City consultant outlines tools, costs for Lodi City managed‑growth and annexation strategy

A city consultant outlined a roadmap for managed growth and possible annexations at a Nov. 9 special study session, telling the Lodi City Council that city records show roughly 410 remaining single‑family buildable units and an average permitting pace that could exhaust that capacity in about two to three years if current trends continue.

The consultant, who identified himself as a former community development director, told council members the figure was an estimate derived from vacant parcels, tentative maps and issued permits: “you have an opportunity for 410 more single family units before you reach buildout,” he said. He urged the city to prepare now for how and where to grow rather than react later.

Why it matters: Lodi City faces a budgetary squeeze for ongoing services, and the consultant said new growth can help the city’s fiscal health—but only if it is planned with tools that mitigate costs. He said the city collected about $1.1 million in Community Facilities District (CFD) revenue last year but is confronting roughly a $2.8 million gap between general‑fund resources and public‑safety budget requests. “If we don’t help ourselves going forward, we’re…not ready for you,” he said, arguing that infrastructure and fee programs must be coordinated with any expansion.

Key cost and capacity estimates: The consultant summarized master‑plan studies and said updated water, wastewater and storm‑drain improvements for some studied annexation areas total about $15 million (approximate), while required electric‑system upgrades—three substations plus a 60 kV line—could be just under $70 million (approximate). He emphasized that these are high fixed costs: “if it’s one unit or a thousand units, that substation needs to be in there.”

Annexation candidates and readiness levels: The presentation mapped several candidate areas—identified in the discussion as the Westside F application, the Maverick parcel and east/west urban reserve areas—and introduced a color‑coded level system (levels 1–3) to indicate how many regulatory and infrastructure “boxes” each area must check (sphere of influence, municipal services review, special district contracts such as Williamson Act or irrigation, utility proximity and more). Level‑1 areas are closest to existing systems and require fewer prerequisites than level‑3 areas.

Policy tools recommended: The consultant advised the council to use master/specific plans coupled with development agreements, project financing plans and fiscal‑impact analyses to create predictability and share costs with developers. He described a “merit hearing” as an early council‑level check that would let the council signal whether staff should invest in expensive environmental and engineering work for a large, discretionary proposal before the developer spends heavily on studies. He also recommended updating the AB 1600 development impact fee study (last updated in 2021) and other fee programs to reflect current costs.

Council and staff response: Mayor and council members thanked the presenter and generally supported early outreach to property owners, developers and other stakeholders to gauge interest. Councilmembers emphasized that choosing which areas to pursue is a policy decision for the council, and that city staff will need dedicated resources (engineers/planners) or funding agreements if multiple large proposals move forward.

Public comment: Members of the public raised questions about how CFD funds are used (the consultant said the CFD receipts flow into the city’s general fund), the history and use of master plans in Lodi, whether existing municipal services review (MSR) and EIR documents are adequate for new planning, and concerns that adding development fees could raise housing costs. One commenter urged the city to quantify the fiscal cost of not attracting industrial development as well as the cost of adding it.

Next steps: The consultant proposed finishing work on Level‑1 projects, completing phase‑four municipal code amendments (including a merit‑hearing process), updating impact‑fee and financing studies, and launching outreach to property owners and industry stakeholders. Council directed staff to begin outreach and to verify background documents (MSR, EIR and fee studies) as part of preparing any future annexation or master‑plan proposals.

The council did not take any formal votes at the study session; the item was presented for policy direction and to begin outreach and preparedness work.