HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - February 6, 2002 K-01LODI CITY COUNCIL AGENDA — Redevelopment Agency
Carnegie Forum Date: February 6, 2002
305 West Pine Street, Lodi Time: 7:00 p.m.
Lee.)
For information regarding this Agenda please contact:
Susan J. Blackston
City Clerk
Telephone: (209) 333-6702
MEETING OF THE
Redevelopment A_gency
Of the City of Lodi
A. Call to order — Chairperson
B. Roll call to be recorded by Secretary
Res. C. Adopt resolution approving the preliminary report and transmittal to affected
taxing entities on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (CD)
D. Other business
E. Adjournment
Pursuant to Section 54954.2(a) of the Government Code of the State of California, this agenda was posted at
least 72 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting at a public place freely accessible to the public 24 hours a
day.
Susan J. Blackston
Secretary
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi
J:\CITYCLRK\FORMSkda02.06-02.doc 1/28/02
P.
w°- REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AGENCY COMMUNICATION
Adopt Resolution approving the Preliminary Report and transmittal to affected taxing
entities on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project
No. 1
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2002
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution approving the Preliminary Report and
transmittal to affected taxing entities on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project No. 1.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As the Agency Board is aware, staff and consultants have been
working through the necessary steps in establishing Lodi
Redevelopment Project No. 1. The most recent action that the
agency took was to certify the election results for the Project
Area Committee. That committee has had four meetings since then and will continue to meet monthly to
review and make comments on the various documents required to be prepared pursuant to State
Redevelopment Law.
The document before you is the Preliminary Report for the proposed Lodi Redevelopment Plan. The
Preliminary Report is the first major background document in the process leading to consideration of the
approval of the Lodi Redevelopment Plan. It is a public document designed to provide background
information on the Redevelopment Project to the Agency, the Lodi Project Area Committee (PAC), and
affected taxing entities. The Preliminary Report is of value to all participants in the plan adoption process
as an early statement of program needs, goals, activities and costs.
The adoption of the Redevelopment Plan will put into place a redevelopment program designed to
alleviate the Project Area's blighting conditions, which are documented in this Preliminary Report. The
Preliminary Report describes the projects and activities proposed to alleviate blight and promote
economic development, residential neighborhood conservation and area wide public improvements.
Finally, the Preliminary Report sets forth financing methods proposed to implement the Redevelopment
Program.
This report contains information regarding:
The reasons for the selection of the Project Area
The description of physical and economic conditions existing in the Project Area
The preliminary assessment of the proposed method for financing the redevelopment of the project
area, including an assessment of the economic feasibility of the project
APPROVED:
xon Flynn 1Z timanager
0202.doc 01/29/02
Council Communication
Meeting Date: February 6, 2002
Page 2
The descriptions of the types of projects that are anticipated
The description of how the projects that are proposed will improve or alleviate the Project Area
conditions
Aside from the Agency Board's action to approve the report, the report must be submitted to all taxing
entities within the project area and the State Board of Equalization. In addition, the Project Area
Committee will review the Preliminary Report.
FUNDING: None required
Konradt Bartlam
Community Development Director
Attachments
RESOLUTION RDA2002-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
LODI APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY REPORT TO AFFECTED
TAXING ENTITIES ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and
Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi (the
"Agency") has prepared a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the
Lodi Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33344.5 of the Community Redevelopment Law, the
Agency has prepared a preliminary report (the "Preliminary Report") on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Project for transmittal to each affected taxing entity as defined in
Section 33353.2 of the Community Redevelopment Law.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
LODI DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Agency hereby approves and adopts the Preliminary Report in the form
on file in the City Clerk's Office and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. The Executive Director of the Agency is hereby authorized and directed to
transmit the Preliminary Report to each affected taxing entity.
Dated: February 6, 2002
1 hereby certify that Resolution No. RDA2002-01 was passed and adopted by the Lodi
City Council in a regular meeting held February 6, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES: MEMBERS — Howard, Land, and Mayor Pennino
NOES: MEMBERS — Nakanishi
ABSENT: MEMBERS — None
ABSTAIN: MEMBERS — Hitchcock
Philli4Aennino., Chairperson,
City of Lodi Redevelopment Agency
Attest:
uA -�--
Susan J. Blackston
Secretary, City of Lodi Redevelopment Agency
RDA2002-01
Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Report Prepared By
Lodi Redevelopment Agency
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Seifel Consulting Inc.
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94109
(415)931-9600
John B. Dykstra & Associates
6644 Ascot Drive
Oakland, CA 94611
(510)530-7229
January 2002
Table of Contents
Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project
I. Introduction............................................................................................. I-1
A. Project Area Description..................................................................................................................................... I-1
B. Reasons for Selecting the Project Area.............................................................................................................. I-4
C. Attainment of the Purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law ............................................ I-6
D. Redevelopment Project Goals............................................................................................................................ I-6
E. Conformity with the City's General Plan.......................................................................................................... I-9
F. Overview of the Redevelopment Plan Adoption Process................................................................................. I-9
G. Preliminary Report Requirements....................................................................................................................1-11
H. Public Agency Actions to Date........................................................................................................................1-12
II. Existing Conditions................................................................................ II -1
A. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ II -1
B. Character of the Area as Predominantly Urbanized.........................................................................................II-1
C. Characteristics of a Blighted Area.....................................................................................................................11,6
D. Assessment of Existing Conditions....................................................................................................................II-7
E. Adverse Physical Conditions...........................................................................................................................II-10
F. Economic Conditions That Cause a Reduction of, or Lack of, Proper Use of the Proposed Project Area .1I-22
G. Necessity for Redevelopment...........................................................................................................................II-49
III. Redevelopment Program Description ................................................. III -1
A. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................IIl- I
B. Relationship between Redevelopment Program and Alleviation of Blighting Conditions ..........................III -2
C. Description of Non -Housing Redevelopment Program...................................................................................III-4
D. Description of Affordable Housing Redevelopment Program.........................................................................III-7
Lodi Redevelopment Agency i Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Table of Contents (continued)
IV. Proposed Methods of Financing and Feasibility..................................IV-1
A.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... IV -1
B.
Stimulation of Private Investment.................................................................................................................. IV -1
C.
Potential Funding Sources Other than Tax Increment Financing................................................................ IV -2
D.
Other Funding Sources Considered to Be Infeasible....................................................................................
IV -14
E.
Tax Increment Financing: The Primary Source of Funding........................................................................
IV -15
F.
Assumptions Used in Tax Increment Projections........................................................................................
IV -18
G.
Tax Increment Projections............................................................................................................................
IV -23
H.
Financial Feasibility of the Proposed Redevelopment Project.....................................................................
IV -26
I.
Reasons Why Tax Increment Financing Is Necessary ..................................................................................
IV -27
Lodi Redevelopment Agency ii Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
List of Figures, Tables and Graphs
Figgres
FigureI-1 Project Area Boundary Map............................................................................................................................. I-3
FigureII -1 Urbanization Map........................................................................................................................................... II -5
Figure II -2 Building Condition Survey Areas..................................................................................................................I1-9
Figure II.3 Average Building Condition Ratings by Subarea........................................................................................11-17
Figure II -4 Limits of Identified Soils and Groundwater Contamination Plumes.........................................................II-19
Figure II -5 Limits of Major Soils and Groundwater Contamination Plumes...............................................................11-20
Figure II -6 Location of Major Underutilized Properties Central Railroad Commercial/Industrial Corridor .............II -44
Figure II -7 Location of Major Underutilized Properties Cherokee Lane Commercial Corridor.................................I1-46
Graphs
Graph II -1 Median Sale Price of Single Family Homes................................................................................................II-29
Graph 11-2 Median Sale Price of Multifamily Homes...................................................................................................11.30
Graph II -3 Annual Transient Occupancy Tax per Room Inside and Outside of Project Area..................................I1.33
Graph IV -1 Projected Growth in Assessed Value Lodi Redevelopment Project Area .............................................. IV -20
Graph IV -2 Tax Increment Projections Lodi Redevelopment Project...................................................................... IV -24
Graph IV -3 Distribution of Tax Increment Revenues Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project
(Constant 2002 Dollars).................................................................................................................IV-25
Tables
Table II -1 Calculation of the Extent of Urbanization Lodi Redevelopment Project ..................................... ........II -4
Table II -2 Building Conditions Assessment..................................................................................................................11-15
Table II -3 Building Conditions Survey Results Total Project Area.............................................................................I1-16
Table II -4 Sales Tax Receipts Comparison of Lodi Commercial Areas 5 -Year Trend (Adjusted for Inflation) .......II
-25
Table II -5 Historical Sales Tax Revenue to City by Subarea Lodi Redevelopment Project.......................................II-26
Table II -6 Sales Prices for Single Family Homes City of Lodi and Surrounding Area................................................11-28
TableII -7 Lodging Establishments.................................................................................................................................II.32
Table II -8 Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Per Room..............................................................................................II-32
Table II -9 Summary of Commercial Lease Rates Lodi Market Area, January 2002....................................................II-36
Table II -10 Size of Available Commercial Space In Lodi January 2002......................................................................II-37
Table 11-11 Prototypical Purchase and Rehabilitation Project Downtown - Mixed Use Office and Retail...............1I-41
Table II -12 Prototypical Purchase and Rehabilitation Project East Side Industrial Project.......................................1I.42
Table II -13 Underutilized Properties by Subarea Central Railroad Commercial/Industrial Corridor ........................II -43
Table II44 Underutilized Properties by Subarea Cherokee Lane Commercial Corridor............................................II-45
Table II -15 Residential Overcrowding Redevelopment Project Area City of Lodi.....................................................I1-47
Table II -16 Residential Overcrowding East Side Neighborhood City of Lodi.............................................................II-48
Table III -I How Redevelopment Program Will Eliminate Adverse Conditions..........................................................III.3
Table III -2 Projected Total Costs of Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Program
Non -Housing and Housing Activities...............................................................................................III-9
Table III -3 Projected Costs of Proposed Redevelopment Program Lodi Redevelopment Project Area...................111-11
Table IV -1 Estimated Net Cost to Agency of Redevelopment Program In Constant 2002 dollars ...........................
IV -3
Table IV -2 Property Tax Distribution Lodi Redevelopment Project Area................................................................
IV -17
Table IV -3 Summary of Tax Increment Projections...................................................................................................
IV -23
Table IV -4 Comparison of Estimated Tax Increment Revenues and Funding Requirements (2002 dollars)..........
IV -27
Lodi Redevelopment Agency iii Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Table of Contents (continued)
Appendices
Appendix A. Sources
Appendix B. Legal Description of the Project Area
Appendix C. Existing Conditions Survey Report
Appen ix D. Photographic Documentation of
Existing Conditions
Appendix E. County Fiscal Officer's Report
Appendix F. Tax Increment Projections
Lodi Redevelopment Agency iv Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
I. Introduction
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi (Agency) is preparing a Redevelopment Plan
for the Lodi Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area). The Lodi City Council will consider
approval of the Plan during 2002. The proposed Project Area is comprised of approximately
1,184 acres of commercial, industrial and residential land uses in the City of Lodi (City) and is
primarily located north of Kettleman Lane, south of Turner road, east of Ham Lane and west of
Commerce Street. This document is the Preliminary Report for the proposed Lodi
Redevelopment Plan, which is required by Section 33344.5 of the California Community
Redevelopment Law (CRL), a subsection of the California Health and Safety Code.'
The Preliminary Report is the first major background document in the process leading to
consideration of the approval of the Lodi Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan). It is a
public document designed to provide background information on the Redevelopment Project to
the Agency, the Lodi Project Area Committee (PAC), and affected taxing entities. The
Preliminary Report is of value to all participants in the plan adoption process as an early
statement of program needs, goals, activities and costs.
The adoption of the Redevelopment Plan will put into place a redevelopment program designed
to alleviate the Project Area's blighting conditions, which are documented in this Preliminary
Report. The Preliminary Report describes the projects and activities proposed to alleviate blight
and promote economic development, residential neighborhood conservation and areawide
public improvements. Finally, the Preliminary Report sets forth financing methods proposed to
implement the Redevelopment Program.
This chapter is organized as follows:
A. Project Area Description
B. Reasons for Selecting the Project Area
C. Attainment of the Purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law
D. Redevelopment Project Goals
E. Conformity with the City's General Plan
F. Overview of the Redevelopment Plan Adoption Process
G. Preliminary Report Requirements
H. Public Agency Actions to Date
A. Project Area Description
1. Project Area Boundaries
The proposed Project Area consists of approximately 1,184 acres located entirely within the
City of Lodi, California. The proposed Project Area boundary was developed based on a review
'The California Community Redevelopment Law is contained in Part I of Division 24, Community Development
and Housing, of the Health and Safety Code beginning at Section 33000. All further statutory references are to
the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise noted.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-1 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
of background information, discussions with City staff, and an examination of available maps
and aerial photographs. Special consideration was given to the California Community
Redevelopment Law (CRL) eligibility requirements (for more information on these
requirements, refer to Section G of this chapter and Chapter 1I).
The proposed Project Area is comprised of a variety of residential, commercial and industrial
land uses. The proposed Project Area boundaries are shown in Figure I-1 (See Appendix B for
the legal description and map of the proposed Project Area boundaries.)
2. History of the Project Area
The historical growth of the City of Lodi has greatly influenced the existing physical and
economic conditions in the proposed Project Area, which encompasses the oldest commercial
and industrial areas and residential neighborhoods in Lodi.
Lodi's initial growth was primarily related to agriculture and the prime farming land that
surrounds the City. Lodi is located on the edge of the Sacramento Delta, an area of productive
agricultural land. The Miwok Indians, the area's earliest inhabitants, enjoyed a life of abundant
plant life nurtured by the black peat soil of the Delta. Lodi was once known as the watermelon
capital, when trains would transport watermelons from Lodi to cities all across the nation.
Today, Lodi's cash crop is the wine grape. The Lodi area produces more Zinfandel, Merlot,
Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Sauvignon Blanc grapes than any other wine region in
the state. The Lodi area also produces, processes and exports a wide variety of vegetables, fruits
and nuts. It has one of the largest cherry export operations in the country, shipping primarily to
Japan and other Pacific Rim countries!
Lodi was first subdivided in 1869 by the Oakland -Sacramento Central Pacific Railroad
Company, when the town of Mokelumne was founded. The City was incorporated on
December 6, 1906. Lodi's early growth was attributed to an extensive network of passenger train
services that once served the City. Industries built warehouses and manufacturing plants to
maximize railroad access and frontage. Commercial districts were developed in close proximity
to the railroad depot to capitalize on passenger patronage, and residential development occurred
in areas beyond the commercial and industrial uses.' Rail service has steadily declined since the
1950s and 1960s as the expanding freeway system replaced rail transport with automobiles and
trucks.¢
The proposed Project Area is adjacent to Highways 12 and 99. Cherokee Lane, the location of
the original Highway 99 before it was upgraded and relocated to the east, traverses the proposed
Project Area. Highway 12, Kettleman Lane, runs near the southern border and the current
Highway 99 nuns near the eastern border. The western border of the proposed Project Area is
adjacent to Ham Lane.
'Information taken from the Lodi Conference & Visitors Bureau website, located at
www.visitlodi.com/history.html
'Environmental Science Associates, Lodi Multi -Modal Station: Initial Study/Negative Declaration, May 1999,
P. 11.
4 Ibid., p. 3.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-2 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Downtown Lodi is generally regarded as the area bounded by Lockeford Street to the north,
Lodi Avenue to the south, Church Street on the west, and Sacramento Street and the Southern
Pacific Railroad on the east. It has a land area of approximately 40 acres, and includes
approximately 400,000 square feet of first floor commercial space. Historic buildings and
storefront commercial development are concentrated along School Street. A smaller
commercial area extends along the frontages of Main and Pine Streets, east of the railroad. It is
approximately 15 acres in area and contains approximately 110,000 square feet of first floor
commercial space.' Another smaller commercial area extends west along Lodi Avenue to Ham
Lane.
Cherokee Lane is the gateway to Lodi from Highway 99, which is an important north -south
route in the Central Valley. Cherokee Lane stretches for approximately two miles between the
northern and southern Highway 99 off -ramps. Its frontage consists of a mixture of large and
small-scale commercial businesses, public facilities such as the fairgrounds and the vacant
Lincoln School, as well as light industrial development.'
Kettleman Lane, which forms the southern boundary of the proposed Project Area, is an
important commercial corridor in Lodi. Highway 12 provides the principal east -west access to
the area and coincides with Kettleman Lane west of Highway 99. It then follows Highway 99 for
about one mile north before branching east as Victor Road.
B. Reasons for Selecting the Project Area
The selection of the proposed Project Area boundaries was based on the following
considerations:
• Eliminating adverse physical and economic blighting conditions.
• Achieving redevelopment objectives for revitalization of the Project Area and assisting in
furthering the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan.
• Developing a proactive strategy to respond to the significant regional transportation
improvements proposed for, and underway in, the Project Area and surrounding areas, in
order to protect existing residential neighborhoods and enhance commercial districts.
The City Council recommended establishing a redevelopment project to accomplish the
following goals:'
• Revitalize certain areas in Lodi that exhibit both physical and economic blight;
• Stimulate private investment in Lodi's commercial areas;
• Improve housing conditions and infrastructure in residential neighborhoods; and
• Provide tax increment funds for the redevelopment activities that are needed to alleviate
blighting conditions.
' Freedman Tung and Bottomley, Central City Revitalization Program: Concept Development Phase, 1994, p• 6.
' Ibid. p.19.
'This list of reasons was presented at the first PAC meeting, November 27, 2001.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-4 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
1. Substantial and Prevalent Blighting Conditions
Both physical and economic conditions prevent the proposed Project Area from achieving its
full potential. Chapter II of this Preliminary Report documents the proposed Project Area's
physical and economic blighting conditions in accordance with the CRL. Existing conditions
found in the proposed Project Area include eight of the nine statutorily defined categories of
physical and economic blight. The blight documentation is based on field surveys, building
condition ratings of 3,382 structures, photographic evidence, independent environmental
analyses, and economic data and analyses.
As discussed in Chapter Il, the location, scale and quality of the transportation improvements
and resulting land use patterns have negatively affected properties in the proposed Project Area.
The negative conditions exist particularly within the oldest areas of the City, which are located
primarily within the proposed Project Area. These negative conditions include impaired access
and circulation; deteriorating properties, buildings and infrastructure; incompatible land uses;
outmoded and/or deficient buildings; deficient and substandard public improvements;
substandard lots; economic stagnation and depreciated values; and residential overcrowding.
Built to accommodate retail uses at the time of their construction, many of these commercial
buildings have inefficient use of space, given current needs of retail businesses, and have
subsequently lost their economic vitality. Some are of small size and irregular configuration,
some are poorly located on their sites, and some lack convenient parking. These older buildings
are difficult to adapt to modern retailing, which hinders their economic use or future
development.
The proposed Project Area suffers from physical and economic blighting conditions that need to
be alleviated to improve commercial and industrial areas and revitalize and conserve the
residential neighborhood. The conditions of blight in the proposed Project Area include, but are
not limited to:
• Deficient or deteriorated buildings
• Factors that inhibit proper use of buildings or lots
• Incompatible uses
• Substandard lots
• Depreciated or stagnant values
• Residential overcrowding
The blighting conditions within the proposed Project Area are substantial and prevalent, and
have resulted in deterioration and poor utilization of the area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1-5 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
C. Attainment of the Purposes of the California
Community Redevelopment Law
The purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law would be attained by the
proposed redevelopment through the:
1. Elimination of blighting influences and the correction of environmental deficiencies,
including, among others, buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or
work, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, and small and irregular lots;
2. Assembly of land into parcels suitable for modem, integrated development with improved
pedestrian and vehicular circulation;
3. Replanning, redesign, and redevelopment of areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized;
4. Provision of opportunities for participation by owners and tenants in the revitalization of
their properties;
5. Strengthening of retail and other commercial functions in the Project Area;
6. Strengthening of the economic base of the Project Area by stimulating new investment;
7. Expansion of employment opportunities;
8. Provision of an environment for social and economic growth;
9. Expansion and improvement of housing for low and moderate income persons; and
10. Installation of new or replacement of existing public improvements, facilities, and utilities in
areas that are currently inadequately served.'
1. Achieving City Goals and Objectives
The Lodi Redevelopment Project will further several City goals and objectives, through
alleviation of physical and economic blighting conditions in the Project Area by improving the
area's economic base and preserving and enhancing residential areas. The Redevelopment
Project will address these goals by assisting in improving older areas and preparing for the future.
D. Redevelopment Project Goals
1. Areawide Goals
The primary goal of the proposed Redevelopment Plan is to alleviate physical and economic
blighting conditions in the Project Area by improving the area's economic base and preserving
and enhancing residential areas.
Areawide goals for the Project Area are as follows:
• Alleviate adverse physical and economic blighting conditions within the proposed Project
Area.
'These purposes were excerpted from the Preliminary Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project No. 1, Planning
Commission of the City of Lodi, June 2001.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-6 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
• Implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan.
• Mitigate any adverse conditions that contribute to soil and groundwater contamination.
• Beautify and enhance the proposed Project Area.
• Improve transportation and traffic circulation throughout the proposed Project Area
through improved intersections, traffic controls, signage, and traffic calming devices;
pedestrian overpasses; bicycle routes; and passenger shelters.
• Create safe and convenient circulation for pedestrians and bicycles.
• Provide assistance to private property owners in order to encourage rehabilitation of their
properties.
• Preserve and create civic, cultural and educational facilities and amenities as a catalyst for
area revitalization.
• Upgrade, modernize and expand public infrastructure including improvements to water,
sewer and storm drainage systems.
• Upgrade and expand recreational areas and open space.
• Expand and improve the community's supply of low and moderate income housing by using
redevelopment project housing set-aside funds.
2. Revitalization of Commercial and Industrial Areas
Redevelopment would promote the economic revitalization of commercial and industrial areas,
such as Downtown Lodi, Lodi Avenue and Cherokee Lane. The proposed Redevelopment
Project would provide funding to promote investment in commercial and industrial areas and
capitalize on the changes resulting from the new Southern Pacific station. Improving the
economic vitality of these commercial and industrial areas will also enhance the appeal of the
East Side neighborhood as a place to live.
The following goals are based upon observed needs in the area, recommendations from previous
studies and the City's General Plan:
• Eliminate adverse physical and economic conditions.
• Revitalize Lodi's Downtown commercial business district by promoting specialty retail,
restaurant, entertainment and cultural uses, and by capitalizing on the potential of the
transit station and adjacent Union Pacific lands.
• Stimulate private investment in and attract businesses to Downtown Lodi by providing
adequate land and support for the development of office uses serving the City.
• Promote Lodi as a center for grape cultivation and wineries.
• Enhance the visual quality of Cherokee Lane by improving streetscape and lighting
conditions.
• Attract businesses to Lodi by providing adequate land and support for the development of
office uses serving the City.
• Assist with land assembly and relocation, especially relocation of incompatible uses.
• Improve public infrastructure, including streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutter and storm drains.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-7 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
• Clean up hazardous material and soil contamination.
• Revitalize business areas in the proposed Project Area through business retention, expansion
and attraction.
• Improve and enhance the desirability of Lodi's major arteries, including Cherokee Lane and
Lodi Avenue, in order to ensure the continued strength of these areas.
• Provide assistance for building rehabilitation and facade improvements.
• Provide parking improvements in commercial areas.
• Improve traffic and pedestrian access to commercial areas and provide gateway
improvements.
• Coordinate transit service for Downtown Lodi and surrounding areas, including AmTrak,
San Joaquin Regional Transit District, and Grape Line services, potential shuttle services,
and improved pedestrian access.
• Provide assistance with improvements and development opportunities in the Project Area
that will enhance Lodi's multimodal station and transit corridor.
3. Conservation and Improvement of Residential Areas
Redevelopment would promote the preservation and economic revitalization of residential
areas, such as the East Side neighborhood. The proposed Redevelopment Project would provide
funding to promote investment in residential areas. Improving the economic vitality of the
commercial and industrial areas will also enhance the appeal of the East Side neighborhood as a
place to live.
Residential Conservation Areas
Residential Conservation Areas (RCAs) have been proposed to be incorporated into the
Redevelopment Plan to ensure that these areas remain residential. The Redevelopment Program
includes strategies to help retain and enhance the residential character and property values in
RCAs.
The residential character, integrity and property values of RCAs are to be preserved and
enhanced through the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan for the proposed Project
Area. Although both physical and economic blight exist within these areas, individual or
specific homes should not be construed to be blighted merely by being located within the
proposed Project Area. The following strategies will be used to implement the Redevelopment
Plan to preserve and enhance the quality of life and property values in RCAs:
• Eliminate adverse physical and economic conditions.
• Preserve, protect and enhance established residential areas and housing conditions within
the proposed Project Area through the creation of an RCA in the East Side neighborhood.
• Maintain and preserve the housing stock, including affordable housing by providing
incentives for residential rehabilitation and improved housing conditions.
• Clean up hazardous material and soil contamination.
• Improve housing opportunities for low and moderate income households.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1.8 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
• Maintain density of residential development through local ordinances, such as Lodi's zoning
code, as well as through applicable state planning laws.
• Upgrade housing quality and strengthen the social fabric of neighborhoods through
comprehensive code enforcement, formation and support of neighborhood organizations for
dispute resolutions, self-reliant problem solving, and community improvement programs.
• Improve RCAs by providing and upgrading adequate public facilities and infrastructure,
including water, wastewater and stormwater lines, streets, sidewalks and pedestrian/bicycle
paths, parks, open space, landscaping and streetlighting.
• Protect residential neighborhoods from excessive traffic and circulation impacts, as well as
from air pollution, by separating and buffering adjacent commercial and industrial uses, if
possible, prohibiting through-traffic, utilizing traffic calming projects and similar techniques
where appropriate, and implementing parking permit programs as needed.
• Increase access to all forms of public transit along major traffic corridors and to regional
transit centers via pedestrian and bicycle linkages as part of a walkable community
environment.
4. Providing Tax Increment Funds for Redevelopment Projects
The primary funding source for most redevelopment projects is tax increment revenue generated
by increased property values in a project area. Tax increment revenues would be used to
leverage private funds to undertake improvement projects and stimulate private investment in
the proposed Project Area. Preliminary analysis indicates that the proposed Project Area could
generate substantial tax increment revenues through the revitalization of the commercial and
residential areas. This report provides initial projections of potential tax increment overviews in
Chapter IV.
E. Conformity with the City's General Plan
As detailed in the July 2001 Preliminary Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project, the proposed
development and redevelopment will be in conformance with the adopted General Plan of the
City of Lodi, the City of Lodi Zoning Ordinance, and all other applicable state and local
building codes and guidelines. It will also be subject to all review and procedural requirements in
effect as development and redevelopment take place within the proposed Project Area
boundaries.
The Preliminary Plan proposed a similar pattern of land uses to the General Plan, and included
all highways and public facilities indicated by the General Plan. The Redevelopment Plan will
include provisions that it will remain consistent with the General Plan as the General Plan is
amended from time to time. Certain proposed elements of the Redevelopment Plan will be
contingent upon the amendment of the General Plan. In concept, the proposed Redevelopment
Program has received initial support from the City Council and Planning Commission.
F. Overview of the Redevelopment Plan Adoption Process
Adopting a redevelopment plan involves complex, statutorily mandated procedures and
documentation designed to provide a community's legislative body with the necessary analysis
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-9 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January2002
and input to make informed decisions about the purpose, scope and content of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan and ultimately, about whether to adopt the plan.
The following briefly describes the reports and steps in the Lodi Redevelopment Plan adoption
process:
• Project Area Designation. The City Council designates the Survey Area, and the Planning
Commission selects boundaries for the proposed Project Area.
• Preliminary Plan. In cooperation with the Redevelopment Agency, the Planning
Commission adopts the Preliminary Plan providing a general description of land uses,
redevelopment goals and objectives, and a map and legal description of the proposed Project
Area boundaries.
• Project Area Committee. The City Council authorizes and establishes procedures for the
formation of a project area committee (PAC) if the Agency contemplates actions that may
potentially result in the relocation or displacement of low and moderate income households.
The PAC reviews and advises on the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The PAC submits its
report and recommendations on the Plan to the Agency and City Council.
• Preliminary Report. The Preliminary Report describes the purpose and projected impact of
the proposed Redevelopment Plan. It is the first major background document in the process
to the approval of the Redevelopment Plan. The Preliminary Report will be reviewed as a
draft by staff and the Board of the Lodi Redevelopment Agency. The final version, as
updated, will be incorporated into the Report to Council.
• Environmental Impact Report. The adoption of the Redevelopment Plan requires the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An EIR is being prepared by John Wagstaff &
Associates, an environmental consulting firm.
• Redevelopment Plan. The Agency prepares a final Redevelopment Plan, which will be the
legal document setting forth the basic goals, powers and limitations within which the
Agency must conduct its activities over the life of the Project. The Agency submits the final
Redevelopment Plan to the Planning Commission and the City Council in preparation for
the public hearing and City Council consideration of adoption of the Plan.
• Report to City Council. The Report to Council is the report that accompanies the
Redevelopment Plan, designed to help the City Council make an informed decision on
whether to adopt the Plan. It will consist of updated information from the Preliminary
Report, a Five Year Implementation Plan, the PAC report and recommendations, and
additional chapters addressing specific procedures required by the CRL.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-10 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
G. Preliminary Report Requirements
This Preliminary Report is designed to comply with state law requirements, CRL Section 33344.5.
Below is a listing of the preliminary report requirements and a description of how this Preliminary
Report is organized to meet these requirements. (Excerpts from the CRL are italicized and
referenced.)
1. Reasons for Selecting the Project Area
The reasons for the selection of the project area. Section 33344.5(a)
The reasons for selecting the proposed Project Area and the reasons for adopting a
Redevelopment Plan are presented in Chapter 11, and summarized in Section B above.
2. Project Area Urbanization and Agricultural Land Use
a. Urbanization
A description of the project area which is sufficiently detailed for a determination as to whether the
project area is predominantly urbanized. Section 33344.5(c)
The required documentation on the extent of urbanization in the proposed Project Area is
provided in Chapter 1I. The documentation demonstrates that the proposed Project Area meets
the urbanization requirements specified in Section 33320.1.
b. Land in Agricultural Use
If the project area contains lands that are in agricultural use, the preliminary report shall be sent to the
Department of Conservation, the county agricultural commissioner, the county farm bureau, the
California Farm Bureau Federation, and agricultural entities and general farm organizations that
provide a written request for notice. Section 33344.5(g)
Because no agricultural land exists in the proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area, this
procedural requirement is not applicable to the proposed Project Area.
3. Physical and Economic Conditions in the Project Area
A description of the physical and economic conditions existing in the project area. Section 33344.5(6)
The evidence provided in Chapter II of this Report and summarized in Section B above
demonstrates that the proposed Project Area has adverse physical and economic conditions
sufficient to support a finding that the area is blighted in accordance with CRL Sections
33031(a) and W.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1-11 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
4. Proposed Projects and Blight Alleviation
A description of the specific project or projects then proposed by the agency. Section 33344.5(e)
A description of how the project or projects to be pursued by the agency in the project area will improve
or alleviate the conditions described in subdivision W. Section 33344.5(f)
Chapter III of this Preliminary Report provides descriptions of the projects and activities
proposed by the Agency as a means to alleviate adverse conditions within the proposed Project
Area. Preliminary cost estimates covering these projects and activities are also provided.
In addition, Chapter III links proposed projects and activities with identified adverse conditions
and demonstrates how the Agency can use redevelopment to alleviate blighting conditions in
the proposed Project Area.
5. Proposed Method of Financing
A preliminary assessment of the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the project area,
including an assessment of the economic feasibility of the project and the reasons for including a
provision for the division of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 in the redevelopment plan. Section
33344.5(d)
Chapter IV of this Preliminary Report describes the proposed methods for financing the
Redevelopment Project. Estimated Redevelopment Program costs are presented with available
funding sources. The analysis demonstrates the economic feasibility of the Project and the
reasons for including a provision for the division of taxes (tax increment financing).
H. Public Agency Actions to Date
The following major public agency actions related to the proposed Redevelopment Project have
occurred to date:
• On February 16, 2000, the City Council designated the Survey Area for the proposed Lodi
Redevelopment Project (Resolution 2000-23).
• On June 7, 2000, the Agency Board accepted the findings of the Feasibility Report for the
proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area (Resolution 2000-01).
• On March 28, 2001, the Planning Commission considered the Preliminary Plan for the Lodi
Redevelopment Project and the Project's preliminary boundaries. The Planning Commission
recommended expanding the Survey Area and Project Area Boundaries.
• On April 18, 2001, the City Council designated the revised Survey Area for the proposed
Lodi Redevelopment Project (Resolution 2001-93).
• On July 11, 2001 the Planning Commission adopted the Preliminary Plan for the Lodi
Redevelopment Project, designated the Project's preliminary boundaries, and forwarded the
Preliminary Plan to the Redevelopment Agency. The Commission found the Preliminary
Plan in conformity with the City of Lodi General Plan (General Plan), and found that the
Preliminary Plan met the criteria of Section 33324 by setting forth the boundaries of the
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-12 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
proposed Project Area, proposed general land uses, population density, and building
intensity and standards.
• On September 5, 2001, the Agency accepted the Preliminary Plan and authorized
forwarding the Preliminary Plan to taxing entities.
• On September 5, 2001, the City Council adopted the Project Area Committee (PAC)
Election and Formation Procedures, and called for formation of the Lodi Redevelopment
PAC.
• On September 15, 2001, the Agency mailed a written notice to all residents and business
within the proposed Project Area announcing the selection of the Project Area and the
intention to form the PAC. The notice also invited businesses, property owners, residential
tenants, and community organizations within the proposed Project Area to participate in
the PAC and attend a September 25, 2001 Informational Meeting.
• On September 18, 2001, the Agency submitted documents required by CRL Section 33327
to affected taxing entities and the county auditor, assessor, and tax collector. These
documents contained a statement that the Redevelopment Plan is being prepared, a
description of the proposed Project Area boundaries, and a map indicating the boundaries of
the Project Area.
• On September 25, 2001, a public informational meeting was held to provide information on
the redevelopment process, formation of the Project Area Committee, and EIR scoping
meeting.
• On October 1, 2001, the Agency mailed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) to the County Clerk and the distribution list, which included affected
or responsible taxing agencies, local, regional, state, and federal government entities, and
various other interested individuals and organizations.
• On October 19, 2001, the PAC election was held.
• On November 7, 2001, the City Council adopted a resolution certifying the PAC election.
• On November 27, 2001, the first official PAC meeting was held.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I-13 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
II. Existing Conditions
A. Introduction
This chapter of the Preliminary Report describes existing conditions in the Lodi Redevelopment
Project Area, including existing land uses, extent of urbanization, and conditions of blight.
Section B of this chapter presents evidence that the Project Area is predominantly urbanized, in
accordance with Sections 33320.1 and 33344.5 of the California Community Redevelopment
Law (CRL). Sections D and E present adverse physical and economic conditions in the Project
Area in accordance with Sections 33030 and 33031. These physical and economic conditions
have caused a reduction in the proper use of the area and cannot be reversed or alleviated
without the assistance of the Agency through the authority of the CRL.
The CRL requires that a combination of adverse physical and economic conditions be prevalent
and substantial for an area to be designated for redevelopment. The adverse conditions found in
the Project Area are summarized in various exhibits throughout Chapter II and Appendices C
and D, which together constitute the adverse conditions description and map required by CRL
Section 33352(b). The map has been broken into submaps for ease of reading and reference
since so much information is provided about the geographic spread of adverse conditions
throughout the Project Area. The submaps, taken together, demonstrate that adverse conditions
are substantial and prevalent, and adversely affect all of the properties in the Project Area. In
addition, further documentation of adverse conditions will be provided in the Report to
Council.
A survey of the Project Area, its land, building conditions, historical uses, and economic
conditions indicate that the Project Area contains eight of the nine statutorily defined
categories of blight. The prevalence of adverse physical conditions is discussed primarily in
terms of deficient or deteriorating buildings, factors inhibiting the use of land and buildings,
incompatible uses, substandard lots, and inadequate public improvements. The prevalence of
adverse economic conditions is discussed primarily in terms of depreciated property values, high
vacancy rates, declining retail sales, low commercial lease rates, hazardous materials sites,
impaired investments, and residential overcrowding.
B. Character of the Area as Predominantly Urbanized
1. Introduction
Under the CRL, a proposed project area must be both urbanized and blighted. This section of
Chapter II provides information on the extent of urbanization in the proposed Project Area.
2. Methodology
Conclusions regarding the extent of urbanization in the proposed Project Area are supported by:
• Extensive field reconnaissance surveys.
• Analysis of legal description maps covering the Project Area.
• Review of aerial photographs.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -1 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
• Discussions with City staff.
Following completion of field reconnaissance surveys and the assembly and analysis of available
background information, areas fitting into the various urbanization categories were outlined on
maps and a planimeter was used to calculate the total land area within each category
3. Urbanization Requirements of the CRL
a. Reporting Requirements
Section 33344.5(c) of the CRL requires a description of the Project Area which is sufficiently
detailed to permit a determination that a proposed redevelopment project area is predominantly
urbanized. This section fulfills this requirement.
b. Definition of a Predominantly Urbanized Area - CRL Section 33320.1(b) and (c)
Relevant current provisions of the CRL pertaining to a definition of "predominantly urbanized"
are as follows (excerpts from the CRL are italicized):
(b) As used in this section, "predominantly urbanized" means that not less than 80 percent of the
land in the project area:
(1) Has been or is developed for urban uses; or
(2) Is characterized by the condition described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section
33031;' or
(3) Is an integral part of one or more areas developed for urban uses which are surrounded or
substantially surrounded by parcels which have been or are developed for urban uses.
Parcels separated by only an improved right-of-way shall be deemed adjacent for the
purpose of this subdivision.
(c) For the purposes of this section, a parcel of property as shown on the official maps of the county
assessor is developed if that parcel is developed in a manner which is either consistent with zoning
or is otherwise permitted under law.
4. Extent of Urbanization in the Proposed Project Area
The analysis of the extent of urbanization presented on the following page clearly demonstrates
that the Project Area meets the urbanization requirements of the California Community
Redevelopment Law.
The analysis supporting this conclusion is based upon the three categories used in the definition
of "predominantly urbanized" contained in Section 33320.1(b) of the CRL (see above). This
analysis, presented in Table II -1, Calculation of the Extent of Urbanization, indicates that
100 percent of the Project Area is predominantly urbanized, thus meeting the requirement that
at least 80 percent of the area be urbanized.
The map presented as Figure II -1, Urbanization Map, shows the location of the various land use
categories used in the urbanization analysis.
'Paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 33031 states "The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and
shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership."
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -2 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
5. Area That Has Been or Is Developed for Urban Uses
Nearly all the proposed Project Area has been or is developed for urban uses. This category
includes approximately 1,181 acres (or 99.7 percent) of the total land within the Project Area
(1,184 acres). The location of this area is shown on Figure II -1, Urbanization Map.
6. Inclusion of Areas Characterized by the Conditions Described in
Subdivision (a)(4) of Section 33031
No area that meets this description has been included for the purpose of this urbanization
analysis.
7. Inclusion of Areas That Are Integral Parts of Developed Areas
The proposed Project Area includes one area of approximately 3 acres (or 0.3 percent of the
Project Area) that has been designated as an integral part of an area developed for urban uses.
Although this area is currently undeveloped, it is surrounded by urbanized land and is an
integral part of a fully urbanized industrial area. The location of this area is shown on
Figure II -1, Urbanization Map.
8. Inclusion of Unurbanized Land for Planning Purposes
No area that meets this description has been included for the purpose of this urbanization
analysis.
9. Inclusion of Agricultural Land
The Preliminary Report, upon which the forthcoming Report on the Redevelopment Plan will
be based, must discuss the extent of agricultural land in the Project Area. Section 33344.5(c)(3)
of the Redevelopment Law requires identification of lands in agricultural use.' There are no
lands in agricultural use, as defined in Section 51201(a) and (b) of the Government Code,
within the boundaries of the proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project.
2 As provided in the above cited section, "agricultural use" has the same meaning as defined in Section 51201(a)
and (b) of the Government Code which states: (a) "Agricultural commodity" means any and all plant and animal
products produced in this state for commercial purposes, and (b) "Agricultural use" means use of land for the
purpose of producing an agricultural commodity for commercial purposes.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -3 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Table II -1
Calculation of the Extent of Urbanization
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Urbanization Categories Acres Percent
1. Area that has been or is developed for urban uses 1,181 99.7%
2. Area that is characterized by the conditions described in 0 0.0%
subdivision (a)(4) of Section 33031
3. Area that is an integral part of an area developed for urban uses 3 0.3%
Total Predominantly Urbanized Area 1,184 100%
4. Unurbanized areas included for planning purposes 0 0.0%
Total Urbanized and Unurbanized 1,184 100%
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -4 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
C. Characteristics of a Blighted Area
Relevant provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) describing the
characteristics of a blighted area are as follows:
Section 33030
(a) It is found and declared that there exist in many communities blighted areas which constitute
physical and economic liabilities, requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health,
safety, and general welfare of the people of these communities and of the state.
(b) A blighted area is one that contains both of the following:
(1) An area that is predominately urbanized, as that term is defined in Section
33320.1, and is an area in which the combination of conditions set forth in Section
33031 is so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a reduction of, or lack of,
proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical
and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be
reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without
redevelopment.
(2) An area that is characterized by either of the following:
(A) One or more conditions set forth in any paragraph of subdivision (a) of
Section 33031 and one or more conditions set forth in any paragraph of
subdivision (b) of Section 33031.
(B) The condition described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section
33031.
(c) A blighted area also may be one that contains the conditions described in subdivision (b) and
is, in addition, characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking
facilities, or utilities.
Section 33031 of the California Community Redevelopment Law describes both physical and
economic conditions that can be used to determine if an area is blighted and in need of
redevelopment. These factors are summarized as follows:
a. Adverse Physical Conditions, Section 33031(a)
The CRL definition for physical blight is as follows:
Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings
Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These conditions can be
caused by serious building code violations, dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or
physical construction, faulty or inadequate utilities, or other similar factors. 33031(a) (1)
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II.6 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots
Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings
or lots. This condition can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate size given present
standards and market conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors. 33031(a)(2)
Incompatible Uses
Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic
development of those parcels or other portions of the project area. 33031(a)(3)
Substandard Lots
The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper
usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership. 33031(a)(4)
b. Adverse Economic Conditions, Section 333031 (b)
The CRL definition for economic blight is as follows:
Depreciated Values or Impaired Investments
Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including, but not necessarily
limited to, those properties containing hazardous wastes that require the use of agency authority
as specified in Article 12.5 (commencing with Section 33459). 33031(b)(1)
Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots
Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned
buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban use and served by utilities.
33031(b)(2)
Lack of Neighborhood Commercial Facilities
A lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including
grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions. 33031(b)(3)
Residential Overcrowding or Problem Businesses
Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater
exclusively to adults, that has led to problems of public safety and welfare. 33031(b)(4)
A High Crime Rate
A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. 33031(B)(5)
The analysis in Sections D and E below demonstrates that adverse physical and economic
conditions exist throughout the Project Area.
D. Assessment of Existing Conditions
1. Standard for Assessment
The standard for the general assessment of physical and economic conditions used by the
consultants are the provisions of the CRL pertaining to the definition of a redevelopment
project area and its characteristics as cited above.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I1-7 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
2. Definition of Survey Areas
A total of eight survey areas have been defined as a means of facilitating the assembly and
analysis of data and the presentation of findings. The boundaries of the survey areas are shown
on Figure II -2, Building Conditions Survey Areas, presented on the following page.
3. Field Reconnaissance Surveys and Photography
Several major steps were taken to assess existing conditions in the proposed Project Area. These
steps include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Field Reconnaissance Surveys Leading to the Designation of Project Area
Early in the year 2000, a number of field reconnaissance surveys were conducted by the
consultants as a means of assessing existing conditions and the need for redevelopment in the
community. Preliminary Project Area boundaries were defined and extensive discussions with
city staff were held. At the end of this process, City staff recommended boundaries to the City
Council for approval. In February 2000, the City Council approved the Project Area.
b. Field Reconnaissance Surveys Supporting the Feasibility Report
Following approval of the Project Area, additional field reconnaissance surveys were conducted
to further assess the extent of adverse physical and economic conditions in the area. These
conditions were then described in the Feasibility Report, Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project,
approved by the Lodi City Council on June 7, 2000. The report also provided preliminary
recommendations on redevelopment project boundaries.
C. Building Conditions Survey
A comprehensive Building Conditions Survey was conducted in March and April 2000. The
Building Conditions Survey was later updated in September 2001. Approximately eleven
working days were required to complete the survey and update. More detail on the Building
Conditions Survey is provided below.
d. Photographic Documentation
Several more days of field survey work were required to complete the photographic
documentation of existing conditions in the Project Area. These photographs are presented in
Appendix D, Photographic Documentation, of this Preliminary Report.
e. Economic Analysis
Since early 2000, information on observed adverse economic conditions including vacancies,
indicators of disinvestment and residential overcrowding, and underutilization of properties has
been gathered and analyzed to document adverse economic conditions in the Project Area. The
results of this analysis are presented below.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -8 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
E. Adverse Physical Conditions
1. Introduction
This section describes adverse physical conditions within the boundaries of the proposed Lodi
Redevelopment Project Area. It describes deficient or deteriorated buildings, factors that inhibit
proper use of buildings or lots, the presence of incompatible uses and substandard lots, and
public improvement deficiencies.
The information contained in this subsection responds directly to the characteristics of adverse
physical conditions described in Section 33031(a) of the CRL (as previously described in
Section C, Characteristics of a Blighted Area).
Adverse physical conditions found in the proposed Project Area fall within the four categories
of physical blight as specified in the CRL:
• Deficient or deteriorated buildings resulting in unsafe and unhealthy condition.
• Factors that inhibit proper use of buildings.
• Incompatible uses.
• Substandard lots.
2. Earthquake Hazards
a. Introduction
No active faults are known to cross the Project Area. However, groundshaking from an
earthquake outside the Project Area may cause damage to structures. Earthquake damage may be
higher if liquefaction occurs' As discussed below, the Project Area is susceptible to liquefaction.
b. Soils Conditions
The Project Area is underlain by thick alluvium and includes unconsolidated and semi -
consolidated material. The Project Area could experience strong seismic groundshaking and
related effects (e.g., liquefaction) in the event of an earthquake on identified active or
potentially active faults in the region.
C. Potentially Hazardous Buildings
Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
Unreinforced masonry buildings have proved to be particularly hazardous during an earthquake.
Such buildings are typically constructed of brick, hollow tile, or concrete block and often lack
the structural strength to resist a moderate to strong earthquake.
'Draft EIR for the City of Lodi General Plan, Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -10 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
A post -earthquake assessment of buildings after the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989 provided
information on the performance of unreinforced masonry buildings:
Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings have once again proven to be one of the most
hazardous forms of building construction. Many of these structures collapsed, either partially
or completely. Collapse of exterior walls also led to damage of neighboring structures.
Seismically upgraded URM buildings performed substantially better than nonretrofitted
buildings.'
The State of California now requires the identification of unreinforced masonry buildings.
Counties, cities, and towns are also required to take steps to ensure the reinforcement of such
buildings to a condition that provides a reasonable level of safety during a seismic event. The
City is actively pursuing such a program.
Within the downtown commercial area, there are several old, possibly historic unreinforced
masonry buildings with cracks and little exterior evidence of earthquake retrofit. Observed
adverse conditions include structurally unsound commercial buildings. Some are likely to be
hazardous in the event of an earthquake.
3. Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings
a. Age of Buildings
The proposed Project Area contains a wide range of building types and ages. For example, the
downtown has several large commercial and hotel buildings that date back to the late 19th
Century. These buildings, located mainly on Main and Sacramento Streets, were oriented to the
railroad and are more than 100 years old.
Later development in downtown began to focus on School Street, where most of the remaining
large buildings were built in the first part of the 20th Century during the years 1900 through
1930. A number of these buildings are more than 75 years old.
Although building in downtown slowed during the depression that followed the economic
collapse of 1929, a small number of buildings were added during the 1930s. These additions were
followed by larger commercial and bank buildings, mainly of one-story construction, in the
period following World War II. Some of the buildings built during this period are now more
than 50 years old.
Many of oldest residential buildings are located in the easterly part of the Project Area. These
include a scattering of architecturally and historically interesting Victorians, many homes built
during the 1920s and 1930s, and some homes built in the post World War II era. Thus,
residential buildings in the proposed Project Area typically range in age from 40 years to more
than 100 years old.
b. Field Observations
Several field reconnaissance surveys conducted in 2000 and 2001 identified a wide range of
adverse physical conditions in the proposed Project Area. These conditions, which are described
'The October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, Dames & Moore, 1989.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -11 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
below, provide substantial evidence of physical blight in terms of the redevelopment project
eligibility requirements of the CRL. These conditions include:
• Deteriorated Residential Structures. Such conditions include deteriorated roofing, siding,
foundations, stairs and decks, peeling paint, etc. Unsafe and unhealthy residential buildings
were observed at various locations in the Project Area.
• Unoccupied, Dilapidated, and Abandoned Residential Structures. A number of these
residences are located in the Project Area. In many cases deterioration is so extensive that it
is likely that the cost of repairs and code compliance would exceed the value of the building.
• Residential Structures with Informal and Potentially Substandard Construction. Parts of
structures affected by such conditions include inadequate and/or unsafe foundations, cripple
walls, walls, decks, stairs, roofs, electrical wiring, plumbing, etc. These conditions are found
in a very large number of residences in the area.
• Small Deteriorated Residential Units located on Narrow Alleys. These units are to be
found generally in the oldest residential neighborhoods bounded by Lockeford Street,
Cherokee Lane, Vine Street, and Stockton Street.
• Structurally Unsound Residential Structures. These include residences without adequate
foundations or other structural problems, indicating that they may be unsafe to occupy.
• Deteriorated Commercial Structures. Such structures are concentrated mainly in
downtown on Sacramento Street and along the Cherokee Lane commercial corridor.
• Old, badly deteriorated hotel buildings in downtown on Main and Sacramento Streets.
• An abandoned theater building on Lodi Avenue.
• A Large, Dilapidated, and Abandoned School on Cherokee Lane. This building, the old
Lincoln School, is potentially of architectural and historic interest, but requires significant
investment in order to be safely occupied.
• Large, Unreinforced Masonry Brick Buildings of Questionable Structural Stability.
These buildings are located mainly on Sacramento Street. Conditions observed in these
buildings include serious mortar and brick erosion in bearing walls. Most are unoccupied or
underutilized. Several of these are of architectural and historical importance and should be,
if at all possible, retrofitted, rehabilitated, and put to economic use.
• Commercial Structures with Informal and Possibly Substandard Construction. These
conditions include informal additions and repairs. Many structures provide evidence of such
conditions.
• Unoccupied and Apparently Abandoned Commercial Structures.
Further evidence of these observed conditions will be found in Appendix D, Photographic
Documentation.
C. The Building Conditions Survey
A comprehensive Building Conditions Survey was conducted to evaluate building conditions in
the Project Area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -12 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Methodology
The Building Conditions Survey was conducted primarily from an automobile. However, in
some locations, such as in downtown Lodi, the survey was conducted on foot. Interior
inspections were generally not conducted. However, in some cases where access to the interior
was appropriate, informal interior inspections were conducted.
Every major building was rated by the consultant (who has over 38 years of directly relevant
experience) on a scale of 1 (worst condition) to 5 (best condition). Some buildings required a
second examination. Appropriate changes were made to ratings when warranted.
Professional Opinion
The building condition ratings represent the professional opinion of the consultant
(John Dykstra).
Qualifications of the Consultant
The qualifications of the consultant include 4 years as a real estate appraiser and negotiator
(commercial and residential properties), 12 years as a redevelopment planner and administrator
(San Francisco Redevelopment Agency), 22 years in private practice (redevelopment planning,
implementation, and existing conditions assessment), and testimony in court and before public
bodies as an expert witness (on redevelopment plan adoption matters and existing conditions).
Standards and Criteria Used for Building Condition Ratings
The general standards and criteria used in assessing the physical condition of buildings are
summarized in Table II -2, Building Conditions Assessment, presented on the following page.
Building Conditions Survey Results
Building condition ratings for individual buildings are tabulated, summarized, and presented for
both the proposed Redevelopment Project Area as a whole and for the eight survey areas. To
protect the privacy of property owners and building occupants, ratings for individual buildings
are not reported.
Building conditions in the proposed Project Area range from excellent to dilapidated. Some
buildings are new, and many other buildings have been rehabilitated to a very high standard.
However, many buildings in the area were built over 40 years ago, without benefit of building
inspection and to a building standard that is not currently up to code, and a large number of
these suffer from age and neglect. As a result, a relatively high proportion of substandard and
deteriorated buildings can be found in the area.
A total of 3,382 buildings were evaluated. Of this total, 850 (or 25 percent) were found to be in
the top three building condition categories (which range from category 3, generally good
condition to category 5, generally excellent condition). The likely cost of correcting deficiencies
in these buildings ranges from "significant" (category 3) to "minor to low" (category 5).
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -13 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Nevertheless, 2,532 buildings (or 75 percent) were found to be in the lower two rating
categories, where extensive physical deficiencies are present. The cost of correcting these
deficiencies is likely to be high, and economic rehabilitation of many of these buildings could be
both difficult and expensive.
The results of the Building Condition Survey for the proposed Project Area are summarized in
Table II -3, Building Conditions Survey Results, Total Area. A map summarizing the average
building condition ratings for each of the eight survey areas is presented as Figure II -3, Average
Building Conditions Ratings by Survey Area. More detail on the distribution of adverse building
conditions in the Project Area is presented in Appendix C, Building Conditions Ratings by
Survey Areas and Subareas. These results clearly indicate that there is a prevalence of serious
building deficiencies in each of the eight survey areas.
Relationship Between Building Conditions and Health and Safety Problems
There is a strong relationship between the condition of buildings documented in the Building
Conditions Survey and health and safety problems in these same buildings. Buildings rated in
category 1 (worst condition) are buildings characterized by adverse conditions such as
abandonment, dilapidation, very bad deterioration, potentially hazardous structural problems
(deteriorated, sagging, or failing wood, concrete, or brick walls, for example), very extensive
deferred maintenance, or a combination of problems, which taken in their totality, provide
strong evidence of physical blight and the presence of health and safety hazards. Buildings rated
in category 2 are characterized by many of these same conditions, but to a lesser degree. These
conditions are depicted and described extensively in Appendix D, Photographic
Documentation.
Based upon the exterior Building Conditions Survey described above, and in the professional
judgement of the consultant, nearly all of the buildings rated as building conditions category 1
and the majority of buildings rated as category 2 have conditions that are, to one degree or
another, unsafe or unhealthy.
Photographic Documentation
Photographs illustrating deficient or deteriorated buildings and other adverse physical and
economic conditions in the Project Area are presented in Appendix D, Photographic
Documentation. Not only do these photographs and related maps demonstrate that physical and
economic blight is prevalent throughout the Project Area, but they also show conditions and
buildings that could benefit from redevelopment sponsored activities such as environmental
cleanup and residential rehabilitation. For more details, reference should be made to
Appendix D. These photographs represent conditions in all parts of the Project Area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -14 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Table II -2
Building Conditions Assessment
Specific Standard: The provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law pertaining tc
blight
General Standard: The relative cost of correcting building deficiencies, code compliance problems,
and seismic safety problems to a degree sufficient to ensure a relatively long-
term physical and economic life (i.e., 20-40 years)
Ijdmgx -
Likely Cost'of
w. f atet >tiArfor irivete
Do it xa
Correcting
t n01"
-fteti�t C
r x i-trotrditi n
Deficlanciese
Reiheebiiitation'
1
Very extensive physical/structural
Very high
Very difficult, if not
deficiencies (often dilapidated)'
impossible
2
Extensive physical/structural
High
Difficult
deficienciesZ
3
General good condition, some
Significant
Possible
deficiencies present'
4
Relatively few deficiencies present°
Low to moderate
Relatively easy
5
General excellent conditions
Minor to low
None required
1. Typical conditions present include Major Adverse Physical Conditions or a significant combination of Other Adverse
Physical Conditions.
2. Typical conditions present include a number of Other Adverse Physical Conditions or significant cumulative deferred
maintenance.
3. Typically some Other Adverse Physical Conditions are present.
4. Typically few Other Adverse Physical Conditions are present.
5. Typically no Other Adverse Physical Conditions are present_
6. To the "General Standard" set forth above.
7. Without redevelopment assistance.
Copyright: John B. Dykstra & Associates 2001
ADVERSE PMY%l ll`i::,4Gi�t�t�� jai D
IN ASSESSIil11311I11� m11 KI�Dt� 101
Major Adverse Physical Conditions
■ General dilapidation (very serious deterioration of
entire structure or major parts thereof)
■ Apparent abandonment (vandalized or boarded up
buildings)
■ Structural failure (cracking or subsided foundations,
sagging walls or roofs, etc.)
■ Structural weakness (buildings without adequate
foundations, substandard construction,
unreinforced masonry walls, etc.)
Other Adverse Physical Conditions
■ Potential seismic weakness
■ Deferred maintenance and neglect
■ Broken windows
■ Peeling or faded paint
■ Sagging porches
■ Dry rot in walls, window frames, door frames,
doors, roof rafters, and trim
■ Deteriorated, damaged, poorly repaired, or
excessive layers of roofing materials
■ Cracks or loose bricks in chimneys
■ Deteriorated, broken, or loose siding materials
■ Deteriorated or broken stucco walls
■ Rusted, deteriorated, or missing roof drainage
gutters or down spouts
■ Faulty wiring or plumbing
■ Old and possibly substandard and hazardous
electrical service
■ Eroded mortar or loose bricks in masonry walls
■ Informal or substandard construction
Table II -3
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY RESULTS
TOTAL AREA
Bnildg
Naber t
1
974
2
1,558
3
725
4
106
5
19
Totals
3,382
Average Building Conditions Ratings: 2.01
2.4
2.02
2.02
2.32
2.25
4. Factors That Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots
A review of available maps and extensive field reconnaissance surveys has permitted the
identification of several factors that inhibit the proper use of land and buildings. These factors,
which are generally prevalent throughout the area, include:
• Properties that Suffer from Soils and Groundwater Contamination. The extent of this
contamination is shown on Figure II -4, Limits of Identified Soils and Groundwater
Contamination Plumes and Figure II -5, Limits of Major Soils and Groundwater
Contamination Plumes presented on the following pages.'
• Properties that are Adjacent to Deteriorated, Vacant, or Abandoned Buildings.
• Lots of Small Size or Irregular Shape that are Difficult to Develop.
• Properties that are Adversely Affected by a Location Next to the Railroad.
• Commercial and Residential Lots Lacking Adequate Off -Street Parking.
• Commercial Uses along Lodi Avenue, Cherokee Lane, and Kettleman Lane that are
Adversely Impacted by Fast Moving Traffic.
5. Incompatible Uses
A number of incompatible uses have been identified in the proposed Project Area:
• Residential Uses in Proximity to the Railroad. Such uses are to be found along Sacramento
and Main Streets where they are adversely affected by noise and vibration.
• Residential Uses in Close Proximity to Active Industrial or Packing Plant Uses. Such uses as
these are located on Sacramento Street between Lodi Avenue and Kettleman Lane and
Stockton Street between Lodi Avenue and Kettleman Lane. Adjacent residential uses may
be adversely affected by fork lift and truck movements which produce noise and safety
hazards.
Commercial and Residential Uses Located Adjacent to Dilapidated, Vacant, or Abandoned
Properties.
'Figures I1-4 and II -5 are based on 1996 Northeast Research Institute maps. This analysis will likely be updated in
the Report to Council as more recent data becomes available.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -18 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
m
L��'7�•� zee � tea
E �Q
6. Substandard Lots
The economic use and proper and timely development of property in the proposed Project Area
is affected by formal and informal subdivision practices that have, over the years, produced a
large number of lots that are, or are likely to be, substandard to economic development. Areas
adversely impacted by the presence of such lots include, but are not limited to:
• Small and Substandard Residential Lots. These lots typically front on alleys in the eastern
part of the Project Area in the blocks bounded by Lockeford Street, Cherokee Lane, Vine
Street and Stockton Street.
• Small Commercial Lots in Downtown along School Street.
• Small, Difficult to Develop Commercial Lots along Cherokee Lane.
• Small lots in commercial and industrial areas that are substandard to modern economic use,
including lots on the east side of North Sacramento Street at the intersection with
Lockeford Street, lots to the north and south of Lodi Avenue on Sacramento Street, and lots
on the east side of Sacramento opposite Park Street.
These parcels are shown on the map presented as Figure I-1, Project Area Boundary Map.
7. Public Improvement Deficiencies
Although the California Community Redevelopment Law no longer permits the use of deficient
public improvements as a determining, or "stand alone" blight factor, such deficiencies can still
be considered when it can be demonstrated that they contribute to adverse physical and
economic conditions in a project area.
Extensive field reconnaissance surveys have permitted the identification of a number of public
improvement deficiencies that, to one degree, contribute to blight in certain areas of the
proposed Project Area. These deficiencies include:
• Deteriorated Pavement Surfaces. These conditions were found at various locations in the
Project Area.
• Unpaved or Poorly Paved Alleys.
• Narrow Alleys that Provide Substandard Access for Small, "back lot" Houses or Cottages.
• Aging and Frequently Inadequate Storm Drainage Systems.
• Lack of Public Community Facilities, such as Libraries and Community Centers in
Residential Areas.
• Parking inadequacies due to the poor location of parking resources in relationship to parking
demand.
The Project Area, and the East Side neighborhood in particular, contains aging, obsolete and
inadequate wastewater utilities. The City's wastewater collection system is reaching an age in
which older lines (primarily in the East Side) need to be replaced. Many of these lines are
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -21 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
concrete pipes, which suffer from chemical corrosion and do not have capacity for the present
demand .6
For further evidence of these conditions reference should be made to the photographs contained
in Appendix D, Photographic Documentation.
F. Economic Conditions That Cause a Reduction of, or Lack of, Proper Use
of the Proposed Project Area
1. Introduction
Economic blight is evidenced in the downtown by large store frontages with "for rent" signs or
paper in the windows, despite considerable public and private investment in the streetscape. In
the industrial areas, economic blight is evidenced by abandoned buildings and "property for
rent" signs on warehouses.
Adverse economic conditions found in the proposed Project Area fall within four categories of
economic blight as specified in the CRL and generally described as:
• Depreciated values or impaired investments.
• Economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots.
• Residential overcrowding.
• A high crime rate.
a. Methodology
Economic blighting conditions were evaluated under the blight definitions contained in the
CRL through the following methods:
• Field surveys of Project Area physical and economic conditions.
• Review and analysis of technical documents and data from public and private agencies.
• Discussions with government staff and persons knowledgeable about the area.
Refer to Appendix A for a complete list of documents and data sources used in the economic
blight documentation.
b. Summary of Observed Economic Blight
Deteriorated residences, boarded -up commercial and residential buildings, vacancies, and other
observed physical and economic conditions provide substantial evidence of depreciated values
and impaired investments. Depreciated property values and impaired investments are evident in
the four commercial areas within the proposed Project Area: Downtown Lodi, Cherokee Lane,
Lodi Avenue and Kettleman Lane. Economic conditions in these two commercial areas were
historically linked to the railroad when it was the focus of economic activity. The rail corridor
has become almost devoid of commercial activity since new modes of transportation have
replaced trains.
'City of Lodi Financial Plan and Budget, 1999-2001.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -22 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Downtown Lodi is not as strong as other commercial areas of the City outside the Project Area.
The deteriorated appearance of a number of the Downtown's buildings and the lower level of
retail activity indicate that shoppers prefer to shop in other commercial areas (see retail sales tax
analysis).
Commercial lease rates are low in the Downtown and along Cherokee Lane compared to other
commercial areas in Lodi. Shopping centers along Kettleman Lane command significantly
higher rents than the Downtown. Commercial rents are significantly lower in the area east of
the Union Pacific railroad tracks, where properties are more deteriorated, than they are west of
the railroad tracks.
Disinvestment has been a problem along Cherokee Lane since the 1980s, when Highway 12
(Kettleman Lane) became the preferred location for commercial development, especially in the
southwest portion of the City. Cherokee Lane was Lodi's first highway commercial corridor,
when commercial businesses moved there from the Downtown in the 1960s to serve highway
traffic. Highway 99 now bypasses Cherokee Lane, channeling highway traffic away from
commercial uses on Cherokee Lane. The Cherokee Lane corridor reflects this past, with a mix
of auto sales and services, motels, drive-in restaurants, liquor stores, and the K-Mart/Orchard
Supply shopping center. Auto sales, services and lodging, oriented to highway traffic, remain the
most prominent forms of development along the street.
Adverse economic conditions observed during field reconnaissance surveys include, but are not
limited to, the following:
• Deteriorated or poorly maintained commercial properties that provide evidence of impaired
investments and depreciated property values. Such buildings are found at various locations
in the Downtown on Sacramento Street, and along Cherokee Lane.
• Vacant ground floor commercial spaces that are common in buildings located on the west
side of North and South Sacramento Street between West Elm and West Oak Streets and
on the north side of West Pine Street between North Sacramento and School Streets.
• Vacant second floor spaces in the Downtown in buildings that lack elevators and are poorly
served by substandard stairways.
• Underutilized properties.
• Large number of lots that are likely to be substandard to economic development.
• Outmoded, obsolescent buildings, such as the abandoned theater building on Lodi Avenue.
• Commercial buildings with marginal occupancy. These buildings, which are found
throughout the downtown and industrial areas, may not be delivering reasonable economic
return to their owners or investors.
• Deteriorated, dilapidated and abandoned residences. Such buildings, many of which are
located in the older residential area, often provide evidence of impaired investments.
For further evidence, refer to Appendix C, Building Conditions by Survey Areas and Subareas,
and Appendix D, Photographic Documentation.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -23 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
2. Depreciated Values or Impaired Investments
This section documents the presence in the proposed Project Area of blighting conditions
described in CRL Section 33031(b)(1), including depreciated or stagnant property values,
impaired investments and properties containing hazardous materials. This section documents
the presence of depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments in the Project
Area by reporting on the:
• Poor economic performance of retail businesses.
• Residential sale prices below comparable city properties.
• Lodging establishments with lower revenues per room as compared to establishments outside
the Project Area.
• Presence of hazardous materials.
a. Poor Economic Performance of Retail Businesses
Stagnant sales tax receipts in the Project Area, including the commercial subareas of
Downtown, East Kettleman Lane (the north side between Sacramento Street and Central
Avenue), West Lodi Avenue (to Ham Lane) and Cherokee Lane (divided between north and
south subareas), are an indicator of depreciated values and impaired investments within the
Project Area. Many retail businesses in the Project Area experienced declining retail sales
between 1994 and 2001. The retail sales analysis is based on retail sales tax receipts data for
retail businesses in the Project Area, the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County for the five year
period from 1994 to 2001.'
During the past seven years sales tax receipts have grown by 0.6 percent when adjusted for
inflation in the Project Area, while they have grown 2.5 percent in the City of Lodi and 4.4
percent in San Joaquin County. Sales tax receipts in the Project Area represented about 41
percent of total sales tax revenues collected in Lodi.'
7 Based on analysis of sales tax data for 1994 to 2001 provided by HdL Coren & Cone for all businesses in Lodi.
''The sales tax trend analysis was calculated using constant 2001 dollars to adjust for inflation. The CPI for all
urban consumers for the San Francisco/Oakland MSA for the seven-year period between 1994 and 2001 was used
to adjust the sales tax to 2001 constant dollars.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11-24 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Table II -4
Sales Tax Receipts
Comparison of Lodi Commercial Areas
5 -Year Trend (Adjusted for Inflation)
Fiscal Year Ending
Sales Tax Receipts
1994/95 2000/01
Average Annual
Percent Change
Project Area Total
$2,796,953
$2,893,426
0.6%
City of Lodi Total
$5,943,039
$6,992,051
2.5%
San Joaquin County 1
$45,412,243 1
$60,737,389
4.4%
Source: Historical sales tax revenue for all outlets based on data provided by HdL Coren and Cone,
November 2001.
The proposed Project Area generated retail sales tax receipts of about $2.8 million in 2001.'
Most of the retail sales outside the Project Area are generated by businesses along
West Kettleman Lane in Sunwest Plaza, Target Center, and Vineyard Shopping Center, and on
Ham Lane in Lakewood Mall.
Most of the retail sales in the Project Area are generated by businesses in Downtown, and along
East Kettleman Lane, North and South Cherokee Lane and West Lodi Avenue. The five
commercial subareas generated about $1.8 million in sales tax revenues, while all commercial
establishments in the Project Area generated approximately $2.8 million according to sales tax
data provided by HdL Coren and Cone (HdL). All five retail areas had retail sales trends below
the City and County between 1992 and 2001. Table II -5 shows trends in retail sales growth for
all six retail areas in the Project Area.
During the past nine years Cherokee Lane is the only commercial subarea where sales tax
receipts grew in the Project Area. Sales tax receipts in North Cherokee Lane grew by only .6%
and receipts in South Cherokee Lane grew by only .2%, less than one-quarter the City rate.
As noted above in Section E.3.b Field Observations, Cherokee Lane and the Downtown,
especially Sacramento Street, also contain a significant number of commercial structures that
exhibit physical deterioration, possibly substandard construction, or are unoccupied or
abandoned. Cherokee Lane is also adversely affected by small lots that are difficult to develop.
v Based on the number of businesses that paid sales tax during the first quarter of 2001.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11,25 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Table II -5
Historical Sales Tax Revenue to City by Subarea
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Location
1992/93
1993/94
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
Average
Annual %
Change
East Kettleman Lane
$37,179
$35,854
$35,338
$34,377
$32,132
$31,858
$32,565
$32,855
$36,969
-0.1%
Downtown
$413,130
$405,220
$374,322
$371,815
$367,415
$365,136
$367,607
$371,974
$364,195
-1.6%
West Lodi Avenue
$265,878
$247,381
$224,357
$224,825
$231,582
$217,540
$209,324
$207,728
$186,197
-4.4%
South Cherokee Lane
$684,031
$694,762
$646,605
$676,699
$633,124
$643,994
$654,959
$681,295
$719,563
0.6%
North Cherokee Lane
$532,317
$472,665
$398,016
$436,690
$439,052
$422,610
$384,275
$466,258
$540,277
0.2%
Source: Historical sales tax revenue for all outlets based on data provided by HdL Coren and Cone Retail Sales Tax Data, November 2001.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project I1.26 January 2002
b. Housing Values
Single Family Home Sales
The majority of the sales in the proposed Project Area occurred in the oldest and largest
residential area, the East Side neighborhood, which contains housing built from the late 19`'
century onward. The East Side neighborhood was a modest, yet stable, single-family
neighborhood. Starting in the 1970s and continuing through the mid-1980s, however, the area
experienced a significant increase in the conversion of single family homes to multifamily
housing. The quality of this multifamily development was generally poor, reducing the value of
nearby owner -occupied, single family properties. This trend started a process of disinvestment
and instability, with single family houses converted into rental properties as the number of
apartments increased. In addition, the increase in occupancy has stressed the neighborhood's
aging public utility and services systems.
According to local residential real estate brokers and information obtained from DataQuick, an
internet real estate service, housing values in the East Side are substantially lower than other
parts of the City. Homes in East Side are averaging between $49,350 and $132,000 compared to
$169,400 and $250,500 for similar homes in the Lodi vicinity. The price differential is the result
of a variety of factors including deteriorated housing conditions, the poor quality of existing
multifamily development, overcrowding, decreased property maintenance, as well as constrained
street capacity and City sewer and water facilities.
Housing values in the proposed Project Area are substantially lower than in the rest of Lodi and
the surrounding area. The average listing price for one to four bedroom homes in the Project
Area is about $98,860, which is about 42 percent less than the $171,778 average price for homes
in the remainder of Lodi and the surrounding area.
As shown below in Table II -6, the median sale price of homes in the Project Area was
36 percent less than comparable homes in the rest of the City.10 This analysis is based on
479 single family home sales in Lodi in 2001, of which 93 were in the Project Area. The gap
between median home values generally increases with the size of homes, with the exception of
two bedroom homes. There were no comparable sales of one bedroom homes outside the Project
Area. Two bedroom homes sold for 53 percent less in the Project Area compared to other areas
of the City, three bedroom homes sold for 24 percent less and four bedroom homes sold for
36 percent less.
10 DataQuick residential sales data included all homes. These sections analyzed only 1 to 4 bedroom homes, because
no larger homes were sold in the Project Area in 2001.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -27 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Table II -6
Sales Prices for Single Family Homes
City of Lodi and Surrounding Area
Source: DataQuick Online Real Estate Data, 2001. Single family homes sold in
the Lodi vicinity in 2001.
Graph II -1 compares the median sales price of single family homes in 2001 for the Project Area
with the rest of the City outside the Project Area.
Multifamily Unit Sales
As previously noted, the Project Area contains poor quality multifamily housing, in addition to
higher density housing. Values for multifamily housing are substantially lower in the Project
Area than in the rest of the City. This analysis is based on 79 sales of multifamily properties in
the Lodi vicinity during 2001. As shown below in Graph II -2, the median sales price of duplexes
in the Project Area was $105,000, which is about 35 percent less than the $160,794 median
price in the remainder of Lodi. For triplexes, the median sales price was $141,500, which is
about 20 percent less than the $177,500 median in the Lodi vicinity.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -28 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Pro'ect Area
Lodi Vicinity
No.
Median Sales
Price
No.
Median Sales
Price
One Bedroom
10
$47,500
0
N/A
Two Bedroom
55
$99,500
107
$211,500
Three Bedroom
26
$123,000
236
$162,750
Four Bedroom
2
$132,000
43
1 $206,000
Total
93
$101,000
386
1 $157,250
Source: DataQuick Online Real Estate Data, 2001. Single family homes sold in
the Lodi vicinity in 2001.
Graph II -1 compares the median sales price of single family homes in 2001 for the Project Area
with the rest of the City outside the Project Area.
Multifamily Unit Sales
As previously noted, the Project Area contains poor quality multifamily housing, in addition to
higher density housing. Values for multifamily housing are substantially lower in the Project
Area than in the rest of the City. This analysis is based on 79 sales of multifamily properties in
the Lodi vicinity during 2001. As shown below in Graph II -2, the median sales price of duplexes
in the Project Area was $105,000, which is about 35 percent less than the $160,794 median
price in the remainder of Lodi. For triplexes, the median sales price was $141,500, which is
about 20 percent less than the $177,500 median in the Lodi vicinity.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -28 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
Graph 11.1
Median Sale Price of Single Family Homes in 2001
by Number of Bedrooms
City of Lodi
One Bedroom Two Bedroom Three Bedroom Pour bedroom
p Project Area
■ City
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary
Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project II -29 January
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
Graph 11-2
Median Sale Price of Multifamily Units in 2001
City of Lodi
Duplex Triplex
0 Project Area
■ City
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project II -30 January 2002
C. Lodging Establishments
Motels were located along Cherokee Lane when it was the main north—south artery of the old
Highway 99 through Lodi. Since the new Highway 99 bypass, many motels have been converted
to multifamily dwellings, although their rooms were not designed for permanent residence. The
former motels provide essential affordable housing for low-income and migrant residents.
However, the cost to maintain or upgrade these structures to comply with health code
requirements for permanent dwelling units makes their use as affordable housing challenging
over the long term. As a result, many of these properties suffer from deterioration and contribute
to unsafe and unhealthy conditions for their occupants.
Based on data obtained from the City of Lodi Finance Department, sixteen of the eighteen
lodging establishments in the City of Lodi are located in the proposed Project Area. Of these
sixteen, one has been closed since early 1998 due to fire damage, and seven have been
converted to permanent residences. In addition, four of the sixteen establishments have both
permanent and transient occupancy within the same motel. (The City defines hotel transient
occupancy as occupancy for 30 days or less.)
The lodging establishments in the Project Area tend to be very small, budget -class motels, most
of which offer very limited to no guest services. Eleven of the motels have less than 30 rooms
(including the motel that was closed due to fire damage), three motels have between 30 and 45
rooms and two have between 45 and 55 rooms. Conversely, the facilities outside the Project
Area tend to offer a greater variety of services than the smaller motels in the Project Area. One
is a 95 -room Holiday Inn Express, which has a pool, sauna, whirlpool, exercise room, and a coin
laundry facility for guests. The other facility, Wine & Roses, is a bed and breakfast inn located
on a five -acre estate, which is in the process of constructing additional rooms. Originally opened
with ten rooms, the Wine & Roses added 13 guest rooms during the Fall of 2001, and will open
an additional 15 rooms (bringing the total to 38 rooms) in Spring 2002.
The lodging establishments outside the Project Area have published room rates between $85
and $165 per night (double occupancy), compared to average "asking" room rates of $45 to $65
per night for most motels in the Project Area." Comparing the Project Area's lodging facilities
to establishments outside the Project Area reveals significant weakness in the Project Area's
lodging market. The motels in the Project Area total 415 rooms, or 80 percent of the City's
total overnight lodging rooms. However, transient occupancy tax (TOT) generated by the
Project Area's motels represents only 50 percent of the City's total TOT revenues. The annual
transient occupancy tax per room for lodging rooms in the Project Area is shown in Graph 1I-3.
The average annual transient occupancy tax per room is significantly lower inside the Project
Area compared to outside the Project Area. This indicates both lower rates and lower transient
occupancy levels in the Project Area than outside, as discussed below.
Table Il -7 shows the average nightly revenue per room in the Project for motels with less than
50 rooms which had transient lodging guests in 2000. This table shows that the average nightly
revenue per room ranged from $3 to $35, with an average of $16, based on analysis of transient
occupancy tax receipts.
Only four of the sixteen motels in the Project Area publish their room rates with sources such as the Automobile
Association of America (AAA). Room rates for the remaining motels in the Project Area were obtained through
a telephone survey conducted by Seifel Consulting Inc.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -31 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Table II -7
Lodging Establishments
Lodi Redevelopment Project
(In Constant 2000 Dollars)
As discussed above, the "asking" daily room rates ranged from $45 to $65 per night, with an
average of $53 for Project Area motels with transient occupancy. The average revenue as a
percentage of room revenue for these motels is just over 30%, as compared to approximately
58% for motels outside the Project Area. This suggests that Project Area motels have very low
transient occupancy rates (in combination with lower room rates) and are not able to capitalize
on market demand captured by motels outside the Project Area.
Moreover transient occupancy tax (TOT) receipts for motels have actually been decreasing over
time, after adjusting for inflation (average decrease of 2.9% percent per year between 1996 and
2000), while motels outside the Project Area have increased significantly faster than inflation,
as shown in Table II -8 below."
Table II -8
Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Per Room
Lodi Redevelopment Project
(In Constant 2000 Dollars)
Average
Annual
Growth
Average
Daily
Revenue
In 2000
Published/
"Asking"
Room Rate
In 2000
Avg. Daily
Revenue as
% of Room
Rate
Motel A
$16
$50
33%
Motel B
$12
$55
22%
Motel C
$15
$50
31%
Motel D
$3
$45
7%
Motel E
$15
$45
33%
Motel F
$3
$55
5%
Motel G
$5
$55
9%
Motel H
$35
$60
59%
Motel1
$11
1 $50
1 22%
Total
1 $16
1 $53
131%
As discussed above, the "asking" daily room rates ranged from $45 to $65 per night, with an
average of $53 for Project Area motels with transient occupancy. The average revenue as a
percentage of room revenue for these motels is just over 30%, as compared to approximately
58% for motels outside the Project Area. This suggests that Project Area motels have very low
transient occupancy rates (in combination with lower room rates) and are not able to capitalize
on market demand captured by motels outside the Project Area.
Moreover transient occupancy tax (TOT) receipts for motels have actually been decreasing over
time, after adjusting for inflation (average decrease of 2.9% percent per year between 1996 and
2000), while motels outside the Project Area have increased significantly faster than inflation,
as shown in Table II -8 below."
Table II -8
Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Per Room
Lodi Redevelopment Project
(In Constant 2000 Dollars)
Average
Annual
Growth
12 For confidentiality reasons, the average annual transient occupancy tax per room for facilities outside the Project
Area cannot be published.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I1-32 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1996-2000
Project Area Motels
$514
$447
$455
$399
$458
-2.9%
12 For confidentiality reasons, the average annual transient occupancy tax per room for facilities outside the Project
Area cannot be published.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I1-32 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
$2,500
$1,250
$0
Graph II- 3
Annual Transient Occupancy Tax per Room
City of Lodi
(In Constant 2000 Dollars)
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
— * Motels Outside Project Area
—*—Project Area Motels
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project II -33 January 2002
d. Hazardous Materials Sites
The remediation of toxic or hazardous waste is frequently costly and a major financial
disincentive to reinvestment or development. Sites that are abandoned or underutilized because
of known or potential environmental contamination are commonly referred to as brownfields.
Often, in order for the development of a brownfield to be feasible, public agency assistance is
necessary. The fear of environmental liability, in particular, uncertainty over changing response
standards and costs, and the high price of conducting environmental investigations are some of
the leading reasons deterring the beneficial development and use of urban sites. Developers fear
that they will face liability under environmental laws and that the cost of evaluating and
remediating brownfields is both so uncertain and so high that it could easily outweigh the
market value of the property. Figures II -4 and II -5 indicate portions of the Project Area with
soils and groundwater contamination.
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and other laws,
developers may be held liable for past chemical releases, even though they were not directly
responsible for the conditions that gave rise to the liability. Therefore, prior to purchasing or
entering into contract to develop a site, a developer must undertake extensive environmental
investigations to determine whether hazardous materials are present. In addition, predicting the
cost to conduct any potential remediation prior to development is uncertain. Finally, there are
often delays associated with obtaining governmental approvals before development may begin.
Hazardous materials or waste have been used in the Project Area in commercial, industrial, and
in a more limited extent, residential areas. Three areas either partially or completely within the
Project Area have been identified as contamination hot spots. In 1989, the City of Lodi
detected tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination in water
samples, at concentrations above California's Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLS) for
drinking water. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) is the lead
regulatory agency providing technical review of the groundwater investigation being conducted
by the City of Lodi. The Project Area falls within the DTSC-designated Lodi Groundwater
Area of Contamination. In the 1990s, DTSC funded a remedial investigation and a Potentially
Responsible Party (PRP) search to determine the exact sources of this contamination.
Contamination is generally thought to be associated with past dry cleaning operations.
Additional hazardous materials investigations have also been completed since that time.
According to the most recent studies conducted in 2001, the hot spots are:
• The area bounded by Walnut Street and Lodi Avenue on the north and south, and Pleasant
Avenue and Hutchins Street to the west and east;
• The area bounded by Lockeford and Locust Streets to the north and south, and Church and
Sacramento Streets to the west and east; and
• The area bounded by Locust and Elm Street to the north and south, and Stockton and
Sacramento Streets to the west and east.
The City of Lodi anticipates that the federal court will exercise jurisdiction over the claims of
the state and the city concerning investigation and remediation of Lodi Area of Contamination
and will execute a final, non -appealable order compelling a Responsible parry to perform all
actions necessary to develop and implement a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and any
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -34 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Interim Remedial Actions necessary to protect human health and the environment. If the
federal court fails to enforce a final order, the City of Lodi will take action. The City is required
by State hazardous materials regulatory agencies, under the purview of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, to clean up the groundwater contamination. The City is currently
involved in litigation with insurance companies representing prior site occupants suspected of
earlier contamination. Cleanup of suspected groundwater contamination sources will be
undertaken pending a final decision in this litigation. However, new development could disturb
contaminated groundwater and cause migration of the contamination."
The existence of this contamination, the possibility that development could disturb
contaminated soils and groundwater, and the uncertainty of the timing and the outcome of the
litigation all serve as potential impediments to development.
3. Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots
a. Low Commercial and Industrial Lease Rates
Most lease rates for commercial and industrial space in the Project Area are lower than in other
parts of Lodi and the surrounding area. These relatively lower lease rates occur in areas with
adverse physical conditions as described in the previous sections.
Retail Lease Rates
According to local brokers, commercial lease rates in the Downtown are 30 to 50 percent below
those in other retail centers in Lodi and 50 to 70 percent lower than lease rates in retail centers
in the southwestern part of the City (closer to the newer residential neighborhoods).
Commercial space along Cherokee Lane in the Project Area also suffers from lower lease rates.
Table II -9 presents a summary of typical commercial lease rates in the Lodi area. In the
downtown, retail space typically leases for $0.35 to $.85 per square foot per month on a gross
basis, which translates into triple net (NNN) rents of approximately $0.22 to $0.60 per square
foot. At the Cherokee Retail Center in the Project Area, commercial space is currently on the
market at $0.85 to $1.00 per square foot per month (NNN).
In contrast, lease rates at the Lakewood Mall at Elm and Ham Lane (considered by brokers to be
most comparable to downtown retail uses) average between $1.25 to $1.30 per square foot per
month (NNN). Retail development on West Kettleman Lane from Fairmont to Hutchins
ranges from $1.40 to $1.60 per square foot per month (NNN). Newer retail space along lower
Sacramento Road and West Kettleman Lane at the southwest end of town can command rents
ranging from $1.90 to $2.00 per square foot.
Office Lease Rates
Office lease rates are from 60 to 75 percent lower in the downtown than in other parts of Lodi.
Typical ground floor office space in the downtown leases for between $0.45 and $0.50 per square
foot per month (full service). Upper floor office space in the downtown is largely unleaseable,
due to lack of elevator service and outdated electrical and/plumbing space, and is therefore
vacant.
"Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report, Wagstaff & Associates, January 2002.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -35 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
In contrast, office space in competitive buildings on Ham Lane or West Kettleman Lane
command lease rates in the range of $1.50 to $2.00 per square foot per month (full service).
Industrial Lease Rates
While the northern portion of the Project Area does have some older industrial space served by
the railroad tracks, the majority of the more competitive industrial space is on the east side of
the City along Industrial Way and Thurman Streets. Many of the larger industrial users own
and/or build their own facilities. For example, General Mills owns its facility at West Turner
Road, and Pacific Coast Producers recently constructed a 900,000 square foot canning facility
on North Guild Avenue.
Table II -9
Summary of Commercial Lease Rates
Lodi Market Area, January 2002
RETAIL (NNN)
Inside
Project
Area
Outside
Project
Area
Downtown
$0.22-$0.60
Cherokee Retail Center
$.85-$1.00
Lakewood Mall,$1.25-$1.30
W. Kettleman -Hutchins to Fairmont
$1.40-$1.60
W. Kettleman Lower Sacramento Road
$1.90-$2.00
OFFICE (Gross Full Service)
Inside
Project
Area
Outside
Project
Area
Downtown Office Space
$0.45-$0.50
N/A
Ham Lane Office Space
$1.50-$2.00
West Kettleman Lane Office$1.50-$2.00
'Retail rents in Downtown are typically quoted on a full-service basis, but have been converted to a
triple net basis for comparative purposes with other areas in the City.
Source: Broker interviews, Winter, 2002.
Abnormally High Vacancies
Commercial space in the Downtown, including Sacramento Street, is abnormally high,
particularly as compared to other commercial areas in the City. The vacancy rate of ground floor
commercial space in the downtown is estimated between 20 and 25 percent, while upper floor
space is estimated to be over 80 percent vacant, yielding an overall vacancy rate in excess of 30
percent. By comparison, there are currently no vacancies at Lakewood Mall, while vacancies on
West Kettleman Lane are minimal — currently estimated at under five percent.
Inability of Commercial Space to Meet Current User Demands
As previously noted in Section F.Lb, much of the commercial space in the Project Area is
comprised of older buildings that are constrained by their inability to meet modem design
requirements for retail and office space, as well as the limited size of commercial spaces.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -36 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
However, higher volume retailers, such as Barnes and Noble, Crate -n -Barrel, Pottery Barn and
Restoration Hardware, could help to catalyze the retail district by serving as anchors.
As shown in Table II -10 below, the maximum amount of a single retail space available in the
downtown is generally 2,000 square feet. In other parts of Lodi, the range of available retail
space is much greater, from 1,500 to 50,000 square feet. Any of the retailers that might act as a
catalyst anchor for the downtown would require between 5,000 and 20,000 square feet of space.
The same is true for office space. In the downtown, office space ranges from 300 to a maximum
of 2,000 square feet. In other parts of Lodi, office renters can find a wider range of office sizes, up
to 5,000 square feet.
Older buildings also cannot provide flexibility in terms of space and the amenities found in
newer buildings. Modern shopping centers and malls can offer a variety of spaces, so that
potential renters are more likely to find a space that meets their size requirements. In addition,
they have the option to expand or reduce the amount of space they lease. New office space is
generally designed to provide flexibility.
Table II -10
Size of Available
Commercial Space In Lodi
January 2002
Source: Broker interviews.
Infeasibility of Private Sector to Rehabilitate Properties
This section evaluates impaired investment in terms of a private investor's ability to rehabilitate
deteriorated, older buildings while achieving a reasonable return on investment. It examines the
feasibility of two prototypical rehabilitation projects: a mixed-use building in the Downtown
and industrial space on the East Side. The rehabilitation assumes extensive improvements such
as those listed above, which are often necessary in older buildings. The assumptions for this
analysis were obtained from discussions with local real estate owners and brokers, as well as
comparable sales information on recent transactions.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -37 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Proposed Project
Area
Other Areas
in Lodi
Office
Minimum Square Footage
300
1,000
Maximum Square Footage
2,000
5,000
Retail
Minimum Square Footage
300
1,500
Maximum Square Footage
2,000
50,000
Source: Broker interviews.
Infeasibility of Private Sector to Rehabilitate Properties
This section evaluates impaired investment in terms of a private investor's ability to rehabilitate
deteriorated, older buildings while achieving a reasonable return on investment. It examines the
feasibility of two prototypical rehabilitation projects: a mixed-use building in the Downtown
and industrial space on the East Side. The rehabilitation assumes extensive improvements such
as those listed above, which are often necessary in older buildings. The assumptions for this
analysis were obtained from discussions with local real estate owners and brokers, as well as
comparable sales information on recent transactions.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -37 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
The costs of preserving and upgrading historic and other older buildings are difficult to
determine precisely but, based on field surveys and discussions with business owners and brokers,
would involve some or all of the following:
• Structural preservation including building repairs and facade preservation;
• Installation of an elevator for second floor space;
• Electrical and plumbing and other code upgrades;
• Improvement to heating and ventilation systems;
• Interior remodeling for adaptive reuse.
This analysis begins with estimated project costs for the purchase and rehabilitation of older
buildings in poor condition based on comparable sales and the cost of undertaking substantial
rehabilitation. This project cost is then compared with the loan and equity amounts that could
be supported by projected rents generated by each completed project. These prototypes are used
for illustrative purposes to demonstrate the impact of rental rates and property values on the
economic value of the investment.
Private financing techniques alone will not likely be sufficient to undertake substantial
rehabilitation of typical buildings in certain areas still needing redevelopment attention. Below
are two prototypical purchase and rehabilitation projects in the area still needing redevelopment
attention. The first project, a two story freestanding historic building in the downtown, would
likely need a subsidy of about $526,000 to be financially feasible for a developer. The second
representative project, an industrial project on the East Side, would need a subsidy of about
$264,000. The ability of private developers to invest in rehabilitation of substandard buildings is
a measure of economic health within the Project Area. When new rehabilitation is not feasible,
needed building capital improvements are deferred and properties are not upgraded and are
poorly maintained.
Prototypical Rehabilitation Project I: Downtown Mixed Use Buildine
The prototypical project is a 10,000 square foot mixed-use building with about 4,250 square feet
of commercial space on the ground floor and 4,250 square feet of office space on the upper floor
(common area is assumed to be 1,500 square feet or about 15%). The project assumes
installation of an elevator, electrical and plumbing upgrades, facade restoration, and interior
remodeling.
Table II.11 summarizes the estimated costs and projected revenues of this prototypical
rehabilitation project. The site acquisition cost would be approximately $350,000, assuming a
cost of about $35 per square foot, per recent building sales prices for comparable buildings.
Rehabilitation construction costs are estimated at $550,000, or approximately $55 per square
foot. The total cost of the project, including soft costs and contingency costs, would be about
$1,065,000.
A typical commercial building of this size is projected to generate a gross income of $76,500
annually given current market conditions, assuming rent for the second floor office at $0.50 per
square foot and $1.00 per square foot for the ground floor retail (full service)." Subtracting a
"Typical commercial rents range from $0.35 to $0.85 full service; this analysis assumes the highest market rent.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -38 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
five percent vacancy loss and operating expenses yields a net operating income of approximately
$55,000 per year, before tax.15
Lending institutions typically require that net operating income exceed debt service payment by
15 to 20 percent for mixed-use projects (a debt coverage ratio of 1.2 to 1.5). A 1.2 debt coverage
ratio yields about $45,500 available to cover debt service and an annual cash flow of about
$9,100 (used to provide the return to equity investors). The annual debt service amount could
support a mortgage loan of about $447,500. The annual cash flow would support about $91,000
in equity investment yielding a 10 percent interest rate. Thus, the total amount that developers
could reasonably expect to raise from private sources is about $538,700 resulting in a financing
gap of approximately $526,000, or approximately 49 percent of the total development cost.
Prototypical Rehabilitation Project II: East Side Industrial Project
The second prototypical project is an older industrial building on the East Side. Many of these
buildings suffer from physical deficiencies due to deferred maintenance, as well as outdated
design, lack of improved office space, and decayed parking areas. The prototypical project
assumes a 20,000 square feet of industrial building. Rehabilitation requires potential code
upgrades, interior office buildout (for a portion of the space), and parking improvements. (It
should be noted that these assumptions are subject to revision, based on confirmation and
further input from brokers active in the market area.)
Table II -12 summarizes the estimated costs and projected revenues of this prototypical
rehabilitation project. The acquisition cost is estimated at $560,000 assuming a cost of about
$28 per building square foot, based on conversations with the brokerage community.
Construction costs are primarily assumed to cover the cost of potential code upgrades,
improving a portion of the interior space for office use and parking improvements, and are
estimated at approximately $10 per square foot. The total cost of the project, including soft costs
and contingency costs, is estimated at $820,000.
Industrial space in the East Side of the Project Area is projected to generate a gross income of
$72,000 annually given current market conditions, assuming industrial rents of $0.30 per square
foot (modified gross).16 Subtracting a five percent vacancy loss and operating expenses yields a
net operating income of approximately $56,000 per year, before tax.
As discussed above, lending institutions typically require a debt coverage ratio of 1.2, which
yields about $47,000 available to cover debt service and an annual cash flow of about $9,400
(used to provide the return to equity investors). The annual debt service amount could support a
mortgage loan of about $462,000. The annual cash flow would support about $100,000 in equity
investment yielding a 10 percent return on equity. Thus, the total amount that developers could
reasonably expect to raise from private sources is about $556,000 resulting in a financing gap of
approximately $264,000, or 32 percent of estimated development costs.
15 An annual vacancy rate for a small project such as this is expected to vary. Accordingly, the five percent vacancy
rate should be viewed as an average over several years.
16 Modified gross rents assume the tenant pays utilities and janitorial, while the landlord covers property taxes,
insurance and maintenance of the roof and outer walls.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -39 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
The private sector does not have sufficient financial incentive to undertake substantial
rehabilitation projects in the Project Area. Prototypical purchase and rehabilitation projects in
the Project Area would require large subsidies to be financially feasible for a typical developer.
With financial investment by the Agency, however, the risk to the private sector is reduced and
a positive incentive for new development is created.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -40 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Table 11, 11
Prototypical Purchase & Rehabilitation Project
Downtown - Mixed Use Office and Retail
Estimated Project Costs
Building Acquisition Cost
Rehabilitation Cost
Soft Costs @ 20%
Contingency @ 10%
Total Development Cost
Estimated Income & Expenses
Rental Income
Ground Floor Retail
Second Floor Office
Gross Possible Income
Vacancy Loss
Total Vacancy Loss
Operating Expenses
Net Operating Income (NOI)
Maximum Supportable Loan
Debt Coverage Ratio
NOI Available for Debt
Maximum Loan
Annual Cash Flow
Return on Equity
Supportable Value of Equity
Total Available for Project
Projected Financing Gap
Total Available for Project
Less Estimated Development Cost
Financing Gap
Percent of Development Cost
Assumptions:
Income & Expenses
Building Square Feet
Leaseable SF (85%)
Ground Floor Retail Rent per SF (Gross)
Second Floor Rent per SF (Gross)
Landlord Operating Expenses per SF
Loan Terms
Mortgage Interest Rate
Term (years)
Estimated Project Costs
Site Acquisition Cost per SF
Rehabilitation Hard Cost per SF
Soft Cost % of Hard Cost
Contingency % of Hard Cost
Source: Broker Interviews Winter 2002
$350,000
$550,000
$110,000
$55,000
$1,065,000
$51,000
$25,500
$76,500
5%
$3,825
$18,000
$54,675
1.20
$45,563
$447,541
$9,113
10.0%
$91,125
$538,666
$538,666
$1,065,000
($526,334)
49%
10,000
8,500
$1.00
$0.50
$0.15
9.0%
25
$35
$55
20%
10%
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project II -41 January 2002
Table II -12
Prototypical Purchase & Rehabilitation Project
Eastside Industrial Project
Estimated Project Costs
Building Acquisition Cost
Rehabilitation Cost
Soft Costs @ 20%
Contingency @ 10%
Total Development Cost
Estimated Income & Expenses
Rental Income
Industrial Rent
Gross Possible Income
Vacancy Loss
Total Vacancy Loss
Operating Expenses
Net Operating Income (NOI)
Maximum Supportable Loan
Debt Coverage Ratio
NOI Available for Debt
Maximum Loan
Annual Cash Flow
Return on Equity
Supportable Value of Equity
Total Available for Project
Projected Financing Gap
Total Available for Project
Less Estimated Development Cost
Financing Gap
Percent of Development Cost
Assumptions:
Income & Expenses
Building Square Feet
Net Rentable SF (100%)
Industrial Rent per SF (Modified Gross)
Landlord Operating Expenses per SF
Loan Terms
Mortgage Interest Rate
Term (years)
Estimated Project Costs
Site Acquisition Cost per Bdg SF
Rehabilitation Hard Cost per SF
Soft Cost % of Hard Cost
Contingency % of Hard Cost
Source: Broker Interviews Winter 2002
$560,000
$200,000
$40,000
$20,00
$820,000
$72,000
$72,000
5%
$3,600
$12,000
$56,400
1.20
$47,000
$461,661
$9,400
10.0%
$94,000
$555,661
$555,661
$820,000
($264,339)
32%
20,000
20,000
$0.30
$0.05
9.0%
25
$28
$10
20%
10%
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project I1-42 January 2002
b. Underutilized Property
During field reconnaissance surveys several areas of underutilized properties were identified.
Figures II -6 and II -7 show the location of underutilized properties in the Central Railroad
Commercial and Industrial Corridor and the Cherokee Lane Commercial Corridor. Tables II -13
and II -14 describe the underutilized properties.
Table II -13
Underutilized Properties by Subarea
Central Railroad Commercial/Industrial Corridor
Project
Area
Description
Area 1
Relatively small vacant parcel, prominent comer location, currently used for informal
truck parking. Unpaved, rainwater ponding.
Area 2
Large comer parcel partially occupied by a church. Abandoned automobiles, portable
buildings and debris are located on this property.
Area 3
Large parcel occupied by a dilapidated multi -story industrial building with broken windows
and a vintage automobile salvage yard.
Area 4
Large, underutilized storage yard, paved and fenced, serves an adjoining building.
Area 5
Underutilized parcel occupied by a dilapidated metal building and old automobiles.
Area 6
Large, vacant parcel, unpaved, rainwater ponding.
Area 7
1 Underutilized property, possible auto service use.
Area 8
Underutilized corner parcel, partially occupied by used car sales and auto dismantler.
Area 9
Underutilized parcel occupied by dilapidated steel tower, dilapidated buildings and debris
accumulation.
Area 10
Large underutilized property, partially occupied by an abandoned and dilapidated
corrugated metal building and a deteriorated concrete garage building.
Area 11
Large, vacant site, abandoned railroadspur tracks, rainwater ponding.
Area 12
Large, underutilized parcel with small deteriorated building, corner location.
Area 13
Vacant used car lot.
Area 14
Vacant comer parcel, unpaved, informal parking, rainwater ponding.
Area 15
Large parcel, currently occupied by contractor's yard.
Area 16
Large, underutilized industrial parcel, partially occupied by a modern industrial building.
Approximately 80 percent of the parcel is vacant.
Area 17
Underutilized parcel with deteriorated and dilapidated commercial and residential
buildings.
Area 18
Large, vacant parcel, unpaved.
Area 19
An underutilized parcel occupied by deteriorated industrial -service buildings and small
cottages.
Area 20
Large, vacant parcel, prominent corner location, abandoned vineyard.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -43 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January2002
LODI AVE.
See adjacent map for continuation of
area below Lodi Avenue.
SOURCE: John B. Dykstra & Assoolates
KETTLEMAN LN.
See adjacent map for continuation of
area above Lodi Avenue.
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
FIGURE II -6: LOCATION OF MAJOR UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES,
CENTRAL RAILROAD COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR
Table 1I.14
Underutilized Properties by Subarea
Cherokee Lane Commercial Corridor
Project
Area
Description
Area 1
Former gasoline station used for auto repair. Dilapidated buildings and signage.
Potential source of soils and groundwater contamination.
Area 2
Large triangular-shaped, underutilized property. Currently occupied by a skating
rink. Cherokee Lane location. Visible from freeway.
Area 3
Small commercial property at prominent comer, occupied by deteriorated
warehouse buildings.
Area 4
Underutilized corner property, vacant except for boarded -up building.
Area 5
Underutilized site of a dilapidated elementary school (Lincoln School).
Area 6
Large underutilized commercial property occupied in part by a deteriorated but
architecturally and historically interesting creamery/restaurant building.
Area 7
Large vacant site in developed industrial park.
Area 8
Underutilized corner parcel with badly deteriorated buildings.
Area 9
Lar a vacant commercial parcel.
Area 10
Very large underutilized property (former bowling alley). Site partially occupied by
truck and equipment sales. Main building used as banquet hall and church.
Area 11
Underutilized comer lot and adjacent abandoned residence.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 11.45 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
See adjacent map for continuation of
area above Lodi Avenue.
SOURCE: John S. Dykstra 8 Associates
POPLAR ST.
See adjacent map for continuation of
area above Lodi Avenue.
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
FIGURE II -7: LOCATION OF MAJOR UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES,
CHEROKEE LANE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
4. Residential Overcrowding
Table I1-15 shows that residential overcrowding is a significant problem among both renter and
owner households in the Project Area, compared to the rest of Lodi. The U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development defines residential overcrowding as households with over one
person per room, and severe overcrowding is defined as households with over 1.5 persons per
room.
The most recent data on overcrowding is contained in the 1990 U.S. Census. The Project Area
lies within four census tracts." Based on an analysis of U.S. Census data of block groups, the
total population of the Project Area in 1990 was about 13,200 living in 4,483 households.
Renter households made up about 68 percent of total households in the Project Area compared
to about 46 percent in the City as a whole.
Table II -15
Residential Overcrowding
Redevelopment Project Area
City of Lodi
Households
Project Area Total
Outside Project Area
Total
Owner
Renter
Total
Owner
Renter
Overcrowded
380
56
324
460
148
312
Severely Overcrowded
473
73
401
329
69
259
Total Overcrowded
853
129
725
789
21?
571
Total Households
4,483
1,455
3,028
14,518
8,862
5,656
me g ig
gm
Percent of Total
Households
Overcrowded
8.5%
3.9%
10.7%
3.2%
1.7%
5.5%
Severely Overcrowded
10.6%
5.0%
13.2%
2.3%
0.8%
4.6%
Total Overcrowded
19.0%
8.8%
23.9%
5.4%
2.5%
10.1%
Source: U.S. Census, 1990, Census Block Groups 42.02-7, 44.01-2, 44.01-3, 44.01-4, 44.01-5, 45-3, 45-4 and
portions of 42.02-4, 42.02-3, 44.01-6, 45-1, 45-2, 43.024, 43.024, 42.02-6 and 43.02-2.
According to the U.S. Census, approximately 19.0 percent of households in the Project Area
were overcrowded, compared to 5.4 percent in the remainder of the City of Lodi. Overcrowding
in the Project Area is significantly more serious for renter households than owner households.
Approximately 23.9 percent of renter households are overcrowded, compared to 8.8 percent of
owner households. The Census also indicates that about 10.6 percent of households in the
Project Area are severely overcrowded compared to 2.3 percent in the remainder of the City.
" Census Tracts 42.02, 43.02, 44.01 and 45, including Block Groups 42.02-7, 44.01-2, 44.01-3, 44.01-4, 44.01-5,
45-3, 45-4 and portions of 42.02-4, 42.02-3, 44.01-6, 454, 45-2, 43.02-1, 43.02-4, 42.02-6 and 43.02-2.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -47 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Overcrowding typically occurs in older structures that have not been renovated to keep pace
with changing lifestyles or demand. Overcrowded housing generally provides poor quality, and
often unsafe and unhealthy, housing for its residents. It can also lead to the deterioration of
buildings by putting additional wear and use on the structures. In some instances, in an attempt
to accommodate additional occupancy, make -shift modifications may be made to the structures
that may be illegal, unsafe or unhealthy, and a violation of building codes.
In the predominantly residential census tracts within the Project Area overcrowding conditions
are more serious. The East Side Neighborhood is comprised of census block groups 44.01-2
through 44.01-6 and 45.00-1 through 45.00.4. Table II -16 indicates that in 1990, over 20
percent of the units in the East Side neighborhood were overcrowded or severely overcrowded,
more than 3 times the rate of 5.5 percent outside the East Side neighborhood. Over 11.4
percent were severely overcrowded, almost 5 times the rate of 2.3 percent outside. As described
earlier, many garages and other structures have been converted into living units. This has
contributed to the overcrowded conditions.
Table II -16
Residential Overcrowding
East Side Neighborhood
City of Lodi
Households
East Side Neighborhood
Outside East Side Neighborhood
Total Owner
Renter
Total Owner Renter
Overcrowded
355
53
302
485
151
334
Severely
Overcrowded
446
71
375
356
71
285
Total Overcrowded
802
125
677
840
221
619
Total Households
3,8401
1,2661
2,574
15,161
9,051
6,111
E Y f d
�, .�ffi.5. $ �. �3'M*e :q7 F�8'�7'j °ka�l�x� ?P'ai ,e�. �. €'"';. $�•
Percent of Total Households
Overcrowded
9.2%
4.2%
11.7%
3.2%
1.7%
5.5%
Severely
Overcrowded
11.6%
5.6%
14.6%
2.3%
0.8%
4.7%
Total Overcrowded
20.9%
9.8%
26.3%
5.5%
2.4%
10.1%
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
5. A High Crime Rate
Information on crime rates will be forthcoming from the Lodi Police Department.
6. Conclusion for Economic Blighting Conditions
The Project Area suffers from several simultaneous economic problems such as depreciated
property values, declining sales, business stagnation and residential overcrowding. Economic
blight causes or contributes to vacancies in, or underutilization of an area, health and safety
hazards, lack of investment, disinvestment, and the devaluation of neighboring properties.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -48 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
The analysis of existing economic conditions in the Project Area concludes that these problems
are so substantial and prevalent that they constitute economic blight. Thus, redevelopment is
necessary for the Project Area to reach its full economic potential.
G. Necessity for Redevelopment
As will be further documented in the Report to Council, the physical and economic blighting
conditions in the Project Area are so prevalent and substantial that they cannot reasonably be
expected to be reversed without redevelopment assistance. These conditions have become a
hindrance to the community that cannot be reversed or alleviated without the assistance of the
Agency through the authority of the CRL. As further described in Section 1 below, these
blighting conditions have caused a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the Project Area
and constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community.
The private sector does not have sufficient financial incentive to invest in the Project Area,
given the risks and up -front costs to improve public infrastructure, encourage economic
revitalization, provide affordable housing, and mitigate against seismic safety and environmental
problems. Without financial assistance to help underwrite these costs, the private sector would
be unlikely to undertake improvements in the Project Area.
In summary, the proposed program to alleviate blighting conditions in the Project Area is not
financially feasible for the private sector acting alone. Without redevelopment, most of the
program costs must be borne solely by the private sector. Redevelopment is a necessary
financing tool, which will be used to support the Redevelopment Program costs as described in
Chapter III of this report. With this investment by the Agency, risk to the private sector is
reduced, and incentive for private investment is created.
1. Significant Burden on the Community
This chapter has documented blighting conditions that have become a burden on the
community and Project Area properties are not being used to the same potential as properties in
other parts of the community. The reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the Project Area
constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community in at least the following
respects:
• Deprives residents of the city and surrounding area of employment opportunities.
• Prevents adequate supply of affordable and other housing;
• Deprives property and business owners of a competitive return on their investments;
• Deprives residents of adequate public recreational facilities and lands.
• Hinders the enhancement of the physical environment.
• Prevents proper usefulness and development of land.
• Deprives the City, the County, the education districts, and other affected taxing entities of
an expanding tax base; and
• Hinders the development of a stronger economic base for the community.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1I-49 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
2. Limitations of Other Governmental Action
Governmental action to alleviate the documented blighting conditions in the Project Area is
limited by the lack of a reliable flow of federal, state, or local financial resources available to
fund a comprehensive revitalization program. The private sector's ability to alleviate the
documented blighting conditions is limited.
As described in Chapter IV, all other feasible sources of non -tax increment revenue will be
applied toward Redevelopment Program costs. However, other governmental revenues are not
sufficient to pay for an effective program to alleviate blight in the Project Area. In this financial
setting, redevelopment assistance in the form of tax increment revenue is essential to fill the
funding gap to undertake an effective revitalization effort for the Lodi Redevelopment Project
Area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency II -50 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
III. Redevelopment Program Description
A. Introduction
This chapter describes the Redevelopment Program proposed to implement the proposed Lodi
Redevelopment Project. The projects and activities that make up the Redevelopment Program
are designed to meet the goals and objectives of the CRL and the Redevelopment Plan
(described in Chapter I). The Agency's cost of implementing the Redevelopment Program is
estimated to total about $36.5 million in constant 2002 dollars ($24.3 million for non -housing
projects and about $12.2 million for affordable housing projects).'
Revenues generated by the Redevelopment Project could fund a number of potential
redevelopment activities in the proposed Project Area. Each of the proposed projects would help
to alleviate conditions of blight described in this report. The proposed Redevelopment Program
would work in coordination with Lodi's existing Central City Revitalization Program, a
comprehensive revitalization package adopted by the City that includes incentive programs,
marketing strategies, and physical improvements. The City Council adopted the alternative
Catalyst Project for the Central City Revitalization Project in 1995. The Revitalization Project
will serve as a catalyst to begin the economic and commercial revitalization of the Downtown
and Cherokee Lane corridor, and the East Side neighborhood. The Revitalization Project is one
component of a comprehensive and detailed action program consisting of public improvements,
incentive programs, promotional programs, and marketing strategies.'
The proposed Redevelopment Program emphasizes the elimination of blighting conditions and
constraints that interfere with revitalization and conservation of the proposed Project Area by
improving the economic conditions and enhancing residential areas. In general, the proposed
Redevelopment Program is designed to:
• Revitalize areas that exhibit physical and economic blight;
• Stimulate private investment in the proposed Project Area's commercial areas;
• Improve housing conditions and infrastructure in residential neighborhoods; and
• Provide tax increment funds for the redevelopment activities that are needed to alleviate
blighting conditions.
The Redevelopment Program reflects adopted City goals and policies. Its formulation involved
city staff, elected officials, residents and consultants. Agency staff, city residents and business
owners reviewed and made recommendations on the proposed projects and activities. The
Redevelopment Program also reflects the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, Capital
Improvements Program and economic development studies.
The Redevelopment Program is organized broadly into six program categories that reflect the
division of tax increment revenues into funds which can be used for any redevelopment purpose
and those specifically related to the Agency's affordable housing endeavors. Program categories
' The term 2002 dollars or constant 2002 dollars is used to indicate the present value of nominal dollars discounted
back to Fiscal Year 2001/02. This amount does not include Agency administration costs for non -housing projects
and activites.
' Engineer's Report for Lodi Central City Revitalization Assessment District No. 95-1, p. 6.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency III -1 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
one through five do not specifically address the provision, improvement or preservation of
affordable housing while program category six is specifically focused on the Agency's affordable
housing activities. The numbers assigned to each category are for identification purposes only,
and are not intended to indicate a category's relative priority for implementation:
I. Economic Development
2. Building Rehabilitation, Facade Improvement, and/or Historic Preservation
3. Public Infrastructure and Facilities
4. Neighborhood Preservation, Circulation and Landscaping Improvements
5. Site Preparation and Development
6. Affordable Housing
Section C of this chapter describes the five non -housing program categories and their respective
projects and activities. Section D describes the Agency's Affordable Housing Program. The
sections are organized as follows:
• Deficiencies to be corrected.
• Description of how the proposed projects and activities will reduce or eliminate blighting
conditions in the proposed Project Area.
• Cost estimate in constant 2002 dollars. (Refer to Chapter IV for a description of the funding
sources that may be used by the Agency to help fund the proposed projects and activities.)
B. Relationship between Redevelopment Program and Alleviation of
Blighting Conditions
As indicated in Chapter II, the Lodi Redevelopment Project Area suffers from a variety of
physical and economic blighting conditions that must be alleviated if the area is to be
revitalized. The proposed Project Area will benefit from a coherent economic development,
neighborhood conservation and revitalization strategy that is coordinated with the City's overall
goals.
The Redevelopment Program is designed to alleviate the blighting conditions identified in
Chapter II, and meet the Agency's affordable housing obligation, as well as the CRL
requirement that Agency expenditures be linked to the elimination of blighting conditions. The
proposed Redevelopment Program will address the blighting conditions described in Chapter II.
Furthermore, it will address the public improvement deficiencies that contribute to physical and
economic blight in the proposed Project Area. Table III -1 provides a matrix summarizing the
blighting conditions described in Chapter II and the proposed Redevelopment Program's
activities designed to alleviate each blighting condition.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency III -2 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Ch
►�
p
n
ii
a
c
C6
w
O
a•
�d
�
-►e�y1
�"
o
C
C
d
03
°w
w
d
tea,
W
.a.
aUQ°z
Qr
r
iA
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
r
Economic Development
■
■
■
N
Building Rehabilitation
■
■
■
■
■
w
Public Facilities
o
3
c�
a
■
■
■
■
■
41
Circulation and Landscaping
gb
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
�++
Site Preparation
■
■
■
■
■
o.
Affordable Housing
C. Description of Non -Housing Redevelopment Program
This section describes the proposed Non -Housing Redevelopment Program, including the
deficiencies to be corrected, project descriptions, and the estimated project costs.' As they are
implemented, these projects may be modified over time to better serve the purposes of
redevelopment. Cost estimates are necessarily preliminary in nature and subject to considerable
refinement as the Redevelopment Program planning and implementation proceed. However,
the cost estimates are adequate to provide reasonable orders of magnitude for evaluating
financial feasibility and the need for tax increment financing. Table III -2 summarizes the total
estimated cost of the proposed Lodi Redevelopment Program. It should be noted that these costs
do not include Agency administration expenses for non -housing activities, which are discussed
in greater detail in Chapter IV. Table 11I-3 summarizes the estimated Agency share of non-
housing and housing projects for the proposed Project Area.
I. Economic Development
a. Deficiencies to Be Corrected
Many portions of the proposed Project Area are suffering from economic decline and stagnation.
Retail businesses perform poorly, and lodging establishments have lower revenues per room as
compared to establishments outside the Project Area. In industrial areas, many warehouses are
vacant, and several buildings are abandoned. Depreciated property values and impaired
investments are evident in the commercial areas within the proposed Project Area, including
Downtown Lodi and Cherokee Lane. Downtown Lodi is a weak environment for commercial
activity. Commercial lease rates are low there and along Cherokee Lane as compared to other
commercial areas in Lodi. Commercial rents are significantly lower east of the Union Pacific
railroad tracks, where properties are more deteriorated, than they are west of the railroad tracks.
b. Description
As part of the economic development program, the following is proposed:
• Design and implement a program to attract business and promote tourism, including
assistance in the preparation of marketing materials.
• Provide financial assistance to business organizations.
• Provide for a marketing study and strategy to attract and retain businesses to the Project
Area.
• Encourage office uses in Downtown Lodi.
• Accommodate and encourage lodging, auto and support commercial buildings along
Cherokee Lane.
• Encourage revitalization through business and developer incentives.
' The non -housing program includes some activities that will benefit housing, including building rehabilitation,
seismic strengthening and historic preservation.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency I11-4 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
C. Estimated Program Costs
The estimated Agency share of the economic development program (Table III -3) is
approximately $3.6 million (in constant 2002 dollars).
2. Building Rehabilitation, Fagade Improvement and/or Historic
Preservation
a. Deficiencies to Be Corrected
As indicated in Chapter II, 75 percent of the buildings in the proposed Project Area have
significant physical deficiencies. Many buildings show the effects of serious deterioration.
Deficient or deteriorated buildings are found in each of the eight areas surveyed. A large number
of residences have informal, substandard construction. Many residential buildings are
dilapidated and unsound. The downtown commercial area has several deteriorated commercial
structures. Some of these buildings are structurally unsound. Some industrial uses east of
Highway 99 exhibit deterioration, with some dilapidation. Some of the structures are
functionally obsolete.
b. Description
As part of the building rehabilitation, facade improvement and/or historic preservation program,
the following is proposed:
• Assist in rehabilitation, seismic strengthening and/or historic preservation of commercial,
industrial and residential buildings, through low interest loans and grant funds.
• Assist with facade improvements in the downtown and other areas.
• Establish development standards and design guidelines to improve the appearance of
buildings and businesses along Cherokee Lane.
• Redevelop dilapidated and abandoned buildings.
C. Estimated Program Costs
The estimated Agency share of the building rehabilitation, facade improvement and/or historic
preservation program (Table III -3) is approximately $4.4 million (in constant 2002 dollars).
3. Public Infrastructure and Facilities
a. Deficiencies to Be Corrected
Commercial and residential lots lack adequate off-street parking. The storm and wastewater
distribution system is aging, obsolete and inadequate.
b. Description
As part of the public infrastructure and facilities program, the following is proposed:
• Provide parking improvements in commercial areas of the Project Area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency III -5 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
• Implement storm drain, wastewater and water distribution improvements in the East Side
neighborhood, along Cherokee Lane and Downtown.
• Assist in providing facilities to service residents in the proposed Project Area, such as a
community center, a library and an education and training center.
C. Estimated Program Costs
The estimated Agency share of the public infrastructure and facilities program (Table III -3) is
approximately $9.9 million (in constant 2002 dollars).
4. Neighborhood Preservation, Circulation and Landscaping Improvements
a. Deficiencies to Be Corrected
Several areas of the Project Area suffer from circulation and other deficiencies that impede the
vitality of neighborhoods and commercial areas. These include the lack of pedestrian and
bicycle access, street signs, street lighting, landscaping, and sidewalks. Another deficiency is
inefficient traffic circulation, particularly along Cherokee Lane.
b. Description
As part of the neighborhood preservation, circulation and landscaping improvements program,
the following is proposed:
• Create a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network, providing linkages and improving
access to Downtown from the proposed Multi -modal Train Station and Transit Center.
• Provide pedestrian access to the Transit Center, including widen sidewalks and landscape
street frontages.
• Continue to landscape public parking lots and streets, improve street signs and streetlights in
the Downtown, neighborhoods and other areas.
• Continue to provide new sidewalks and/or widen sidewalks in the Downtown,
neighborhoods and other areas.
• Improve traffic signalization and traffic circulation at critical intersections, especially along
Cherokee Lane.
• Expand code enforcement efforts.
• Update development standards for multifamily residences.
C. Estimated Program Costs
The estimated Agency share of the neighborhood preservation, circulation and landscaping
improvements program (Table III -3) is approximately $2.2 million (in constant 2002 dollars).
Lodi Redevelopment Agency III -6 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
5. Site Preparation and Development
a. Deficiencies to Be Corrected
Some areas in the Project Area contain soil and/or groundwater contamination. A large number
of lots are substandard to economic development due to their small size or because they front on
alleys. A number of incompatible uses have been identified in the proposed Project Area,
including residences close to the railroad or industrial plants, and commercial and residential
uses located adjacent to dilapidated, vacant or abandoned properties.
b. Description
As part of the building rehabilitation program, the following is proposed:
• Facilitate a hazardous materials cleanup program.
• Acquire property and assemble sites, including acquisition of strategic properties to meet
redevelopment goals.
• Provide assistance to relocate incompatible uses.
C. Estimated Program Costs
The estimated Agency share of the site preparation and development program (Table III -3) is
approximately $4.3 million (in constant 2002 dollars).
D. Description of Affordable Housing Redevelopment Program
This section describes the proposed Affordable Housing Redevelopment Program, including the
deficiencies to be corrected, project descriptions, and estimated project costs.
a. Deficiencies to Be Corrected
The Agency will promote the revitalization of existing housing as well as the construction of
well-designed affordable and market -rate housing in the proposed Project Area in order to
enhance the vitality of the area and provide much-needed housing for the City. Residential
overcrowding is a significant problem among both renter and owner households in the proposed
Project Area as compared to the rest of the City. The Project Area contains structurally
unsound residences, residential units with informal and substandard construction, and
deteriorated residential structures.
b. Description
The Agency will implement a key provision of the CRL: the enhancement of affordable housing
opportunities for households earning at or below 120 percent of median income, with particular
emphasis on those households earning at or below 50 percent of median income.
Section 33334.2 of the CRL requires that an agency utilize 20 percent of all tax increment
revenue allocated to the Agency to increase or enhance the community's supply of affordable
housing.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency III -7 ♦ Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
The Agency may establish a range of housing programs that seek to enhance project design and
leverage federal, state, and private funding sources to develop high quality, attractive, and
affordable housing developments serving a diverse population. The funds directed toward this
program will be used in a flexible manner in order to respond to favorable development
opportunities.
The type of financial assistance to be provided may include cost write-down and gap financing
for projects utilizing federal and state grant or loan funds to facilitate design enhancements,
property acquisition, construction and predevelopment. Appropriate uses of these funds include
new affordable rental and ownership housing construction, and assistance to homebuyers with
acquiring affordable housing.
As part of the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Program, the Agency will undertake the
following projects to correct the deficiencies in the proposed Project Area:
• Encourage homeownership and renovation.
• Facilitate development of new affordable housing.
• Provide funding assistance for rehabilitation of single and multi family housing for low and
moderate income households.
• Facilitate development of housing for the elderly.
• Spend affordable housing set-aside funds in accordance with CRL, including:
— Preserve and provide housing opportunities at all income levels in accordance with
the CRL.
— Provide opportunities for homeowners earning at or below 120 percent of median
income to maintain and repair their homes and promote neighborhood
revitalization.
— Provide homeownership opportunities for first time homebuyers earning less than
120 percent of median income.
C. Estimated Program Costs
The Agency cost for the Affordable Housing Program is projected to be $12.2 million in
constant 2002 dollars. Refer to Chapter IV for further discussion regarding the projections of tax
increment to be set-aside for affordable housing.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency III -8 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Table III -2
Projected Total Costs of Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Program
Non -Housing and Housing Activities
In Constant 2002 Dollars
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project III -9 January 2002
Total Cost
Unit Cost/unit Yrs
1 Economic Development
$500,000
Lump Sum estimate
A Design and implement a program to attract business and promote
tourism, including assistance in the preparation of marketing materials
B Provide financial assistance to business organizations
$1,500,000
1 $50,000 /year 30
C Provide for a marketing study and strategy to attract and retain
$100,000
1 $100,000 /study N/A
businesses to the Project Area.
D Encourage office uses in Downtown Lodi
$500,000
1 $50,000 /year 10
Accommodate and encourage lodging, auto and support commercial
E
$500,000
1 $50,000 /year 10
buildings along Cherokee Lane
F Encourage revitalization through business and developer incentives
$3,000,000
1 $100,000 /year 30
SUBTOTAL
7%
$6,100,000
2 Building & Site Rehabilitation, Facade Improvement and/or Historic
Preservation
A Assist in rehabilitation, seismic strengthening and/or historic
$7,500,000
5 $50,000 /bldg 30
preservation of commercial, industrial and residential buildings, through
low interest loans and grant funds
B Assist with fagade improvements in the Downtown and other areas.
$3,000,000
5 $20,000 /bldg 30
C Establish development standards and design guidelines to improve the
$100,000
1 $100,000 /study N/A
appearance of buildings and businesses along Cherokee Lane
D Redevelop dilapidated and abandoned buildings
$6,750,000
3 $75,000 /bldg 30
SUBTOTAL
19%
$17,350,000
3 Public Infrastructure and Facilities
A Provide parking improvements in commercial areas of the
$8,200,000
Lump Sum estimate
Proiect Area
B Implement storm drain, wastewater and water distribution
$30,300,000
Lump Sum estimate
improvements in the Eastside neighborhood, along Cherokee Lane and
Downtown.
C Assist in providing facilities to service residents in the Project Area,
$5,000,000
Lump Sum estimate
such as community centers, libraries and education and training centers
SUBTOTAL
48%
$43,500,000
4 Neighborhood Preservation, Circulation and Landscaping
Improvements
A Create a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network, providing
$2,500,000
10 $250,000 /mile N/A
linkages and improving access to Downtown from the proposed Multi-
modal Train Station and Transit Center
B Provide pedestrian access to the Transit Center, including widen
$500,000
Lump Sum estimate
sidewalks and landscape street frontages
C Continue to landscape public parking lots and streets, improve street
$1,000,000
Lump Sum estimate
signs and streetlights in the Downtown, Cherokee Lane, neighborhoods
and other areas.
D Continue to provide new sidewalks and/or widen sidewalks in the
$500,000
Lump Sum estimate
Downtown, neighborhoods and other areas.
E Improve traffic signalization and traffic circulation at critical
$750,000
5 $150,000 /signal 1
intersections, especially along Cherokee Lane
F Design and implement a neighborhood preservation program
$1,000,000
Lump Sum estimate
G Expand code enforcement efforts.
$500,000
1 $25,000 /year 20
H Update development standards for multifamily residences
$100,000
1 $100,000 /study 1
SUBTOTAL
8%
$6,850,000
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project III -9 January 2002
Table III -2 (cont.)
Projected Total Costs of Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Program
Non -Housing and Housing Activities
In Constant 2002 Dollars
Source: City of Lodi
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project III -10 January 2002
Total Cost
Unit Cost/unit Yrs
5 Site Preparation and Development
A Facilitate a hazardous materials cleanup program
$5,000,000
1 $250,000 /year 20
B Property acquisition and site assembly, including acquisition of strategic
$10,000,000
Lump Sum estimate
properties to meet redevelopment goals
C Provide assistance to relocate incompatible uses
$1,000,000
1 $50,000 /reloc 20
SUBTOTAL
18%
$16,000,000
TOTAL NON -HOUSING
100%
$89,800,000
6 Affordable Housing
A Encourage home ownership and renovation.
$800,000
1 $40,000 /year 20
B Facilitate development of new affordable housing
$10,000,000
Lump Sum estimate
C Provide funding assistance for rehabilitation of single and multi -family
$16,500,000
1 $550,000 /year 30
housing for low and moderate income households
D Facilitate development of housing for the elderly
$2,000,000
Lump Sum estimate
SUBTOTAL
$29,300,000
TOTAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
$119,100,000
Source: City of Lodi
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project III -10 January 2002
Table III -3
Projected Costs of Proposed Redevelopment Program
Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
In Constant 2002 Dollars
REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Total
Other
Source
Agency
Agency %
Costs
Funding
Assistance
of Total
1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
A. Design and implement a program to attract business and promote
General Fund, Private
tourism, including assistance in the preparation of marketing materials
$500,000
$250,000
Sector
$250,000
50%
General Fund, Private
B. Provide financial assistance to business organizations
$1,500,000
$250,000
Sector
$1,250,000
83%
C. Provide for a marketing study and strategy to attract and retain
businesses to the Project Area.
$100,000
$50,000
General Fund
$50,000
50%
General Fund, Private
D. Encourage office uses in Downtown Lodi
$500,000
$250,000
Sector
$250,000
50%
E. Accommodate and encourage lodging, auto and support commercial
buildings along Cherokee Lane
$500,000
$250,000
General Fund
$250,000
50%
General Fund,
F. Encourage revitalization through business and developer incentives
$3,000,000
$1,500,000
Enterprise Fund
$1,500,000
50%
Subtotal
$6,100,0001
$2,550,000
$3,550,000
58%
'777 .7 -
i ..: ,.a .'Y .. ..
.. ..>+.a ..x .^.....'.
2. BUILDING REHABILITATION, FACADE IMPROVEMENT
AND/OR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
A. Assist to rehabilitation, seismic strengthening and/or historic
preservation of commercial, industrial and residential buildings, through
low interest loans and grant funds
$7,500,000
$5,625,000
Private Sector
$1,875,000
25%
B. Assist with 4a a improvements int the Downtown and other areas.
$3,000,000
$2,250,000
Private Sector
$750,000
25%
C. Establish development standards and design guidelines to improve the
appearance of buildings and businesses along Cherokee Lane
1 $100,0001
$50,000
Private Sector
$50,000
50%
D. Redevelop dilapidated and abandoned buildings
1 $6,750,0001
$5,062,500
Private Sector
$1,687,500
25%
Subtotal
1 $17,350,000
$12,987,500
$4,362,500
25%
ULMsa�s...�. €;..`'u„�ts7�.'"_.c� ..,�' s..arsr,„.'...:
x„,„,„._,,. .as..,r
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project III.11 January 2002
Table III -3 (cont)
Projected Costs of Proposed Redevelopment Program
Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
In Constant 2002 Dollars
REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Total
Other
Source
Agency
Agency %
Costs
Funding
Assistance
of Total
3. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
A. Provide parking improvements in commercial areas of the
Federal Funds, General
Project Area
$8,200,000
$5,600,000
Fund, Private Sector
$2,600,000
32%
B. Implement storm drain, wastewater and water distribution
improvements in the Eastside neighborhood, along Cherokee Lane and
Downtown.
$30,300,000
$24,240,000
Enterprise Funds
$6,060,000
20%
C. Assist in providing facilities to service residents in the Project Area,
General Fund, CDBG,
such as community centers, libraries and education and training centers
$5,000,000
$3,750,000
State, Private Sector
$1,250,000
25%
Subtotal
$43,500,000
$33,590,000
$9,910,000
23%
T.a,R �Y:;y X >:. :`.
.E?
.. " .. _.A':�
''a. Y...'aiev ....h u.'S.:a ..a .,. c....'.' 'af+'-: "•*b. c�z ......W .. �':> a..,.x...':x �'.3 "x+fi''��...
4. NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION, CIRCULATION AND
LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS
A. Create a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network, providing
linkages and improving access to Downtown from the proposed Multi-
modal Train Station and Transit Center
$2,500,000
$1,875,000
TDA, Gas Tax
$625,000
25%
B. Provide pedestrian access to the Transit Center, including widen
sidewalks and landscape street frontages
$500,000
$250,000
TDA, Gas tax
$250,000
50%
C. Continue to landscape public parking lots and streets, improve street
signs and streetlights in the Downtown, Cherokee Lane, neighborhoods
and other areas.
$1,000,000
$500,000
Gas tax, General Fund
$500,000
50%
D. Continue to provide new sidewalks and/or widen sidewalks in the
Downtown, neighborhoods and other areas.
$500,000
$375,000
Gas tax, General Fund
$125,000
25%
E. Improve traffic sign ization and traffic circulation at critics
intersections, especially along Cherokee Lane
$750,000
$562,500
Gas tax, General Fund
$187,500
25%
F. Design and implement a neighborhood preservation program
$1,000,000
$750,000
General Fund
$250,000
25%
G. Expand code enforcement efforts.
$500,000
$250,000
CDBG, General Fund
$250,000
50%
H. Update development standards for multifamily residences
$100,000
$50,000
General Fund
$50,000
50%
Subtotal
$6,850,000
$4,612,500
1 $2,237,500
33%
xft
t�:Pk�., 'c,� �ax .�'�'��...':,. 3' .,..�a..:&� k& +... ..:. 4.3 '?`, ....: v �,ffi «nth ;P. _ �va§.Y.�.s•.a'�
�,�.:iYm +��a��ni #tt.�..A
�+ 'K5 �'$. .�. -
,. .,....,z5r o...��.::�%W'.
,.....:GY4 .� �Y�:�'� _$
S-"'«.�S.C....Y,.i:.'ffi' �°';�'e ., G
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project III -12 January 2002
Table III.3 (cont)
Projected Costs of Proposed Redevelopment Program
Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
In Constant 2002 Dollars
REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
TotalOther
Source
Agency
Agency %
Costs
Fundin
Assistance
of Total
1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
A. Design and implement a program to attract business and promote
General Fund, Private
tourism, including assistance in the preparation of marketing materials
$500,000
$250,000
Sector
$250,000
50%
General Fund, Private
B. Provide financial assistance to business organizations
$1,500,000
$250,000
Sector
$1,250,000
83%
C. Provide for a marketing study and strategy to attract and retain
businesses to the Project Area.
$100,000
$50,000
General Fund
$50,000
50%
General Fund, rivate
D. Encourage office uses in Downtown Lodi
$500,000
$250,000
Sector
$250,000
50%
E. Accommodate and encourage lodging, auto and support commercial
buildings along Cherokee Lane
$500,000
$250,000
General Fund
$250,000
50%
General Fund,
F. Encourage revitalization through business and developer incentives
$3,000,000
$1,500,0001
Enterprise Fund
$1,500,000
50%
Subtotal
$6,100,000
$2,550,000
$3,550,000
58%
2. BUILDING REHABILITATION, FAQADE IMPROVEMENT
AND/OR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
A. Assist in rehabilitation, seismic strengthening and/or historic
preservation of commercial, industrial and residential buildings, through
low interest loans and grant funds
$7,500,000 $5,625,000 Private Sector
$1,875,000
25%
B. Assist with ga a improvements in the Downtown and other areas.
$3,000,000 2,250,000 rivate eccor
$750,000
25%
C. Establish development standards and design guidelines to improve the
appearance of buildings and businesses along Cherokee Lane
$100,000 $50,000 Private Sector
$50,000
50%
D. Redevelop dilapidated and abandoned buildings
$6,750,0001 $5,062,5001 Private Sector
$1,687,500
25%
Subtotal
1 $17,350,000 $12,987,500
$4,362,500
25%
? s,. l S <` � S-�'Pr.` #£ : _ "x^. »i,!9v,:.
v -.;: 'a.. ..xz £'> d'f:: U. 7.,..-.^S:: x...„ «.v5� .
+E 5 X^'x°xa �i m"� Y�q ,83.8 ... 3' R� :. +asy�....-
'. ...., ....,...::'.:.fir <' .-. ?..',..,.. -ew'x ^-','M aSza, a« r.,'.:�..a'-;.J'$ev
Lodi Redevelopment Agency III13 Preliminary Report
-
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
IV. Proposed Methods of Financing and Feasibility
A. Introduction
This chapter describes the public and private financing aspects of the Redevelopment Program
for the Lodi Redevelopment Project. It estimates total funding requirements, identifies potential
resources and methods of financing available to the Agency, projects tax increment and other
revenues, and assesses the general financial feasibility of the Redevelopment Project. The
analysis in this chapter supports the conclusion that tax increment financing is a necessary
component of the Redevelopment Plan.
The following sections demonstrate why tax increment financing made possible through the
Redevelopment Plan is a necessary part of the overall financing program to eliminate blighting
conditions in the Project Area. As described in Chapter II, the blighting conditions in the
Project Area are substantial, and a significant amount of capital investment will be required to
alleviate them. While the Agency will pursue all potential funding sources, these will not be
sufficient to finance all of the activities critical to alleviating the blighting conditions identified
in the Project Area without the use of tax increment. Improvements needed in the Project Area
cannot be funded without the establishment of a redevelopment project.
The estimated cost of the Redevelopment Program described in Chapter III (excluding Agency
administrative costs for non -housing programs) totals approximately $36.5 million. The private
sector is unable to support this cost on its own. In addition, public revenue sources such as the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), federal grant funding, the City's General Fund
and Enterprise Funds, and other revenue sources are either unavailable, dwindling, or
insufficient to cover the cost of the projects and activities proposed by the Agency to eliminate
blight and redevelop the Project Area. Thus, a gap or shortfall exists for which no funding
sources (other than tax increment financing) are available or sufficient. Tax increment
financing is the most reliable source of long term redevelopment funding available to the
Agency, and the only source of financing that will generate sufficient revenue to meet the
funding gap.
B. Stimulation of Private Investment
A major goal of the Redevelopment Program is to stimulate private investment within the
Project Area. Public investment in the form of redevelopment funding will be used to leverage
private investment. It is anticipated that private investment will include the rehabilitation and
new construction of commercial, industrial and residential buildings within the Project Area.
Over time, such investment could be significant. Projections of potential buildout in the Project
Area indicate that the value of new development financed by private investment is estimated to
be almost $140 million (nominal dollars) through the life of the Redevelopment Project.
However, the stimulation of private investment in the area will require the improvement of
public facilities, the elimination of blighting conditions, and the establishment of a positive
climate for private participation. Given the extent of blighting conditions and the need for
improved public facilities, effective implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Program
provides the most reasonable opportunity for stimulating private investment in the Project
Area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV.1 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
1. Estimated Agency Funding Requirements for the Redevelopment
Program
Implementation of the Redevelopment Project will require substantial funding. The estimated
net costs to the Agency in constant dollars to complete the Redevelopment Program are
summarized in Table IV -1.` These estimates are drawn from the analysis in Chapter III and
include items to be funded by the proposed Redevelopment Program after subtracting offsetting
funding sources. The estimates for these offsetting funds are based on the analysis in Section C
of this chapter.
C. Potential Funding Sources Other than Tax Increment Financing
This section describes funding sources that, if available, could assist in financing the
Redevelopment Program for the Lodi Project Area. The Agency will use every effort to obtain
alternative funding sources as a means to accelerate the Redevelopment Program and to
minimize the required investment of tax increment revenue. Some alternative sources may
actually generate more funds during implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan than
estimated, while others may generate less. On balance, the estimates of available alternative
revenues are seen as a best estimate order of magnitude at the Redevelopment Plan adoption
stage to determine the need for tax increment revenue (as discussed in Sections C through G
below).
Up to the present, the City has used available CDBG funds and assessment district proceeds,
combined with its General Fund and Enterprise Funds to fund economic development and
revitalization activities and necessary infrastructure improvements in the proposed Project Area.
However, these funding sources will be insufficient to finance a redevelopment program.
A redevelopment plan would authorize the City of Lodi to finance a redevelopment project
using a variety of sources, including funding from the federal government and the State of
California, as well as bank loan programs to meet the requirements of the Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA). Other local sources could include donations, interest income, agency
bonds, and loans from private institutions, the sponsoring entities and other local public
entities, as well as the sale and lease of Agency -owned property. However, other funding sources
are not likely to adequately meet the needs for public improvements and revitalization in the
Project Area.
'The term 2002 dollars or constant 2002 dollars is used to indicate the present value of nominal dollars discounted
back to FY 2001/02. Refer to discussion on present value assumption in section D.1 of this chapter.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -2 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January2002
Table IV -1
Estimated Net Cost to Agency
of Redevelopment Program
In Constant 2002 dollars
Redevelopment Program Categories
Net Cost
To Agency
1. Economic Development
$3,550,000
Building Rehabilitation, Facade
2' Improvement and Historic Preservation
$4,362,50
3. Public Infrastructure and Facilities
$9,910,00
4 Neighborhood Preservation, Circulation
and Landscaping Improvements
$2,237,50
5. Site Preparation and Development
$4,250,00
Subtotal Projects
$24,310,00
Non -Housing Administration Costs
$2,900,00
Subtotal Housing Costs
$27,210,00
6. Affordable Housing
$12,150,00
TOTAL COSTS
$39,560,00
1. Federal Funding Sources
While federal, state and county loan and grant programs could provide funding for some of the
projects proposed for the Project Area, funding levels have been curtailed for most of their
economic development programs.
a. Community Development Block Grants and HOME Funds
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) can be secured from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to fund activities such as public works; rehabilitation
loans and grants; land acquisition, demolition, and relocation for redevelopment; public
services; and affordable housing, social services and projects for the elderly or handicapped.
CDBG-funded projects and activities must principally benefit low and moderate income persons
or aid in the prevention of elimination of slums or blight.
Federal Home Ownership Partnerships Program (HOME) funds can also be obtained from HUD
for development and rehabilitation of affordable housing. As such, HOME can only be used for
affordable housing redevelopment activities.
CDBG and HOME funds typically provide a limited source of revenue for many redevelopment
activities in California. Lodi received approximately $750,000 in CDBG funds and $200,000 in
HOME funds in FY 2000/01 and expects to receive a similar amount in FY 2001/02.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -3 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January2002
HOME funds are administered through San Joaquin County and are used solely for affordable
housing. Most of Lodi's CDBG funds in recent years have been used to construct and
rehabilitate housing, and provide needed services and facilities to lower-income residents.
Given the competing needs in the City, very little CDBG funds are available for public
improvements. However, CDBG and HOME funds will continue to be used to fund activities
and programs for affordable housing activities identified in the proposed redevelopment program
to the extent feasible.
b. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21)
The federal government's Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21) builds on
the initiatives established in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA). TEA -21 provides federal transportation funding to San Joaquin County and local
jurisdictions through programs such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
Program, the Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program, and the Surface
Transportation Program (STP) funds. Other sources of federal transportation funding include
Sections 5303, 5306, 5309, 5310 and 5311 of the Federal Transit Act and the Railroad Grade
Crossing Protection Program.
CMAQ funds may be used for projects and activities that contribute to attainment or
maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and carbon monoxide.
TEA funding is provided to projects that innovatively incorporate surface transportation
activities into their surrounding communities. TEA projects must demonstrate a quality of life
benefit, while providing the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.
Funding under both CMAQ and TEA is granted through a competitive process against other
projects throughout the region and/or state. Use of these federal funds requires coordination
with regional governance, the state and affected transit operators.
STP funds provide one of the most essential funding programs of TEA -21. Funds are allocated
by formula to counties and regional transit districts and to cities based on population
percentage. Since STP funds are "flexible", they can be spent on numerous types of
transportation improvements, including projects pertaining to roads, highways, bicycle facilities,
mass transit and other pedestrian facilities. For many regions, a majority of the funds are spent
on local streets rehabilitation or reconstruction.
Lodi has used a variety of federal funding sources (leveraging local funds) for its transportation
and transit improvements. For example, the City is utilizing federal funding from the
Section 5307 Program and a federal earmark from TEA -21 to fund a portion of the multimodal
station park and ride parking structure currently under construction in the Downtown. These
funds will continue to be sought and the Agency will use redevelopment funds to leverage
federal dollars, typically assumed at 25 percent local match.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -4 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
2. State and County Funding Sources
a. State of California Economic Development Programs
The primary economic development program of the State of California is redevelopment. The
state does not have any significant source of funding other than redevelopment to fund
revitalization activities in the Mendocino. While the state does provide technical assistance
funds, such as for the Main Street program, it does not have any source of significant capital
funding for revitalization activities.
b. Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds
Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds are generated statewide by one-quarter of all
retail sales in a county. TDA funds may be used for transit projects, special transit projects for
disabled persons, and bicycle and pedestrian purposes. TDA funds may be used, under certain
conditions (if all the transit funding needs are fully met), for streets and roads. The City of Lodi
receives an annual TDA apportionment to fund regional and municipal transit programs,
bikeway improvements and other programs designed to reduce automobile usage. As available,
TDA funds are also used for the City's street maintenance projects. In 2000/01, the City's
apportionment totaled $1.8 million, which was used for transit operations and transit capital
projects. TDA funds are assumed to be used (in combination with gas tax revenues) to help fund
transit -oriented improvements in the proposed redevelopment program.
C. County Measure K Sales Tax
Measure K sales tax is a 1/2 -cent sales tax in San Joaquin County that is utilized to help fund
specific transportation programs as outlined in the Measure K Expenditure Plan. The program
was designed to ease congestion in the county, provide transit options, increase railroad -crossing
safety and improve the county's air quality. In the past, Measure K has been used by the City of
Lodi to leverage state and federal funding sources, enabling the following projects to move
forward:
Route 12/Kettleman Lane Interchange
The City of Lodi, in conjunction with Caltrans, completed construction of the
interchange improvements that widened Route 12 under the Route 99 overcrossing to
four lanes, plus added turn lanes, improved ramps and relocated Beckman Road.
Lodi Multimodal Station and Parking Structure
The City recently completed a multimodal terminal that provides connections for local,
intercity and interregional bus service, as well as future connections for rail service. The
parking structure, currently under construction, accommodates long-term parking for
Lodi Station transit users and provides for increased transit services in the future.
Lodi Lake Bike Path
Design was completed and funding sources were secured for Phase 1 of this bike path
adjacent to Lodi Lake.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -5 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Central City Rail Safety Project
Design is currently underway for this project that will remove unused and unsightly
railroad tracks on Lodi Avenue and will reactivate the Kentucky House Branch on
Lockford Street.
Measure K will expire in the year 2011, and no revenue from that source is anticipated beyond
that year. The loss of Measure K revenues represents a significant loss for potential future
projects, as evidenced by the following statement from the 2001 San Joaquin Council of
Governments' Regional Transportation Plan:
"The demise of Measure K in 2011 will have a major impact on our ability to fund
transportation system improvements. Measure K is used to support many regionally significant
projects and provide match money for State and Federal transportation funds. An alternative
local source of match money will have to be found to replace Measure K." Source: 2001 San
Joaquin Council of Governments' Regional Transportation Plan, Chapter S: Financing
Transportation.
Measure K may only be used for specific improvements and programs as approved by the voter
initiative, including rail crossing improvements, congestion relief, rail and bus programs, and
local street repair programs. In 2000/01, the City of Lodi received $933,000 for local street
repair. While in theory funding provided for local street repair may be used by a local
jurisdiction as a local match for major street expansion programs (such as are proposed for the
Project Area) there are other competing priorities throughout the City for these funds. It is
therefore not anticipated to provide a significant source of funding for the proposed
Redevelopment Program.
d. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's REMOVE Program
State law provides air pollution control districts that are designated as state "non -attainment
areas" for pollutants emitted by motor vehicles to receive a $4 motor vehicle registration
surcharge fee to provide funds to meet responsibilities mandated by the California Clean Air
Act (CCAA). The California Health and Safety Code states that the fees shall be used to
support air district operated planning, monitoring, enforcement and technical studies necessary
to implement the CCAA. Additional uses allowed include projects that reduce motor vehicle
emissions such as those funded by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) REMOVE (REduce Motor Vehicle Emissions) Program.
Each year the REMOVE Program Evaluation Committee for Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction
Projects (Evaluation Committee) prepares a request for proposal (RFP) for projects that will
reduce motor vehicle emissions within the SJVAPCD. The purpose of the REMOVE Program
RFP is to attract projects that will assist the SJVAPCD in attaining the requirements of the
CCAA. This is accomplished by allocating funds to cost-effective projects that have the greatest
motor vehicle emission reductions resulting in long-range impacts on the air pollution problems
in the San Joaquin Valley. The City of Lodi applied for and received $317,000 in funding from
the REMOVE Program toward the construction of the parking structure to serve the new
multimodal terminal in the Downtown. The projects and activities identified in the proposed
Redevelopment Program do not qualify for funding under the REMOVE Program.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -b Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
3. City of Lodi Funding Sources
The federal and state governments have continued to reduce funding and to shift costs of
programs to cities and counties. In addition, many funding programs have a limited duration and
are intended to fund only specific identified improvements. Unfortunately, cities and counties
have only limited ability to raise revenues to offset new costs or to replace other lost revenue. In
addition to the limited ability to fund ongoing essential functions such as police and fire
services, the City of Lodi is faced with major capital expenditures required to upgrade and
maintain city facilities and infrastructure to meet the demands of growth. As a result, although
some redevelopment activities may be partially supported with city funds, the City's General
Fund and Enterprise Funds and cannot be relied upon as a major source of funding.
Prior to the passage of the Proposition 13 property tax limitation initiative, local government
entities in California (including cities) were able to fund many of their ongoing general
operating and capital improvement expenses by raising local property taxes. However, the
restrictions placed on such practices by this constitutional amendment have resulted in a
situation whereby property tax revenues can no longer be relied upon to offset increases in
operating and capital costs attributable to inflation or demands for additional services or
facilities generated by population growth. This situation, combined with the demise of federal
revenue sharing programs in October 1986, and the problems inherent in competing for
financing assistance from federal and state government programs, has made it exceedingly
difficult for local government entities to collect sufficient annual revenues to finance long-term
capital improvements.
a. Gas Tax
Gas taxes are generated statewide on gasoline sales and are allocated to local jurisdictions on a
formula based on population and other factors. Gas tax revenues may be used for street
maintenance and construction activities. The City's balance in its Gas Tax Fund at the
beginning of FY 2000/01 was $1,064,862. An estimated $1,047,540 is expected to be generated
in FY 2001/02.
Gas taxes and TDA funds are the primary funds available to the City to fund circulation
improvements. The Redevelopment Program assumes that non -Agency sources, including Gas
Tax and TDA funds will provide up to 75 percent of the funding for transportation
improvements while the Agency will provide the balance of funding.
b. Enterprise Funds
City Enterprise Funds recover the cost of providing goods and/or services to the public primarily
through user charges. The City of Lodi has four enterprise funds: electric, water, wastewater and
transit. While enterprise funds are expected to set fees and rates at levels which fully cover the
direct cost of operations, capital outlay and debt service, the rate structures need to be sensitive
to the "market" for similar services, as well as to smaller, infrequent users of the service and the
influence rates and fees have on economic development. This market restriction on cost
recovery necessarily limits the level of capital repair and replacement that might occur on
deteriorating facilities, such as those in the proposed Project Area. The City has historically
used enterprise funds to fund necessary water distribution, storm drain and wastewater
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -7 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
improvements. The Redevelopment Program assumes that these enterprise funds will provide up
to 80 percent of the funding for water distribution, storm drain and wastewater infrastructure
improvements in the proposed Project Area.
C. Hotel Tax
A hotel tax (called "transient occupancy tax" or TOT) is paid to the City of Lodi by lodging
establishments based on 9 percent of room receipts (6 percent tax rate plus 3 percent surcharge)
for "transient" hotel guests (less than 30 day stay). In 2000, the City received $2.2 million in
TOT revenues, which were entirely allocated to other programs, such as tourism and visitor
attraction programs. Future revenues are anticipated to be allocated to programs to attract
visitors to the City of Lodi and are not anticipated to be a major funding source for the proposed
redevelopment program. Moreover, as noted in the previous chapter, TOT revenues in the
Project Area have been declining over the past few years.
d. Interest Income
Interest income may accrue to an agency from the investment of tax increment revenues and
tax increment bond proceeds. Actual income from this source is influenced by the amount of
money available for investment, term of the investment, and achievable interest rates.
Income from this source could be made available for a variety of redevelopment activities.
However, such income is normally used as an offset against the cost of borrowing money. Much,
if not all, of the interest income will likely be offset by the need for the Agency to pay interest
on City loans and other indebtedness, including Agency issued bonds.
4. Funds Generated by Private Sector and/or New Development
As permitted by law, in addition to local, state, and/or federal government funding sources, an
agency can utilize funds from other sources, such as those generated by the private sector and/or
new development. These funding sources and their potential applicability to the Lodi
Redevelopment Project are discussed in the following paragraphs.
a. Assessment Districts
Assessment districts enable a city to levy additional taxes on property within designated areas in
order to finance improvements directly benefiting those areas. Bonds are issued to finance local
improvements such as streets, sidewalks and parking facilities. In a typical case, an assessment
district is formed to undertake a particular public improvement, using the Improvement Act of
1911, and bonds are issued under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Upon the issuance of
bonds, the district has the power to assess all property owners included in the district in order to
repay the borrowed funds. An assessment district can be established as its own jurisdiction, or it
can be included under a city's taxing system, assuming that the improvement is located entirely
within a city's jurisdiction (in this case, it is termed an assessment area). Assessment districts are
not limited by Proposition 13 or by Proposition 4• They place the costs of public facilities
directly on the property owners who benefit.
Assessment districts have become a common mechanism for funding certain community
improvements and could be a potential source of revenue for redevelopment activities in the
Project Area, on a limited scale. It should be noted, however, that assessment districts increase
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -8 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
site-specific improvements and long-term operating costs for private property owners.
Furthermore, there is an inherent risk in forming an assessment district in that it might
discourage potential development activity in areas targeted for revitalization and/or
redevelopment. For these reasons, assessment districts are often a less desirable funding
mechanism than other available options.
Assessment districts are particularly problematic in older, developed areas like the Lodi
Redevelopment Project Area, where property values are stagnant, retail sales are declining, and
many property owners and businesses are operating on the economic margin with little or no
room to add new financial obligations.
In addition to these practical economic limitations, Proposition 218 makes the likelihood of
assessment district financing even more problematic. Proposition 218, enacted in November
1996, limits the types of improvements and activities that can be financed through assessment
districts, by imposing several conditions on new (and some existing) assessment districts. First, it
requires local governments to estimate the amount of special benefit (as distinguished from
general benefit) landowners receive from the improvements. Property owners may be charged
for only the cost of this special benefit. Local government must use general revenues to pay the
remaining portion of the project or service's cost (i.e., general benefit portion). Second, local
governments must ensure that no property owner's assessment is greater than the cost of
providing the improvement to the owner's property. Third, benefited public properties are
required to be included in assessment districts. Proposition 218 also creates a new mailed ballot
voter approval mechanism that essentially makes it easier for property owners to defeat
assessment district formations. Perhaps most importantly, Proposition 218 eliminates the ability
of a city council to form a district over property owner disapproval and shifts the burden of proof
to local governments to show that a challenged assessment is legal. In summary, Proposition 218
raises new legal hurdles that make it even less likely that assessment district financing would be
a viable funding mechanism for any portion of the Lodi revitalization program.
The City of Lodi currently has an assessment district in the Downtown and along Cherokee
Lane (Lodi Central City Revitalization Assessment District No. 95-1), established in 1995
under the provisions of the California Streets and Highways Code, Municipal Improvement Act
of 1913. The District encompasses approximately 273 acres, including streets and public rights
of way, in the Downtown and along Cherokee Lane. Properties within the District pay an
annual assessment, which is used to repay $2.8 million in bonds that were issued to partially
fund the total $6.2 million cost of street furniture, trees and other street improvements on
School Street, Pine Street, Oak Street and Cherokee Lane. The balance of the $3.5 million cost
of improvements was contributed by the City's Enterprise Funds. Where financially feasible, the
Agency will encourage the formation of additional assessment districts to help fund projects and
activities outlined in the proposed redevelopment program.
The following paragraphs present some examples of other assessment and special districts that
could be formed as an additional source of funding for specific projects in Lodi, if found to be
financially feasible.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -9 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
b. Lighting, Landscaping, and Maintenance District
Defined under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, facility installation and maintenance
can be funded from the collection of special assessments on the land benefiting from the
improvements. Facilities may include landscaping, statuary, fountains or ornamental facilities,
public lighting facilities, and park or recreational equipment, including playground equipment,
play courts, and public restrooms.
C. Open Space Maintenance District
An open space maintenance district, as authorized in Government Code Sections 50575-50620,
may employ necessary labor and provide the required materials and equipment to maintain and
operate planned open space and recreation areas. A city must have complete supervision, charge
and control of all open space areas maintained. A city may also levy an annual ad valorem
special assessment on the valuation of taxable land and improvements within the maintenance
area. State law limits the levy amount.
d. Benefit Assessment Act of 1982
Cities, counties and special districts may establish zones of benefit within which an assessment is
levied. Benefit assessments can finance the maintenance and operation costs of drainage, flood
control, and streetlight services and the cost of installation and improvement of drainage or
flood control facilities. Maintenance of streets, roads and highways can also be funded.
e. Parking District
Authorized under the Parking District Law of 1943, a parking authority exists in every city and
county in the state, subject only to the activation by the city council or county board of
supervisors. Once activated, the parking authority can issue revenue bonds if a proposal for these
bonds is approved by a majority of the voters. The bonds are secured by a pledge of total parking
revenues, including revenues from parking meters, surface lots and parking structures.
f. Mello -Roos Community Facilities District
The Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 authorizes the formation of a Community
Facilities District (CFD) to be used to finance capital improvement projects and to pay for
ongoing operations and maintenance of certain facilities. It is similar to an assessment district,
but is authorized under separate legislation with different regulations. A CFD may be established
in conjunction with a redevelopment project to undertake new public projects of joint benefit.
A CFD can levy special taxes and issue bonds to finance these improvements. The formation of
a CFD would require Agency approval and would require the affirmative vote of two thirds of
the property owners (weighted vote based on acres owned). Typically, Mello -Roos districts are
difficult to form in urbanized areas such as Lodi given the two-thirds approval requirements for
formation.
g. Public Utility District
Utility districts, including districts for providing water, irrigation, gas and electricity, sewer,
solid waste, and hazardous waste facilities are generally empowered by California law to incur
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -10 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
bonded indebtedness according to the revenues received from their operations. Under the
Municipal Utility District Act, a municipal utility district that owns and operates an electrical
distribution, water distribution, or sewage disposal system may issue bonds to construct or
improve any part of its system pursuant to the Revenue Bond Law of 1941, which requires
approval by majority vote of the residents of the district. According to the provisions of the
respective bond law, public utility districts may also issue the following kinds of bonds: general
obligation bonds, improvement bonds issued under the Improvement Act of 1911 or the
Improvement Bonds Act of 1915, special tax bonds under the Mello -Roos Community Facilities
District Act of 1982, revenue or bond anticipation notes, or certificates of participation. Special
district issues of improvement bonds issued under the proceedings described in the Municipal
Improvement Act of 1913 must be approved by the legislative body of any city or county having
direct jurisdiction over any portion of the improvement district. As described earlier, the City of
Lodi will continue to use this authority to fund necessary water distribution, storm drain and
wastewater improvements.
h. Business Improvement District (BID)
A business improvement district (BID) allows business districts to establish an assessment that
generates revenue to support enhanced services, including maintenance, security, marketing and
economic development. Two types of BID mechanisms exist under California law: "Business
Improvement Areas" (BIAs) and "Property Based Improvement Districts" (PBIDs). The
Business Improvement Area has been used widely in the state, and provides for an additional fee
to be added to annual business licensing charges. However, due to the limited income generated
through the business license fee, BIAs have typically had a relatively narrow scope of services.
The City currently has a BIA in the Downtown. Established in 1997 by City Ordinance
Number 1654, the Downtown Lodi Business Improvement Area (DLBIA) has a membership of
approximately 220 business owners, professionals and merchants and is governed by the on -
profit Downtown Lodi Business Partnership (DLBP). Businesses within the improvement area
pay a mandatory annual assessment, which varies based on the type of business and the benefit
zone within which the business lies. Revenues for the DLBP in 2001 were approximately
$224,000, comprised of $36,000 in annual assessments, $47,000 from the City's General Fund,
$114,000 from special fund raising events and $27,000 carry-over of previous year's funds. The
DPBP funds cooperative advertising and marketing, promotional activities and special events
that benefit DLBIA members, such as See's Candy sales, the Farmers Market, Halloween
Festival, December Parade of Lights, and "Downtown Lodi Live." The DLBIA is not anticipated
to be a funding source for any of the proposed redevelopment programs or activities.
In 1994, the Property and Business Improvement District Law provided for an assessment on
commercial property, thereby paving the way for a new generation of PBIDs to eventually
replace the existing BIAs. PBIDs can fund a wide range of activities, such as security,
maintenance, economic development, promotion and management activities, as well as public
improvements such as acquisition and maintenance of parking facilities, benches, trash
receptacles, street lighting, decorations, parks, and fountains. The creation of a PBID requires
petition support from businesses that would pay more than 50 percent of the annual fees to be
collected in the proposed area. A PBID has a cap on assessments and a five-year maximum life,
requiring a new petition process to renew.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -11 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
PBIDs require the creation of an advisory committee of property and business owners, ensuring
that those who pay govern the district. Private property owners play an active role in the
collaboration of the reinvestment in depressed areas. Business groups organize and prioritize the
issues identified by the community. Once a majority of property owners reach consensus on a
plan, it can be funded by PBID revenues. Funds from the PBID can be leveraged with CDBG
and redevelopment funds to realize greater objectives. Funds can be used for capital costs
although they are typically used for "clean and safe" programs, district promotions and
marketing costs. Funds need to be leveraged to achieve larger results.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -12 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
i. Development Impact Fees
The City of Lodi has a comprehensive development impact fee program to fund fire and public
safety facilities, streets, water and wastewater improvements. Impact fees are charged on all new
private development in the city to help pay for the costs of public facilities and infrastructure to
serve the needs of future residents and businesses.
Under applicable state laws regarding the imposition of development impact fees, such fees can
be imposed on a new private development only to the extent that there is a direct nexus or
relationship between the need for public facilities caused by such new development and the
level of fees imposed. Such fees are specifically prohibited from being charged to alleviate
existing deficiencies. The proposed redevelopment program is largely designed to eliminate
blighting conditions through the removal or replacement of existing deficient improvements.
Consequently, development impact fees collectable by the City will not be allowed to fund such
improvements. To the extent proposed improvements are intended to serve new development
in the Project Area, development impact fees may be used as a potential funding source, to the
extent allowable by law.
The drawback of relying on fees as a source of funding is the timing of their collection and
subsequent availability, as compared to the funding need for the improvement. These fees can
only be used on a pay-as-you-go basis and cannot be bonded as they are likely to fluctuate
greatly from year to year.
j. Developer and Property Owner Participation
In many communities, developer participation has become a much more common vehicle for
obtaining funds for redevelopment activities. For example, funds may be advanced to a
redevelopment agency in the form of a grant or loan for public improvements, which are then
repaid during the course of project implementation from tax increment revenues. These funds
can contribute to selected projects; however, they are dependent on the level of development
activity in the Project Area.
Although the Agency is interested in pursuing such opportunities, such participation is
speculative and cannot be counted on. Furthermore, development within the Project Area is
constrained by physical and economic blighting conditions, and as a result, developer exactions
are unlikely to generate any significant amount of funding as an offset to public implementation
costs. Within the context of the forgoing considerations, it would not be prudent at this point
for the Agency to base a long-term project on the ability of one (or more) prospective
developer(s) to advance funds for redevelopment activities. However, the proposed Agency
budget assumes private participation in certain of the redevelopment program activities.
k. Private Donations
Private donations by individuals, civic booster organizations, or corporate sponsors could make a
minor contribution to the implementation of the Redevelopment Program. Donations could be
used to fund all or part of minor streetscape improvements such as benches, entrance signage,
directional signs, bicycle racks, or landscaping. However, in terms of the total funding needs of
the Redevelopment Program, donations may be expected to provide only a very small part of the
funding needed for the Redevelopment Program's implementation.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -13 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Private Loan Assistance
Congress created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to encourage banks to invest in
their local communities. The purpose of the CRA is to ensure that banks lend in all
communities. All of the major banks in California have significant CRA loan programs.
Although the CRA will assure that loan funds will be available for rehabilitation in the Project
Area, banks will apply normal credit standards and do not provide subsidies.
Other types of loan programs available through banks include the Federal Title 1 Program for
housing rehabilitation and Small Business Administration programs for business creation or
expansion. The purpose of Title 1 loans is to assist residential property owners to improve
property and eliminate health and safety problems. Title 1 loans are for single family homes (up
to $25,000) and multifamily developments (up to $60,000). Affordable housing loans and grants
are also available through savings and loans institutions.
In. Mills Act
An owner of an eligible historic property may enter into a ten-year contract with a participating
city to rehabilitate the building in exchange for a reduction in local property taxes. Owner
occupied single family residences or income producing commercial properties may qualify for the
Mills Act program. However, eligible properties must be listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, be located in a National Register or local historic district, or be listed on a state,
county or city official register. While this could be an applicable source of funds for historic
preservation projects, it would require significant start-up cost and resource dedication from the
City of Lodi, since the City would have to adopt the Mills Act.
n. Private Investment
Private investment in the Project Area has been limited in most areas, as indicated by the
blighting conditions. The private sector is unlikely to provide the extensive improvements
necessary to revitalize the area. The blighting conditions are likely to continue or become worse
without significant private investment in the Project Area.
D. Other Funding Sources Considered to Be Infeasible
A variety of other funding sources were considered to fund the proposed Redevelopment
Program, as discussed in the previous sections. As permitted by law, funds can be from local,
state and/or federal government sources, and from private sector sources. However, to a large
extent, existing resources for the proposed redevelopment program have been maximized. Other
sources are dwindling or have been found to be clearly infeasible or to have little potential of
generating measurable revenues. Due to the infeasibility of other funding sources, the Agency
will rely on tax increment revenue as a major funding source for the proposed redevelopment
program.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -14 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
E. Tax Increment Financing: The Primary Source of Funding
1. Introduction
The primary source of financing for most redevelopment projects is tax increment revenue
generated by the increase in property values within a project area. The detailed tax increment
projections for a redevelopment project in the Project Area are contained in Appendix F of this
report.
The CRL imposes specific time and fiscal limits on particular Agency activities. These time
limits affect the amount of tax increment revenue an agency can receive.
• Time Limit for Eminent Domain Powers
The Agency can exercise its eminent domain powers for 12 years from the adoption of the
redevelopment plan. Although this limit does not directly affect tax increment revenues, it
could have an impact on the agency's ability to implement its redevelopment program.
• Time Limit to Incur Debt
The Agency's ability to enter into new bonded indebtedness is limited to 20 years from the
adoption of the redevelopment plan.
• Time Limit to Receive Tax Increment and Repay Debt
The Agency can collect tax increment for 45 years to repay debt. Thus, the Agency has 25
years to repay bonds issued in year 20, the last year for issuance of debt. The Agency can
continue to repay debt for 15 years after it has completed all project activities.
• Limit on Amount of Outstanding Bonded Indebtedness
The Redevelopment Plan must contain limits regarding the total amount of outstanding
bonded indebtedness secured by tax increment revenue. As noted in Chapter I, the Agency
intends to limit the amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness over the life of the Plan to
$100 million.
Based on the assumptions outlined in this chapter, the tax increment available for the proposed
Redevelopment Program (both housing and non -housing activities) over the 45 year life of the
Redevelopment Plan would be sufficient to meet the costs of the Program, which cannot
reasonably be financed from other sources. Refer to the tables in Appendix F for detailed
analysis of potential tax increment revenues for the proposed Redevelopment Project.
The Redevelopment Agency may also accept financial or other assistance from any public or
private source for purposes of redevelopment consistent with the CRL and the Redevelopment
Plan. However, as described in the previous section, in the City of Lodi, funding from other
reasonably available private and public funding sources is available for only a portion of the
proposed projects.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -15 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
2. Using Tax Increment Revenue to Eliminate Blighting Conditions
The general purpose of redevelopment is the elimination of blighting conditions. The
completion of a redevelopment program results in a project area that is physically enhanced and
economically stronger.
Substantial evidence of physical and economic blight within the proposed Project Area was
provided in Chapter II. The Redevelopment Program described in Chapter III is specifically
designed to stimulate private investment and alleviate physical and economic blighting
conditions in the Project Area. The use of tax increment revenue is the most appropriate means
of providing sufficient funding for the Redevelopment Program.
3. Stabilizing and Enhancing the Property Tax Base
In many communities, the adoption and implementation of redevelopment programs has led to
the stabilization of tax rolls and tax receipts for taxing entities within project areas. As a result,
these communities have avoided declines in tax revenues due to worsening conditions and the
erosion of property values.
In most redevelopment project areas, the use of public redevelopment funds to provide public
investment to leverage private investment has resulted in substantial increases in property
values over time due to rehabilitation, new construction and property appreciation.
4. Establishing a Frozen Base
The first major step in the implementation of a tax increment financing program is
accomplished at the time of formal redevelopment plan adoption. The total value of taxable
property within a project area's boundaries at the time of adoption is determined, and a base
year for tax increment purposes is established. The tax roll used is formally called the "base year
assessment roll", more commonly referred to as the "frozen base". The establishment of a frozen
base provides for a segregation of assessed values between existing values and enhanced values
deriving from future redevelopment of a project area. Future property taxes related to increases
over the frozen base assessed value are referred to as incremental taxes or tax increment.
Tax increment revenues are projected by applying the property tax rate to the incremental
assessed value over the frozen base. The frozen base is the total assessed value of property in a
project area, including homeowners' exemptions, at the time the Redevelopment Plan is
adopted.'
5. Distribution of Property Taxes During Project Implementation
Following adoption of a redevelopment plan, all of the entities that levy taxes in a project area,
such as the county, city, school districts, and special assessment districts, continue to receive all
property tax revenues accruable from the frozen base. In addition, they will receive a portion of
the property tax revenues generated from the increases in assessed value over the frozen base.
' The official County Fiscal Officer's Report for the proposed Project Area is provided in Appendix E, and includes
locally assessed value plus homeowners' exemptions plus state -assessed property as reported by the State Board of
Equalization.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -16 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
These additional payments are called "pass-through payments" (see Section E.5 for a detailed
explanation of the calculation of pass-through payments). Table IV -2 lists the taxing entities
and percent distribution of property taxes among the entities.
Table IV -2
Property Tax Distribution
Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
Taxing Entity
Percent Share
1. General Fund
16.4%
....... .__......... ............. ____.... .... ....... _ _ _.._...._..__............
2. County General Fund
_...._.......... _..............
21.7%
—__ ....................._. _ _..__ _—..___..._....._....... ._.... ........
3. Lodi Unified Schools
..... �_.........._._.._._._
27.7%
. ............... _ _ _ __..._____.—_.____............ _.............
4. San Joaquin Delta Community College
.... _..................
3.9%
_._._ .......................__....._ _ _ _.._. _ ... _...............................__
5. County Office of Education
_...................
1.4%
_ ...___......................_.� ..._....._ ___- ___ _ __ __...._.._........... _.........,......_._.__
6. San Joaquin County Flood Control
............_.o.._
0.2%
_...__._....................._ _........_._ _ _ __ _.._ ._ _.._..................... ,......
7. San Joaquin County Mosquito Abatement
.... ....__......................... _
0.8 /o
___ ._..............._._..__ __ _ ....__..._._ _..................................
8. North San Joaquin Water Conservation
0.5%
_. _............. _..._....._............................. _....
9. Education Revenue Augmentation Fund
._..._....... _.............
27.6%
TOTAL
100.0%
Note: These factors are adjusted for the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
(ERAF). The City General Fund and County General Fund contribute to ERAF. Totals
may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Source: San Joaquin County Auditor -Controller, January 2002.
Increased property tax revenues above the frozen base and after payment of obligations are
allocated to the sponsoring redevelopment agency to be used to fund the costs of implementing
the Redevelopment Program. The agency may pay for the project on an ongoing (pay as you go)
basis, or it may borrow funds (issue bonds) to be repaid by future tax increment revenues.
6. Distribution of Property Taxes after Project Completion
When a redevelopment project is completed and loans or other indebtedness have been repaid,
all property taxes flow back to the respective taxing entities. These entities then benefit from
increases in property tax revenues resulting from a revitalized and redeveloped project area. In
many communities, such increases are substantial. In fact, over time, taxing entities can recoup
sufficient revenues following project completion to make up for the property tax revenue that
was used for tax increment during the redevelopment implementation period.
This would occur because the increases in assessed valuation from project area revitalization are
sufficiently greater under redevelopment than the assessed valuation increases that would
realistically occur without redevelopment. Thus, payments to the affected taxing entities
resulting from new development and reassessments at the time of property transfers can exceed
the normal property taxes that the taxing entities would receive from a slow growing assessed
valuation roll without redevelopment.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency 1V-17 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
F. Assumptions Used in Tax Increment Projections
The primary source of funding for the Lodi Redevelopment Project will be tax increment
financing. It is the most reliable source of long term funding and the only source that will
generate enough funds to meet the cost of the proposed Redevelopment Program. Refer to the
tables in Appendix F for a detailed analysis of potential tax increment revenues for the proposed
Redevelopment Project.
The projections in this report are based upon Seifel Consulting's understanding of the general
assessment practices of San Joaquin County. These practices are subject to policy changes,
legislative changes, and the individual appraiser's judgment. While Seifel Consulting believes its
estimates are reasonable, taxable values resulting from actual appraisals and adjustments are
likely to vary from the amounts assumed in the projections.
The tax increment projections are intended only as estimates, which are based on the best
available information as of January 2002. Actual tax increments may be higher or lower than
indicated in the model. The development projections shown in Appendix F are not intended to
predict future development, but rather to provide a reasonable estimate, on an annual basis, of
potential tax increment growth resulting from the increase in assessed value resulting from new
development.
1. Present Value Assumptions
The analysis below provides estimates of tax increment revenues in both future value
(nominal) dollars and present value (constant) dollars. The purchasing power of nominal dollars
would decline because of inflation and/or the cost of borrowing. Therefore, it is important to
convert the annual amounts to the equivalent value in constant 2002 dollars before making a
direct comparison between potential revenues and project costs.
The present value in 2002 dollars was calculated by discounting future tax increment revenues
by an annual rate of 5.5 percent. As the discount rate increases, the present value figure
decreases. This discount rate is estimated to be equivalent to the average cost of funds for the
City of Lodi and its Redevelopment Agency. It accounts for the cost of inflation, as well as the
cost of borrowing money, to approximate the present value of future dollars. Most tax increment
will be pledged to the issuance of debt, and only a portion of tax increment will be used on a pay
as you go basis.
2. Frozen Base
The base year for the proposed Project Area will be Fiscal Year (FY) 2001/02, as provided in the
San Joaquin County Fiscal Officer's Report (Section 33328 Report). The base year assessed
value is $540.2 million.
3. Growth Assumptions
Tax increment revenues are generated from the growth in assessed value above the frozen base.
Growth in assessed property values in the proposed Project Area is based upon the following
three factors:
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -18 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
a. Annual Inflation Rate
The annual inflation rate is assumed at two percent per year for secured properties that remain
in the same ownership. Two percent is the maximum annual increase allowed by the California
State Constitution as a result of Proposition 13. This inflation factor is applied to the assessed
value of secured property. Unsecured and state -assessed property is conservatively assumed to
remain constant.
b. Reassessment Adjustment
An annual reassessment adjustment, assumed at one percent, represents the increases in assessed
value following property reassessment, which is triggered by. (1) the transfer (sale) of real
property, (2) upgrading of real property improvements due to rehabilitation or additions to
existing buildings, or (3) the reassessments of new development to market value once
construction is completed.
C. New Development
The projection for the incremental value from new development is based on estimates of growth
that will occur with new construction and redevelopment of residential, commercial and
industrial properties. These estimates conservatively assume that only 85 percent of the
projected buildout for the Project Area, as evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), will actually occur. (Refer to the development tables in Appendix F for detailed annual
development schedules in the Project Area.) Graph IV -1 illustrates the growth in assessed
valuation based on these growth assumptions for the Project Area.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -19 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
$2,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
Q
$1,500,000,000
a�
W
OJ
$1,000,000,000
$500,000,000
$0
Graph IV -I
Projected Assessed Valuation Growth
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(Future Value Dollars)
Base Year 5
Lodi Redevelopment Agency
Lodi Redevelopment Project
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Years
IV -20
45
Preliminary Report
January 2002
4. Agency Tax Increment Obligations
Incremental property tax revenues are projected by applying the effective property tax rate,
assumed at one percent, to the estimated increased assessed value over the frozen base. The
Agency must use the tax increment revenues to fulfill the following obligations:
• County retention fee for property tax administration
Counties typically retain fees for the administration of tax increment revenues. The
projections in this Report include this potential San Joaquin County administration fee
deduction, assumed at 1.5 percent of gross tax revenues.
• Statutory Pass-through Payments
Each taxing entity deriving property tax revenue within the Lodi Project Area is guaranteed
an annual payment from the Agency. "These payments are termed pass-through payments
because the Agency would forward this portion of tax increment revenues to the taxing
entities. The CRL provides standard formulas for the calculation of pass-through payments.
Each entity would receive a payment in proportion to its property tax levy within the
Project Area at the time of Plan adoption. The pass-through payments constitute the State
Legislature's determination of the amount of payments necessary to alleviate any financial
burden of a redevelopment program to affected taxing entities. Health and Safety Code
Section 33607.5(f)(1)(B) states that statutory pass-through payments are the exclusive
payments that are required to be made by a redevelopment agency to affected taxing entities
during the term of a redevelopment plan. (See Section F.5 below for further details on these
payments.)
• Additional Payments to Basic Aid Entities
Basic aid school entities receive annual payments from an agency in addition to their
standard pass-through. No basic aid districts have been indicated in the Project Area.
• Set -Aside for Housing Program
Section 33334.2 of the CRL requires that 20 percent of the gross tax increment revenues
collected by the Redevelopment Agency be used for increasing and/or improving the
community's supply of low and moderate income housing. In other words, 20 cents out of
each tax dollar allocated to the Agency during the life of the Project Area must be
channeled into a Housing Set -Aside Fund to finance the Agency's programs for affordable
housing. Administrative costs related to the implementation of the Housing Program are
paid out of the Housing Set -Aside Fund.
• Debt Service Obligations
An agency must make annual debt service payments on outstanding indebtedness. Most
agencies issue bonds to undertake projects because sufficient tax increment revenues are not
likely to be generated for a number of years after initiating the Redevelopment Plan. The
Agency will incur debt obligations as a result of issuing bonds. The cost of paying off the
principal and interest of this bond debt is accounted for by applying a higher present value
discount rate, which is equal approximately to the cost of borrowing funds for the City.
(Refer to the discussion of present value assumptions in section D.1 of this chapter.)
• Agency Administration
Non -reimbursable Agency administrative costs are projected at 10 percent of tax increment
for non -housing projects. As mentioned above, this figure does not include the
administrative costs for the Affordable Housing Program.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -21 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
After meeting the above obligations, the remaining tax increment revenues are available to the
Agency to fund the Non -Housing Redevelopment Program described in Chapter III of this
Report.
5. Calculation of Pass -Through Payments
Over the life of the Redevelopment Project, each taxing entity will receive its proportionate
share of pass-through payments, calculated for three tiers. Each taxing entity receives an amount
equal to its property tax levy multiplied by the increase in assessed value above the relevant
pass-through base assessed value, then multiplied by a mandated pass-through percentage for
each of three tiers.
Tier One
20 percent of the gross tax increment received by the Agency from assessed value growth
above the frozen base (equivalent to 25 percent of the net tax increment after the Agency's
20 percent of the housing set-aside is deducted). This annual payment begins when the
Agency first receives tax increment revenues. Pass-throughs are the same as the Housing
Set -Aside amount for the first ten years of the Project.
The City of Lodi can elect to receive the tier one pass-through ( its proportionate share of
20 percent of gross tax increment). However, it then cannot participate in the tier two and
tier three pass-throughs. This Preliminary Report assumes that the City of Lodi will elect to
receive its share of the pass-through, although the City has the option to forego these
pass-through payments. Over the life of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, the City of
Lodi's pass-through payments from tax increment are projected to total almost $2 million in
constant 2002 dollars.
Tier Two
16.8 percent of the gross tax increment received by the Agency from assessed value growth
above the tier two pass-through assessed value base, equal to the Project Area assessed value
in the tenth year. This annual payment begins in the eleventh year during which the
Agency receives tax increment revenue. This tier two pass-through is added to the tier one
payment and continues through the life of the Redevelopment Project.
Tier Three
11.2 percent of the gross tax increment received by the Agency from assessed value growth
above the tier three assessed value base, equal to the Project Area assessed value in the
thirtieth year. This annual payment begins the thirty-first year during which the Agency
receives tax increment revenue. This tier three pass-through is added to the tier one and tier
two payments and continues through the life of the project.
County Auditor -Controllers must contribute to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
(ERAF) on behalf of certain taxing entities within their jurisdictions. To make these payments,
an Auditor -Controller may adjust the levies of taxing entities, resulting in a decrease in their
share of the total property tax. The remainder of property tax is forwarded to ERAF. Not all
entities must contribute a share of their property tax to ERAF in this way. For example, school
districts and taxing entities whose boundaries extend across multiple counties are not affected.
In San Joaquin County, the Auditor -Controller adjusts downward the levies for all entities in
each tax rate area that contribute to ERAF and creates a separate ERAF "levy" to reflect the
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -22 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
sum of their contributions to ERAF for each tax rate area. The preliminary County Fiscal
Officer's Report contained in Appendix E lists the property tax levies adjusted for ERAF for all
of the affected taxing entities in the Project Area. This Preliminary Report utilizes the property
tax levies that are adjusted for ERAF for the purpose of calculating pass-through payments,
although State Law does not clearly indicate whether or not ERAF adjusted or unadjusted
property tax levies should be used. The distribution of the property taxes from the base assessed
value is based on these ERAF adjusted factors, after adjusting for the ERAF portion of the
County's contractual pass-through in the Original Area.
G. Tax Increment Projections
1. Incremental Tax Revenues
The assessed value of the Project Area is projected to grow by over $154 billion (over the base
assessed value of $540.2 million) during the 45 -year tax increment collection. Incremental tax
revenues are generated by the growth in the assessed value of the Project Area over the base
assessed value. Graph IV -1 (shown previously) illustrates the projected growth over the base
assessed value, attributable to inflation on properties that remain in the same ownership, new
development, and reassessments.
The projections shown in Table IV -3 represent total revenues to the Agency over the 45 -year
life of the Project. Tax increment revenues will actually accrue over time, with limited revenues
in the early years of implementation, which will grow as the assessed value of the Project Area
increases.
Graph IV -2 illustrates the growth of tax increment revenues over time, in future value dollars.
The graph shows tax increment growth over the base year property taxes through the life of the
Project. This graph also shows the distribution of tax increment revenues over time among
affected taxing entities, affordable housing activities and non -affordable housing activities.
Detailed annual tax increment projections are presented in Appendix F.
Table IV -3
Summary of Tax Increment Projections
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Incremental Tax Revenues
Less: County Property Tax Administration
Tax Revenues Remitted to Agency
Less: Pass-Throughs to Taxing Entities
Less: Debt Obligation
TI Available to Agency After Obligations
Less: Housing Set -Aside
Tax Increment Available for Non -Housing Program
Less: Agency Administration Costs
Tax Increment Available for Non -Housing Projects
Future Value Present Value
(Nominal Dollars) Constant 2002 Dollars)
$290,600,000 $60,700,000
04.4 0.000
900.000
286,200,000
59,800,000
98,300,000
18,700,000
0
0
187,900,000
41,100,000
58.100.000
12.100.000
129,800,000
29,000,000
13.000.000
2,900,000
$116,800,000
$26,100,000
Graph IV -3 summarizes the distribution of tax increment revenues over the 45 -year life of the
Project (in constant 2002 dollars).
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -23 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Non -Housing Tax IncrementIIIIIIIIVIItlI�io�� ,/
VM 1112,111114 IN MMOOM Ila
Base Year Property Taxes
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project IV -24 January 2002
Graph IV -3
Distribution of Tax Increment Revenues
Over the 45 Year Life of the Project
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(Constant FY 2001/02 Dollars)
Housing Programs
20%
($12.1 Million)
Pass -Through Payments
31%
8.7 Million)
Non -Housing Projects
44%
($26.1 Million)
Agency Administration
(Non-Hsg)
5%
($2.9 Million)
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project 1V-25 January2002
2. Tax Increment Available for Affordable Housing Activities
About $58 million in nominal dollars, 20 percent of gross tax increment revenues, is projected
to be contributed to the Housing Set -Aside Fund. This amount is equivalent to about
$12 million in constant 2002 dollars.
The 20 percent Housing Set -Aside funds will be the primary source of funding for affordable
housing in the Lodi Redevelopment Project. Any excess tax increment after debt service for the
Non -Affordable Housing Redevelopment Program will also be available to the Agency.
3. Tax Increment Available for Non -Housing Activities
After fulfilling its affordable housing, pass-through obligations, it is projected that tax increment
revenues available to fund the Agency's Non -Housing Redevelopment Program and associated
administrative costs would be about $134 million in nominal dollars. This amount is equivalent
to almost $30 million in constant 2002 dollars.
H. Financial Feasibility of the Proposed Redevelopment Project
This section demonstrates why tax increment revenue made possible through the proposed
Redevelopment Plan will be a necessary part of the overall financing program to eliminate
blighting conditions in the proposed Project Area. By utilizing tax increment revenue, the
Agency has a feasible plan for financing the redevelopment program to alleviate blight.
Together with other public and private revenue sources, tax increment financing will be a
critical funding component in helping the City of Lodi meet the costs required to implement
the Redevelopment Program.
To evaluate the feasibility of the proposed Redevelopment Project, the following analysis
compares the Redevelopment Program's costs and tax increment revenues. As previously shown
in Table IV -1, the net cost to the Agency to complete the proposed Redevelopment Program
(excluding non -housing Agency administrative costs) is approximately $36.5 million in
constant 2002 dollars.
The Agency is projected to receive about $41.1 million in tax increment revenue for the
Redevelopment Program (in constant 2002 dollars). The Agency is expected to require about
$12.1 million for affordable housing, $24.3 million for other non -housing activities, and
$2.9 million for non -housing administration. Thus, the Agency will have sufficient funds to
support its Redevelopment Program, but little available surplus as shown in Table IV -4.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -26 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Table IV -4
Comparison of Estimated Tax Increment Revenues
and Funding Requirements
(2002 dollars)
Tax Increment Available for Projects'
$41.1 million
Less: Housing Program Fund Requirements
$12.1 million
Less: Projected Administration Expense for
Non -Affordable Housing Activities
$2.9 million
Less: Non -Housing Program Funding Requirements'
$24.3 million
Funding Surplus
$1.8 million
Although the estimated project costs and the projected revenues will vary over time from those
set forth in the estimates and projections presented in this chapter, it is reasonable to conclude
that the Redevelopment Project is financially feasible within the 45 year duration of the Plans
I. Reasons Why Tax Increment Financing Is Necessary
This chapter demonstrates the general economic feasibility of the proposed Redevelopment
Project and the reason for including the provision for the division of taxes pursuant to
Section 33670 in the Redevelopment Plan, as required by law. As discussed in this chapter, the
costs to alleviate documented blighting conditions substantially exceed available funding from
public and private sources. Tax increment financing (as outlined in Section C of this chapter) is
the only source available to the community to fill the substantial gap between the costs of the
Redevelopment Program and other public and private revenue sources. Because these projects
and activities are critical to the revitalization and conservation of the Project Area, tax
increment financing is needed to assist in funding these projects. Tax increment financing has
been and will continue to be the critical funding source that will help the City fund the
Redevelopment Program's cost.
The private sector alone cannot financially support the substantial costs of the proposed
Redevelopment Program. Because these projects and activities are critical to the revitalization
and conservation of the proposed Lodi Project Area, tax increment financing is needed to assist
in funding these projects. Tax increment financing will be the critical funding source that will
help the City of Lodi fund the Redevelopment Program's cost.
' Present value of future tax increment revenues projected to be available for implementation of the
Redevelopment Program (includes housing, non -housing and non -housing administration costs). See Appendix F
for details.
' See Table IV -1.
'The tax increment projections are intended only as estimates, which are based on the best available information
as of January 2002. Actual tax increments may be higher or lower than indicated in the model. The development
projections shown in Appendix F are not intended to predict future development, but rather to provide a
reasonable estimate, on an average annualized basis, of potential tax increment growth resulting from the increase
in assessed value resulting from the new development.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency IV -27 Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Project January 2002
Appendix A:
Sources
SOURCES
Bibliography
Preliminary Plan for the Lodi Redevelopment Project No. 1, Planning Commission of the City of Lodi,
June 2001
Market Opportunities and Strategies for the Enhancement of Lodi s Downtown and Industrial Base,
Gruen & Gruen Associates, January 1998
City of Lodi Central City Revitalization Program, Concept Development Phase, Freedman Tung &
Bottomley, 1994
Draft Lodi Multi -Modal Station: Initial Study/Negative Declaration, ESA, March 1996
City of Lodi Financial Plan and Budget, 1999-2001.
City of Lodi General Plan, Adopted Policy Document, March 1991
City of Lodi General Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report, April 1991
City of Lodi General Plan, Policy Document, April 1991
City of Lodi Downtown Development Standards and Guidelines, June 1997
Appraisal of Lodi Multi Modal Station Site, Robert L. Crisp, Inc., August 1995
Proposal for Services Redevelopment Plan and Environmental Documents, Seifel Associates, July 1999
Background Report General Plan Update City of Lodi, January 1988
City of Lodi Draft General plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, April 1990
City of Lodi East Side Residential Density Study Background Report, Jones & Stokes, November 1986
Engineer's Report for Lodi Central City Revitalization Assessment District No. 95-1, Kjeldsen, Sinnok &
Neudeck, Inc., February 1996
1999-2001 Financial Plan and Budget, City of Lodi
Appraisal of Property Located at 11 West Elm Street Lodi, CA, Duncan, Duncan & Associates, Inc.,
May 1998
San Joaquin County Auditor -Controller -TRA Factors
City of Lodi Sales Tax reports (1993-2000)
Historic Sales Tax Trends (from Gruen and Gruen report)
Lakewood Mall Sales Tax Report
West Kettleman Lane Sales Tax Report
East Kettleman Lane Sales Tax Report
Downtown Commercial District Sales Tax Report
West Lodi Avenue Sales Tax Report
South Cherokee Lane Sales Tax Report
North Cherokee Lane Sales Tax Report
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Plan January 2002
Data Sources:
Mappinc
Baumbach & Piazza, mapping services
San Joaquin County Assessor Parcel Maps
8.5"x11"
11"x14"
Board of Equalization Valuation Division Maps (poster size)
Lodi Conference & Visitors Bureau. http://www.visitlodi.com/history.html
HdL Coren & Cone, Sales Tax Data, 1994-2001.
Dataquick, residential sales data.
U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census Data. http://venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup
City of Lodi Staff:
Dixon Flynn, City Manager
Konradt Bartlam, Community Development Director
Jerry Adams, Police Chief, Police Department
Betsy Gandy, Police Department
Tony Goehring, Economic Development Director
Susan Blackston, City Clerk
County of San Joaquin:
Adrian Van Houten, Auditor -Controller
Gary Freeman, County Assessor
Ron Sugimoto, Mapping Division, County Assessor's Office
Edgardo Siojo, Tax Division, County Auditor's Office
Other Organizations and Persons Consulted:
Industrial/Office/Retail Brokers
Chuck Easterling, Real Estate Broker and PAC member
Elizabeth Rosenquist, Real Estate Broker
Jim Versupet, SSB Realtors
Dave Williams, Dave Williams Real Estate
Residential Brokers
Wilma Bauer, SSB Realtors
Rose Marie Mendonca, Prudential — Rose Marie Realty
Teresa Williams, KWS Real Estate
John Wagstaff, Wagstaff and Associates, Environmental Consultant
This report was prepared by the Lodi Redevelopment Agency in association with Seifel Consulting Inc.
Lodi Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Report
Lodi Redevelopment Plan January 2002
Appendix B:
Legal Description of the Project Area
RRY Pi'--'-
CIVIL.
e '-CIVIL
Of rAI1Ea
September 3, 2001
JOB NO. 0048
CITY OF LODI
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY
Commencing at a brass disk at the Southwest corner of the
Southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 6 East,
Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; thence South 110 03' 40" West
97.99 feet to an angle point on the South line of State Highway
Route No. 12 and the True Point of Beginning; thence along the
South line of said Highway the following four courses: (1) South
86° 52' 18" West, 55.24 feet, (2) South 83° 26' 17" West, 500.90
feet, (3) South 84° 34' 39" West, 299.36 feet, (4) North 89' 46'
57" West, 453.16 feet; thence North 030 15' 30" East, 703.0 feet
to the North line of Tamarack Drive; thence South 860 41' 04"
West, 10.0 feet; thence North 030 04' 04" East, 67 feet; thence
South 86° 41' 04" West, 25 feet; thence North 03" 04' 04" East,
100 feet; thence North 860 41' 04" East, 25 feet; thence North
03° 04' 04" East, 215 feet; thence North 860 22' 04" East, 12.70
feet; thence North 02° 25' 44" East, 329.86 feet; thence North
86' 41' 04" East, 22.86 feet; thence North 030 00' 04" East,
112.7 feet; thence South 86' 41' 04" West, 32.91 feet; thence
North 03° 04' 04" East, 36.96 feet; thence North 86° 41' 04"
East, 10 feet; thence North 03° 04' 04" East, 252.60 feet more or
less to the North line of Park Street; thence along said North
line and its westerly projection South 86° 39' 04" West, 223.11
feet to the West line of School Street; thence along the West
line of School Street the following four courses: (1) North 03°
05' 34" East, 417.09 feet, (2) North 030 00' 04" East, 558.90
feet, (3) North 020 541 29" East, 1322.86 feet, (4) North 03° 12'
49" East, 943.28 feet to the South line of Chestnut Street;
thence along the South line of Chestnut Street, South 85' 21' 00"
West, 325.78 feet to the southerly projection of the East line of
Church Street; thence along the East line of Church Street, North
02° 50' 00" East, 165.00 feet; thence South 850 21' 00" West,
250.00 feet to the West line of an alley; thence along the West
and South lines of said alley the following three courses: (1)
North 2° 50' 00" East, 10.00 feet, (2) North 290 45' 17" West,
33.11 feet, (3) South 850 21' 00" West, 495.00 feet to the East
line of Lee Avenue; thence along the East line of Lee Avenue,
South 02° 50' 00" West, 200.00 feet to the South line of Chestnut
Street; thence along the South line of Chestnut Street, South 85'
21' 00" West, 301.39 feet to the East line of Hutchins Street;
thence along the East line of Hutchins Street, South 01° 04' 00"
East, 73.86 feet; thence South 890 31' 30" West, 944.15 feet;
thence North 010 04' 00" West, 296.40 feet; thence South 89' 31'
30" West, 57.85 feet; thence South 010 04' 00" East, 5.00 feet;
thence South 89° 31' 30" West, 390.00 feet; thence South 01* 04'
00" East, 384.80 feet; thence South 89° 31' 30" West, 232.00
feet; thence North 1° 04' 00" West, 240.00 feet to the Northeast
corner of Lot 24 of TURNAGE SUBDIVISION as filed in Volume 11 of
Maps and Plats, page 119, San Joaquin County Records; thence
South 890 31' 30" West, 100.00 feet to the Northwest corner of
said Lot 24' thence along the East line of Orange Avenue, North
01° 04' 00" West, 134.80 feet; thence South 89° 31' 30" West,
50.00 feet; thence South 010 04' 00" East, 10.80 feet; thence
South 89' 31' 30" West, 97.30 feet; thence North 01° 07' 15"
West, 40.00 feet; thence South 890 31' 30" West, 157.34 feet to
the West line of Fairmont Avenue; thence along the West line of
Fairmont Avenue, South 01° 11' 30" East, 78.00 feet; thence South
890 31' 30" West, 219.11 feet to the West line of the CULBERTSON
TRACT as filed in Volume 11 of Maps and Plats, page 53, San
Joaquin County Records; thence North 01' 11' 30" West, 114.80
feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 29 of the CULBERTSON TRACT;
thence South 891 31' 30" West, 219.11 feet to the Southwest
corner of Lot 30 of said CULBERTSON TRACT; thence along the West
line of said CULBERTSON TRACT, South 01' 11' 30" East, 161.00
feet; thence South 89* 31' 30" West, 259.11 feet to the West line
of Ham Lane; thence along the West line of Ham Lane, North 01°
111 30" West, 270.00 feet to the centerline of Lodi Avenue;
thence continue along the West line of Ham Lane, North 01' 05'
20" West, 91.14 feet; thence along the North line of Lot 17 of
HUTCHINS HOMESTEAD ADDITION NO. 3 and its westerly project, North
89° 33' 37" East, 180.96 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot
17; thence North 01° 12' 00" West, 10.00 feet; thence North 890
33' 37" East, 115.96 feet; thence along the West line of Sunset
Drive, South 01° 19' 00" East, 10.00 feet; thence North 89' 33'
37" East, 175.96 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 51 of said
subdivision last described; thence North 010 26' 00" West, 9.21
feet; thence North 89° 33' 37" East, 115.96 feet; thence along
the West line of Fairmont Avenue, South 010 32' 00" West, 4.21
feet; thence North 89° 33' 37" East, 175.96 feet; thence South
O1° 45' 00" East, 5.00 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 86 of
said subdivision last described; thence North 89' 33' 37" East,
115.96 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 86; thence along
the West line of Orange Avenue, North 010 45' 00" West, 24.85
feet; thence North 890 33' 10" East, 187.60 feet; thence South
O1° 45' 00" East, 25.00 feet; thence North 89° 33' 10" East,
127.60 feet; thence along the West line of Avena Avenue, South
O10 45' 00" East, 0.80 feet; thence North 89° 31' 30" East,
192.50 feet; thence North 01' 45' 00" West, 22.00 feet; thence
North 890 31' 30" East, 132.50 feet; thence along the West line
of Cresent Avenue South 01' 45' 00" East, 24.80 feet; thence
North 89° 31' 30" East, 380.20 feet; thence along the West line
of Rose Avenue North 01° 45' 00" West, 60.00 feet; thence North
89' 31' 30" East, 230.10 feet; thence along the East line of an
alley South 01° 45' 00" East, 56.70 feet; thence North 89° 31'
30" East, 150.10 feet; thence along the West line of California
Street North 01' 45' 00" West, 56.70 feet; thence along the
westerly projection of the South lines of Lots 14 and 6 of Block
8 of HUTCHINS HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION as filed in Volume 6 of Maps
and Plats, page 27, San Joaquin County Records, North 89` 31' 30"
East, 380.00 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence
along the West line of Hutchins Street the following nine
courses: (1) North 010 19' 00" West, 50.00 feet, (2) South 89°
31' 30" West, 10.00 feet, (3) North 011 19' 00" West, 50.00 feet,
(4) North 89° 31' 30" East, 10.00 feet, (5) North 010 19' 00"
West, 50.00 feet, (6) South 89° 31' 30" West, 10.00 feet, (7)
North 010 19' 00" West, 220.00 feet to the North line of Walnut
Street, (8) along the West line of Walnut Street, North 890 31'
30" East, 10.00 feet, (9) North 01' 19' 00" West, 20.12 feet to
the westerly extension of the North line of an alley; thence
along the North line of the alley and its westerly projection the
following five courses: (1) South 87' 09' 56" East, 160.03 feet,
(2) South 02' 50' 04" West, 3.26 feet, (3) South 87' 09' 56"
East, 50 feet, (4) South 02' 50' 04" West, 6.46 feet, (5) South
87' 09' 56" East, 520.0 feet to the West line of Pleasant Avenue;
thence along the West line of Pleasant Avenue, North 03' 00' 04"
East, 1050 feet to the South line of Pine Street; thence along
the South line of Pine Street North 86' 59' 56" West 360 feet to
the southerly projection of the West line of Lee Avenue; thence
along the West line of Lee Avenue and its southerly projection
North 03' 00' 04" East, 960 feet to the North line of Locust
Street; thence along the North line of Locust Street, South 86'
59' 56" East, 360 feet to the West line of Pleasant Avenue;
thence along the West line of Pleasant Avenue, North 03' 00' 04"
East, 450.85 feet to the westerly projection of the North line of
Lockeford Street; thence along the North line of Lockeford Street
and its westerly projection South 86' 59' 56" East, 374.90 feet
to an angle point; thence leaving the North line of Lockeford
Street, South 80' 27' 13" East, 95.2 feet more or less to the
Northeast corner of Church and Lockeford Streets; thence South
86' 59' 56" East, 297.5 feet to the Northwest corner of Lockeford
and School Streets; thence along the West line of School Street
and its northerly projection North 01' 33' 50" East, 322.64 feet
to the North line of De Force Avenue; thence along the North line
of De Force Avenue, North 88' 48' 10" East, 28.95 feet more or
less to the West line of School Street; thence along the West
line of School Street the following seven courses: (1) North 00°
27' 40" East, 111.98 feet, (2) South 89* 01' 06" East, 2.71 feet,
(3) North 00° 04' East, 801.9 feet, (4) South 85' 34' 58" West,
20.13 feet, (5) North 00' 33' 35" East, 395.14 feet more or less
to the North line of Forrest Avenue, (6) along the North line of
Forrest Avenue, North 860 12' East, 19.46 feet to the West line
of School Street, (7) along the West line of School Street and
its northerly projection North 00° 11' East, 427.54 feet to the
North line of Louie Avenue; thence along the North line of Louie
Avenue, North 890 05' 30" East, 392.45 feet; thence along a curve
to the left having a radius of 25 feet, a central angle of 88°
00' and an arc length of 38.40 feet; thence along the West line
of Sacramento Street, North 01° 05' 30" East, 664.20 feet; thence
North 020 35' 32" West, 105.78 feet to the North line of Turner
Road; thence along the North line of Turner Road the following
ten courses: (1) North 820 26' 47" East, 82.11 feet, (2) North
890 26' 30" East, 8.00 feet, (3) South 820 25' 42" East, 70.71
feet, (4) North 890 26' 30" East, 130.45 feet, (5) North 030 00'
04" East, 15.03 feet, (6) North 890 26' 30" East, 100.20 feet,
(7) North 030 00' 04" East, 15.03 feet, (8) North 890 26' 30"
East, 246.04 feet, (9) South 780 541 30" East, 122.53 feet, (10)
North 890 26' 30" East, 242.59 feet; thence South 00 33' 30"
East, 40.00 feet to the centerline of Turner Road; thence along
the East line of Stockton Street as delineated on that Map of
"COLONY RANCH" as filed in Volume 24 of Maps and Plats at page
50, San Joaquin County Records and its northerly projection South
030 10' 40" West, 694.37 feet; thence along a curve to the left
having a radius of 20 feet, a central angle of 930 53' and an arc
length of 32.77 feet; thence along the North line of Donner
Avenue and its easterly projection North 890 17' 40" East, 841.11
feet to the East line of Calaveras Street; thence along the East
line of Calaveras Street, South 000 42' 20" East, 412.49 feet;
thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 20 feet, a
central angle of 90° and an arc length of 31.42 feet; thence
along the North line of Pioneer Drive, North 89° 17' 40" East,
66.79 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 11 of "LAWRENCE RANCH
SUBDIVISION, UNIT NO. 1" as filed in Volume 13 of Maps and Plats,
page 143, San Joaquin County Records; thence along the West line
of said subdivision last described the following four courses:
(1) South 400 23' 40" West, 79.64 feet, (2) South 00" 42' 20"
East, 104.04 feet, (3) South 82° 45' 10" West, 52.31 feet, (4)
South 00' 59' 20" East, 358.00 feet to the Northwest corner of
Lot 20; thence along the southwesterly line of said Lot 20, South
610 36' 20" East, 57.38 feet; thence along the West lines of Lots
20 through 24 inclusive, South 000 59' 20" East, 276.44 feet;
thence South 22* 57' 20" East, 53.45 feet to the Southwest corner
of Lot 25; thence along the South lines of Lots 25 through 38
inclusive, North 89* 17' 40" East, 818.60 feet to the Southeast
corner of Lot 38; thence North 000 42' 20" West, 840.0 feet to
the Northeast corner of Lot 116; thence along the South line of
Pioneer Drive, North 89' 17' 40" East, 366.3 feet to the West
line of Cherokee Lane; thence North 75' 58' 31" East, 510.71 feet
to a point on the East line of Beckman Road, said point also
being a point on a curve from which the radial bears South 860
04' 31" East; thence along the East line of Beckman Road the
following ten courses: (1) southeasterly along a curve to the
left having a radius of 770.0 feet, a central angle of 240 29'
4711, an arc length of 329.21 feet and a chord bearing South 08'
19' 24" East, 325.86 feet, (2) South 200 34' 18" East, 360.71
feet, (3) along a curve to the left having a radius of 1970 feet,
a central angle of 06° 01' 42" and an arc length of 207.27 feet,
(4) South 26° 36' 00" East, 138.05 feet, (5) South 25" 44' 07"
East, 131.90 feet, (6) South 26' 36' East, 38.33 feet, (7) along
a curve to the left having a radius of 372 feet, a central angle
of 28° 58' 30" and an arc length of 188.12 feet, (8) South 550
34' 30" East, 157.89 feet, (9) along a curve to the right having
a radius of 178 feet, a central angle of 55° 07' 30" and an arc
length of 171.26 feet, (10) South 00° 27' 00" East, 119.60 feet;
thence South 43' 45' 12" East, 36.35 feet to the North line of
Lockeford Street; thence along the North line of Lockeford
Street, South 87° 00' East, 1272.54 feet to the northerly
projection of the East line of Cluff Avenue; thence along the
East line of Cluff Avenue and its northerly projection the
following five courses: (1) South 01° 09' 46" East, 331.92 feet,
(2) South 890 48' 44" West, 2.0 feet, (3) South 01° 09' 46" East,
128.89 feet, (4) North 89° 48' 44" East, 2.0 feet, South 01° 09'
46" East, 354.67 feet to the South line of Mounce Street; thence
along the South line of Mounce Street, North 89° 48' 44" East,
289.19 feet to the northerly projection of the West line of
Parcel "A" as delineated on that map filed in Book 7 of Parcel
Maps, page 13, San Joaquin County Records; thence South 01° 09'
46" East, 712.42 feet to the intersection of the southerly
projection of the West line of said Parcel "A" and the South line
of Pine Street; thence along the South line of Pine Street, North
89° 53' 16" West, 321.23 feet to the centerline of Cluff Avenue;
thence continuing along the South line of Pine Street, South 890
31' 32" West, 673.61 feet to a point of non-tangential curvature;
thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 30 feet; a
central angle of 90* 31' 3211, an arc length of 47.40 feet and a
chord that bears South 49° 10' 52" West, 42.62 feet to the most
southerly corner of that property conveyed to the City of Lodi by
deed recorded in Book 3792 of Official Records, page 312, San
Joaquin County Records and the East line of Kelley Street; thence
along the East line of Kelley Street and its southerly
projection, South 010 09' 47" East, 1200.42 feet to the South
line of the Central California Traction Company Right of Way;
thence along the South line of said Right of Way, North 87' 16'
West, 856.95 feet to the West line of State Highway Route No. 99;
thence along the West line of Highway 99 the following four
courses: (1) South 00° 49' 00" East, 29.94 feet, (2) South 03'
51' 12" East, 600.66 feet (3) South 000 48' East, 3032.54 feet,
(4) South 01° 10' 10" East, 261.88 feet to the North line of the
South half of the Southwest quarter of Section 7, Township 3
North, Range 6 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; thence North
870 40' 50" West, 138.24 feet; thence South 0° 35' 30" East, 10.0
feet; thence South 47' 19' 10" West, 38.20 feet; thence North 870
40' 50" West, 266.09 feet; thence North 420 40' 50" West, 38.20
feet; thence North 00 35' 30" West, 10.0 feet; thence along the
said North line last described, North 870 40' 50" West, 252.96
feet to the East line of Cherokee Lane; thence South 61' 45' 43"
West, 192.91 feet more or less to the intersection of the South
line of Poplar Street and the West line of Cherokee Lane; thence
along the South line of Poplar Street the following three
courses: (1) South 85° 47' 10" West, 617.50 feet, (2) South 000
36' 30" East, 10.0 feet, (3) South 85° 471 10" West, 620.30 feet
to the East line of Central Avenue; thence along the East line of
Central Avenue South 00° 36' 35" East, 1160.74 feet to the North
line of State Highway Route No. 12; thence South 00° 37' 30"
East, 110.14 feet; thence along the South line of said Highway 12
the following five courses: (1) South 860 29' West, 44.05 feet,
(2) along a curve to the left having a radius of 3945 feet, a
central angle of 4° 05' 08" and an arc length of 281.30 feet to a
point of reverse curvature, (3) along a curve to the right having
a radius of 5892.19 feet, a central angle of 4° 05' 08" and an
arc length of 420.15 feet, (4) South 89° 29' West, 592.36 feet,
(5) South 740 33' 28" West, 71.79 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Containing 1,184 acres more or less.
Appendix C:
Building Conditions by Survey Areas and Subareas
Appendix C
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Redevelopment Plan Adoption
BUILDING CONDITIONS RATINGS
BY SURVEY AREAS AND SUBAREAS
January 2002
Prepared by
John B. Dykstra & Associates
for
Seifel Consultants Inc.
and the
City of Lodi
INTRODUCTION
The Building Conditions Survey
A comprehensive Building Conditions Survey was conducted to evaluate the general condition of
buildings in the proposed Redevelopment Project.' During this survey a total of 3,382 buildings were
rated on a scale of 1 (worst condition) to 5 (best condition). This appendix provides detailed
information on the distribution of building conditions ratings throughout the proposed Project Area.
The tables and maps presented in this appendix summarize conditions in effect at the time of the
Building Conditions Survey which was conducted in March and April 2000 and updated in
September 2001.
Standards
The general standards and criteria used in assessing the physical condition of buildings are
summarized in Table C-1, Building Conditions Assessment, presented on the following page.
DEFINITION OF SURVEY AREAS AND SUBAREAS
A total of eight survey areas have been defined to facilitate the assembly and analysis of data and
the presentation of the results of Building Conditions Survey. In defining the areas, consideration
was given to land uses, age and quality of development, and the presence of logical boundaries (such
as streets). In turn, to provide even greater detail on the distribution of blighting conditions in the
proposed Project Area, these survey areas were then divided into a total of 51 subareas.
The boundaries of the survey areas are shown on Figure C-1, Building Conditions Survey Areas
RESULTS OF THE BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
The results of the Building Conditions Survey are summarized in Figure C-2, Average Building
Conditions Ratings by Survey Areas. In addition, more detail is provided for each of the eight
survey areas as follows:
■ A map showing the boundaries of each survey area and the subareas that makeup the survey
area.
■ A table showing average building conditions ratings for the survey area and the subareas that
make up the survey area.
' For more detail on the Building Conditions Survey, reference should be made to Section II of the
Preliminary Report.
Page C-1
Table C-1
Building Conditions Assessment
17AKI ARDS USS"Ef�IN SS Slltl �6bi D.INGCONCil�7Oh[S
Specific Standard: The provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law pertaining to
blight
General Standard: The relative cost of correcting building deficiencies, code compliance problems,
and seismic safety problems to a degree sufficient to ensure a relatively long-
term Dhvsical and economic life (i.e., 20-40 vears)
1. Typical conditions present include Major Adverse Physical Conditions or a significant combination of Other Adverse
Physical Conditions.
2. Typical conditions present include a number of Other Adverse Physical Conditions or significant cumulative deferred
maintenance.
3. Typically some Other Adverse Physical Conditions are present.
4. Typically few Other Adverse Physical Conditions are present.
5. Typically no Other Adverse Physical Conditions are present.
6. To the "General Standard" set forth above.
7. Without redevelopment assistance.
Copyright: John B. Dykstra & Associates 2001
ADVERSE PHYSICAL WNOWOW6
>IN ASSESSING BUILDING CONDITIONS
Major Adverse Physical Conditions
■ General dilapidation (very serious deterioration of
entire structure or major parts thereof)
■ Apparent abandonment (vandalized or boarded up
buildings)
■ Structural failure (cracking or subsided foundations,
sagging walls or roofs, etc.)
■ Structural weakness (buildings without adequate
foundations, substandard construction,
unreinforced masonry walls, etc.)
Other Adverse Physical Conditions
■ Potential seismic weakness
■ Deferred maintenance and neglect
■ Broken windows
■ Peeling or faded paint
■ Sagging porches
■ Dry rot in walls, window frames, door frames,
doors, roof rafters, and trim
■ Deteriorated, damaged, poorly repaired, or
excessive layers of roofing materials
■ Cracks or loose bricks in chimneys
■ Deteriorated, broken, or loose siding materials
■ Deteriorated or broken stucco walls
■ Rusted, deteriorated, or missing roof drainage
gutters or down spouts
■ Faulty wiring or plumbing
■ Old and possibly substandard and hazardous
electrical service
■ Eroded mortar or loose bricks in masonry walls
■ Informal or substandard construction
I[itttYP
r
ig' =
03a0Iolnjditi±f1
1
Very extensive physical/structural
Very high
Very difficult, if not
deficiencies (often dilapidated)'
impossible
ff
1 2
I Extensive physical/structural
High
Difficult I
IdeficienciesZ
3
General good condition, some
Significant
Possible
deficiencies present'
4
Relatively few deficiencies present"
Low to moderate
Relatively easy
5
General excellent conditions
Minor to low
None required
1. Typical conditions present include Major Adverse Physical Conditions or a significant combination of Other Adverse
Physical Conditions.
2. Typical conditions present include a number of Other Adverse Physical Conditions or significant cumulative deferred
maintenance.
3. Typically some Other Adverse Physical Conditions are present.
4. Typically few Other Adverse Physical Conditions are present.
5. Typically no Other Adverse Physical Conditions are present.
6. To the "General Standard" set forth above.
7. Without redevelopment assistance.
Copyright: John B. Dykstra & Associates 2001
ADVERSE PHYSICAL WNOWOW6
>IN ASSESSING BUILDING CONDITIONS
Major Adverse Physical Conditions
■ General dilapidation (very serious deterioration of
entire structure or major parts thereof)
■ Apparent abandonment (vandalized or boarded up
buildings)
■ Structural failure (cracking or subsided foundations,
sagging walls or roofs, etc.)
■ Structural weakness (buildings without adequate
foundations, substandard construction,
unreinforced masonry walls, etc.)
Other Adverse Physical Conditions
■ Potential seismic weakness
■ Deferred maintenance and neglect
■ Broken windows
■ Peeling or faded paint
■ Sagging porches
■ Dry rot in walls, window frames, door frames,
doors, roof rafters, and trim
■ Deteriorated, damaged, poorly repaired, or
excessive layers of roofing materials
■ Cracks or loose bricks in chimneys
■ Deteriorated, broken, or loose siding materials
■ Deteriorated or broken stucco walls
■ Rusted, deteriorated, or missing roof drainage
gutters or down spouts
■ Faulty wiring or plumbing
■ Old and possibly substandard and hazardous
electrical service
■ Eroded mortar or loose bricks in masonry walls
■ Informal or substandard construction
2.4
2.02
MY)
PE
2.32
2.25
Survey Area 1
SOURCE: John
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 1, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITION SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 1
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
10
12
16
2
0
2.25
B
24
38
22
7
0
1.57
C
11
22
18
1
0
2.17
D
0
7
10
4
1
2.95
Totals
45
1 79
1 66
1 14
1 1
2.25
cAmyfi1esl1odAbcsurveyarea1 R.wpd
Survey Area 2
John B. Dvkstra & Associates
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 2, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 2
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A,
41
52
19
0
1
1.83
B
27
54
21
3
0
2.00
C
53
41
17
2
0
1.72
D
23
24
10
4
0
1.92
E
30
30
10
0
0
1.71
F
21
30
6
0
0
1.74
G
40
52
29
0
0
1.91
H
50
49
14
0
0
1.68
I
24
54
20
2
0
2.00
J
35
44
13
0
0
1.76
K
10
36
9
0
0
1.98
L
18
30
8
2
0
1.90
M
6
17
23
0
0
2.37
N
16
83
64
1
0
2.30
Totals
394
596
263
14
1
1.92
c:\myfiles\lodibcsurveyarea2R.wpd
Survey Area 3
SOURCE: John B. Dykstra & Associates
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 3, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 3
Subarea
Building Conditions
Rating
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
3
10
3
0
0
2.00
B
11
8
1
0
0
1.50
C
6
11
4
0
0
1.90
D
22
25
26
0
0
2.05
Totals
42
54
34
0
0
1.94
Survey Area 4
SOURCE: John B. Dykstra & Associates
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 4, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 4
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
3
19
11
11
2
2.78
B
31
23
26
0
2
2.01
C
13
25
21
8
1
2.40
D
5
25
29
10
1
2.67
E
15
28
14
1
0
2.02
F
22
21
17
1
0
1.95
G
4
7
5
0
0
2.06
Totals
93
148
123
31
6
2.40
c:\myfiles\lodi\bcsurveyarea4R.wpd
Survey Area 5
CT
SOURCE: John B. Dykstra & nssomates
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 5, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 5
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
7
16
0 1
0
0
1.70
B
34
25
8
3
0
1.71
C
40
72
11
0
0
1.76
D
38
46
16
2
0
1.82
E
37
62
12
1
0
1.79
F
1
4
4
0
4
3.15
G
19
34
14
3
0
2.01
H
32
58
21
2
2
2.27
I
39
51
5
0
0
1.64
J
20
50
17
1
0
1.99
Totals
267
421
107
12
6
1.98
c:lmyfiles\lodilbcsurveyarea5R.wpd
Survey Area 6
SOURCE: John B. Dykstra 8 Associates
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 6, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
TURNER RD.
N
I
Z
F�
I
2
_O
LOUIE AVE
3
a
LAWRENCE
SCHOOL
I
PIONEER DR.
J
I
n1w
OW
I
STADIUM
S
SOFTBALL
J
cc
I
COMPLEX
I
CO)
- -- -
--
R
I
p
W
=
zuPo
0
FIELD
FESTIVAL
IGROUNDS
I
LOCKEFORD ST.
I
Legend
r SURVEY AREA BOUNDARY
SUBAREA BOUNDARY
N
B (1) ti00
NI I
N
SOURCE: John B. Dykstra 8 Associates
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 6, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 6
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
20
41
21
1
1
2.05
B
25
36
7
0
1
1.78
C
4
6
5
1
0
2.19
D
7
8
8
0
0
2.04
Totals
56
91
41
2
1
2.02
c:\myfiles\lodi\bcsurveyarea6R.wpd
Survey Area 7
SOURCE: John B. Dykstra & Associates
....menu CT
KETREMAN L-n-
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 7, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 7
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
3
21
18
2
0
2.43
B
18
30
9
3
0
1.95
C
19
48
24
3
2
2.18
D
13
34
18
8
0
2.29
E
13
19
8
15
1
2.73
Totals
66
152
77
31
2
2.32
c:\myfiles\lodi\bcsurveyarea7.wpd
Survey Area 8
I nni evc
d Associates
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY AREA 8, SUBAREA LOCATION MAP
Lodi Redevelopment Project
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEY
SURVEY AREA 8
Subarea
Building Conditions
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5
Average
Rating
A
6
19
8
1
0
2.12
B
1
10
4
0
1
1.75
C
4
8
2
1
1
2.19
Totals
11
37
14
2
2
2.02
c:\myfiles\lodi\bcsurveyuarea8R.wpd
Appendix D:
Photographic Documentation
of Existing Conditions
Appendix D
Lodi Redevelopment Project
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION
January 2002
Prepared by
John B. Dykstra & Associates
for
Seifel Consultants Inc.
and the
Lodi Redevelopment Agency
INTRODUCTION
This appendix provides photographs that illustrate existing conditions within the boundaries of the
proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project. It is an important part of both this Preliminary Report and
the forthcoming Report to Council.
The photographs were taken in January 2002 and are representative of conditions in effect at that
time.
CONDITIONS ILLUSTRATED IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS
The photographs presented in this appendix illustrate a wide variety of conditions present in the area.
Although many of the photographs document adverse conditions that may be used to support a
finding that the area is blighted and in need of redevelopment, other photographs illustrate conditions
(such as historically interesting buildings or residences in need of attention) that could benefit from
the use of redevelopment resources (seismic retrofitting and rehabilitation loans and grants, for
example).
Conditions illustrated in photographs include, but are not limited to:
1. Historically and Architecturally Interesting Commercial Buildings. Nearly all of these
buildings, many of which are worthy of enhancement and preservation, are located in Lodi's
downtown core. Many are of brick, unreinforced masonry construction. Some have been
sensitively restored or rehabilitated. However, many others are badly deteriorated or
dilapidated. Deficiencies shown in the photographs include deteriorated walls, peeling paint,
dry rot, and soft mortar and brick erosion. In some cases serious structural problems are
indicated by cracked, damaged, or failing load bearing brick or concrete walls. Buildings
with serious structural problems are considered to be unsafe and hazardous for human
occupancy.
2. Historically and Architecturally Interesting Residential Buildings. These include
Victorian and post Victorian residences scattered throughout the eastern part of the proposed
Project Area. A number of these residences have been properly restored or rehabilitated.
However, as the photographs clearly illustrate, many homes are badly deteriorated or
dilapidated. In many cases these homes may be considered to be unsafe or unhealthy for
occupancy.
3. Deteriorated or Dilapidated Buildings. These include both commercial and residential
structures. Many show evidence of general neglect and cumulative deferred maintenance.
Some of these buildings exhibit surface deterioration that may be relatively easy to correct,
with appropriate economic assistance. In other buildings deterioration is more extensive. A
number are dilapidated. In general, dilapidated buildings are considered to be unsafe or
unhealthy for human occupancy. However, interior inspections may be necessary to confirm
the extent of dilapidation.
4. Abandoned Buildings. There are also a relatively large number of abandoned, apparently
abandoned, or boarded up buildings in the area. These buildings are very likely to be unsafe
or unhealthy for human occupancy. However, interior inspections may be necessary to
confirm the extent of deterioration or dilapidation.
5. Buildings Under Rehabilitation. Some of these buildings are badly deteriorated. Other
buildings need only minor attention. In a number of cases rehabilitation seems to have been
going on for many years, indicating that appropriate economic assistance may be necessary
to achieve completion.
ORGANIZATION
A map showing the approximate location of the photographs is presented on the following page as
Figure D-1, Photograph Location Map. The photographs themselves are presented on pages 1
through 44.
ii
Vacant, deteriorated movie theater, West Lodi Avenue
Residence, surface deterioration, South Sunset Drive at West Lodi Avenue
Lodi bdeuelopment Project page I
Deteriorated apartment complex, roof and siding deterioration, corner Ham
Lane and West Lodi Avenue
Badly deteriorated siding, detail, apartment complex, Ham Lane and West Lodi
Avenue
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 2
Aging and deteriorated building, corner West Lodi Avenue and South Orange
Avenue
Aging and deteriorated residence and garage, West Lodi Avenue, South
California Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page
Vacant, corner property, source of soils and groundwater contamination,
corner South Hutchins Street and West Lodi Avenue
Rear wall, unreinforced brick construction, failure of wall over door, alley
block bounded by West Pine, South Sacramento, West Oak, and South School
Streets
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 4
Loading dock, evidence of structural failure, rear, 21 South Sacramento Street
Unreinforced masonry brick buildings, rear, block bounded by West Pine,
South Sacramento, West Oak and South School Streets
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 5
Unreinforced brick building at 15 South Sacramento Street
Serious Mortar and brick erosion, sidewall, 15 South Sacramento Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 6
Unreinforced brick building, stucco front, at 21 South Sacramento Street
Serious mortar and brick erosion, sidewall, building at 21 South Sacramento
Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page
Row of architecturally and historically interesting unreinforced masonry
buildings, substantially vacant, North Sacramento Street between West Elm
and West Pine Streets
Adult bookstore, 7 South Sacramento Street
Lodi IV -development Project Page 8
Commercial vacancy, one of many, 7 West Pine Street
Commercial vacancy, one of many, 35 North Sacramento Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 9
Commercial vacancy, one of many, 39 North Sacramento Street
Commercial vacancy, one of many, 13 West Pine Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 10
Dilapidated corrugated metal garage, alley, in block bounded by West Elm,
North Sacramento, West Pine, and North School Streets
Dilapidated concrete block garage, potentially hazardous (failed column), alley,
block bounded by West Elm, North Sacramento, West Pine, and North School
Streets
Lodi Redevelopment Project Nage 11
Building addition, Styrofoam exterior, badly deteriorated, alley, block bounded
by West Elm, North Sacramento, West Pine, and North School Streets
Dilapidated residence, 216 North Church Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 12
Badly deteriorated residence, 218 North Church Street
Badly deteriorated commercial buildings, corner of West Lockeford and North
Church Streets
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 13
Dilapidated residence, 224 North Stockton Street
Dilapidated metal -clad building, East Elm Street at railroad track
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 14
Demolition site, debris accumulation, corner, East Elm and North Main Streets
Old reinforced concrete building, deterioration, broken windows, sagging
canopy, 24 North Main Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 15
Railroad property, rainwater ponding, abandoned spur tracks, construction
debris, west side North Main Street, between East Elm and East Pine Streets
Architecturally and historically interesting Victorian with structural problems,
serious deterioration, appears to be under renovation, adjacent to 424 East Pine
Street
Lodi redevelopment Project Page 16
Underutilized commercial/industrial property, rainwater ponding, opposite 401
North Sacramento Street
Tire shop, deteriorated building, 625 North Sacramento Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 17
Deteriorated metal building, 10 Daisy Avenue
Broken windows, otherwise well-maintained industrial/service building, corner
Daisy and North School Streets
Lodi Redevelopment Project Nage 18
Underutilized commercial/industrial site, rainwater ponding, currently used for
truck parking, corner North Sacramento Street and East Turner Road
Abandoned trailers and automobiles, corner of East Turner Road and North
Stockton Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 19
Dilapidated reinforced concrete industrial building, broken windows, westerly
frontage of North Stockton Street, opposite Lawrence School
Badly deteriorated industrial warehouse building, broken windows, non-
operating vehicles, intersection of Lawrence Avenue and North Main Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Page 20
Deteriorated buildings, trash and debris accumulation, 315 North Main Street
Illegal dumping, abandoned spur tracks, opposite 316 North Main
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 21
Badly deteriorated apartment building, broken windows, deteriorated siding,
dry rot, ripped screens, corner North Stockton and East Locust Streets
Deteriorated siding, ripped screens, detail, apartment building, North Stockton
and East Locust Streets.
Lodi Ddevelopment Project Page 22
Abandoned residential garage building, dilapidated, alley in block bounded by
East Elm, North Stockton, East Pine, and North Main Streets
Dilapidated structure, rear, 10 North Main Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 23
Dilapidated corrugated metal commercial building, sagging roof, East Pine
Street at alley between South Main and South Stockton Streets
Large deteriorated residence, sagging porch, leaning chimney, corner East Pine
and South Stockton Streets
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 24
tti abed
joafod juamdolaitopq ipol
;aoilS uo;xao;S q)noS Si `aauappai ll!ujap °sMopuiAt uaxo.ig
;aa.11S uo;xao)S
q;noS SI';uiud 2uiiaad IsMopuim uaxoiq lq;)jod Su1Ngus laauapisai pa;uiolaa;aQ
Unreinforced masonry brick building, structural failure, rear wall, adjacent to
130 North Sacramento Street
Burned out apartment, 425 East Locust Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Pa6e 26
Badly deteriorated residence, peeling paint, sagging porch, 541 East Locust
Street
Vacant underutilized property, boarded up building, corner North Cherokee
Lane and East Elm Street
Lodi IV -development Project Page 2
Architecturally and historically interesting Lincoln School, dilapidated, corner
South Cherokee Lane and East Pine Street
Small deteriorated commercial buildings, peeling paint, dry rot, corner East
Walnut Street and South Cherokee Lane
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 28
Large commercial building, brick construction, deteriorated, corner East
Walnut Street and South Cherokee Lane
Badly deteriorated residence, sagging front porch, broken windows, 515 East
Lodi Avenue
Lodi Ddevelopmmot Project Page 29
Dilapidated residence, sagging and broken front porch, peeling paint, dry rot,
adjacent to 515 East Lodi Avenue
Boarded up commercial building, badly deteriorated, corner East Lodi Avenue
and South Garfield Street
Lodi 11 ederelopment Project Page 30
Boarded up commercial building, deteriorated, 505 East Lodi Avenue
Dilapidated house, broken window frames, deteriorated roof, extensive dry rot,
opposite 236 East Lodi Avenue
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 31
Dilapidated commercial building, evidence of structural problems (cracked
walls), dry rot, peeling paint, 502 East Oak Street
Evidence of serious structural problems, sagging walls, detail, rear of 502 East
Oak Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 31
ss alm loofud juamdolanapq ipol
laaj3S aldvW Isea £bS `aauaplsaj palepidicllp j(llo;oZ
auel aaxoiaq:) glnoS OOT `papiopalap `g£61 03.113'uglsap oaaQ
Dilapidated front porch, residence, 316 South Sacramento Street
Badly deteriorated residence, peeling paint, dry rot, 316 South Sacramento
Street
Lodi bdevelopment Project Page 34
Large underutilized property, east side of South Sacramento Street between
Chestnut and West Tokay Streets
Deteriorated residential units, sagging sidewalls and sinking foundation, 602,
604 South Sacramento Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 35
Deteriorated commercial garage building, 620 South Sacramento Street
Small worker's cottage, located in industrial area, well painted, side wall
deflection, 1116-1/2 South Sacramento Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project
Page 36
Badly deteriorated residence, peeling paint, dry rot, missing and deteriorated
gutters, 9 Sierra Vista Place
Badly deteriorated residences, peeling paint, dry rot, broken concrete steps,
802, 804 South Stockton Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Nage 3i
Large underutilized property, prominent corner location, abandoned vineyard,
west side of South Stockton Street at Kettleman Lane
Attractive, solid residence, surface deterioration, 1001 South Central Avenue
Lodi Redevelopment Project page 38
Deteriorated cottage and garage, 409 Concord Street
Residence, deteriorated, boarded up, 435 Poplar Street
Lodi >tedeuelopment Project Page 39
Deteriorated cottages, 1319-1/2, 1321-1/2 South Central Avenue
Trash accumulation, 1321 South Central Avenue
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 40
Aging and deteriorated commercial buildings, substandard and congested off -
street parking, 201-225 East Kettleman Lane
Deteriorated cottage, recent paint over deteriorated surface, 307 Watson Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page a
Badly deteriorated cottage, 219 Cherry Street
Deteriorated residence, 227 Cherry Street
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 42
Abandoned, dilapidated house, 221 Maple Street
Dilapidated house, 305 Maple Street
Lodi lnedevelopment Project Page 43
Boarded up residence, corner South Garfield and East Tokay Streets
Lodi Redevelopment Project Page 44
Appendix E:
County Fiscal Officer's Report
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
SCHEDULE OF AD VALOREM TAX REVENUE FROM ALL PROPERTY
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF EACH TAXING AGENCY
BASE YEAR 2001-02
SCHEDULE IV
Total 191 ,186,733
Per Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (d)
H:HmydoclRDA_Project_1.14-02.x1s\ScWems11/16/02 SCHEDULE N
FY2001-02
ENTITY-
TOTAL
FUND
CUR YR
NUMBER
TAXING AGENCIES
REVENUE
01000-01
County General
64,928,960
22104-01
Lodi Unified Schools
20,310,486
23101-01
SJCo. Delta Community College
10,938,990
24101-01
County Office of Education
3,999,590
34100-01
SJCo. Flood Control
500,467
37103-01
SJCo. Mosquito Abatement
2,239,178
41102-01
North San Joaquin Water Conservation
162,214
50502-00
City of Lodi
5,407,579
50997-00
Educ. Rev. Augment. Fd. (ERAF)
82,699,269
Total 191 ,186,733
Per Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (d)
H:HmydoclRDA_Project_1.14-02.x1s\ScWems11/16/02 SCHEDULE N
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
SCHEDULE OF TAXING AGENCIES AND AMOUNT OF TAX REVENUE
TO BE DERIVED BY EACH AGENCY WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
BASE YEAR 2001-02
SCHEDULE 111
ENTITY-
FY2001-02
FUND
BASE
NUMBER
TAXING AGENCIES
REVENUE
01000-01
County General
1,147,631
22104-01
Lodi Unified Schools
1,464,269
23101-01
SJCo. Delta Community College
205,858
24101-01
County Office of Education
73,607
34100-01
SJCo. Flood Control
9,028
37103-01
SJCo. Mosquito Abatement
40,545
41102-01
North San Joaquin Water Conservation
27,129
50502-00
City of Lodi
868,301
50997-00
Educ. Rev. Augment. Fd. (ERAF)
1,460,347
Total 5,296,715
Per Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (b) and (c)
C:Excel\Cityoflodi\RDA_Project_1-14-02.x1s\Sch3\ems\1!16/02 SCHEDULE III
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
BASE YEAR 2001-02
(Detail for H&S Code 33328(c)) Tax Rate
Area
(TRA)
001-001
Total Assessed Value (AV) of Affected Parcels 512,968,964 512,968,964
Net AV of TRA 1,957,493,127
Utility AV (3,090,921)
AV of TRA 1,954,402,206
c:Excel\CityofLod ARDA_Project_1-14-02.xls\001-001\ems\1/16/02 detail for Sch III
FACTOR - Total AV of Affected Parcels divided by AV of TRA
0.26246847
FY2001-02
BASE
ADJUSTED
ENTITY-
BASE
REVENUE
BASE
NEW RDA
FUND
REVENUE
MULTIPLIED
REVENUE
TRA
NUMBER
TAXING AGENCIES
001-001
BY FACTOR
001-001
001-
01000-01
County General
4,165,744.74
1,093,376.65
3,072,368.09
1,093,376.65
22104-01
Lodi Unified Schools
5,315,791.80
1,395,227.74
3,920,564.06
1,395,227.74
23101-01
SJCo. Delta Community College
747,286.87
196,139.24
551,147.63
196,139.24
24101-01
County Office of Education
267,142.11
70,116.38
197,025.73
70,116.38
34100-01
SJCo. Flood Control
32,772.50
8,601.75
24,170.75
8,601.75
37103-01
SJCo. Mosquito Abatement
147,182.58
38,630.79
108,551.79
38,630.79
41102-01
North San Joaquin Water Conservation
98,842.76
25,943.11
72,899.65
25,943.11
50502-00
City of Lodi
3,152,053.02
827,314.53
2,324,738.49
827,314.53
50997-00
Educ. Rev. Augment. Fd. (ERAF)
5,300,960.10
1,391,334.89
3,909,625.21
1,391,334.89
Total
19,227,776.48
5,046,685.08
14,181,091.40
5,046,685.08
c:Excel\CityofLod ARDA_Project_1-14-02.xls\001-001\ems\1/16/02 detail for Sch III
(Detail for H&S Code 33328(c))
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
BASE YEAR 2001-02
Total Assessed Value (AV) of Affected Parcels
Net AV of TRA
Utility AV
AV of TRA
FACTOR - Total AV of Affected Parcels divided by AV of TRA
ENTITY -
FUND
NUMBER TAXING AGENCIES
FY2001-02
BASE
REVENUE
001-003
BASE
REVENUE
MULTIPLIED
BY FACTOR
Tax Rate
Area
(TRA)
001-003
1,960,294
1,076,762,109
(31, 723)
1,076,730,386
0.00182060
ADJUSTED
BASE
REVENUE
001-003
NEW RDA
TRA
001-
01000-01
County General
2,386,349.46
4,344.59
2,382,004.87
4,344.59
22104-01
Lodi Unified Schools
2,944,829.67
5,361.36
2,939,468.31
5,361.36
23101-01
SJCo. Delta Community College
414,528.55
754.69
413,773.86
754.69
24101-01
County Office of Education
151,761.48
276.30
151,485.18
276.30
34100-01
SJCo. Flood Control
18,239.33
33.21
18,206.12
33.21
37103-01
SJCo. Mosquito Abatement
81,977.07
149.25
81,827.82
149.25
50502-00
City of Lodi
1,858,410.69
3,383.42
1,855,027.27
3,383.42
50997-00
Educ. Rev. Augment. Fd. (ERAF)
3,045,339.53
5,544.35
3,039,795.18
5,544.35
Total
10,901,435.78
19,847.17
10,881,588.61
19,847.17
C:Excel\RDA_Project\RDA_Project_1-14-02.xls\001-003\ems\1/16/02
detail for Sch III
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
BASE YEAR 2001-02
(Detail for H&S Code 33328(c)) Tax Rate
Area
(TRA)
001-013
Total Assessed Value (AV) of Affected Parcels 22,898,228
Net AV of TRA
22,908,340
Utility AV
(3,165)
AV of TRA
22,905,175
FACTOR - Total AV of Affected Parcels divided by AV of TRA
0.99969671
FY2001-02
BASE
ADJUSTED
ENTITY-
BASE
REVENUE
BASE
NEW RDA
FUND
REVENUE
MULTIPLIED
REVENUE
TRA
NUMBER
TAXING AGENCIES
001-013
BY FACTOR
001-013
001-
01000-01
County General
49,925.38
49,910.24
15.14
49,910.24
22104-01
Lodi Unified Schools
63,699.24
63,679.92
19.32
63,679.92
23101-01
SJCo. Delta Community College
8,967.25
8,964.53
2.72
8,964.53
24101-01
County Office of Education
3,215.61
3,214.63
0.98
3,214.63
34100-01
SJCo. Flood Control
393.27
393.15
0.12
393.15
37103-01
SJCo. Mosquito Abatement
1,765.11
1,764.57
0.54
1,764.57
41102-01
North San Joaquin Water Conservation
1,186.00
1,185.64
0.36
1,185.64
50502-00
City of Lodi
37,614.72
37,603.31
11.41
37,603.31
50997-00
Educ. Rev. Augment. Fd. (ERAF)
63,487.44
63,468.18
19.26
63,468.18
Total
230,254.02
230,184.17
69.85
230,184.17
C:Excel\RDA_Project_l-14-02.xls\001-013\ems\1/16/02
detail for Sch 111
Secured
SBE
Total Secured
Unsecured
Total Assessed
Value
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
ASSESSED VALUE WITHIN PROJECT AREA
IN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
2000-2001 PRECEDING YEAR
SCHEDULE II
PERSONAL
LAND IMPROVEMENTS PROPERTY
131,249,548 284,896,947 33,660,531
0 0 0
131,249,548 284,896,947 33,660,531
249,404 13,897,937 67,440,089
HOME-
OWNERS'
EXEMPTION
OTHER
EXEMPTIONS
NET
ASSESSED
VALUE
6,079,085 14,320,475 429,407,466
0 0 0
6,079,085 14,320,475 429,407,466
0 2,071 ,854 79,515,576
131,498,952 298,794,884 101,100,620 6,079,085 16,392,329 508,923,042
Per Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (f)
C:Excel\RDA_Project_1-14-02.x1s\Sch200-01 \ems\1 /16/02 SCHEDULE 11
Secured
SBE
Total Secured
Unsecured
Total Assessed
Value
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
ASSESSED VALUE WITHIN PROJECT AREA
IN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
2001-2002 BASE YEAR
SCHEDULE)
Per Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (a)
C:Excel%CityofLod!\RDA Project_1-14-02.xls\Sch101-Wems11/16/02
HOME-
NET
ADD
NET
PERSONAL.
OWNERS
OTHER
ASSESSED
HOMEOWNERS
BASE
LAND
IMPROVEMENTS
PROPERTY
E)CEMPTTON
EXEMPTIONS
VALUE
EXEMPTION
TOTAL
135,580,849
295,427,571
31,725,394
6,033,003
13,667,942
443,032,869
6,033,003
449,065,872
2,230,659
74,124
42,923
0
0
2,347,706
0
2,347,706
137,811,508
295,501,695
31,768,317
6,033,003
13,667,942
445,380,575
6,033,003
451,413,578
254,102
21,721,543
68,869,278
0
2,083,309
88,761,614
0
88,761,614
138,065,610
317,223,238
100,637,595
6,033,003
15,751,251
534,142,189
6,033,003
540,175,192
Per Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (a)
C:Excel%CityofLod!\RDA Project_1-14-02.xls\Sch101-Wems11/16/02
CITY OF LODI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PER ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATION 11/19/01 & 01-08-02
FY2001-02
C: Exce1\CltyolLodi\RDA—Project_1.14-02.xlslgrossMEM511116/02
SECURED
UNSECURED
TRA
TOTAL
LAND
IMPROV.
PER PROP I
H.O. EXEMPT I
OTHER EXMP
LAND
IMPROV.
PER PROP
OTHER EXMP
001-001
545,812,495
129,470,136
279,931,650
31,599,241
6,012,003
13,415,764
254,102
20,898,307
66,314,601
2,083,309
001-003
1,967,294
752,868
1,175,399
32,027
7,000
0
0
0
0
0
001-013
23,416,584
5,357,845
14,320,522
94,126
14,000
252,178
0
823,236
2,554,677
0
Total
571,196,373
135,580,849
##########
31,725,394
6,033,003
13,667,942
254,102
21,721,543
68,869,278
2,083,309
571,196,373
FY2000-01
SECURED
UNSECURED
TRA
TOTAL
LAND
IMPROV.
PER PROP
H.O. EXEMPT
OTHER EXMP
LAND
IMPROV.
PER PROP
OTHER EXMP
001-001
524,996,894
125,374,997
270,153,180
33,538,087
6,065,085
14,073,241
249,404
13,109,522
64,505,232
2,071,854
001-003
1,852,159
719,418
1,098,161
27,580
7,000
0
0
0
0
0
001-013
22,873,109
5,155,133
13,645,606
94,864
7,000
247,234
0
788,415
2,934,857
0
Total
549,722,162
131,249,548
##########
33,660,531
6,079,085
14,320,475
249,404
13,897,937
67,440,089
2,071,854
549,722,162
C: Exce1\CltyolLodi\RDA—Project_1.14-02.xlslgrossMEM511116/02
Appendix F:
Tax Increment Projections
Appendix Table 1
Summary of Tax Increment Projections
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
Summary of Assumptions
j :ct
Growth Assumptions
2001/02 Secured Assessed Value:
$449,065,872
2001/02 State Board Assessed Value:
$2,347,706
2001/02 Unsecured Assessed Value:
$88.761.614
2001/02 Total Assessed Value:
$540,175,192
2001/02 Unitary Payments:
$0
Annual Inflationary Adjustment. 2% of Secured AV
0
Reassessed Property Assessments: 1% of Secured AV
Less: County Property Tax Admin Fee54.3
Development Per Absorption Analysis
910,828
Annual Growth in State Board Assessed Value:
0.0%
Annual Growth in Unsecured Assessed Value:
0.0%
Annual Growth in Unitary Payments:
0.0%
Tax Increment Generation
286,264,876
Project Adopted between 12/2/01 and 8/20/02
Less: Pass-Throughs to Taxing Entities
Property Tax Rate:
1.0%
Tax Increment Cap:
N/A
County Property Tax Admin Fee:
1.5%
Pass -Through Payments and Net TI for Housing are calculated based on Incremental Tax Revenues.
41,134,221
Sponsoring Community
-
City receives pass-through
Agency Administration (Non-Hsg)
City's Unadjusted Levy Within Project Area:
0.00%
Agency Administration Cost
58,124,848
Cost in FY 2002/03:
$0
Percent of TI to Agency net of Housing and Pass-Throu hs:
10.0%
Present Value Discount Rate
187,994,233
Present value discounted to 2001/02 at:
5.5%
Tax Increment Projections From 2002/03 T ugh End of Prc
j :ct
Constant
Nominal Dollars
2001/02 Dollars
County Distribution of Basic Incremental Taxes
Incremental Tax Revenues
$290,624,240
$60,721,882
Less: Unilateral 2% Election
0
0
Less: County Property Tax Admin Fee54.3
9.364
910,828
Tax Revenues Remitted to Agency
286,264,876
59,811,054
TI Available to Agency After Obligations
Tax Revenues Remitted to Agency
286,264,876
59,811,054
Less: Pass-Throughs to Taxing Entities
98,270,644
18,676,833
Less: Debt Obligation
Q
0
Tl Available to Agency After Obligations
187,994,233
41,134,221
Projected Use of TI Funds
Agency Administration (Non-Hsg)
12,986,938
2,898,984
TI Available for Housing Programs
58,124,848
12,144,376
TI Available for Non -Housing Projects
116.882.446
26,090,860
Total TI Funds Used by Agency
187,994,233
41,134,221
Subtotal, TI for Housing & Projects
175,007,294
38,235,237
Cumulative TI for Housing Programs
2011/ 12
1,868,384
1,277,327
2021/22
8,548,893
4,114,577
2031/32
21,877,931
7,471,442
2046/47
58,124,848
12,144,376
Cumulative TI for Non -Housing Projects
2011/ 12
4,918,522
3,362,563
2021/22
20,650,259
10,095,888
2031/32
48,895,455
17,229,963
2046147
116,882,446
26,090,860
Seifel Consulting Inc. T_TI_Lodi 1_10_02.xls:Summ 1/23/02
Appendix Table 2A
Tax Increment Projections
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(In Future Value or Nominal Dollars)
* Based on revenues from Basic Tax Increment (1.0%), exclusive of bond overrides.
Assumptions:
County Admin Fee as a % of Incremental Tax Revenues: 1.5%
Pass -Through Payments and Net TI for Housing are calculated based on Incremental Tax Revenues.
Agency Admin as a % of TI net of Housing & Pass-Throughs: 10%
TI for Housing Programs as a % of Incremental Tax Revenues: 20%
Seifel Consulting Inc. T_TI_Lodi 1_10 02.xls:Tl 1/23/02
County Distribution
of Basic Incremental Taxes
Age cOblizations
Net Tax Increment
Net Tax Increment
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Available for
Available for
Incremental
Unilateral
County
Net Taxes
Pass-
Debt
Agency
HousingProms
Non-Hous'ne Pro'ects
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
Year Fiscal
Tax
2%
Admin
Remitted
Through
Obligation
Admin
(N) Year
Revenues*
Elections
Fee
to A enc
Payments
Expenses
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
0 2001102
1 2002/03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 2003/04
321,123
4,817
316,306
64,225
0
18,786
64,225
64,225
169,071
169,071
3 2004105
465,476
6,982
458,494
93,095
0
27,230
93,095
157,32C
245,073
414,144
4 2005/06
627,666
9,415
618,251
125,533
0
36,718
125,533
282,853
330,466
744,610
5 2006/07
794,857
11,923
782.934
158,971
0
46,499
158,971
441,824
418,492
1,163,103
6 2007/08
1,005,402
15,081
990,321
201,080
0
58,816
201,080
642,905
529,344
1,692,447
7 2008/09
1,213,945
18,209
1,195,735
242,789
0
71,016
242,789
885,694
639,142
2,331,588
8 2009/ 10
1,418,391
21,276
1,397,115
283,678
0
82,976
283,678
1,169,372
746,783
3,078,371
9 2010/ 11
1,641,918
24,629
1,617,289
328,384
0
96,052
328,384
1,497,755
864,470
3,942,841
10 2011/ 12
1,853,145
27,797
1,825,348
370,629
0
108,409
370,629
1,868,384
975,681
4,918,522
11 2012/ 13
2,115,256
31,729
2,083,527
423,051
0
123,742
423,051
2,291,436
1,113,682
6,032,205
12 20131 14
2,386,518
35,798
2,350,720
522,063
0
135,135
477,304
2,768,739
1,216,218
7,248,423
13 2014115
2,608,965
39,134
2,569,831
613,020
0
143,502
521,793
3,290,532
1,291,516
8,539,939
14 2015/ 16
2,862,441
42,937
2,819,505
702,016
0
154,500
572,488
3,863,021
1,390,501
9,930,440
15 2016/ 17
3,145,315
47,180
3,098,136
801,940
0
166,713
629,063
4,492,084
1,500,419
11,430,858
16 2017/ 18
3,438,123
51,572
3,386,551
908,892
0
179,003
687,625
5,179,708
1,611,031
13,041,890
17 20181 19
3,716,834
55,753
3,661,082
1,014,794
0
190,292
743,367
5,923,075
1,712,629
14,754,519
18 2019/ 20
4,048,210
60,723
3,987,487
1,128,895
0
204,895
809,642
6,732,717
1,844,055
16,598,574
19 2020121
4,390,748
65,861
4,324,887
1,254,031
0
219,271
878,150
7,610,867
1,973,436
18,57Z,010
20 2021/22
4,690,129
70,352
4,619,777
1,372,586
0
230,917
938,026
8,548,893
2,078,249
20,650,259
21 2022/ 23
5,000,599
75,009
4,925,590
1,486,149
0
243,932
1,000,120
9,549,013
2,195,389
22,845,648
22 2023/ 24
5,336,357
80,045
5,256,312
1,606,489
0
258,255
1,067,271
10,616,284
2,324,296
25,169,944
23 2024/25
5,683,420
85,251
5,598,168
1,733,373
0
272,811
1,136,684
11,752,968
2,455,300
27,625,244
24 2025/26
6,045,511
90,683
5,954,828
1,865,247
0
288,048
1,209,102
12,962,07C
2,592,431
30,217,675
25 2026/27
6,468,330
97,025
6,371,305
2,011,831
0
306,581
1,293,666
14,255,736
2,759,227
32,976,902
26 2027/28
6,869,479
103,042
6,766,436
2,164,335
0
322,821
1,373,896
15,629,632
2,905,385
35,882,287
27 2028/29
7,224,813
108,372
7,116,441
2,304,240
0
336,724
1,444,963
17,074,594
3,030,514
38,912,801
28 2029/30
7,592,458
113,887
7,478,572
2,438,842
0
352,124
1,518,492
18,593,086
3,169,114
42,081,914
29 2030/31
8,006,967
120,105
7,886,863
2,584,730
0
370,074
1,601,393
20,194,480
3,330,665
45,412,580
30 2031132
8,417,258
126,259
8,290,999
2,737,685
0
386,986
1,683,452
21,877,931
3,482,876
48,895,455
31 2032133
8,841,268
132,619
8,708,649
2,892,834
0
404,756
1,768,254
23,646,185
3,642,805
52,538,261
32 2033/34
9,279,102
139,187
9,139,916
3,101,469
0
418,263
1,855,820
25,502,005
3,764,364
56,302,624
33 2034/35
9,691,423
145,371
9,546,051
3,308,948
0
429,882
1,938,285
27,440,29C
3,868,937
60,171,562
34 2035136
10,116,885
151,753
9,965,132
3,511,990
0
442,976
2,023,377
29,463,667
3,986,788
64,158,350
35 2036/37
10,555,112
158,327
10,396,785
3,721,124
0
456,464
2,111,022
31,574,689
4,108,175
68,266,524
36 2037/ 38
11,006,485
165,097
10,841,387
3,936,532
0
470,356
2,201,297
33,775,986
4,233,203
72,499,727
37 2038139
11,471,399
172,071
11,299,328
4,158,402
0
484,665
2,294,280
36,070,266
4,361,982
76,861,708
38 2039/40
11,950,261
179,254
11,771,007
4,386,928
0
499,403
2,390,052
38,460,318
4,494,624
81,356,332
39 2040141
12,443,488
186,652
12,256,836
4,622,310
0
514,583
2,488,698
40,949,016
4,631,246
85,987,578
40 2041/42
12,951,513
194,273
12,757,240
4,864,753
0
530,218
2,590,303
43,539,318
4,771,966
90,759,544
41 2042143
13,474,778
202,122
13,272,656
5,114,470
0
546,323
2,694,956
46,234,274
4,916,908
95,676,452
42 2043/44
14,013,741
210,206
13,803,535
5,371,678
0
562,911
2,802,748
49,037,022
5,066,198
100,742,649
43 2044/45
14,568,873
218,533
14,350,340
5,636,602
0
579,996
2,913,775
51,950,797
5,219,967
105,962,616
44 2045/46
15,140,659
227,110
14,913,549
5,909,474
0
597,594
3,028,132
54,978,928
5,378,348
111,340,964
45 2046/47
15,729,598
235.944
15,493.654
6,190.533.
0
615.72
3.145,920
58.lZ4,8481
5,541.482
116 882 446
TOTAL
290,624,240
0
4,359,364
286,264,876
98,270,644
0
12,986,938
58,124,848
`' as ';
116,882,446
igw, ,,,
Cumulative
To: 2011112
To: 2021/ 22
To: 2031/32
9,341,922
42,744,464
109,389,656
0
0
0
140,129
641,167
1,640,845
9,201,794
42,103,297
107,748,811
1,868,384
10,609,672
31,542,596
0
0
0
546,502
2,294,473
5,432,828
1,868,384
8,548,893
21,877,931
x�)
_
Mei:
4,918,522
20,650,259
48,895,455
`
To: Z046 47
290,624,240
0
4,359,364
286 264 876
98,270,644
0
12 986 938
58 124 848
* Based on revenues from Basic Tax Increment (1.0%), exclusive of bond overrides.
Assumptions:
County Admin Fee as a % of Incremental Tax Revenues: 1.5%
Pass -Through Payments and Net TI for Housing are calculated based on Incremental Tax Revenues.
Agency Admin as a % of TI net of Housing & Pass-Throughs: 10%
TI for Housing Programs as a % of Incremental Tax Revenues: 20%
Seifel Consulting Inc. T_TI_Lodi 1_10 02.xls:Tl 1/23/02
Appendix Table 2B
Tax Increment Projections
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(In Present Value or Constant 2001/02 Dollars)
County Distribution
of Basic Incremental Taxes
Altency OblilowAations
Net Tax Increment
Net Tax Increment
(5)
(6)
(7)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Available for
Available for
Incremental Unilateral County Net Taxes
Pass-
Debt
Agency
Housin Pr ms
Non -Housing Pro'ects
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
fear Fiscal Tax 2% Admin Remitted
Through
Obligation
Admin
(N) Year Revenues* Elections Fee to Agency
Payments
Expenses
Annual
Cumulative
Annual
Cumulative
0 2001/ 02
1 2002/03
0 C 0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 2003/ 04
288,513 0 4,328
284,186
57,703
0
16,878
57,703
57,703
151,902
151,902
3 2004/05
396,406 0 5,946
390,46C
79,281
0
23,190
79,281
136,984
208,708
360,610
4 2005/06
506,663 0 7,600!
499,063
101,333
0
29,640
101,333
238,316
266,758
627,368
5 2006/07
608,172 0 9,123;
599,05C
121,634
0
35,578
121,634
359,951
320,203
947,570
6 2007/ 08
729,164 C 10,937'
718,226
145,833
C
42,656
145,833
505,784
383,905
1,331,475
7 2008/ 09
834,510 0 12,518
821,993
166,902
C
48,819
166,902
672,686
439,370
1,770,845
8 2009/ 1C
924,222 0 13,863
910,359
184,844
C
54,067
184,844
857,53C
486,603
2,257,448
9 2010/ 11
1,014,097 0 15,211
998,885
202,819
C
59,325
202,819
1,060,349
533,922
2,791,370
10 2011/ 12
1,084,888 0 16,273
1,068,615
216,978
C
63,466
216,978
1,277,327
571,193
3,362,563
11 2012/ 13
1,173,778 0 17,607
1,156,171
234,756
0
68,666
234,756
1,512,082
617,994
3,980,557
12 2013114
1,255,264 0 18,829
1,236,435
274,596
C
71,079
251,053
1,763,135
639,708
4,620,265
13 20141 15
1,300,727] 0 19,511
1,281,217
305,628
C
71,544
260,145
2,023,281
643,899
5,264,164
14 2015/ 16
1,352,702 0; 20,291
1,332,412
331,751
C
73,012
270,540
2,293,821
657,108
5,921,272
15 20161 17
1,408,891 01 21,133
1,387,757
359,216
C
74,676
281,778
2,575,599
672,087
6,593,360
16 2017/ 18
1,459,762 0 21,896
1,437,866
385,898
0
76,001
291,952
2,867,552
684,013
7,277,373
17 2018/ 19
1,495,827 0 22,437
1,473,390
408,400
0
76,582
299,165
3,166,717
689,242
7,966,615
18 2019/20
1,544,254 0 23,164
1,521,090
430,635
C
78,160
308,851
3,475,568
703,444
8,670,059
19 2020/21
1,587,603 0 23,814
1,563,789
453,431
0
79,284
317,521
3,793,089
713,553
9,383,612
20 2021/22
1,607,443 0 24,112
1,583,331
470,425
C
79,142,
321,489
4,114,577
712,276
10,095,888
21 2022123
1,624,503 0 24,368
1,600,135
482,793
C
79,244
324,901
4,439,478
713,198
10,809,086
22 2023/24
1,643,201 0 24,648
1,618,553
494,679
0
79,523
328,640
4,768,118
715,710
11,524,796
23 2024/25
1,658,835 0 24,883
1,633,952
505,924
0
79,626
331,767
5,099,885
716,635
12,241,431
24 2025/26
1,672,530 0 25,088
1,647,442
516,033
0
79,690
334,506
5,434,391
717,213
12,958,644
25 2026/27
1,696,214 0 25,443
1,670,771
527,570
0
80,396
339,243
5,773,634
723,562
13,682,206
26 2027/ 28
1,707,497 C 25,612
1,681,884
537,973
C
80,241
341,499
6,115,133
722,171
14,404,377
27 2028/29
1,702,198 0 25,533
1,676,666
542,889
0
79,334
340,440
6,455,573
714,003
15,118,380
28 2029/ 3C
1,695,562 0 25,433
1,670,128
544,647
0
78,637
339,112
6,794,685
707,732
15,826,112
29 2030131
1,694,910 0 25,424
1,669,487
547,134
0
78,337
338,982
7,133,667
705,033
16,531,145
30 2031/32
1,688,872 C 25,333
1,663,539
549,300
0
77,646
337,774
7,471,442
698,818
17,229,963
31 2032/33
1,681,467 0 25,222
1,656,245
550,171
0
76,978
336,293
7,807,735
692,803
17,922,766
32 2033/34
1,672,735 0 25,091
1,647,644
559,099
0
75,400
334,547
8,142,282
678,598
18,601,365
33 2034/35
1,655,985 0 24,840
1,631,145
565,404
0
73,454
331,197
8,473,479
661,090
19,262,455
34 2035/36
1,638,563 0 24,578
1,613,985
568,813
0
71,746
327,713
8,801,192
645,713
19,908,168
35 2036/37
1,620,417 0 24,306
1,596,111
571,266
0
70,076
324,083
9,125,275
630,685
20,538,853
36 2037/38
1,601,622 0 24,024
1,577,598
572,829
0
68,444
320,324
9,445,600
616,000
21,154,853
37 2038139
1,582,251 0 23,734
1,558,517
573,569
0
66,850
316,450
9,762,050
601,648
21,756,501
38 2039140
1,562,370 0 23,436
1,538,935
573,544
0
65,292
312,474
10,074,524
587,625
22,344,126
39 2040/41
1,542,042 0 23,131
1,518,911
572,813
0
63,769
308,408
10,382,932
573,921
22,918,046
40 2041/42
1,521,325 0 22,820
1,498,505
571,429
0
62,281
304,265
10,687,197
560,530
23,478,576
41 2042/43
1,500,275 0 22,504
1,477,771
569,442
0
60,827
300,055
10,987,252
547,446
24,026,022
42 2043/44
1,478,941 0 22,184
1,456,757
566,900
0
59,407
295,788
11,283,040
534,661
24,560,684
43 2044/45
1,457,371 0 21,861
1,435,511
563,847
0
58,019
291,474
11,574,515
522,170
25,082,854
44 2045/46
1,435,610 0 21,534
1,414,076
560,326
0
56,663
287,122
11,861,637
509,965
25,592,819
45 2046/47 1
1,413 699 0 21,205
1,392,494
556,375
0
55 33
282.740
12344.3
498,041.
26.0901860
TOTAL 60,721,882
01
910,828
59,811,054
18,676,833
0
2,898,984
12,144,376
_ f,, .z
26,090,860
:umulative
To: 2011/ 12 6,386,634
0
95,800
6,290,835
1,277,327
0
373,61
1,277.327
To: 2021/22 2J,572,886
0
308,593
20,264,293
4,932,062
0
1,121,765
4.114,577
10,095888
To: 2031/32 .37,357,208
0
560,359
36,796,850
10,181,005
0
1.914,440
7,471,442
£s
�'
17,229963
° g
To: 2046147 60,721,882
0
910,8281
59,811,054
18,676,8331
0
2,898,984
] 2 144 376
is ,
26,090860
* Based on revenues from Basic Tax Increment (1 .0%), exclusive of bond overrides.
Assumptions:
Present value discounted to 2001/02 at: 5.5%
Scifel Consulting Inc. TTI Lodi I_10_02.xIs:TI 1/23102
Appendix Table 3A
Tax Revenues
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(In Future Value or Nominal Dollars)
Notes:
First & Second Payments are based on the I% basic tax rate applied to the Increase in AV Over Base.
Supplemental Secured Assessments include reassessed property and new development.
Supplemental Secured Payments are based on the I% basic tax rate applied to the Supplemental Secured Assessments.
Unitary payments are estimated to escalate at an annual rate of: 0%
Seifel Consulting Inc. T_T]_Lodi 1_10_02.xls:Tl 1123/02
First & Second Payments to Aaency
Supplemental Payments
Total Basic Tax Revenues
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Secured,
Increase
First &
Supplemental
Supplemental
First &
Supplemental
Unitary
Incremental
Year Fiscal
State Board,
in AV
Second
Secured
Secured
Second
Secured
Payments
Tax
(N) Year
Unsecurd AV
Over Base
Payments
Assessements
Payments
Payments
Payments
Revenues
0 2001102
540,175,192
1 2002/03
553,647,168
13,471,976
0
4,625,378
0
0
0
0
0
2 2003/04
567,523,304
27,348,112
273,481
4,764,140
47,641
273,481
47,641
0
321,123
3 2004105
581,815,723
41,640,531
416,405
4,907,064
49,071
416,405
49,071
0
465,476
4 2005/06
596,536,915
56,361,723
563,617
6,404,887
64,049
563,617
64,049
0
627,666
5 2006/07
613,050,354
72,875,162
728,752
6,610,539
66,105
728,752
66,105
0
794,857
6 2007108
630,099,714
89,924,522
899,245
10,615,674
106,157
899,245
106,157
0
1,005,402
7 2008/09
651,495,195
111,320,003
1,113,200
10,074,450
100,745
1,113,200
100,745
0
1,213,945
8 2009/ 10
672,777,363
132,602,t71
1,326,022
9,236,960
92,370
1,326,022
92,370
0
1,418,391
9 2010(11
693,647,683
153,472,491
1,534,725
10,719,305
107,193
1,534,725
107,193
0
1,641,918
10 2011/ U
716,417,756
176,242,564
1,762,426
9,071,949
90,719
1,762,426
90,719
0
1,853,145
11 2012/ 13
737,995,874
197,820,682
1,978,207
13,704,948
137,049
1,978,207
137,049
0
2,115,256
12 2013/ 14
764,638,553
224,463,361
2,244,634
14,188,457
141,885
2,244,634
141,885
0
2,386,518
13 20141 15
792,297,595
252,122,403
2,521,224
8,774,123
87,741
2,521,224
87,741
0
2,608,965
14 2015/ 16
815,095,483
274,920,291
2,749,203
11,323,854
113,239
2,749,203
113,239
0
2,862,441
15 2016/ 17
840,899,061
300,723,869
3,007,239
13,807,665
138,077
3,007,239
138,077
0
3,145,315
16 2017/18
869,702,521
329,527,329
3,295,273
14,284,993
142,850
3,295,273
142,850
0
3,438,123
17 2018/ 19
899,559,378
359,384,186
3,593,842
12,299,262
122,993
3,593,842
122,993
0
3,716,834
18 2019/20
928,027,641
387,852,449
3,878,524
16,968,598
169,686
3,878,524
169,686
0
4,048,210
19 2020121
961,734,606
421,559,414
4,215,594
17,515,429
175,154
4,215,594
175,154
0
4,390,748
20 2021/22
996,662,540
456,487,348
4,564,873
12,525,523
125,255
4,564,873
125,255
0
4,690,129
21 2022/23
1,027,299,128
487,123,936
4,871,239
12,935,989
129,360
4,871,239
129,360
0
5,000,599
22 2023/ 24
1,058,958,913
518,783,721
5,187,837
14,851,975
148,520
5,187,837
148,520
0
5,336,357
23 2024/25
1,093,167,880
552,992,688
5,529,927
15,349,269
153,493
5,529,927
153,493
0
5,683,420
24 2025/26
1,128,558,321
588,383,129
5,883,831
16,167,953
161,680
5,883,831
161,680
0
6,045,511
25 2026/27
1,165,475,254
625,300,062
6,253,001
21,532,897
215,329
6,253,001
215,329
0
6,468,330
26 2027/ 28
1,208,495,470
668,320,278
6,683,203
18,627,580
186,276
6,683,203
186,276
0
6,869,479
27 2028/29
1,249,470,773
709,295,581
7,092,956
13,185,719
131,857
7,092,956
131,857
0
7,224,813
28 2029/30
1,285,823,721
745,648,529
7,456,485
13,597,312
135,973
7,456,485
135,973
0
7,592,458
29 2030/31
1,323,315,321
783,140,129
7,831,401
17,556,581
175,566
7,831,401
175,566
0
8,006,967
30 2031/32
1,365,516,022
825,340,830
8,253,408
16,384,961
163,850
8,253,408
163,850
0
8,417,258
31 2032/33
1,407,389,117
867,213,925
8,672,139
16,912,918
169,129
8,672,139
169,129
0
8,841,268
32 2033/34
1,450,627,631
910,452,439
9,104,524
17,457,807
174,578
9,104,524
174,578
0
9,279,102
33 2034/35
1,495,275,805
955,100,613
9,551,006
14,041,665
140,417
9,551,006
140,417
0
9,691,423
34 2035/36
1,537,400,799
997,225,607
9,972,256
14,462,915
144,629
9,972,256
144,629
0
10,116,885
35 2036/37
1,580,789,544
1,040,614,352
10,406,144
14,896,802
148,968
10,406,144
148,968
0
10,555,112
36 Z037/38
1,625,479,950
1,085,304,758
10,853,048
15,343,706
153,437
10,853,048
153,437
0
11,006,485
37 2038/39
1,671,511,069
1,131,335,877
11,313,359
15,804,017
158,040
11,313,359
158,040
0
11,471,399
38 2039/40
1,718,923,122
1,178,747,930
11,787,479
16,278,138
162,781
11,787,479
162,781
0
11,950,261
39 2040/41
1,767,757,536
1,227,582,344
12,275,823
16,766,482
167,665
12,275,823
167,665
0
12,443,488
40 2041/42
1,818,056,982
1,277,881,790
12,778,818
17,269,477
172,695
12,778,818
172,695
0
12,951,513
41 2042/43
1,869,865,412
1,329,690,220
13,296,902
17,787,561
177,876
13,296,902
177,876
0
13,474,778
42 2043/44
1,923,228,095
1,383,052,903
13,830,529
18,321,188
183,212
13,830,529
183,212
0
14,013,741
43 2044/45
1,978,191,658
1,438,016,466
14,380,165
18,870,823
188,70
14,380,165
188,708
0
14,568,873
44 2045/46
2,034,804,128
1,494,628,936
14,946,289
19,436,948
194,369
14,946,289
194,369
0
15,140,659
45 2046/47
2,093,114,973
1 552 939 781
15 529 398
20 020.0571
200.201
I S 529 398
200,201
0
15,729,598
TOTAL
RV§4' ',
,F„ li ` t:
284,407,654
;
6,216,586
284,407,654
6,216,586
0
290,624,240
CumulativeE��€r�_
To: 2011/ 12
€x)�
8,617 873
'
724,05
8,617,873
724,050
0
9,341,922
To: 2021122
y
40,6664862,
2,077,978
40,666,486
2,077,978
0
42,744,464
To: 2031/32
]lea
`
�� #,
105,709775
•. <22r
3,679,881
105,709,775
3,679,881
0
109,389,656
To: 2046/47
?! I'M
k„
2,94,407,654
,' : 31
6,216,586
284,407,654,
6,216,586
0
290,624,240
Notes:
First & Second Payments are based on the I% basic tax rate applied to the Increase in AV Over Base.
Supplemental Secured Assessments include reassessed property and new development.
Supplemental Secured Payments are based on the I% basic tax rate applied to the Supplemental Secured Assessments.
Unitary payments are estimated to escalate at an annual rate of: 0%
Seifel Consulting Inc. T_T]_Lodi 1_10_02.xls:Tl 1123/02
Appendix Table 3B
Growth in Assessed Value
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(In Future Value or Nominal Dollars)
(1) (2) I (3) (4) l Grov Rates (7) I (8) I
(9) I (10)
Secured Inflationary lij Reassessed New I (5) (6) Secured State Unsecured Secured,
tear Fiscal AV Adjustments Property Development Annual Average AV I Board AV State Board,
0 2001/02
449,065,872
8,981,317
4,490,659
0
449,065,872
2,347,706
88,761,614
540,175,192
l 2002/03,
462,537,848
9,250,757
4,625,378
0
3.00%
3.00%
462,537,848
2,347,706
88,761,614
553,647,16E
2 2003104
476,413,984
9,518,280
4,764,140
0
3.00%
3.00%
476,413,984
2,347,706
88,761,614
567,523,304
3 2004/05
490,706,403
9,814,128'
4,907,064
0
3.00%
3.00%
490,706,403
2,347,706
88,761,614
581,815,723
4 2005/06
505,427,595
10,108,552
5,054,276
1,350,611
3.00%
3.00%
505,427,595
2,347,706
88,761,614
596,536,915
5 2006/07
521,941,034
10,438,821
5,219,410
1,391,129
3.27%
3.05%
521,941,034
2,347,706
88,761,614
613,050,354
6 2007/ 08
538,990,394
10,779,808
5,389,904
5,225,770
3.27%
3.09%
538,990,394
2,347,706
88,761,614
630,099,714
7 2008/09
560,385,875
11,207,718
5,603,859
4,470,592
3.970/-
3.21%
560,385,875
2,347,706
88,761,614
651,495,195
8 20091 10
581,668,043
11,633,361
5,816,680
3,420,279
3.80%
3.29%
581,668,043
2,347,706
88,761,614
672,777,363
9 2010/ 11
602,538,363
12,050,767
6,025,384
4,693,922
3.59%
3.32%
602,538,363
2,347,706
88,761,614
693,647,683
10 2011/ 12
625,308,436
12,506,169
6,253,084
2,818,865
3.78%
3.37%
625,308,436
2,347,706
88,761,614
716,417,75E
11 2012/ 13
646,886,554
12,937,731
6,468,866
7,236,083
3.45%
3.37%
646,886,554
2,347,706
88,761,614
737,995,874
12 2013/ 14
673,529,233
13,470,585
6,735,292
7,453,165
4.12%
3.44%
673,529,233
2,347,706
88,761,614
764,638,553
13 2014115
701,188,275
14,023,765
7,011,883
1,762,240
4.11%
3.49%
701,188,275
2,347,706
88,761,614
792,297,595
14 2015/ 16
723,986,163
14,479,723
7,239,862
4,083,992
3.25%
3.47%
723,986,163
2,347,706
88,761,614
815,095,483
15 2016/ 17
749,789,741
14,995,795
7,497,897
6,309,768
3.56%
3.48%
749,789,741
2,347,706
89,761,614
840,899,061
16 2017/ 18
778,593,201
15,571,864
7,785,932
6,499,061
3.84%
3.50%
778,593,201
2,347,706
88,761,614
869,702,521
17 2018/ 19
808,450,058
16,169,001
8,084,501
4,214,761
3.83%
3.52%
808,450,058
2,347,706
88,761,614
899,559,37E
18 2019/20
836,918,321
16,738,366
8,369,183
8,599,415
3.52%
3.52%
836,918,321
2,347,706
88,761,614
928,027,641
19 2020121
870,625,286
17,412,506
8,706,253
3.55%
870,625,286
2,347,706
88,761,614
961,734,60E
20 2021/22
905,553,220
18,111,064
9,055,532
3.57%
905,553,220
2,347,706
88,761,614
996,662,54C
21 2022/23
936,189,808
18,723,796
9,361,898
3.56%
936,189,808
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,027,299,12E
22 2023/24
967,849,593
19,356,992
9,678,496
3.55%
967,849,593
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,058,958,913
23 2024125
1,002,058,560
20,041,171
10,020,586
3.55%
1,002,058,560
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,093,167,88C
24 2025126
1,037,449,001
20,748,980
10,374,490
3.55%
1,037,449,001
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,128,558,321
25 2026127
1,074,365,934
21,487,319
10,743,659
3.55%
1,074,365,934
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,165,475,254
26 2027/28
1,117,386,150
22,347,723
11,173,861
3.57%
1,117,386,150
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,208,495,47C
27 2028/29
1,158,361,453
23,167,229
11,583,615
3.57%
1,158,361,453
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,249,470,773
28 2029/30
1,194,714,401
23,894,288
11,947,144
3.56%
1,194,714,401
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,285,823,721
29 2030/31
1,232,206,001
24,644,120
12,322,060
3.54%
1,232,206,001
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,323,315,321
30 2031/32
1,274,406,702
25,488,134
12,744,067
3.54%
1,274,406,702
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,365,516,022
31 2032/33
1,316,279,797
26,325,596
13,162,798
3.53%-
1,316,279,797
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,407,389,11 i
32 2033/34
1,359,518,311
27,190,366
13,595,183
3.52%
1,359,518,311
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,450,627,631
33 2034/35
1,404,166,485
28,083,330
14,041,665
3.52%
1,404,166,485
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,495,275,805
34 2035/36
1,446,291,479
28,925,830
14,462,915
3.50%
1,446,291,479
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,537,400,795
35 Z036137
1,489,680,224
29,793,604
14,896,802
3.49%
1,489,680,224
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,580,789,544
36 2037/38
1,534,370,630
30,687,413
15,343,706
3.47%
1,534,370,630
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,625,479,95C
37 2038/39
1,580,401,749
31,608,035
15,804,017
3.46%
1,580,401,749
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,671,511,065
38 2039/40
1,627,813,802
32,556,276
16,278,138
3.45%
1,627,813,802
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,718,923,122
39 2040/ 41
1,676,646,216
33,532,964
16,766,482
3.44%
1,676,648,216
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,767,757,53(
40 2041/42
1,726,947,662
34,538,953
17,269,477
3.42%
1,726,947,662
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,818,056,982
41 2042/43
1,778,756,092
35,575,122
17,787,561
3.41%
1,778,756,092
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,869,865,412
42 2043/44
1,832,118,775
36,642,376
18,321,188
3.40%-
1,832,118,775
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,923,228,095
43 2044/45
1,887,082,338
37,741,647
18,870,823
3.40%
1,887,082,338
2,347,706
88,761,614
1,978,191,65E
44 2045/46
1,943,694,808
38,873,896
19,436,948.
3.39%
1,943,694,808
2,347,706
88,761,614
2,034,804,12E
45 2046/47
2.002.005.6531
40.040.1131
20.020.0571
dl
3.00% 1
3.38%
s 2.002.005.653
2.347.706
88.761.614
2.093.114.973
To: 2011/ 12 Baa w , a Pn1: 23,371,1
To: 20211 22k pat sE .:}c�art�-NOS��I 81.808,8
To: 2031/32". '' �� ter 132,049,1
... nx,,....
Assumptions:
Annual Inflationary Adjustment: 2% of Secured AV
Reassessed Property Assessments: I% of Secured AV
Development Per Absorption Analysis
State Board Annual Increase: 0%
Unsecured AV Annual Increase: 0%
Seifel Consulting Inc T -TI Lodi 1_10_02.xIs:TI 1123/02
Appendix Table 4
New Development Schedule
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(In Present Value or Constant 2001/02 Dollars, unless otherwise noted)
Future value based on 2001/02 values escalated annually at: 3%
Seifel Consulting Inc. T TI -Lodi 1 10 02.xIs:Devr 1123/02
Residential,
Retail/Dining
Commercial
Heavy
Warehouse(
Total
Vacant Land
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Light Industrial
Assessed Value
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(7)
(8)
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
Constant
Escalated to
Year Fiscal
Assessed Value
Square
Assessed Value
Square
Assessed Value
Square
Assessed Value
Square
Assessed Valut
2001/02
Nominal
(N) Year
Units
150 000 unit
Feet
55 F
Feet
($90/SF)
Feet
($60/SF)
Feet
($5QSF)
Dollars
Dollars
0 2001/ 02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 2002/ 03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 2003/ 04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 2004/ 05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4 2005/ 06
8
1,200,000
0
0
0
0
1,200,000
1,350,611
5 2006/ 07
8
1,200,000
0
0
0
0
1,200,000
1,391,129
6 2007/ 08
8
1,200,000
16,300
896,500
12,000
1,080,000
20,000
1,200,000
0
4,376,500
5,225,770
7 2008109
8
1,200,000
17,000
935,000
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
3,635,000
4,470,592
8 2009110
8
1,200,000
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
2,700,000
3,420,279
9 2010111
8
1,200,000
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
17,950
897,500
3,597,500
4,693,922
10 2011/ 12
8
1,200,000
0
0
0
17,950
897,500
2,097,500
2,818,865
11 2012/ 13
8
1,200,000
34,000
1,870,000
14,000
1,260,000
0
17,950
897,500
5,227,500
7,236,083
12 2013/ 14
8
1,200,000
34,000
1,870,000
14,000
1,260,000
0
17,950
897,500
5,227,500
7,453,165
13 2014/ 15
8
1,200,000
0
0
0
0
1,200,000
1,762,240
14 2015/ 16
8
1,200,000
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
2,700,000
4,083,992
15 2016/ 17
8
1,200,000
0
15,000
1,350,000
25,000
1,500,000
0
4,050,000
6,309,768
16 2017/ 18
8
1,200,000
0
15,000
1,350,000
25,000
1,500,000
0
4,050,000
6,499,061
17 2018/ 19
8
1,200,000
0
0
22,500
1,350,000
0
2,550,000
4,214,761
18 2019/ 20
8
1,200,000
34,000
1.870,000
14,000
1,260,000
0
14,425
721,250
5,051,250
8,599,415
19 2020/ 21
8
1,200,000
33,500
1,842,500
14,000
1,260,000
0
14,425
721,250
5,023,750
8,809,176
20 2021/ 22
8
1,200,000
0
0
0
14,425
721,250
1,921,250
3,469,991
21 2022/ 23
8
1,200,000
0
0
0
14,425
721,250
1,921,250
3,574,091
22 1023/ 24
8
1,200,000
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
2,700,000
5,173,479
23 2024125
8
1,200,000
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
2,700,000
5,328,684
24 2025/26
9
1,350,000
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
2,850,000
5,793,463
25 2026/ 27
9
1,350,000
17,000
935,000
15,200
1,368,000
25,000
1,500,000
0
5,153,000
10,789,238
26 2027/28
0
17,000
935,000
20,000
1,800,000
0
14,425
721,250
3,456,250
7,453,719
27 20281 29
0
0
0
0
14,425
721,250
721,250
1,602,105
28 2029/ 30
0
0
0
0
14,425
721,250
721,250
1,650,168
29 2030131
0
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
14,425
721,250
2,221,250
5,234,521
30 2031/32
0
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
1,500,000
3,640,894
31 2032133
0
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
1,500,000
3,750,121
32 2033134
0
0
0
25,000
1,500,000
0
1,500,000
3,862,624
33 2034/35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34 2035136
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35 2036/37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36 2037/38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37 2038139
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38 2039/40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39 2040/41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40 2041/42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41 2042143
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42 2043/ 44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43 2044145
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44 2045146
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45 ZD461 47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
178
26,700,000
202,800
11,154,000
133,200
11,988,000
392,500
23,550,000
187,200
9,360,000
82,752,0001
139,661,925
Cumulative
To: 2011112
56
8,400,000
33,300
1,831,500
12,000
1,080,000
95,0005,700,000
35,900
11795,000
18,806,500
23,371,166
To: 2021122
136
20,400,000
168,800
9,284,000
98,000
8,820,000
192,500
11,550,000
115,075
5,753,750
55,807,750
81,808,819
To: 2031132
178
26,700,000
202,800
11,154,000
133,200
11,988,000
342,500
20,550,000
187,200
9,360,000
79,752,000
132,049,180
To: 2046147
178
26,700,000
202,800
11,154,000
133,200
11,988,000
392.5
23,550.011n
187.200
9 360 000
82,752,000
139661 925
Future value based on 2001/02 values escalated annually at: 3%
Seifel Consulting Inc. T TI -Lodi 1 10 02.xIs:Devr 1123/02
Appendix Table 5A
Pass -Through Payments to Affected Taxing Entities
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(In Future Value or Nominal Dollars)
ERAF Adjusted Levies
[A] The City's pass-through is based only on the first tier of the AB1290 pass-through. Its shares of the second and third
tiers are retained by the Agency.
SeifelConsulting Inc. T_TI_Lodi 1_10_02.xis:PThru 1/23102
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
City
County
Lodi
San Joaquin
County
San Joaquin
San Joaquin
North
ERAF
Total
General
General
Unified
Delta Comm.
Office of
Cty Flood
County
San Joaquin
Pass-Throughs
Fund[')
Schools
Collece
Education
Control
Mosquito
Water Cons.
Year Fiscal
(N) Year
Levy: 16.39%
Levy: 21.67%
Levy: 27.64%
Levy: 3.89%
Levy: 1.39%
Levv: 0.17%
Levy: 0.77%
Levy: 0.51%
Levy: 27.57%
Levy: 100.00%
0 2001102
1 2002103
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 2003/04
10,528
13,915
17,755
2,496
893
109
492
329
17,707
64,225
3 2004/05
15,261
20,171
25,736
3,618
1,294
159
713
477
25,667
93,095
4 2005106
20,579
27,199
34,703
4,879
1,745
214
961
643
34,611
125,533
5 2006/07
26,060
34,444
43,947
6,178
2,209
271
1,217
814
43,830
158,971
6 2007/08
32,964
43,568
55,588
7,815
2,794
343
1,539
1,030
55,439
201,080
7 2008/09
39,801
52,605
67,119
9,436
3,374
414
1,858
1,244
66,939
242,789
8 2009/ 10
46,504
61,464
78,422
11,025
3,942
484
2,171
1,453
78,212
283,678
9 2010/ 11
53,833
71,150
90,781
12,763
4,563
560
2,514
1,682
90,538
328,384
10 2011/ 12
60,758
80,304
102,460
14,405
5,151
632
2,837
1,898
102,185
370,629
11 2012/ 13
69,352
91,662
116,952
16,442
5,879
•721
3,238
2,167
116,639
423,051
12 2013/ 14
78,245
113,115
144,324
20,290
7,255
890
3,996
2,674
151,275
522,063
13 2014/ 15
85,539
132,822
169,468
23,825
8,519
1,045
4,692
3,140
183,970
613,020
14 2015/ 16
93,849
152,105
194,071
27,284
9,756
1,197
5,374
3,596
214,785
702,016
15 2016/ 17
103,124
173,755
221,695
31,168
11,144
1,367
6,139
4,107
249,442
801,940
16 2017/ 18
112,724
196,928
251,262
35,324
12,631
1,549
6,957
4,655
286,862
908,892
17 2018/ 19
121,862
219,874
280,538
39,440
14,102
1,730
7,768
5,198
324,282
1,014,794
18 2019/ 20
132,726
244,596
312,081
43,875
15,688
1,924
8,641
5,782
363,581
1,128,895
19 2020/ 21
143,957
271,709
346,675
48,738
17,427
2,137
9,599
6,423
407,365
1,254,031
20 2021/22
153,772
297,396
379,449
53,346
19,075
2,340
10,507
7,030
449,671
1,372,586
21 2022( 23
163,952
322,002
410,844
57,760
20,653
2,533
11,376
7,612
489,419
1,486,149
22 2023/24
174,960
348,076
444,111
62,437
22,325
2,738
12,297
8,228
531,317
1,606,489
23 2024/25
186,339
375,567
479,188
67,368
24,088
2,954
13,268
8,878
575,721
1,733,373
24 2025126
198,211
404,140
515,645
72,493
25,921
3,179
14,278
9,553
621,827
1,865,247
25 2026127
212,073
435,900
556,168
78,190
27,958
3,429
15,400
10,304
672,408
2,011,831
26 2027/28
225,225
468,943
598,327
84,118
30,077
3,689
16,567
11,085
726,303
2,164,335
27 2028/ 29
236,876
499,256
637,004
89,555
32,022
3,928
17,638
11,802
776,161
2,304,240
28 2029/30
248,929
528,420
674,214
94,786
33,892
4,157
18,669
12,491
823,283
2,438,842
29 2030/31
262,520
560,030
714,545
100,456
35,919
4,406
19,785
13,238
873,831
2,584,730
30 2031/32
275,972
593,170
756,829
106,401
38,045
4,666
20,956
14,022
927,625
2,737,685
31 2032/ 33
289,873
626,786
799,720
112,431
40,201
4,931
22,144
14,817
981,932
2,892,834
32 2033/34
304,228
671,991
857,396
120,540
43,100
5,286
23,741
15,885
1,059,302
3,101,469
33 2034/35
317,747
716,945
914,754
128,603
45,984
5,640
25,329
16,948
1,136,999
3,308,948
34 2035/36
331,696
760,938
970,884
136,495
48,805
5,986
26,883
17,988
1,212,315
3,511,990
35 2036) 37
346,064
806,250
1,028,699
144,623
51,712
6,343
28,484
19,059
1,289,891
3,721,124
36 2037138
360,863
852,922
1,088,248
152,994
54,705
6,710
30,133
20,162
1,369,794
3,936,532
37 2038139
376,106
900,995
1,149,584
161,618
57,788
7,088
31,831
21,299
1,452,094
4,158,402
38 2039/40
391,806
950,509
1,212,759
170,499
60,964
7,477
33,580
22,469
1,536,863
4,386,928
39 2040141
407,977
1,001,509
1,277,830
179,647
64,235
7,879
35,382
23,675
1,624,175
4,622,310
40 2041/42
424,633
1,054,039
1,344,853
189,070
67,604
8,292
37,238
24,916
1,714,107
4,864,753
41 2042/43
441,789
1,108,144
1,413,887
198,775
71,075
8,717
39,150
26,195
1,806,736
5,114,470
42 2043144
459,460
],163,873
1,484,992
208,772
74.649
9,156
41,118
27,513
1,902,145
5,371,678
43 2044/45
477,661
1,221,274
1,558,230
219,068
78,331
9,607
43,146
28,870
2,000,415
5,636,602
44 20451 46
496,408
1,280.397
1,633,665
229,673
82,123
10,073
45,235
30,267
2,101,634
5,909,474
45 2046147
515,717
1.34 293
1,711.363
240 597
86 028
10,552
47.386
31.707
Z.205, 889
6.190.533
TOTAL
9,528,522
21,292,1511
27,166,767
3,819,318
1,365,646
167,500
752,229
503,323
33,675,189
98,270,644
Cumulative
To: 2011/ 12
306,288
404,820
516,512
72,615
25,965
3,185
14,302
9,570
515,129
1,868,384
To: 2021/ 22
1,401,437
2,298,782
2,933,027
412,348
147,440
18,084
81,214
54,341
3,263,000
10,609,672
To: 2031/ 32
3,586,493
6,834,286
8,719,902
1,225,912438,341
53,764
241,448
161,555
10,280,896
31,542,596
To: 2046147
9,528,522
21,292,151
27,1 66,7671
3,819,318
1,365,646
167,500
752,2291
503,323
33,675,189
98,270,644
[A] The City's pass-through is based only on the first tier of the AB1290 pass-through. Its shares of the second and third
tiers are retained by the Agency.
SeifelConsulting Inc. T_TI_Lodi 1_10_02.xis:PThru 1/23102
Appendix Table 5B
Pass -Through Payments to Affected Taxing Entities
Proposed Lodi Redevelopment Project Area
(In Present Value or Constant 2001/02 Dollars)
[A) The City's pass-through is based only on the first tier of the ABI 290 pass-through. Its shares of the second and third
tiers are retained by the Agency.
Present value discounted to 2001/02 at: 5.5%
Seifel Consulting Inc. T -TI Lodi 1 10_02.xIs:PThru WNW
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(25)
(26)
City
County
Lodi
San Joaquin
County
San Joaquin
San Joaquin
North
ERAF
Total
General
General
Unified
Delta Comm.
Office of
Cty Flood
County
San Joaquin
Pass-Thmughs
Fund[")
Schools
College
Education
Control
Mosquito
Water Cons.
Year Fiscal
(N) Year
Lew: 16.39%
Levy: 21.67%
Levy: 27.64%
Levv: 3.89%
Levy: 1.39%
Levy: 0.17%
Levy: 0.77%
Levy: 0.51%
Levy: 27.57%
0 2001/02
l 2002/03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 2003104
9,459
12,502
15,952
2,243
802
98
442
296
15,909
57,703
3 2004105
12,997
17,178
21,917
3,081
1,102
135
607
406
21,858
79,281
4 2005/06
16,612
21,956
28,013
3,938
1,408
173
776
519
27,938
101,333
5 2006107
19,940
26,354
33,626
4,727
1,690
207
931
623
33,536
121,634
6 2007108
23,907
31,597
40,315
5,668
2,027
249
1,116
747
40,207
145,833
7 2008109
27,361
36,162
46,140
6,487
2,319
284
1,278
855
46,016
166,902
8 2009110
30,302
40,050
51,100
7,184
2,569
315
1,415
947
50,963
184,844
9 2010/ 11
33,249
43,945
56,069
7,883
2,819
346
1,553
1,039
55,919
202,819
10 2011112
35,570
47,012
59,983
8,433
3,015
370
1,661
1,111
59,822
216,978
11 2012/ 13
38,484
50,864
64,898
9,124
3,262
400
1,797
1,202
64,724
234,756
12 2013/ 14
41,156
59,496
75,912
10,672
3,816
468
2,102
1,406
79.568
274,596
13 2014/ 15
42,646
66,210
84,490
11,878
4,247
521
2,339
1,565
91,720
305,628
14 20151 16
44,350
71,880
91,712
12,894
4,610
565
2,539
1,699
101,501
331,751
15 2016/ 17
46,192
77,831
99,305
13,961
4,992
612
2,750
1,840
111,733
359,216
16 20171 18
47,860
83,612
106,681
14,998
5,363
658
2,954
1,976
121,796
385,898
17 20181 19
49,043
88,487
112,902
15,873
5,675
696
3,126
2,092
130,506
408,400
18 2019120
50,631
93,305
119,048
16,737
5,984
734
3,296
2,206
138,694
430,635
19 2020/ 21
52,052
98,244
125,350
17,623
6,301
773
3,471
2,322
147,295
453,431
20 2021122
52,702
101,926
130,048
18,283
6,537
802
3,601
2,409
154,115
470,425
21 2022123
53,262
104,606
133,467
18,764
6,709
823
3,696
2,473
158,993
482,793
22 20231 24
53,875
107,181
136,753
19,226
6,874
843
3,787
2,534
163,606
494,679
23 20241 25
54,387
1D9,618
139,862
19,663
7,031
862
3,873
2,591
168,037
505,924
24 2025/26
54,836
111,808
142,656
20,056
7,171
880
3,950
2,643
172,032
516,033
25 2026/27
55,613
114,308
145,846
20,504
7,332
899
4,038
2,702
176,328
527,570
26 20271 28
55,983
116,562
148,722
20,908
7,476
917
4,118
2,755
180,532
537,973
27 20281 29
55,809
117,627
150,081
21,100
7,544
925
4,156
2,781
182,867
542,889
28 2029/30
55,591
118,008
150,567
21,168
7,569
928
4,169
2,790
183,857
544,647
29 2030131
55,570
118,547
151,254
21,265
7,603
933
4,188
2,802
184,972
547,134
30 2031132
55,372
119,016
151,853
21,349
7,634
936
4,205
21813
[86,122
549,300
31 20321 33
55,129
119,205
152,094
21,383
7,646
938
4,211
2,818
186,748
550,171
32 20331 34
54,843
121,139
154,562
21,730
7,770
953
4,280
2,864
190,959
559,099
33 20341 35
54,294
122,505
156,305
21,975
7,857
964
4,328
2,896
194,280
565,404
34 20351 36
53,723
123,244
157,248
22,107
7,905
970
4,354
2,913
196,350
568,813
35 2036/ 37
53,128
123,775
157,925
22,202
7,939
974
4,373
2,926
198,024
571,266
36 2037/ 38
52,511
124,114
158,358
22,263
7,960
976
4,385
2,934
199,327
572,829
37 2038139
51,876
124,274
158,562
22,292
7,971
978
4,390
2,938
200,287
573,569
38 2039140
51,224
124,269
158,555
22,291
7,970
978
4,390
2,938
200,929
573,544
39 2040/41
50,558
124,111
158,353
22,263
7,960
976
4,385
2,934
201,274
572,813
40 2041142
49,879
123,811
157,971
22,209
7,941
974
4,374
2,927
201,344
571,429
41 2042/43
49,189
123,380
157,421
22,132
7,913
971
4,359
2,917
201,161
569,442
42 2043144
48,489
122,829
156,719
22,033
7,878
966
4,339
2,904
200,743
566,900
43 2044145
47,782
122,168
155,875
21,914
7,836
961
4,316
2,888
200,108
563,847
44 2045146
47,068
121,405
154,901
21,777
7,787
955
4,289
2,870
199,273
560,326
45 2046147
46 350
120 549
153 809
21 624
7,732
948
4.259
2.850
198.254
556.375
TOTAL
1,990,852
4,046,681
5,163,181
725,881
259,548
31,834
142,965
95,659
6,220,232
18,676,833
Cumulative
To: 2011112
209,395
276,756
353,115
49,644
17,751
2,177
9,778
6,542
352,169
1,277,327
To: 2021/22
674,511
1,068,622
1,363,461
191,686
68,540
8,407
37,753
25,261
1,493,821
4,932,062
To: 2031132
1,224,808
2,205,903
2,814,523
395,688
141,483
17,353
77,932
52,145
3,251,169
10,181,005
To: 2046147
1,990,852
4,046,681
5,163,181
725,881
259,548
31,834
142,965
95,659
6,220,232
18,676,833
[A) The City's pass-through is based only on the first tier of the ABI 290 pass-through. Its shares of the second and third
tiers are retained by the Agency.
Present value discounted to 2001/02 at: 5.5%
Seifel Consulting Inc. T -TI Lodi 1 10_02.xIs:PThru WNW