Lodi City Council — Regular Meeting
Wednesday, November 18, 2026 — Closed Session 6:40 p.m. | Regular Session 7:00 p.m.
Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240
Mayor Ramon Yepez | Mayor Pro Tempore Mikey Hothi | Councilmembers Cameron Bregman, Lisa Craig-Hensley, Alan Nakanishi
Summary
Most of the agenda is routine, but four items set policy. Staff pulled the Westside “F” vote on November 4, when only three members attended, and it returns at this meeting.
- Farmland mitigation (F.1). The Council introduces Chapter 15.69, which requires developers who annex and pave over prime farmland to preserve an equal amount of farmland elsewhere or pay a fee. The fee has no price yet. The text is unchanged since August, and it does not include the habitat-easement credit the staff report describes.
- Water plan (F.2). The Council adopts Lodi’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, the state-required 25-year water supply forecast and drought rulebook. The vote comes 140 days after the state’s July 1, 2026 deadline.
- New City Clerk (G.1). The Council ratifies City Manager Kara Reddig’s hire of Anissa Hollingshead, a former clerk in Fort Collins, Greeley and Rochester, at $162,842.15 a year. It is the first clerk hire since the Council put the clerk’s office under the City Manager in August.
- Westside “F” prezoning (H.2). Ordinance 2051 sets the City zoning for about 96 acres west of Lower Sacramento Road. As posted, it leaves the largest parcel, 20 acres, out of its parcel list, still says it was approved November 4 and names the wrong county zone.
- Money items. Consent items add about $2.5 million in spending authority. The largest is a $2 million state allocation for a second fire engine. Developer habitat fees paid to the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) rise 28.2 percent for 2027 (F.3).
Meeting Details
Date and Time: Wednesday, November 18, 2026. Closed session 6:40 p.m.; invocation 6:55 p.m.; regular session no sooner than 7:00 p.m.
Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240
Remote Viewing and Comment: Zoom webinar ID 821 7418 0304, passcode 123456; phone 1-253-215-8782 or 1-346-248-7799. The open session streams on the City’s YouTube channel (@cityoflodi_publicmeetings) and airs on SJTV Channel 26.
Written Comment: Email councilcomments@lodi.gov, or hand-deliver to the City Clerk’s Office, 221 West Pine Street, at least two hours before the meeting. Mail goes to P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241. Written comments go to the Council and into the minutes but are not read aloud.
Public Comment Limits: Five minutes per speaker on non-agenda items, doubled when an interpreter is used. Each person may speak once during that section.
Agenda Packet: 305-page packet in the City of Lodi Agenda Center (Spanish agenda). Page references below (“p. 28”) refer to this packet. Each item also has a Legistar page, linked in its section, where the final vote will post.
Campaign Contributions: Under the Levine Act, applicants and their agents who gave more than $500 to a Council member in the past 12 months must disclose it for the record on that item.
Accommodations: Request disability accommodations or a language interpreter at least 72 hours ahead from Olivia Nashed, (209) 333-6702. Elizabeth Haglund is the Interim City Clerk.
Agenda
Closed Session
- C-2(a) Real property negotiation, 651 North Cherokee Lane (APN 041-274-51)
B. Presentation
- B.1 Mayor for a Day contest winners
C. Consent Calendar
- C.1 Approve minutes: October 21, October 27 (special) and November 4, 2026
- C.2 Treasurer’s Report and Register of Claims, June 2026 (Finance)
- C.3 Accept $2,000,000 state allocation for fire engines (Fire)
- C.4 Replace Resolution 2021-13, state housing grant for Harmony Homes (Community Development)
- C.5 Securitas fire-alarm contract Amendment 5, +$30,000 to $217,483 (Public Works)
- C.6 Park repairs, $161,500 (Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services)
- C.7 Transformer test equipment from Omicron, up to $175,000 (Electric Utility)
- C.8 Transit Station fountain repair, up to $100,000 (Public Works)
- C.9 Updated City fleet policy
- C.10 Four-hour holiday parking downtown (Economic Development)
- C.11 Board and commission appointments
F. Public Hearings
- F.1 Introduce Chapter 15.69, Agricultural Mitigation Fee (Community Development)
- F.2 Adopt 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Public Works)
- F.3 Adopt 2027 habitat plan (SJMSCP) development fees (Community Development)
G. Regular Calendar
- G.1 Ratify hire of Anissa Hollingshead as City Clerk
H. Ordinances
- H.1 Introduce ordinance aligning purchasing limits in Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) Chapter 2.12 (Finance)
- H.2 Adopt Ordinance 2051, Westside “F” prezoning (second reading)
- H.3 Adopt Ordinance 2052, sewer billing by winter water use (second reading)
Closed Session
C-2(a) 651 North Cherokee Lane
The Council meets privately at 6:40 p.m. to instruct its negotiators on price and terms for 651 North Cherokee Lane, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 041-274-51 (p. 1). Government Code §54956.8 allows closed sessions on real estate deals. The City’s negotiators are City Manager Kara Reddig, Public Works Director Christina Castro and City Engineer Sean Nathan. The other side is Mokelumne Station, LLC, Bruce Bates and Nick Bates. The agenda does not say whether the City is buying, selling or leasing.
Open Issues to Watch
- Any agreement must come back to the Council in open session. Watch whether the Mayor reports action when the Council returns at 7:00 p.m.
B. Presentation
B.1 Mayor for a Day Winners
The Council presents plaques to the winners of the Mayor for a Day contest, which was open to K–12 students, advertised on social media and with Lodi Unified School District, and drew 8 entries by its October 28, 2026 deadline (p. 7; Legistar item). First place went to Nicholas Haddad, second to Eeshika Bhakta and third to Justin Valdez Jr. Honorable mentions go to Fernando Mendoza, Austin Jacob Vigonte, Olivia Perrault, Raphael Miel Vigonte and JD Shinn. The program is described on the City’s Mayor for a Day page.
C. Consent Calendar
Consent items pass together on one motion unless a Council member or a member of the public asks to pull one for separate discussion. Five consent items carry dollar amounts, totaling $2,466,500.
FIGURE 1. Consent items with dollar amounts. C.7 and C.8 are ceilings (“up to”); C.5 is the added amount. Source: November 18, 2026 packet, staff reports for C.3 and C.5–C.8.
C.1 Approve Minutes
Three sets of minutes are up for approval (pp. 9–30; Legistar item).
October 21, 2026 (Regular Meeting)
All five members attended from 7:04 to 10:20 p.m.; Bregman left at 8:52 p.m. (October 21 minutes).
- Consent, 5–0. Approved a backlog of old minutes: June 20 and July 3, 2024; June 10, 17 and 26, 2025; and the September 16, 2026 special and regular meetings. Other actions: a $468,000 SNF Polydyne contract for wastewater treatment polymer with formal bidding waived (Res. 2026-211); Solenis Amendment 2, $100,000 (Res. 2026-212); a raise in the City Manager’s change-order authority from $100,000 to $235,000 for the Central Plume soil-vapor cleanup (Res. 2026-213); state park grant applications for Lawrence, Hale and Blakely parks (Res. 2026-214); Waterproofing Associates and KONE elevator amendments, $60,000 each (Res. 2026-215 and 2026-216); and no-parking zones on Turner Road and Stockton Street (Res. 2026-218).
- A1 Protective Services security. Amendment 4 added $325,000, bringing the contract to $2,781,000 through December 31, 2026 (Res. 2026-217). Craig-Hensley pulled it. Administrative Services Director Jamie Bandy said Access Center security is paid from the General Fund. Bregman asked for a breakdown of the areas the guards cover.
- Public comment. Mamie Starr promoted the Sandhill Crane Festival. Maria Rufino raised 911 access and homeless spending.
- Phase 4 Development Code (Ordinance 2050), introduced 4–1, Yepez voting no. The package covers park land (Chapter 15.70), planned developments (17.28.040), boundary changes (17.77) and the Williamson Act (17.78). The Council split off Chapter 15.69, the agricultural mitigation fee, after objections from the Building Industry Association (BIA) and the Lodi Chamber. Speakers included John Beckman (BIA), Tom Schulz (Raymus Homes), Christopher Anderson and Scott Hamilton.
- Westside “F” annexation, 4–0. The Council adopted Res. 2026-219 to apply to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and introduced prezoning Ordinance 2051. Bregman recused for a conflict of interest. Neighbors David and Steve Dollinger, Mark of 15551 Lower Sacramento Road, Patricia of Westgate Drive and Rick Gerlack of Taylor Road raised costs, traffic and the City’s outreach. See H.2.
- Mayor rotation, no action. City Attorney Taryn Jones will return with language on appointing a member skipped in the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem rotation after 12 months, and on whether skipping takes a simple majority or a supermajority.
October 27, 2026 (Special Meeting)
Only Craig-Hensley and Nakanishi attended. Without a quorum (three members), the meeting could take no action. City Engineer Sean Nathan gave an informal presentation on the Facility Maintenance Plan, including City Hall, the Police Department roof and the Hutchins Street Square roof. Scott Hamilton spoke on deferred maintenance, and Craig-Hensley backed public-private partnerships for historic buildings.
November 4, 2026 (Regular Meeting)
Yepez and Hothi were absent. Craig-Hensley presided over three members from 7:03 to 8:26 p.m. (November 4 minutes).
- Consent, 3–0. A $110,000 Office of Traffic Safety enforcement grant (Res. 2026-220); the June 1, 2024 pay schedule (Res. 2026-221); Mosaic Public Partners recruitment contract Amendment 3, to $209,750 through June 30, 2027 (Res. 2026-222); acceptance of the Hutchins Street Square pool repair; WSP USA utility mapping Amendment 3, $100,000 (Res. 2026-223); and setting the November 18 hearings on habitat fees and the water plan.
- Sewer billing Ordinance 2052 introduced 3–0 after a hearing. It returns November 18 as H.3.
- Farmland mitigation discussion. Beckman asked the City to count SJCOG habitat fees or habitat easements toward the farmland requirement. SJCOG’s Steve Mayo explained that habitat mitigation covers any soil or crop type, while farmland mitigation covers prime farmland. The Council voted 3–0 (Nakanishi/Bregman) to bring the chapter back for a first reading. It returns November 18 as F.1.
- Ordinance 2050 adopted 3–0. The Phase 4 Development Code package takes effect without Chapter 15.69.
- Ordinance 2051 pulled by staff and continued to November 18. The minutes give no reason. With Bregman recused, only two eligible members were present, and state law requires three votes to adopt an ordinance (Gov. Code §36936).
C.2 Treasurer’s Report and Claims, June 2026
The Council receives the June 2026 Treasurer’s Report and Register of Claims, about five months after the month closed (pp. 31–36; Legistar item; Treasurer’s report; register of claims). June claims totaled $19,634,542: $14,680,604 in vendor payments and $4,953,938 in payroll. City cash and investments rose from $283,151,589 to $289,596,327.
The General Fund held $56,588,626 in cash. It collected $67,951,926 in revenue, 100 percent of the $67,945,000 amended budget, and spent $64,490,553, or 90.4 percent. The Capital Outlay fund shows revenue at 3,634 percent of budget because the City drew down Animal Shelter lease-bond proceeds. Four funds ended June with negative cash, meaning they had spent more than they held. One is CFD 2007-01, a Community Facilities District, which is a special tax district that pays for services in a defined area.
FIGURE 2. Funds with negative cash balances, June 30, 2026 (unaudited), shown as the amount below zero. Source: Treasurer’s Report, June 2026 (p. 32).
Open Issues to Watch
- Community Programs is $1.9 million below zero and Fleet is $0.5 million below zero. The report does not say how or when either fund will be repaid.
- June figures are unaudited and reach the Council in November.
C.3 $2 Million State Allocation for a Fire Engine
The Fiscal Year 2026 budget found a need to replace two fire engines but paid for only one (pp. 37–42; Legistar item). Assemblymember Heath Flora secured $2,000,000 in the State Budget Act of 2026 (AB 113, Chapter 248, item 0690-104-0001, provision 18). The money passes through the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) as allocation LI2026-018, with a performance period of July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2029 (Cal OES allocation).
The resolution accepts the money and appropriates it to Fire Department vehicle replacement. Staff says the allocation covers the full cost of the engine and its equipment, with no General Fund cost. The staff report also says rising fire apparatus prices have left the City unable to keep adequate vehicle replacement reserves.
C.4 State Housing Grant Resolution Fix (Harmony Homes)
The Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) is a state housing grant paid for by fees on recorded real estate documents (pp. 43–47; Legistar item). In January 2021, Resolution 2021-13 moved Lodi’s first-year PLHA money from predevelopment work on a navigation center to Harmony Homes: four permanent supportive housing units on City land under a land lease, with a 55-year affordability term (Resolution 2021-13). The state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) wants the resolution to name the “City Manager, or their designee” instead of former City Manager Stephen Schwabauer by name. The new resolution makes that one change.
C.5 Securitas Fire-Alarm Contract, Amendment 5
Amendment 5 adds $30,000 and extends citywide fire-alarm monitoring, testing, inspection and repair through June 30, 2027, for a new total of $217,483 (pp. 48–75; Legistar item; Amendment 5 and contract history). It also adds the new Animal Shelter.
| Action | Date | Change | Running total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Original agreement | July 20, 2021 | $19,900 | $19,900 |
| Amendment 1 | Dec. 14, 2021 | +$77,583 (Police Department fire panel replacement) | $97,483 |
| Amendment 2 | Mar. 14, 2023 | +$50,000 (court panel); term to June 30, 2024 | $147,483 |
| Amendment 3 | Aug. 8, 2024 | Term to June 30, 2026 | $147,483 |
| Amendment 4 | July 17, 2025 (signed copy) | +$40,000 | $187,483 |
| Amendment 5 | This item | +$30,000; term to June 30, 2027 | $217,483 |
TABLE 1. Securitas contract history. Source: C.5 staff report and Exhibit 1 (pp. 48–75).
FIGURE 3. Securitas contract ceiling after each action. Source: C.5 staff report and Exhibit 1.
Why an extension. On June 17, 2026, the Council authorized a bid estimated at $150,000. The City solicited 21 licensed fire-protection (C-10) contractors. The single bid, $340,613, was rejected September 2, 2026. Staff plans to rebid with a full equipment inventory and separate line-item pricing.
Open Issues to Watch
- The contract term ended June 30, 2026, more than four months before this amendment. The packet does not explain what coverage the City had in the meantime.
- Amendment 5’s recital dates Amendment 4 to “July 17, 2026,” but the signed Amendment 4 in Exhibit 1 is dated July 17, 2025.
- The original agreement capped its total length at 27 months. The contract is now in its sixth year.
- The packet gives no date for the rebid.
C.6 Park Repairs, $161,500
The resolution moves $161,500 of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services capital money (project PKCP-24003) into a repair account (pp. 76–77; Legistar item).
| Project | Amount |
|---|---|
| Lodi Lake concrete work | $75,000 |
| Picnic benches and tables | $40,000 |
| Kofu Park LED court lights | $18,000 |
| Hale Park metal doors | $16,000 |
| Other | $6,500 |
| Century Meadows irrigation pump controller (variable-frequency drive) | $6,000 |
| Total | $161,500 |
TABLE 2. Park repair projects. Source: C.6 staff report (p. 76).
C.7 Transformer Test Equipment, up to $175,000
Lodi Electric Utility would buy an Omicron Testrano 600 transformer tester with cloud software so it can test its own substation transformers instead of hiring out the work (pp. 78–92; Legistar item). The October 16, 2026 quote through Geo. E. Honn Co. is $168,135.71 with tax, or $156,741.47 before tax (quote). The Council would authorize up to $175,000 from the Electric Utility fund. Competing quotes before tax were $174,788.20 from Megger and $211,820 from Doble. The IT Manager approved the cloud software.
C.8 Transit Station Fountain Repair, up to $100,000
The fountain and sculpture at the Lodi Transit Station, restored in 1999, do not work and leak (pp. 93–108; Legistar item; scope photos A–K). The Council would approve specifications, authorize bidding and let the City Manager award the contract to the lowest responsive bidder and approve change orders, up to $100,000 from Proposition 1B state transit repair funds (project PWTR-22003).
Open Issues to Watch
- The City Manager awards the contract, so the winning bid will not come back to the Council.
C.9 Updated Fleet Policy
This is the first rewrite of the City’s vehicle policy since 2008 (pp. 109–122; Legistar item; 2008 and revised policies). The main changes:
- The City Manager may buy a replacement vehicle of up to $100,000, up from $50,000. Staff ties the new limit to the July 1, 2026 Purchasing Policy. Adding vehicles to the fleet still needs Council approval.
- Electric vehicles are reviewed for replacement at about 8 years or 100,000 miles, or when the battery drops to about 70 percent of its original capacity. Employees who charge City EVs at home are repaid per kilowatt-hour at a rate set by Finance.
- Take-home vehicles get eligibility rules, such as a 30-minute emergency response requirement, plus an annual review and IRS taxable-benefit rules.
- No smoking, vaping or personal decals in City vehicles. Employees pay their own tolls and parking tickets.
- Payments the City receives for vehicles used on mutual-aid calls go back into replacement funds.
- Purchases must follow the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Advanced Clean Fleets rule. For state and local government fleets, the amended rule took effect September 10, 2026. It requires 50 percent of purchases of vehicles over 8,500 pounds to be zero-emission from that date and 100 percent from January 1, 2030 (CARB regulation text).
- The 2008 requirement that the Council periodically ratify take-home vehicle assignments and approve vehicle allowances is removed. Those decisions move to staff.
Open Issues to Watch
- The fleet policy cites a $100,000 vehicle limit tied to the July 1 Purchasing Policy. H.1 describes the same policy as setting the City Manager’s general limit at $80,000. The packet does not explain how the two limits fit together.
- The Council gives up its review of take-home vehicles.
C.10 Holiday Downtown Parking
At the Downtown Lodi Business Alliance’s request, 90-minute downtown spaces become 4-hour spaces without penalty from November 27 through December 25, 2026 (pp. 123–125; Legistar item).
C.11 Board and Commission Appointments
The Mayor recommends these appointments, and appointees will be sworn in after the consent calendar (p. 126; Legistar item):
- Greater Lodi Youth Commission (terms to June 1, 2028): Nathan L. Ripken, Preet K. Dhillon, Zayn Khan and Yareli Valasquez Osorio. The agenda spells the last name “Valesquez”; the staff report spells it “Valasquez.”
- Lodi Finance Committee: Deanne Barth (term to July 1, 2027) and reappointment of Gary Woehl (to November 1, 2027). The committee has three vacancies, so one remains open.
- Planning Commission: Imtiaz Khan (to June 30, 2030).
F. Public Hearings
F.1 Agricultural Mitigation Ordinance (Chapter 15.69) — Introduction
Projects that annex into Lodi and convert farmland the state maps as Prime, of Statewide Importance or Unique must preserve at least one acre of comparable farmland for each acre converted (pp. 127–138; Legistar item; ordinance, clean; ordinance, redlined). The state Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program supplies those categories. Developers can comply in three ways:
- Pay a fee. The ordinance sets no amount. A later resolution will set it after a nexus study, the cost analysis the state Mitigation Fee Act requires to show a fee matches the impact it pays for.
- Grant a permanent farmland easement on comparable land in San Joaquin County, held by a qualifying nonprofit farmland trust such as the California Farmland Trust or another Council-approved entity. An easement is a recorded legal restriction that keeps the land in farming forever. Credit is based on appraisal.
- A combination the City approves.
Payment is due when a building permit is issued, not at annexation. Phased projects pay as they go, and other timing is allowed with a financial guarantee. Appeals go to the Council. Fees go into a separate account with annual public reports under Government Code §66006. Staff finds the ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Background. On October 21 the Council split this chapter from the Phase 4 Development Code package after the BIA and Chamber objected. On November 4 it heard from the BIA and SJCOG and voted 3–0 to bring it back as drafted. The farmland requirement matters for the Westside “F” annexation in H.2, whose environmental finding relies in part on “the City’s agricultural mitigation program.”
Open Issues to Watch
- The November 18 text is word for word the same as the October 21 and August 12 Planning Commission versions. The “redlined” and “clean” attachments are identical, so the redline shows no edits.
- The staff report says the ordinance allows “consideration of existing habitat conservation easements for agricultural mitigation credit, subject to City approval.” The ordinance never mentions habitat easements. That credit was the BIA’s main request.
- The staff report cites General Plan Policies C-P11 through C-P15. The ordinance cites Policy C-P7.
- The fee has no price until the nexus study and a later resolution. The packet gives no date for either.
F.2 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan
California requires every urban water supplier with 3,000 or more connections, or that delivers more than 3,000 acre-feet a year, to update an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years (pp. 139–272; Legistar item; draft UWMP, 130 pages; City review page). The plan forecasts supply and demand 25 years out. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) is the drought rulebook. A current plan is required for state water grants and loans. Lodi adopted its last plan August 4, 2021, hired Provost & Pritchard in July 2026 and posted this draft October 23, 2026.
The state deadline for 2025 plans was July 1, 2026 (California Natural Resources Agency; DWR 2025 UWMP Guidebook). Lodi hired its consultant the month the plan was due.
| Measure | Figure in the draft plan |
|---|---|
| Population (state Department of Finance, 2025) | 68,468; grew 0.16% a year from 2020 to 2025; plan assumes 0.5% a year |
| Water demand | 13,668 acre-feet (2025) rising to 15,483 acre-feet (2050) |
| Planned supply | 21,000 acre-feet a year: 15,000 groundwater “safe yield” plus 6,000 Woodbridge Irrigation District surface water |
| 2025 actual supply | 7,473 acre-feet groundwater plus 6,195 acre-feet surface water |
| Wells | 27 (24 used in FY 2025) |
| Use per person | 178 gallons per person per day in 2025, under the 200-gallon state target |
| Water loss (leaks and meter error) | 2,147 acre-feet in FY 2025, about 16% of supply |
| Metering | Citywide meter installation finished in 2025 |
TABLE 3. Key figures from the draft 2025 UWMP. An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, roughly a year of use for two to three households.
FIGURE 4. Projected demand against planned supply, in acre-feet. The single dry year assumes Woodbridge cuts deliveries in half. Source: draft 2025 UWMP, Tables 7-2 and 7-3.
Supply. Under a 40-year agreement signed in May 2003, the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) sells Lodi 6,000 acre-feet a year. In a shortage WID may cut that to 3,000, which has happened once. Lodi sits in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, which the state classifies as critically overdrafted, meaning more groundwater is pumped than the aquifer can sustain. The plan’s 15,000-acre-foot “safe yield” comes from a 2005 estimate that has not been updated. The regional Groundwater Sustainability Plan puts the whole subbasin’s safe yield at 704,000 acre-feet a year but does not divide it among cities (Eastern San Joaquin GSP). Lodi’s average pumping fell from 16,570 acre-feet (FY 1998–2012) to 8,712 acre-feet (FY 2013–2025) after the surface water treatment plant opened in 2012.
FIGURE 5. Water lost from the distribution system, in acre-feet. FY 2021–2024 come from state water-loss audits; FY 2025 is calculated from supply and customer deliveries. Source: draft 2025 UWMP, Table 4-4.
Drought plan. The WSCP uses the state’s six shortage levels, from Level 1 (up to 10 percent short) to Level 6 (more than 50 percent short). Each level adds voluntary or mandatory cutbacks. The state’s new water-use budgets for cities, called Urban Water Use Objectives, start in 2027. The plan says they will likely require more conservation than today’s per-person target and leaves them for the 2030 plan.
Open Issues to Watch
- The staff report does not explain the late filing or say whether it has affected any grant or loan application.
- The resolution adopts the WSCP “as Appendix M,” but Appendix M in the packet, like Appendices A through S, is only a cover sheet. The drought plan text is in Chapter 8.
- The plan gives two different figures for surface water’s share of supply: 41 percent and 44 percent.
- The plan’s plain-language summary leaves the adoption date blank.
- The groundwater safe yield rests on a 2005 estimate. The plan does not say when it will be updated.
F.3 2027 Habitat Plan Fees (SJMSCP)
The San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), which Lodi adopted in 2001, charges developers a per-acre fee when they build on land that serves as habitat for protected species (pp. 273–278; Legistar item; SJCOG 2027 fee sheet). SJCOG, Inc. uses the money to buy and manage preserve land. Lodi collects the fee and sends it on; the City keeps none of it. SJCOG’s board approved the 2027 fees in September 2026 for January 1 through December 31, 2027.
The fee most Lodi projects pay, for agricultural and natural habitat, rises from $17,868 to $22,908 per acre. That is $5,040 more, or 28.2 percent.
| Habitat type | Land purchase (A) | Enhancement (B) | Management (C) | 2027 fee per acre |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multi-Purpose Open Space | $7,908.00 | $3,222.00 | $324.61 | $11,455 |
| Agricultural / Natural | $15,816.00 | $6,444.00 | $648.18 | $22,908 |
| Vernal Pool – Uplands | $79,911.00 | $16,297.00 | $1,472.10 | $97,680 |
| Vernal Pool – Wetted | $78,534.00 | $132,303.00 | $1,442.12 | $212,279 |
TABLE 4. 2027 SJMSCP fee components. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands. Source: F.3 draft resolution (p. 277).
FIGURE 6. Agricultural and natural habitat fee per acre. The 2027 fee breaks down in Table 4. Source: F.3 staff report and draft resolution (pp. 273, 277).
- Developers who dedicate their own preserve land pay only an endowment for enhancement and management: $7,092.18 per acre for agricultural or natural land, $17,769.10 for vernal pool grasslands and $133,745.12 for wetted vernal pools.
- Mitigation for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle stays at $1,800 per elderberry stem over 1 inch thick that is removed.
- The staff report repeats the point from F.1: habitat mitigation and the City’s farmland mitigation are separate. Land preserved for one does not automatically count for the other.
Open Issues to Watch
- A project that converts prime farmland will pay the higher 2027 habitat fee and, once F.1’s fee is set, a separate farmland obligation. Neither staff report estimates the combined cost per acre.
G. Regular Calendar
G.1 Anissa Hollingshead as City Clerk
The City Clerk keeps official records, runs local elections and prepares agendas and minutes (pp. 279–287; Legistar item; employment agreement). The job became vacant August 3, 2026. On August 19, 2026, the Council adopted Ordinance 2049, 4–0 with Yepez absent, moving “oversight, direction, and control” of the clerk from the Council to the City Manager (August 19, 2026 minutes). State law allows that change by ordinance (Gov. Code §34856). City Manager Reddig chose the candidate after an executive search; the Council ratifies.
The candidate. Hollingshead was City Clerk of Fort Collins, Colorado (2022–2024), Greeley, Colorado (2020–2022) and Rochester, Minnesota (2017–2020), after nearly 10 years with the City of Minneapolis (2007–2017), first as a council committee coordinator and then as communications and outreach manager. Since April 2024 she has directed records management and policy at the Colorado Department of Revenue (LinkedIn profile). She holds the CERA elections-administrator certification (City of Rochester). In December 2025 she applied for the Tucson, Arizona city clerk job (Tucson application packet).
| Term | Agreement (e-signed November 11, 2026) |
|---|---|
| Salary | $162,842.15 a year; 3% cost-of-living raise in the first pay period of January 2028 |
| Start | December 16, 2026, if her background check is done by December 15; otherwise void unless the City Manager extends it in writing |
| Pension | She pays the 8% employee share to CalPERS, the state public employee pension system |
| Health | City pays 90% of the lowest-cost HMO premium; Executive Management benefits |
| Vacation | Accrues as if in her 15th year of City service (6.16 hours per pay period) |
| Leave at hire | 80 hours of 2026 administrative leave she may cash out by December 31, 2026, worth about $6,263; 40 hours of sick leave |
| Other | One-time $5,000 relocation payment; City phone or stipend; use of the City Manager’s pool car |
| Termination | At will. Without cause, after 12 months, six months of salary and health premiums if she signs a release; stops if she takes a new job |
TABLE 5. Key terms of the City Clerk employment agreement. Source: G.1 Attachment 1 (pp. 279–287).
Open Issues to Watch
- The pension clause reads “seven percent (8%).”
- Several clauses point to “Paragraph 5” for severance and “Paragraph 4(d)” for the joint public statement. The actual sections are 6 and 5(d).
- The administrative-leave cash-out could pay about $6,263 roughly two weeks after she starts.
- LMC 2.12.060(B), republished in H.1 at this meeting, still says the clerk is “appointed and removed by the city council.” That conflicts with Ordinance 2049 and this agreement. H.1 leaves the sentence unchanged.
H. Ordinances
Ordinances need two readings at separate meetings. “Waiving the reading” means the Council skips reading the full text aloud. An ordinance takes effect 30 days after the second vote.
H.1 Purchasing Limits (LMC 2.12) — Introduction
On July 1, 2026, the Council updated the Purchasing Policy, raising the City Manager’s contract authority from $60,000 to $80,000, department directors’ from $30,000 to $40,000 and the IT Manager’s to $80,000 (pp. 288–297; Legistar item; redlined changes). The municipal code still had the old limits. This ordinance updates LMC 2.12.060(T):
- The City Manager may sign contracts of $80,000 or less without Council approval and may delegate up to $40,000 to directors.
- Contracts between $40,000 and $80,000 go on a quarterly report to the Council. Splitting a contract to stay under the limits is prohibited.
- The City Manager keeps separate authority to buy Electric Utility and Public Works inventory up to $250,000 per purchase. The quarterly reporting threshold for those buys becomes $40,000.
Open Issues to Watch
- The redline marks the new dollar amounts but does not show the old ones struck out.
- The ordinance leaves in place the clerk language in LMC 2.12.060(B) that conflicts with Ordinance 2049 (see G.1).
H.2 Ordinance 2051 — Westside “F” Prezoning, Adoption
This is the second reading of the zoning for the roughly 96.1-acre Dobbins Properties annexation area (City file PL2024-023 A): 20 county parcels plus the Taylor Road right-of-way west of Westgate Drive (pp. 298–301; Legistar item; Ordinance 2051). The area lies south of West Vine Street, north of West Kettleman Lane (Highway 12) and west of South Lower Sacramento Road. Prezoning sets City zoning before annexation. LAFCO, the county commission that rules on city boundary changes, requires it before acting. Under LMC 17.72.090(C), the zoning takes effect only when the annexation does.
| Zone | Acres | What it allows |
|---|---|---|
| Residential Low Density (RLD) | 49.8 | Single-family neighborhoods |
| Mixed Use Corridor (MCO) | 19.91 | Commercial and housing together along Kettleman Lane |
| Public and Community Facilities (PF) | 10.0 | Civic uses, including a planned 2-acre fire station site with a police substation |
| General Commercial (GC) | 9.2 | Retail and services along West Vine Street |
| Residential Medium Density (RMD) | 7.2 | Smaller-lot and attached homes |
| Total | 96.1 |
TABLE 6. Prezoning by zone, as stated on the agenda. Sources: November 18 agenda (p. 5); October 21 staff report (pp. 288–292).
Background. The land has been in Lodi’s Sphere of Influence, LAFCO’s map of the City’s likely future boundary, since 2008. It is Phase 1 of the 2010 General Plan’s Growth Management Plan, and City limits border it on three sides. Staff cites a two-year supply of approved residential lots as a reason to annex. The 2025 General Plan Amendment changed 19.91 acres from Office to Mixed Use Corridor, and the prezoning follows those designations. For environmental review, the City relies on CEQA Guidelines §15183, which covers projects consistent with a General Plan whose environmental impact report (EIR) is already certified. The Planning Commission recommended approval 5–0 on August 12 (Resolution P.C. 26-08). On October 21 the Council adopted Resolution 2026-219 and introduced the ordinance 4–0, with Bregman recused (October 21 minutes).
Votes needed. Adoption takes three votes, a majority of the full Council (Gov. Code §36936). With Bregman recused, three of the other four members (Craig-Hensley, Hothi, Nakanishi and Yepez) must vote yes. On November 4 only two eligible members were present.
Errors in the Ordinance as Posted
These errors come from comparing the November 18 text with the version introduced October 21 (October 21 packet, pp. 288–312). As of November 13, none had been corrected. Legistar’s only copy of the ordinance was last modified November 6, and the Agenda Center packet matches the one reviewed here.
- Missing parcel. The title lists 19 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and leaves out APN 027-050-01 (179 East Taylor Road), shown in the October 21 parcel table as 20.0 acres of low-density residential land, the largest parcel in the annexation. The Planning Commission resolution and the draft annexation resolution list all 20 parcels. Section 1 defines the Project Area as the “properties listed in Attachment 1.” The October 21 version attached that table (p. 311); the November 18 version does not. As posted, the ordinance neither names nor attaches the 20-acre parcel.
- Wrong dates. The text reads “Approved this 4th day of November, 2026,” and the clerk’s certificate says the ordinance was adopted November 4. The vote was continued that night.
- Wrong county zoning. The ordinance calls the current zoning “Agriculture 40 (AG-40).” The October 21 staff report says “Agriculture-Urban Reserve (AG-20),” and the zoning map legend says “AU-20.” San Joaquin County’s Agriculture-Urban Reserve zone is AU with a 20-acre minimum (San Joaquin County zone definitions). AU-20 is correct.
- Acreage does not reconcile. The staff report says the correct figures appear in “the corrected prezone exhibit.” The only exhibit in the record (October 21 packet, p. 297) still shows the old figures. The parcel table adds to 95.52 acres, and no City document explains the 0.58-acre gap to 96.1. The only parcel without a zone in the table is APN 027-050-03 (345 East Taylor Road), at 10.0 acres, the same size as the PF zone.
- Edits after introduction. “95.3-acre” became “96.1-acre” in Finding C, and “Kettleman Road” became “Kettleman Lane” in the title. State law does not treat corrections of typographical or clerical errors as changes that restart the waiting period (Gov. Code §36934). Both edits read as clerical. Whether restoring a missing parcel is clerical is a question for the City Attorney.
- Companion resolution date. The draft Resolution 2026-219 in the October 21 packet says the Council held its hearing “on October 7, 2026.” The hearing took place October 21; the October 7 item was pulled before testimony.
| Zone | Ordinance / agenda | Exhibit map (p. 297) | Parcel table (p. 311) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residential Low Density (RLD) | 49.8 | 50.2 | 49.22 |
| Mixed Use Corridor (MCO) | 19.91 | 19.1 | 19.91 |
| Public and Community Facilities (PF) | 10.0 | 9.6 | none (10.0 unlabeled) |
| General Commercial (GC) | 9.2 | 9.2 | 9.14 |
| Residential Medium Density (RMD) | 7.2 | 7.2 | 7.25 |
| Total | 96.1 | 95.3 | 95.52 |
TABLE 7. Westside “F” acres by zone in three City documents. Source: October 21, 2026 packet, pp. 297 and 311; November 18 agenda, p. 5.
FIGURE 7. Acres by zone in each source. The parcel table assigns no parcel to PF.
What comes next. LAFCO must still approve the annexation and its detachment from the Woodbridge Rural Fire Protection District. The 2025 landowner poll led LAFCO to advise dropping opposed parcels along Lower Sacramento Road and Tillie Lane, which leaves a county “island” surrounded by the City. State law generally bars new islands unless LAFCO makes special findings (Gov. Code §56744, summarized by Napa LAFCO). About 40 acres are under Williamson Act contracts, which give owners lower property taxes for keeping land in farming. Those contracts survive annexation and end only through nine-year nonrenewal or cancellation (Gov. Code §51283). The City and County also need a property tax agreement, which is not in either packet.
Open Issues to Watch
- Whether the adopted text restores APN 027-050-01 and the Attachment 1 parcel list, and whether that fix requires a new first reading.
- Whether the signed ordinance carries the November 18 date and the AU-20 county zone.
- No corrected prezoning exhibit has been published.
- Whether the signed Resolution 2026-219 corrected the October 7 hearing date.
- After the meeting, the minutes and the signed ordinance in the City Clerk’s office will show what was adopted.
H.3 Ordinance 2052 — Sewer Billing by Winter Water Use, Adoption
This second reading writes the City’s existing “winter water averaging” practice into LMC 13.12.181(C) (pp. 302–305; Legistar item; Ordinance 2052). Residential and similar sewer customers are billed all year on their average water use from December through March, with the highest of the four months dropped. Winter months are used because little water goes to lawns then, so use is close to what goes down the drain. Sewer rates do not change, and staff reports no fiscal impact. The Council introduced it 3–0 on November 4.
Open Issues to Watch
- The ordinance keeps a sentence about converting unmetered buildings “as meters are installed.” The water plan (F.2) says citywide metering was finished in 2025.
Open Issues to Watch After November 18
- Ordinance 2051 (H.2): the missing 20-acre parcel, the November 4 dates and the AG-40 zone reference.
- Farmland fee (F.1): whether the Council adds habitat-easement credit language, and when the nexus study and fee resolution return.
- Water plan (F.2): when Lodi files with the Department of Water Resources and whether the late plan affected any grant application.
- Securitas (C.5): coverage after June 30, 2026, the Amendment 4 date conflict and the rebid date.
- City Clerk (G.1, H.1): the December 15 background-check deadline, drafting errors in the agreement and the LMC 2.12.060(B) clerk language.
- Fleet (C.9): how the $100,000 vehicle limit fits with the $80,000 general limit.
- Negative funds (C.2): repayment plans for Community Programs and Fleet.
- Closed session: whether a 651 North Cherokee Lane deal comes to open session.
Monitor This Yourself
- Agendas, packets and minutes: the City’s Council Agenda Center.
- Item pages, attachments and recorded votes: the Legistar meeting calendar. Ordinance 2051 has its own Legistar page.
- Meeting video: the City of Lodi public meetings YouTube channel.
- The water plan draft and review notice: the City’s UWMP page.
LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.
This LodiEye report was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic’s Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:
Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval located the 305-page Nov. 18, 2026 Lodi City Council agenda packet and every Legistar attachment linked from the agenda. It also found the Oct. 21, 2026 Council packet with the Westside “F” staff report, parcel table and exhibits; the Oct. 21 and Nov. 4, 2026 minutes; the Aug. 19, 2026 minutes on Ordinance 2049; San Joaquin County zone definitions; the state water plan guidebook; the CARB fleet rule; and the state code sections cited.
Credibility Validation: Image-only packet pages were converted to text and checked against the page images. Dollar figures, fee components and water figures were checked against the staff reports, resolutions and plan tables. Ordinance 2051’s Nov. 18 text was compared line by line with the version introduced Oct. 21, and Legistar and Agenda Center file dates were checked on Nov. 13, 2026. Where City documents conflict, the report gives each figure and its location.
Analysis and Synthesis: Claude and Perplexity assisted in comparing ordinance versions, reconciling zone acreage across three City documents, tracing contract histories and identifying open questions for each agenda item.
Presentation: Claude and Perplexity assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the tables and the seven charts.
Final Review: Throughout the process, the editor sets the report's goals, scope, and tone; creates and shapes draft content; reviews and edits the report; integrates independent fact checks; and reviews the AI cross-checks and validations.
Lodi411/LodiEye believes that transparency about how our research is produced — including our use of AI under human direction — strengthens trust with readers and the broader information ecosystem. Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.
References
Meeting record
- City of Lodi, City Council agenda packet, November 18, 2026 (305 pages) and Spanish agenda
- City of Lodi, City Council agenda packet, October 21, 2026 (Westside “F” staff report, exhibits and parcel table, pp. 288–312)
- City of Lodi, Minutes, October 21, 2026 and Minutes, November 4, 2026
- City of Lodi, Minutes, August 19, 2026 (Ordinance 2049)
- City of Lodi, Legistar meeting calendar and Council Agenda Center
Item attachments
- Treasurer’s Report, June 2026; Register of Claims, June 2026 (C.2)
- Cal OES Legislative Pass Through Allocation LI2026-018 (C.3)
- Resolution 2021-13 (C.4)
- Securitas Amendment No. 5 and contract history (C.5)
- Omicron quote (C.7)
- Transit Station fountain scope, Attachments A–K (C.8)
- 2008 and revised fleet policies (C.9)
- Chapter 15.69 ordinance, clean and redlined (F.1)
- Draft 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and City UWMP page (F.2)
- SJCOG 2027 SJMSCP fee sheet (F.3)
- City Clerk employment agreement (G.1)
- Proposed changes to LMC 2.12 (H.1)
- Ordinance 2051 and Legistar file 26-489 (H.2)
- Ordinance 2052 (H.3)
State, county and regional sources
- California Government Code §36936, §36934, §34856 and §51283
- Napa LAFCO, Islands policy summary (Gov. Code §56744)
- San Joaquin County, Zone definitions
- California Natural Resources Agency, Urban Water Management Plans; Department of Water Resources, 2025 UWMP Guidebook
- Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority, Groundwater Sustainability Plan
- California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Fleets regulation text
- Candidate background (G.1): City of Rochester; City of Tucson application packet; LinkedIn profile