Lodi's $14.1 Million Park Grant Push: Three Round 5 Applications, a Crowded Statewide Race, and What Council Is Approving
Lodi's $14.1 Million Park Grant Push: Three Round 5 Applications, a Crowded Statewide Race, and What Council Is Approving
Lodi411 / LodiEye — Parks and Public Finance Brief — October 2026
Summary
On Wednesday, October 21, at 7 p.m. in the Carnegie Forum, the Lodi City Council will take up, on its consent calendar, resolutions authorizing three applications to Round 5 of California's Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program. The requests total about $14.1 million: $5.8 million for Lawrence Park, $4.3 million for Blakely Park and $4.0 million for Hale Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the concepts at a special meeting on October 6. The state has $188.5 million to award statewide, applications are due December 17, and awards are expected about six months later (Lodi News-Sentinel, Oct. 3, 2026; Lodi News-Sentinel, Oct. 18, 2026; California Grants Portal).
No local match is required, and the three applications would take 7.5 percent of the statewide pot. The strings come after the award: a 30-year operation-and-maintenance commitment that started running in July 2025, a deed restriction on the park land, reimbursement-based payment with 20 percent held until the park is finished, and full responsibility for any cost overrun (Round 5 Application Guide; Grant Administration Guide).
Measured as the straight-line half mile the grant uses, the three parks serve different neighborhoods. Blakely has the largest nearby population (about 8,850 people) and the least mapped parkland within a half mile (8.0 acres, or 0.90 acres per 1,000 residents). Hale and Lawrence sit about a quarter mile apart and share much of the same service area: about 6,760 and 5,810 residents, and about 19 acres of mapped parkland each, or 2.82 and 3.25 acres per 1,000. Those acreage figures include the project parks themselves and several recreation facilities; under stricter counting rules the Lawrence and Hale ratios fall to about 1 acre per 1,000 or less, and Blakely stays lowest under every counting rule.
On the new climate criterion, the state's own vulnerability rankings put all three parks in census tracts ranked High for extreme heat and drought, which is worth 3 of 5 points. None of the three is near a High sea-level-rise area. Lawrence sits at the edge of a High flood tract to the north: measured from the park boundary, that tract falls inside the half mile and would make a third vulnerability worth the full 5 points; measured from the center of the park, it falls just outside (Round 5 Application Guide; Vulnerable Communities Platform).
The statewide odds are long but not hopeless. Round 3 in 2019 funded about 11 cents of every dollar requested and Round 4 about 24 cents. If Round 5 demand matches the $2.3 to $2.4 billion of those rounds, the $188.5 million pot would fund about 8 cents on the dollar, so an applicant's rank on park need, income and the other nine criteria will decide the outcome (California State Parks; Round 4 award list). These figures are not the city's scoring or the state's official Community FactFinder results.
Key Numbers
- $188.5M — Available statewide in Round 5, from the 2024 Prop 4 climate bond
- $14.1M — Lodi's three requests combined, 7.5% of the pot
- Dec. 17 — Application deadline; awards expected summer 2027
What the city is asking for
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services staff have been working on these since the start of the year. They held at least five community meetings at each park, plus online surveys and town halls, and worked with Unidos Progresando, Community Partnership for Families, the One Eighty Teen Center, Lodi Boosters of Boys/Girls Sports and the Boys and Girls Club to reach the neighborhoods around each site. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the concepts at a special meeting on October 6 (Lodi News-Sentinel, Oct. 3, 2026).
| Park | Request | What it would build |
|---|---|---|
|
Lawrence Park Revitalization and Equity Enhancement Project |
$5.8M | Community building with restrooms, picnic shelters, inclusive playground, half-court basketball, mini futsal court, youth soccer field, all-wheel concrete skate park |
|
Blakely Park Aquatics and Community Improvements Project |
$4.3M | New zero-entry shallow pool, splash pad, shade structures, security lighting and cameras, with accessibility, energy-efficiency and safety work around the pool |
|
Hale Park Community Improvements Project |
$4.0M | Community recreation building with restrooms, inclusive playground with adaptive swings, hexagonal shade structure over the bandstand, additional shade, security lighting and cameras, tables and benches |
| Total | $14.1M |
Source: City staff descriptions as reported by the Lodi News-Sentinel, Oct. 3 and Oct. 18, 2026.
How the state scores an application
Every application is scored out of 100 points on ten criteria, then ranked statewide. The state funds down the list until the money runs out. Several criteria are not scored against a fixed bar but against the other applications in the round. The park-acreage and household-income figures for each site are lined up against every other site in California, and the full points go to the sites at the top of the need ranking. A Lodi neighborhood that looks underserved by Lodi standards is being compared with South Los Angeles, Fresno and Kern County (Round 5 Application Guide).
The table lists each criterion and where each Lodi park stands under the published rules. These are not the city's own scores. Official figures come from the state's Community FactFinder, which depends on exact site placement, and a full comparison will not exist until every application in the state is filed and ranked.
| # | Criterion | Max | What earns the points | Lawrence | Blakely | Hale |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Critical lack of park space | 15 | Park acres per 1,000 residents within a half mile, ranked statewide. The most park-poor tenth of sites earns the full 15; the best-served fifth earns 3. | 3.25 acres per 1,000; lowest need of the three | 0.90 acres per 1,000; highest need | 2.82 acres per 1,000; middle |
| 2 | Significant poverty | 13 | Median household income (8 pts) and number of people in poverty (5 pts) within a half mile, ranked statewide. Median income must fall under the program's threshold (reported as $77,067) to score. | Median income about $62,100 | Median income about $55,600; lowest of the three | Median income about $59,400 |
| 3 | Climate vulnerable populations | 5 | High-ranking vulnerabilities within a half mile among extreme heat, wildfire, sea level rise, drought and flood: three or more earn 5, two earn 3, one earns 2. New in Round 5. | Heat, drought; flood at the edge. 3 or 5 | Heat, drought. 3 | Heat, drought. 3 |
| 4 | Type of project | 10 | New park earns 10. Renovating an existing park, with each feature counted and justified, earns 9. Expansion earns 8. | 9 | 9 | 9 |
| 5 | Community-based planning | 18 | At least five meetings after Nov. 5, 2024, two on evenings or weekends, three invitation methods, broad turnout, and residents choosing features without a preset menu. | Five-plus held | Five-plus held | Five-plus held |
| 6 | Employment or volunteer opportunities | 5 | Outdoor learning or work for 20 or more residents (3 pts) and a completed consultation with a certified Conservation Corps (2 pts). | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
| 7 | Partnerships or committed funding | 3 | Three or more partners, including a health organization. | 5 partners; no health org named | Same | Same |
| 8 | Environmental design | 7 | Stormwater capture, efficient irrigation, recycled materials, native landscaping (4 pts), plus tree planting, drinking water stations and one more technique (3 pts). SITES or LEED certification earns all 7. | Design choice | Design choice | Design choice |
| 9 | Public use fees and hours | 4 | Open seven days, eight hours a day (2 pts). No fees, or fees under $3 a month per person (2 pts). Fees of $10 or more a month earn zero. | Free park | Pool charges admission | Free park |
| 10 | Community challenges, benefits and readiness | 20 | Narrative on local challenges and benefits, plus the state's own read of whether the city can finish the job and maintain it for 30 years. | Narrative | Narrative | Narrative |
| Total | 100 |
Source: SPP Round 5 Application Guide, Project Selection Criteria 1 through 10; Community FactFinder Handbook for the income threshold; 2020 Census; Vulnerable Communities Platform.
The half-mile numbers
The grant measures need inside a straight-line half mile of the project site. The figures below measure that half mile from the edge of each park and count residents from 2020 census block groups.
| Measure | Lawrence | Hale | Blakely |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residents (2020 block-group count) | 5,809 | 6,763 | 8,849 |
| Residents (ACS estimate) | 5,884 | 6,842 | 8,945 |
| Mapped park acres inside the half mile | 18.9 | 19.0 | 8.0 |
| Acres per 1,000: all mapped parks | 3.25 | 2.82 | 0.90 |
| Acres per 1,000: excluding Softball Complex and Zupo Field | 1.33 | 1.16 | 0.90 |
| Acres per 1,000: also excluding the project park itself | 0.86 | 0.77 | 0.00 |
| Median household income (tract) | $62,052 | $59,399 | $55,600 |
Source: City of Lodi park boundaries; 2020 Census block groups; Census tract median household income.
Three findings hold up under every counting rule tried. Blakely serves the most people and has the least nearby parkland; its half mile contains no other mapped park, so it stays lowest whatever the state counts. Hale and Lawrence are about a quarter mile apart, share the Softball Complex, Zupo Field and Armory Park in their circles, and land within a few tenths of an acre of each other, so the two should be treated as similar rather than ranked. And the absolute ratios swing widely with the definition of parkland, so no single acres-per-1,000 figure should be read as the grant's number.
School playfields, which some access measures count, are not included, and several schools sit near Lawrence and Hale. Income here is a tract-level median, not household income for each block group, and the poverty count in criterion 2 is not shown. Final figures will come from the state's Community FactFinder run on the exact site pins.
Climate vulnerability near each park
Criterion 3 counts the high-ranking climate vulnerabilities within a half mile of the project site. The Community FactFinder takes those rankings from the state's Vulnerable Communities Platform, run by the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, and counts only areas the platform ranks "High" for extreme heat, wildfire, sea level rise, drought or flood (Round 5 Application Guide; Parks for California). The table shows the platform's rankings for the census tracts within a half mile of each park (Vulnerable Communities Platform).
| Hazard | Lawrence | Hale | Blakely |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extreme heat | High | High | High |
| Drought | High | High | High |
| Flood | High at the edge (2,520 feet from the park) | Low | Low |
| Sea level rise | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Wildfire | No fire hazard zone nearby | No fire hazard zone nearby | No fire hazard zone nearby |
| Census tracts inside the half mile | 5 | 7 | 5 |
| High-ranking vulnerabilities / likely points | 2 or 3 / 3 or 5 | 2 / 3 | 2 / 3 |
Source: Vulnerable Communities Platform, current hazard rankings; Round 5 Application Guide scoring scale and half-mile rule; City of Lodi park boundaries.
Heat and drought do little to separate Lodi from the rest of the Valley. The platform ranks 161 of San Joaquin County's 173 census tracts High for extreme heat and 168 for drought, so nearly any site in the county starts with two vulnerabilities and 3 points. The remaining two points turn on a third hazard. For Lodi that is flood: the High flood tract north of downtown, along Lodi Lake and the Mokelumne River, begins about 2,520 feet from the Lawrence Park boundary, inside the 2,640-foot half mile, but about 2,810 feet from the center of the park. Where the city places its FactFinder pin inside Lawrence Park could decide whether the site earns 3 points or 5. Hale's boundary is about 3,440 feet from the same tract, and Blakely is not near any High flood area (Vulnerable Communities Platform).
Three rules outside the point table also shape the odds. Applications where most of the money goes to support amenities (restrooms, lighting, cameras, landscaping, shade, parking) are, in the state's words, less competitive than ones that create new recreation. Hale's list leans on shade, lighting, cameras and furniture; its recreation features are the building and the playground. Lawrence has the strongest mix of actual recreation features. A community building counts only if at least 75 percent of its floor area is designed for recreation; lobbies, meeting rooms, offices, storage and restrooms do not count, and two of the three Lodi projects include a building. And Prop 4 requires at least 10 percent of each round, about $18.9 million, to go to renovations of existing parks that improve access, including for people with disabilities. All three Lodi projects are renovations with inclusive playgrounds and ADA work, which is a small structural help (Round 5 Application Guide).
The Short Read
Blakely has the strongest case on park need: the most nearby residents, the least nearby parkland and the lowest nearby income. It also has a fee problem to solve: Enze Pool charges admission, and a $4.3 million application built around aquatics has to show fees that do not deter daily use. Lawrence has the strongest mix of recreation features and is the only one of the three that could pick up a third climate vulnerability, depending on where its site pin is placed. Hale and Lawrence overlap heavily in the neighborhoods they serve; in 2020 city staff put Hale's half-mile median household income at $35,200, the only one of four Lodi sites then under the state's severely disadvantaged line (Lodi News-Sentinel, 2020).
The odds
The program's own history is the best guide. Round 3 in 2019 drew 478 applications asking for $2.3 billion and funded 62 of them. Round 4 in 2021 drew 468 applications asking for $2.42 billion and funded 112, with 8 more added in 2023 from a supplemental appropriation. Round 5 has less money than either (California State Parks; Round 4 award list).
Statewide Park Program: dollars requested and dollars awarded, by round
Source: California State Parks program history and award announcements. Round 4 awarded figure combines the December 2021 and December 2023 announcements. Round 5 demand is not yet known; the bar shows the amount available.
Round 3 funded about 11 cents of every dollar requested ($254.9 million of $2.3 billion) and Round 4 about 24 cents ($590.2 million of $2.42 billion). If Round 5 demand looks like the last two, the $188.5 million pot would fund about 8 cents of every dollar requested, or roughly 38 to 46 projects at the average award size of those rounds. Lodi's three requests together would take 7.5 percent of the pot, so winning one project would be a solid result and winning all three would be ambitious.
Who else is in the race
There is no county or regional set-aside; every application competes against every other in the state. The applicant list is not public until after the deadline. The pattern from past rounds in this part of the Valley: Stockton has been funded in each of the last three award cycles (McKinley Park, $8.5 million in 2020; Columbus Park, $3.35 million in 2021; Van Buskirk Park, $7.0 million in 2023). Round 4 also funded Modesto's Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Park at the $8.5 million maximum, along with projects in Sacramento, Davis, West Sacramento, Vacaville, Fairfield, Livingston and Madera, and three Sacramento-area park districts. Past award patterns show repeat participation by large and experienced applicants, but the Round 5 applicant list will not be public until after the deadline (Round 4 award list; Round 3 awards).
Lodi's history with state park money
Lodi has done well with the smaller and less competitive state programs and has not yet cracked the big one.
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| 2016 | A $710,000 state grant pays for a new parking lot, boat ramp and dock at Lodi Lake (City of Lodi). |
| 2016–2017 | The city applies for $964,000 to rebuild Blakely Park's ball fields and add a high-ground soccer field. The state awards $882,340 in 2017 (Lodi News-Sentinel, 2016; City of Lodi). |
| 2018 | Lodi Lake Park Nature Area receives $249,525 from the Prop 40 outdoor environmental education program for the amphitheater, interpretive signs, native plantings and paths (California State Parks, 2018). |
| Spring 2019 | Parks staff hold five community meetings at Blakely Park and five at Hale Park to build applications to Prop 68's Statewide Park Program, Round 3. The city files for nearly $5 million for a Hale Park Community Heritage Project, with a planned partnership with the Lodi Historical Society, and prepares a Blakely application (City of Lodi Prop 68 page). |
| Feb. 2020 | Round 3 awards are announced. The only San Joaquin County award is Stockton's McKinley Park. Lodi is not funded (Round 3 awards). |
| Feb. 2020 | The Parks and Recreation Commission ranks four sites for Prop 68 Per Capita money, a formula grant rather than a competitive one: Blakely north pool, Legion Park building and playground, and Hale Park building and playground. Staff note that only Hale's half-mile area met the state's severely disadvantaged threshold (Lodi News-Sentinel, 2020). |
| Dec. 2021 and Dec. 2023 | Round 4 awards are announced in two batches. Stockton is funded twice. No Lodi project appears on either list (Round 4 award list). |
| Jan. 2023 | Council approves a $197,175 contract to remodel part of Enze Pool at Blakely, paid with Per Capita funds, and an $81,520 CDBG contract to repave the Hale Park lot (Lodi News-Sentinel, 2023). |
| Oct. 2026 | Three Round 5 applications: Lawrence, Hale and Blakely, $14.1 million (Lodi News-Sentinel, Oct. 18, 2026). |
Two things stand out. The Hale and Blakely concepts have been in front of the public since 2019; the Round 5 versions are the third pass at both parks, with Lawrence added. And the 2019 outreach meetings do not count this time. The Round 5 rules only credit meetings held after November 5, 2024, the day Prop 4 passed, which is why staff ran a full new round of meetings this year (Round 5 Application Guide).
What the money can and cannot pay for
The grant pays for construction and permanent features: site preparation, recreation equipment, park furniture, lighting, cameras, shade, buildings, and up to 25 percent of the grant for design, engineering, permits and the community meetings themselves (Grant Administration Guide).
It does not pay for upkeep. The state's list of ineligible costs includes repairs meant to keep an existing structure in use, routine operation and maintenance, programming, software, mowers, consumable supplies, and grant writing. The energy-efficiency items in the Blakely proposal qualify only as part of the pool rebuild, not as stand-alone fixes. A project must also create or renovate at least one recreation feature; an application made up only of restrooms, lighting and landscaping is ineligible (Grant Administration Guide).
Matching funds and what the city signs up for
No local match is required; the grant may fund the entire project. If the city's total cost is higher than the grant, the difference must be committed from other sources within four months of the deadline, by mid-April 2027, or the project has to be scaled down to what the grant alone can finish. The resolution before council certifies that the city has or will have the money to complete each project and to operate and maintain it (Round 5 Application Guide).
| Obligation | What the contract requires |
|---|---|
| Reimbursement, not a check up front | Payments before the final one cannot exceed 80 percent of the grant. The state holds 20 percent until the park is finished, inspected and open. Advances are possible but at the state's discretion, must be spent within six months, and still cannot exceed 80 percent in total. Each payment takes about eight weeks after approval. The city carries the cash flow in between. |
| Overruns belong to the city | The requested amount cannot go up after December 17, and the contract makes the grantee responsible for any additional funds needed to finish the scope. |
| Thirty years of operation and maintenance | The clock starts on the appropriation date, July 1, 2025, not on the day the park opens. The commitment runs to mid-2055. A deed restriction is recorded on the park's title before the first payment, and the land may not be sold, transferred or put to another use without state approval. |
| If the city falls short | On any breach the state may seek specific performance, return of all grant funds, payment of the property's fair market value, and its enforcement costs. The state can also hold payments if a park is closed or inadequately maintained. |
| Smaller obligations | A Prop 4 acknowledgment sign with a 24-inch logo for at least four years after completion; prevailing wage on contracted work; status reports every six months; records kept five years and open to state audit. If the application claims points for using a Conservation Corps, the city has to use one. |
| The clock | The performance period ends June 30, 2031. The state says it cannot guarantee final payment for completion packets received after December 31 of the prior year. For a community building that means design, bidding and construction done by late 2030, about three years after award. |
Source: Prop 4 Competitive Grant Administration Guide, Round 5, and SPP Round 5 Application Guide.
What happens next
| Date | Milestone |
|---|---|
| Nov. 5, 2024 | Prop 4 passes. Only outreach after this date counts toward scoring. |
| Jul. 1, 2025 | Appropriation date. The 30-year maintenance clock starts here for any award. |
| May–Jun. 2026 | Draft Round 5 guide out for public comment. |
| Aug. 28, 2026 | Application period opens. In-person workshop in Stockton on Sept. 14. |
| Oct. 6, 2026 | Lodi Parks and Recreation Commission special meeting on the three concepts. |
| Oct. 21, 2026 | City Council consent calendar: authorizing resolutions for the three applications. 7 p.m., Carnegie Forum. |
| Dec. 17, 2026 | Application deadline. Scoring responses cannot be revised after this. |
| Mid-April 2027 | Any committed funds beyond the grant must be secured. |
| Summer 2027 | Awards announced, roughly six months after the deadline. |
| Dec. 31, 2030 | Recommended date to have a funded project finished and the completion packet in. |
| Jun. 30, 2031 | Grant performance period ends. |
| Jul. 1, 2055 | End of the 30-year operation and maintenance commitment. |
The council item is on consent, so it will pass without discussion unless a council member or a member of the public pulls it. The next public decision about these three parks will come from Sacramento, and not before next summer.
LodiEye is the original civic-reporting and analysis arm of Lodi411.com, a citizen-run civic data and transparency platform serving Lodi, California and San Joaquin County. LodiEye gathers information of public interest, applies editorial judgment to public records, meetings, and data, and publishes original explanatory reporting for its readers — the work of a newsroom, and a representative of the news media as that term is defined under federal law. Our reporting emphasizes primary sources, public data, and full source transparency so readers can check every claim. LodiEye complements, and does not replace, the other outlets covering this region; for additional reporting on Lodi, San Joaquin County, and the broader region, we also encourage readers to consult the Lodi News-Sentinel, Stocktonia, The Sacramento Bee, CalMatters, and other established news organizations. Our full editorial standards and news-media-status statement is published at lodi411.com/editorial-standards.
This LodiEye report was produced using artificial intelligence tools under the direction and review of the founder. Lodi411 uses multiple AI platforms in its research and publication workflow, including Anthropic’s Claude (primarily Opus and Sonnet models) and Perplexity AI across a variety of large language models offered by each. These tools were used in the following capacities:
Source Discovery: AI-assisted search and retrieval located the Round 5 Application Guide, Grant Administration Guide and Community FactFinder Handbook from California State Parks, the Round 3 and Round 4 award lists and announcements, the state grants portal listing, the Lodi News-Sentinel's coverage of the current applications and of the city's 2016, 2019, 2020 and 2023 park grant activity, and City of Lodi web pages on Prop 68 outreach and department history.
Credibility Validation: Program rules, point values, dollar thresholds and contract terms were taken from the state's own Round 5 documents. Project descriptions and dollar figures come from city staff as reported by the News-Sentinel. Lodi's earlier applications and awards were checked against the state's published award lists. Where a figure rests on an older source, such as the 2020 Hale Park income figure, it is dated in the text.
Analysis and Synthesis: Claude Opus and Sonnet assisted in organizing the ten scoring criteria into a single table, computing the historical funding ratios, measuring population, parkland and income within a half mile of each park from 2020 Census block groups and City of Lodi park boundaries, and matching each park against the Vulnerable Communities Platform climate rankings. The park-by-park readings in the scoring table are an assessment from public information, not the city's figures.
Presentation: Claude assisted in drafting, structuring, and formatting the report for clarity and readability, including the scoring, half-mile and climate tables, the two date tables, and the funding chart.
Final Review: Multiple AI models reviewed the completed draft for factual consistency, source attribution accuracy, logical coherence, and balanced presentation. Throughout the process, the editor sets the report's goals, scope, and tone; creates and shapes draft content; reviews and edits the report; integrates independent fact checks; and reviews the AI cross-checks and validations. Multi-tool cross-checking across independent models and sources is the primary error-reduction mechanism.
Lodi411/LodiEye believes that transparency about how our research is produced — including our use of AI under human direction — strengthens trust with readers and the broader information ecosystem. Readers who spot an error are encouraged to write editor@lodi411.com so we can correct it.
References
- Lodi News-Sentinel — Lodi seeks $14 million in state park grants, Oct. 3, 2026.
- Lodi News-Sentinel — Lodi City Council could change how mayor, vice mayor are selected (includes the council parks item), Oct. 18, 2026.
- California State Parks — Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program, Round 5 page and program history.
- California State Parks — SPP Round 5 Application Guide, August 2026 (PDF).
- California State Parks — Grant Administration Guide for Proposition 4 Competitive Grant Programs, Round 5, August 2026 (PDF).
- California State Parks — Community FactFinder Handbook, Round 5, May 2026 (PDF).
- California State Parks — Round 4 project award list, Oct. 25, 2021 (PDF); Round 4 supplemental awards of $41.9 million, Dec. 28, 2023.
- California State Parks — Round 3 awards of $254.9 million, Feb. 25, 2020.
- Lodi News-Sentinel — Four Lodi park sites picked for state grant funds, Feb. 5, 2020.
- Lodi News-Sentinel — City of Lodi seeks grant for Blakely Park improvements, 2016.
- City of Lodi — Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services department history.
- City of Lodi — Prop 68 community meeting schedule for Hale and Blakely parks, 2019; Lodi Park Development Updates, Aug. 2019.
- California State Parks — $10 million for local park projects under the Outdoor Environmental Education Facilities program, including Lodi Lake Park Nature Area.
- Lodi News-Sentinel — Lodi set to tackle projects at Blakely, Hale parks, Jan. 2023.
- California Grants Portal — SPP Round 5 listing, Aug. 28, 2026.
- Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation — Vulnerable Communities Platform, VCP Tracts for Reports (open data portal).
- Parks for California — Community FactFinder methods, VCP climate-vulnerability layers.
Questions, tips or corrections: editor@lodi411.com