It’s time that Manteca took its scrutiny of ways to deliver government services more efficiently and for less money to the next level.
The question is whether elected leaders have the stomach for it or if staff can rise to the occasion.
So what is the next level? It is changing Manteca’s development pattern.
There is little doubt that spread out development as in typical five homes per acre neighborhoods costs more money.
For example:
•The less sewer and water connections you have per mile of pipe the more costly per user to maintain and replace the lines.
•Larger geographic areas require more police and fire due to response times being longer.
•Sprawl requires more major roads to maintain and resurface.
The city is starting to look at ways of reducing costs by advocating the use of a round-about where feasible to replace the need for traffic signals. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Narrower residential streets slow traffic and saves on maintenance. It may not be a significant amount per block but it adds up quickly especially in the new reality where cutting $6,000 for police dog replacement each year is a necessity as when combined with other penny-saving moves, the savings pile up quickly.
Then there is the real big cost saver by avoiding a Modesto Village I-like blunder. Village I is experiencing a shortfall in development fees approaching $50 million that has left Modesto taxpayers holding the bag. To avoid a similar situation in Manteca, the city needs to establish urban limits cast in stone.
This would have to be done in partnership with San Joaquin County and neighboring cities. But in doing so, the city will know the exact ultimate build-out of the city. They can then develop densities plus identify what is needed exactly to support that growth in terms of infrastructure and amenities. Once those perimeters have been established fees can then be set accordingly.
Right now the perimeters of ultimate growth keep changing every 10 years as general plan updates usually extend spheres of influence or areas identified for “logical” annexation to a city.
The best place to start would be to draw the line on the south side of the proposed extension of McKinley Avenue through what is now rural South Manteca. It would exempt any development already in the pipeline specifically the Austin Road Business Park.
By halting growth at the future extension of McKinley it provides an opportunity to have more compatible agricultural uses - especially orchards and grape vineyards - abut urban development
The county’s existing minimum parcel size would further strengthen the McKinley Avenue as a true “edge of Manteca” boundary without creating a “buffer” zone of estate-sized lots or even small one- and two-acre residential parcels.
There are also no active plans on paper or otherwise to develop anything at the moment south of the proposed extension of McKinley Avenue.
It gives Manteca a golden opportunity to make a clean decision while providing plenty of growth potential north of the envisioned extension.
Manteca was a trailblazer when it came to Central Valley cities imposing a growth cap. That 3.9 percent cap adopted in 1985 and based on annual sewer allocations has served Manteca well. The cap arguably set the stage for today’s fairly resilient local economy especially when compared to neighboring communities. By taking the next step and going to urban limits cast in stone, Manteca moves away from the never-ending moving and expanding craps game that is the updating of general plans that serve as blueprints for growth in California cities.
The question is whether elected leaders have the stomach for it or if staff can rise to the occasion.
So what is the next level? It is changing Manteca’s development pattern.
There is little doubt that spread out development as in typical five homes per acre neighborhoods costs more money.
For example:
•The less sewer and water connections you have per mile of pipe the more costly per user to maintain and replace the lines.
•Larger geographic areas require more police and fire due to response times being longer.
•Sprawl requires more major roads to maintain and resurface.
The city is starting to look at ways of reducing costs by advocating the use of a round-about where feasible to replace the need for traffic signals. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Narrower residential streets slow traffic and saves on maintenance. It may not be a significant amount per block but it adds up quickly especially in the new reality where cutting $6,000 for police dog replacement each year is a necessity as when combined with other penny-saving moves, the savings pile up quickly.
Then there is the real big cost saver by avoiding a Modesto Village I-like blunder. Village I is experiencing a shortfall in development fees approaching $50 million that has left Modesto taxpayers holding the bag. To avoid a similar situation in Manteca, the city needs to establish urban limits cast in stone.
This would have to be done in partnership with San Joaquin County and neighboring cities. But in doing so, the city will know the exact ultimate build-out of the city. They can then develop densities plus identify what is needed exactly to support that growth in terms of infrastructure and amenities. Once those perimeters have been established fees can then be set accordingly.
Right now the perimeters of ultimate growth keep changing every 10 years as general plan updates usually extend spheres of influence or areas identified for “logical” annexation to a city.
The best place to start would be to draw the line on the south side of the proposed extension of McKinley Avenue through what is now rural South Manteca. It would exempt any development already in the pipeline specifically the Austin Road Business Park.
By halting growth at the future extension of McKinley it provides an opportunity to have more compatible agricultural uses - especially orchards and grape vineyards - abut urban development
The county’s existing minimum parcel size would further strengthen the McKinley Avenue as a true “edge of Manteca” boundary without creating a “buffer” zone of estate-sized lots or even small one- and two-acre residential parcels.
There are also no active plans on paper or otherwise to develop anything at the moment south of the proposed extension of McKinley Avenue.
It gives Manteca a golden opportunity to make a clean decision while providing plenty of growth potential north of the envisioned extension.
Manteca was a trailblazer when it came to Central Valley cities imposing a growth cap. That 3.9 percent cap adopted in 1985 and based on annual sewer allocations has served Manteca well. The cap arguably set the stage for today’s fairly resilient local economy especially when compared to neighboring communities. By taking the next step and going to urban limits cast in stone, Manteca moves away from the never-ending moving and expanding craps game that is the updating of general plans that serve as blueprints for growth in California cities.
