It was an unnerving number for Councilman Charlie Halford — 206,882 residents in Manteca by 2040.

That reflects a 5.2 percent annual growth rate.

The city currently has roughly 96,000 residents.

“If we ever hit 5.2 percent, people will go crazy,” Halford said during Tuesday’s council meeting, adding some already have qualms with the current annual growth pace that is roughly 2.2 percent.

And Halford is not alone in raising the proverbial eyebrow at the number.

The councilman shared that a few residents are also startled.

The number is the cornerstone for the parks and recreation master plan update the City Council adopted on Tuesday.

It is a number gleaned from the general plan update adopted two years ago.

The number represents the typical population yield from residential zoning assigned to either undeveloped or underdeveloped land within the city limits.

The 206,882 number is how many people could reside in Manteca at buildout of the land.

Since the parks and recreation master plan is an ancillary document designed to implement the general plan that serves as a blueprint for growth, it needs to reflect what would be needed to support and serve residents when zoned land in the general plan is 100 percent built out.

Based on current growth rates, Manteca is likely to have 146,000 residents, and not 206,882, by 2040.

It also means at least half, if not more, of the $930.5 million in identified park needs or wants in the master plan that includes everything from an aquatics center to a performing arts center won’t be built or started by 2040.

Everything in master plan

not likely to become reality

In reality, Manteca could likely never see a number of the items listed in the master plan.

All require much more money than the city currently has the resources to collect, even with updated fees on growth for parks and recreation.

Those fees can only be collected on new growth at a rate that reflects the “need” created by new residents.

That means if an aquatics center was adopted by the council as a project to move forward and added to the nexus to legally justify the amount of the overall parks fee, it would cover only part of the cost.

As such, assuming an aquatics center has a $47 million price tag and the city has a realistic population projection that brings it to 146,000 residents in 14 years, fees collected going forward can only legally for a third of the cost.

The bulk, or roughly $30 million of the $47 million cost, would have to come from other sources.

Those sources range from the general fund and development agreements to grants and outright donations.

It is why the updated fee study that is next will basically determine what can be built.

The council may decide, as an example, they don’t want to convert Morezone Field to build an events center. The cost of that and other endeavors that may have little or no support would be excluded from the fee calculation.

Perhaps the biggest point is the reality that Councilwoman Regina Lackey inferred when asking about when the costs for various projects were determined.

Construction costs escalate.

Even if growth fees are indexed for inflation with annual increases based on broad regional economic data, not all components of the identified projects will increase by the average inflation rate.

What the master plan document does is identify projected park facility needs for land that is deemed likely to develop. It also takes the additional housing units that zoning can support and spreads growth’s share of the anticipated costs across a set number of housing permits.

That helps determine what Manteca may charge per new home in growth fees.

Given setting aside money to pay cash would mean inflation would not be offset by interest collected on parked cash, the logical way forward is to bond against future growths with possibly a little help from Measure Q sales tax receipts.

All of this means the council has yet to make the hard decision.

Elected leaders ultimately will determine which projects will advance and in what order.

Assume that the council makes the top priority the community gym/multi-use recreation center and an aquatics center, as identified by community input and stakeholders.

Councilman Dave Breitenbucher based on past statements, is likely to put an aquatics center at the top of his list.

That is a $47 million endeavor.

The community gym price is collapsed into a three-phase development of a new 80-acre community park that carries an overall price tag of $239 million.

A community center, that Lackey mentioned she lwants to see go south of the 120 Bypass, is listed in the parks master plan as costing $23 million.

For illustrative purposes, the gym may carry an $18 million cost.

The city, based on current funding, can’t go forward with the three at the same time and they’d likely require bonding to do the aquatics center or all three.

That’s why the real determination of what comes first, then second and so forth — especially when it comes to large ticket items — has yet to be made by the council.

There is also nothing locking any of the three facilities into an exact physical location.

Even the gym, envisioned for a new community park, could go elsewhere.

The master plan identified needs and costs that are fluid.

The same goes for locations of the desired amenities.

As such, it creates perimeters to allow the city to move forward as the master plan isn’t a blueprint set in stone.

To contact Dennis Wyatt, email dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com