The exact motions, tally, and stated reasons are not in this packet. Bregman's absence made him the swing vote on August 19, and his position is undocumented. On June 17 he was the member who asked for verification of Elite's references, and he then missed the vote on whether that verification was adequate.
- The June 17 continuance. The staff report attributes it to a comment-card failure that denied Elite and the public a chance to speak. The approved June 17 minutes mention no comment-card problem at all, attributing the delay to West Coast Arborists' pull request and Council's direction to verify references. Which account is correct, and whether any comment-card failure was documented, is a question for the City Clerk.
- Why the item slipped past July 1. The June 17 minutes state staff would return it on the July 1, 2026 agenda. It was never placed on that agenda at all, and did not surface again until August 5 — a seven-week gap with no explanation on the record. Who decided to hold it, and why, is not documented anywhere public.
- Elite's qualifying California cities. The specification requires developing comprehensive databases for at least two California cities over two-plus years. Clovis and Roseville are both cities, but the Roseville engagement is recent and covers maintenance of a section rather than database development. Which two engagements Public Works counted, and on what evidence, is unresolved.
- What West Coast Arborists said about Elite. On June 17 West Coast Arborists told Council that it is the current tree contractor at some agencies Elite listed, that Elite's work at those agencies is landscape rather than tree service, and that Elite has not completed an entire year of tree maintenance service for a city. Staff's written response never addresses those specific claims, and the agency-by-agency verification Bregman requested has not been published.
- Tree inventory data migration. Lodi's GPS and GIS tree inventory currently lives on West Coast Arborists' platform. The transition plan, export rights, identifier preservation, and acceptance test for moving it to a new vendor are not described anywhere in the packet.
The current tree contract's spending record (C.7)
- The residual $180,000. Reconstructed authority reaches $1,965,324 through May 2025, against actual cumulative change orders of $2,190,324 by June 30, 2026. Which action authorized the difference is not established.
- Two resolutions that do not add up. The April 2024 resolution cites $1,335,324 of cumulative authority where its itemized actions total $1,085,324, a $250,000 difference; the May 2025 resolution cites $1,790,324 against an itemized $1,735,324, a further $55,000.
- Two authorizations with no minutes. The April 3, 2024 and May 1, 2024 regular meetings have never had their minutes approved, so the $400,000 increase that authorized Amendment No. 2 has no resolution number, mover, or recorded vote in any public record. That is not a clerical footnote: it means the largest single increase to the tree contract cannot be traced to a vote.
- The minutes backlog is much larger than those two meetings. Council held 22 regular meetings in 2024. Only four of them — January 3, January 17, February 7, and February 21 — have approved minutes that can be located. The remaining 18 do not, including both of the tree-contract meetings above. The two large catch-up batches this summer did not close the gap: the 26 sets approved on July 15, 2026 and the 18 sets approved on August 5, 2026 were mostly Shirtsleeve study sessions and 2026 meetings, not 2024 regular meetings (July 15 packet, August 5 packet). Because Lodi's older agenda files are not searchable as a list, this count should be read as what a careful search of the public site turns up rather than a certified audit — but the shape of it is clear, and the Clerk's office is the place to get an exact number.
- The original executed contract. Contract 322028, signed August 4, 2021, appears in the public record only as recited in later amendments, never as a retrievable document.
Other items
- The $60,000 Hirschfeld Kraemer Investigation Services contract in Human Resources, C.7 contract 326169. A search of Lodi's 2026 agendas, resolutions, and Legistar records, and of local news coverage, turns up no mention of the firm anywhere else and no explanation of what was investigated. It is a separate engagement from the Meyers Nave work on the Carney matter. Personnel investigations are confidential by law, so the silence may be entirely proper — but residents can see the $60,000 and nothing else.
- The two out-of-state remote locations. Which Council members intend to take part from Es Mercadal, Spain and from Waldport, Oregon, at which meetings, and whether either address was genuinely open to the public as the Brown Act requires. The Oregon address appeared only in the City's August 14 revision, which shortens the notice the public had.
- City Attorney pay. The $272,000 appointment in G.1 sits about 10 percent below the $303,680.67 rate in the salary schedule adopted the same night in C.4. The source of the higher figure is now clear — it is what Council voted the previous City Attorney up to in March 2026 — but whether and when the schedule will be corrected to match the new appointee's actual pay is not addressed anywhere in the packet. The City's pension system requires an accurate published pay schedule for the pay it will count toward a retirement benefit, so this is the kind of mismatch that normally gets cleaned up in a later schedule update. No such update has been scheduled.
- Balances that move between funds. In C.1 and C.2, eight funds start May with a different balance than they ended April with, and nothing explains the change.
- The April 16, 2025 sidewalk resolution number. The C.11 draft resolution recites that Council action by date and dollar figure but never by number, and the number could not be confirmed from the available public record. The dollar amounts themselves check out against the April 16, 2025 agenda.
- The draft 2025-26 CDBG CAPER. Not in this packet, and as of August 16 not yet posted on the City's website either, one day before its review period was scheduled to open.
- Finance Committee appointments. No recruitment or application process for the two new community seats has been publicly posted. The staff report treats it as a later action, which means residents interested in one of those seats have nothing to apply to yet.
- Permanent School Street lighting. The Downtown Lodi Business Alliance reports it is working with Lodi Electric Utility on a permanent decorative-lighting plan, which points to a future funding request of a size nobody has stated yet.
- Purchasing threshold change. The quarterly report band moves to $40,000 through $80,000, so fewer purchases will be listed for Council and the public to see.
References
- Primary source: City of Lodi, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda Packet, August 19, 2026 (08.19.2026-Regular_Agenda-Packet.pdf), 184 pages, generated from Legistar on August 13, 2026. All dollar figures, dates, resolution numbers, account codes, and quoted text in this analysis are taken directly from that packet and its attachments. Page citations refer to the packet's own sequential page numbers.
- Prior agendas and packets used to fill gaps this packet leaves open: August 5, 2026 (291 pages, containing the approved April 1 and June 17, 2026 minutes), July 15, 2026 (containing the approved December 6, 2023 minutes), June 17, 2026, May 20, 2026, February 18, 2026, the October 1, 2025 packet (containing the approved May 21, 2025 minutes), and the August 20, 2025 packet (containing the approved May 7, 2025 minutes)
- Resolutions behind contract 322028: Resolution 2021-97, Resolution 2022-211, and Resolution 2023-44 in Lodi's Laserfiche city records; Resolution 2023-105 in the June 7, 2023 minutes; Resolution 2025-072 in the May 21, 2025 minutes; the 2024 and 2025 authorizations and the signed contract amendments via Lodi's Legistar matter records 24-159, 24-191, 25-165, and 25-199
- Lodi News-Sentinel and Citizen Portal — the August 5, 2026 hearing and 2–2 deadlock, which this packet does not document
- City of Lodi official website — agendas, packets, and archived meeting webcasts
- City of Lodi Public Meetings on YouTube — live and archived open session video
- Zoom webinar for the August 19, 2026 meeting — Webinar ID 821 7418 0304, passcode 123456
- Directions to the Carnegie Forum — 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240
- Downtown Lodi Business Alliance — the applicant in consent item C.14
- Written public comment: councilcomments@lodi.gov — must be received no later than two hours before the meeting
- Accessibility and language interpretation requests: City Clerk's Office, (209) 333-6702, at least 72 hours before the meeting
- Mailed comment: City Clerk, P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241, or hand delivery to 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA