Measure L Citizens’ Oversight Committee - September 30, 2026

Lodi

Sep 29

Measure L Citizens’ Oversight Committee, September 30, 2026

Summary

Lodi’s Measure L oversight committee meets Wednesday to receive a rebuilt draft of the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Measure L Annual Accountability Report. Measure L is the half-cent local sales tax Lodi voters approved in November 2018. The ballot estimated $5.4 million a year. In FY 2024/25 it brought in $9.1 million.

The committee reviewed a draft for this same fiscal year on December 8, 2025. The dollar figures have not changed. Staff has moved the report into the City’s ClearGov budget software and added historical department, General Fund, and staffing sections. The committee takes no action on the report Wednesday; staff will ask for a recommendation to the City Council at the next meeting, more than 15 months after FY 2024/25 closed.

The report shows the Measure L fund spent $208,107 more than it took in during FY 2024/25, its first deficit year. The balance fell to $1,580,709, leaving $124,625 above the required 16% reserve. The new ClearGov version also introduces errors: a summary table drops Parks entirely, the Fire section counts the Library’s Measure L librarian in every year, and several charts labeled “FY25 Expenditures” show budget figures instead of actual spending. FY 2025/26 ended June 30, 2026, but the report includes only that year’s adopted budget, with no actual results or year-end fund balance.

$9,100,526FY 2024/25 Measure L revenue, down 1.4%

$9,308,633FY 2024/25 Measure L spending

–$208,107First annual deficit since the tax began

$124,625Fund balance above the 16% reserve, June 30, 2025

$8,739,160FY 2025/26 adopted Measure L budget, 6.1% below FY 2024/25 actual

Meeting Details

Date & Time: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.

Location: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240 (in person; the agenda lists no remote option)

Agenda Contact: Jamie Bandy, Administrative Services Director, (209) 269-4642

Report Author: Jennelle Baker-Bechthold, Budget Manager

Committee Members: Chair John Beckman (District 2), Vice Chair Antonio Amador (District 1), Toni Lish (District 4), Chris Young (District 5); District 3 is vacant, per the FY 2025/26 roster printed in the report

Staff Reports: On file for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi

Accessibility and Interpreters: Disability accommodation requests go to the City Manager’s Office at least 72 hours before the meeting. Language interpreter requests go to Jennelle Baker-Bechthold, (209) 333-6722, at least 72 hours in advance. Solicitudes de interpretación: (209) 333-6722, con 72 horas de anticipación.

Committee Authority: Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) §3.30.150(A) directs the committee to review the annual accountability report and report its findings to the City Council and residents. Its review is limited to Measure L revenue and spending after each fiscal year closes; it has no role in writing the budget.

Agenda

A. Call to Order / Roll Call

B. Approve Minutes — January 15, 2026 Special Meeting

Prepared by Administrative Assistant–Confidential Monica Calderon. The January meeting took up Chair Beckman’s proposed changes to the Measure L section of the Municipal Code and voted 3-0 (Young absent) to recommend them to the City Council. Details and corrections below.

C. Receive Draft Fiscal Year 2024/25 Measure L Annual Accountability Report

Receive only. Staff will ask the committee to recommend the report to the City Council at its next meeting, and the Council would accept it at a later date. Strategic Vision 3A (Fiscal Health). No fiscal impact.

E. Adjournment

The printed agenda has no Item D. Agenda posted at least 72 hours in advance under Government Code §54954.2(a).

Item B — January 15, 2026 Minutes

The special meeting ran from 6:03 to 6:26 p.m. Chair Beckman, Vice Chair Amador, and Member Lish attended. Member Young was absent. Budget Manager Baker-Bechthold and Administrative Assistant Monica Calderon staffed the meeting.

Chair Beckman presented the Municipal Code changes he wanted to take to the City Council. The January agenda packet showed the proposal. It would widen the committee’s review from Measure L revenue and spending to “all sales tax expenditures.” It would change the test from spending “for the purposes set forth in this ordinance” to spending “in the spirit of the ballot language presented to the voters.” And it would drop the clause confining the committee to Measure L revenue. Beckman had already presented a letter on the proposal to the City Council on December 17, 2025.

Baker-Bechthold gave a history of Measure L and said the City complies with the current code language. She reviewed historical allocations by department, and the committee received a February 6, 2019 Council Communication on six Measure L-funded positions. Staff’s visual showed eight Measure L-funded Fire positions, two Police positions eliminated “due to MOUs” (memoranda of understanding, the City’s labor contracts with employee groups), and rising salary and benefit costs. The committee voted 3-0 to recommend the amendments. No one spoke during public comment.

Open Issues to Watch — Item B

Wrong meeting date in the header. The draft minutes are headed “Wednesday, September 30, 2026,” the date of this week’s meeting, not January 15, 2026.
Wrong minutes approved. The January minutes record approval of the “January 15, 2026” minutes. The committee approved its December 8, 2025 minutes that night.
The recommendation is not in the record. The motion says the committee recommended “proposed Measure L Municipal Code amendments” but does not state or attach the language. Readers of the official minutes cannot tell what the committee endorsed.
Motion wording. “The above motion carried Committee Member Amador, seconded by…” omits who moved it. Item lettering jumps from C to F.
Six firefighters or eight? Staff described eight Measure L Fire positions. The accountability report lists six firefighters for both FY 2024/25 and FY 2025/26.
What happened next? Nothing in this packet reports whether the City Council has scheduled or acted on the committee’s January recommendation.

Item C — FY 2024/25 Measure L Annual Accountability Report

Report at a Glance

Fiscal year covered: July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025

Required by: LMC §3.30.140. The report must show (a) revenue collected and (b) the amount and general purpose of spending by category.

Format: New ClearGov layout, 30 pages. It adds 10-year-style department history, General Fund context, and a General Fund position schedule from FY 2019 through FY 2025.

Prior review: A draft for the same year, in the old format, went to the committee December 8, 2025. The revenue, spending, and fund balance figures are unchanged.

Committee action: Receive only; recommendation to Council at the next meeting.

Revenue

Measure L collected $9,100,526 in FY 2024/25, down $130,952 (1.4%) from FY 2024. Staff budgeted $9.2 million, cut the estimate to $8.6 million at mid-year, and finished $500,000 above the revised figure. Tax receipts have now fallen two straight years and sit about $217,000 below the FY 2023 high.

The City’s sales tax consultant, HdL, attributed the drop to weaker sales of autos, building and construction materials, business and industry goods, fuel, and general consumer goods. Restaurants and hotels grew.

Measure L is a transactions and use tax. That means it applies to goods delivered into Lodi, including online orders, and all of it stays with the City. Because of AB 147 (2019), which requires large online sellers to collect the tax, Measure L brought in about 57.2% as much as the City’s 1% share of the base sales tax, even though its rate is half as large.

Total revenue: FY 2019 $1,453,364 (partial year) · FY 2020 $6,762,083 · FY 2021 $8,456,915 · FY 2022 $9,176,719 · FY 2023 $9,340,813 · FY 2024 $9,231,478 · FY 2025 $9,100,526. Source: FY 2024/25 Draft Accountability Report, p. 7.

Interest earnings were $421 for the year on a fund that started with $1.79 million. The report does not say whether Measure L receives a share of the City’s pooled-cash interest.

The report has no receivables schedule. California’s tax agency, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), sends sales tax to cities after a delay, so a June 30 balance normally includes money owed but not yet received. The report does not disclose that amount or the accounting basis for the $9.1 million.

Spending by Recipient

The report presents FY 2024/25 spending three ways: by service type (Table 1), by category (Table 2), and by department (ClearGov tables). Reconciled, they agree on $9,308,633. Police and Fire received 81.9% of it, nearly all for salaries, benefits, and overtime.

Recipient	FY 2024/25 actual	Share	What it paid for
Police	$4,604,293	49.46%	Officer salaries, benefits, overtime, insurance charges
Fire	$3,016,496	32.41%	Firefighter salaries, benefits, overtime, insurance, $63,049 supplies and training
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services	$1,269,340	13.64%	Operating transfer: park operations, one Park Maintenance Worker, $400,000 capital
Library	$390,186	4.19%	$113,496 librarian salary and benefits plus $276,690 operating transfer
Streets (Public Works)	$27,114	0.29%	0.2 of a Street Maintenance Worker
Miscellaneous	$1,203	0.01%	Professional services
Total	$9,308,633	100%

Library split derived from the Library department table (p. 25) and Non-Departmental transfers (p. 26). Sources: pp. 8–11, 21–26.

By category, Table 2 lists $7,557,740 for public safety salaries and benefits, $64,253 for supplies and services, $1,269,340 for Parks, $390,186 for the Library, and $27,114 for Public Works. The report states that no Measure L money went toward CalPERS unfunded pension liability, the cost of pension benefits earned in earlier years.

Overtime rose $412,752 (24.3%) to $2,110,204, second only to regular salaries ($3,497,648). Safety equipment spending fell from $105,932 to $41,654 and training from $63,461 to $21,395. The City’s internal liability-insurance charge rose from $155,720 to $212,970.

The report says Measure L funded 31.2 full-time positions and two part-time Community Service Officers. Its highlights page lists 25 police officers, six firefighters, one librarian, one park maintenance worker, and 0.2 of a street maintenance worker, which adds to 33.2. Scheduled maintenance on 467 park trees at Blakely, Henry Glaves, Lawrence, Peterson, Lodi Lake, the Softball Complex, Grape Bowl, and Armory Park is listed as a Measure L result. Before Measure L, the City had no preventive maintenance program for park trees.

Fund Balance

Measure L fund	Amount
Beginning balance, July 1, 2024	$1,788,816
Revenue	$9,100,526
Spending	$9,308,633
Revenue less spending	–$208,107
Ending balance, June 30, 2025	$1,580,709
16% reserve requirement	$1,456,084
Unreserved balance	$124,625

Source: Table 2, p. 9, and Fund Balance, p. 28.

The balance fell 11.6% in one year. The beginning balance checks out: surpluses from FY 2019 through FY 2023 add to exactly $1,788,816, and FY 2024 broke even to the dollar.

Revenue less spending: FY 2019 +$803,143 · FY 2020 +$386,202 · FY 2021 +$450,869 · FY 2022 +$115,169 · FY 2023 +$33,433 · FY 2024 $0 · FY 2025 –$208,107. Source: Comprehensive Measure L Fund Summary, p. 11.

The City’s budget policy requires the Measure L fund to hold a 16% reserve, as the General Fund does. The $1,456,084 reserve equals exactly 16% of FY 2024/25 revenue. The report does not say which base the policy uses. Measured against spending, the requirement would be $1,489,381, and the unreserved balance would be $91,328.

Using the same revenue method, the balance above the reserve was about $311,800 on July 1, 2024. A year later it was $124,625, a drop of about 60%. One more deficit the size of FY 2024/25 would take the fund below its policy reserve.

Open Issues to Watch — Errors in the Draft

Parks missing from Table 1 (p. 8). The table lists Police, Fire, “Library” at $1,269,340, Street Maintenance, and Miscellaneous. $1,269,340 is the Parks amount. The Library’s $390,186 does not appear, and the listed rows add to $8,918,446, not the $9,308,633 total printed beneath them. The December 2025 draft listed both Parks and Library.
Library counted inside Fire (p. 21). The Fire section reports FY 2025 spending of $3,129,992. Every other table shows $3,016,496. The $113,496 difference is exactly the Library’s Measure L spending. The same gap appears in FY 2021 ($19,345), FY 2022 ($84,997), and FY 2024 ($86,307).
Budget shown as actual. The department pie labeled “FY25 Expenditures by Department” totals $9.47 million; actual spending was $9.31 million. It shows Police at $4,395,710 (actual $4,604,293) and Library at $98,970 (actual $113,496). The Fire pie totals $3.49 million while the department pie shows Fire at $3,392,220.
Negative “ending fund balance” (p. 11). The ClearGov fund summary leaves Beginning Fund Balance blank for every year and labels each year’s surplus or deficit as the Ending Fund Balance. As printed, it shows FY 2025 ending at –$208,107. Table 2 shows $1,580,709.
Missing year (p. 10). The department table skips FY 2023.
Percentages and date (p. 9). The narrative says 80.14% went to public safety salaries and benefits and 14.93% to Parks. The table figures give 81.19% and 13.64%. It also describes the fund balance “as of June 30, 2024”; the table is June 30, 2025.
Typos in the key table (p. 9). The beginning balance prints as “1,7,88,816” and the fund balance as “1,580,709,.27.”
Position count (p. 27). The positions listed add to 33.2; the text says 31.2.
Transfers above plan (pp. 28–29). The narrative says Parks received $748,300 for operations plus $400,000 for capital, and the Library $260,060. Actual transfers were $1,269,340 to Parks and $276,690 to the Library, $137,670 more combined. The report does not explain the difference.
Parks left out of scope (p. 4). The overview lists spending for “Fire, Police, Library, Streets, and Capital.” Parks operations, the third-largest recipient, is not named.

General Fund Context

The new General Fund section argues that Measure L lets other General Fund revenue cover a wider range of City work. Its tables show General Fund revenue of $76.9 million and spending of $69.0 million in FY 2025, down $2.16 million (3.0%) from FY 2024. The biggest drop was Non-Departmental ($4.78 million). Fire rose $1.46 million (10.5%) and the City Manager’s office $493,862 (43.4%).

The narrative gives different numbers from those tables: $80.6 million in spending, a $1.4 million (1.7%) decline, a $4.95 million Non-Departmental drop, and a $1.30 million Fire increase. The pie charts show $76.4 million in revenue and $75.7 million in spending. The percent-change table matches the dollar table for six departments but not for Police (1.2% vs. 1.0%), Fire (7.6% vs. 10.5%), or Non-Departmental (–23.3% vs. –26.1%).

General Fund positions grew from 244.7 in FY 2019 to 289.0 in FY 2025, an increase of 44.3. The schedule’s adjustment column totals 42.7 because Parks shows +2.0 when its own columns go from 24.4 to 28.0. Police grew from 103 to 114 positions, including officers from 47 to 53. Fire grew from 52.6 to 57, including firefighters from 11 to 14. Staff notes that some increases are reclassifications or transfers rather than new jobs.

FY 2025/26: Budget Against FY 2024/25 Actual

The City Council adopted the FY 2025/26 budget on June 4, 2025. The report’s FY 2025/26 pages repeat that adopted budget unchanged from the December 2025 draft. That fiscal year closed June 30, 2026, but the report includes no actual FY 2025/26 revenue, spending, or year-end fund balance.

Recipient	FY 2024/25 actual	FY 2025/26 budget	Change	%
Police	$4,604,293	$4,153,490	–$450,803	–9.8%
Fire	$3,016,496	$3,011,190	–$5,306	–0.2%
Parks	$1,269,340	$1,148,300	–$121,040	–9.5%
Library	$390,186	$386,540	–$3,646	–0.9%
Streets	$27,114	$39,640	+$12,526	+46.2%
Miscellaneous	$1,203	$0	–$1,203	—
Total	$9,308,633	$8,739,160	–$569,473	–6.1%

Sources: Table 1 and Table 2 (pp. 8–9, corrected for the missing Parks row) and Table 4 (p. 29).

Police (–$450,803). Measure L-funded officers drop from 25 to 23. That matches staff’s January report that two Police positions were eliminated under labor agreements. The report does not say whether those officers left the payroll or moved to other General Fund money. The answer determines whether the City saved money or shifted the cost to the General Fund.

Fire (–$5,306). Six firefighters plus $1.9 million in overtime to staff all four fire stations. Police and Fire overtime together reached $2.11 million in FY 2024/25, up 24% in one year. A flat Fire budget holds only if Fire overtime stayed near plan.

Parks (–$121,040). $748,300 for operations, including the Park Maintenance Worker added in FY 2024/25, plus $400,000 for capital projects. FY 2024/25 actual transfers ran $121,040 above that same structure.

Library (–$3,646). $260,000 for operations plus about $126,540 for the librarian’s salary and benefits.

Streets (+$12,526). Still 0.2 of one worker. The ballot language lists “fixing potholes/city streets.” Measure L street spending is $39,640 of $8.74 million, about 0.45%.

By category, the FY 2025/26 budget is $7,273,600 for salaries and benefits, $57,200 for supplies, materials, and training, and $1,408,360 in operating transfers. The transfers equal the Parks $1,148,300 plus the Library’s $260,060. FY 2024/25 actual transfers were $1,546,030.

What the Fund Balance Could Look Like

The report gives no FY 2025/26 revenue figure. The two cases below show a range; they are not City projections.

Scenario	Revenue	Spending	Change	June 30, 2026 balance
Flat revenue, spending at budget	$9,100,526	$8,739,160	+$361,366	$1,942,075
Revenue down another 1.4%, spending at FY 2024/25 level	$8,973,119	$9,308,633	–$335,514	$1,245,195 (below reserve)

Computed from the report’s FY 2024/25 actuals and FY 2025/26 adopted budget.

Questions for the Committee

When will the committee see FY 2025/26 actual revenue, spending, and the June 30, 2026 fund balance?
Will staff fix Table 1, the Fire–Library double count, and the charts showing budget figures as actual spending before the committee votes?
Is the 16% reserve calculated on revenue or on spending, and what does the adopted policy say?
Why did Parks receive $121,040 more and the Library $16,630 more than the budgeted transfers in FY 2024/25?
Were 25 or 23 officers Measure L-funded in FY 2024/25? Does Fire have six Measure L positions or eight?
Did the two eliminated Police positions leave the payroll, or did the cost move to the General Fund?
How much of the $2.11 million in FY 2024/25 overtime was Fire, and how did FY 2025/26 overtime compare with the $1.9 million budget?
Why did the fund earn only $421 in interest on a balance of $1.6 million to $1.8 million?
What Measure L sales tax was owed to the City but not yet received on June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2026?
Where do the committee’s January Municipal Code recommendations stand with the City Council?

References

Measure L CommitteeMeeting Summary

Don Bradford