The Manteca Bulletin posed four questions to the three candidates — Judith Blumhorst, Gabe Galletta, and Regina Lackey — in the Nov. 5 race for the Manteca City Council.

The following are their questions and the answers:

QUESTION:  Do you favor a revisit to Manteca Municipal Code Ordinance No. 800, the growth management ordinance for possible updating? If not, why not. If yes, why.

BLUMHORST: Yes, I favor changing the Growth Management Code Ordinance. We need to promote commercial development compared to residential. 

Over the long term, say 20 years, this would increase our Commercial base and the City’s Sales Tax base compared to the Property Tax Base and allow the city funding for more police officers, firefighters and for traffic mitigation. 

In 1988, the City Council set an annual residential growth limit of 3.9% over the previous year’s housing stock. The mechanism they chose was to control the allocation of sewer connections for new residential vs new commercial/industrial development. 

Historically, developers have only built 600-700 new dwellings annually. With a 3.9% cap on residential growth, more than1000 new dwellings per year could be built. 3.9% is too high.

For too long, the City of Manteca hasn’t required developers to pay their fair share and been relying primarily on residential growth and property taxes to fund operations and infrastructure. Manteca hasn’t grown our Sales Tax base to keep up while we added so many residents that consume city services like police, fire, and roads. 

And more unfortunately, the city received only $0.20 out of every property tax dollar collected for all those new dwellings. The state and county kept $0.80.  It was highway robbery.    

Unfortunately, the revenue from property taxes hasn’t kept up with the inflated  costs of running the city. Property taxes are limited to just 2% inflation by Prop 13,  The expenses of running City services  including police and fire services, grows a lot faster than 2% annually.  

Some people want to put a moratorium on growth, but without growth we can’t catch up to cover the annual expenses of infrastructure that we need right now -- street improvements, traffic congestion, salaries to hire more police and firefighters, etc.

Fortunately, the current City Council has negotiated better terms with Residential Developers as well as the County.  For all future property annexed to the City for residential and commercial/industrial development, the City will get $0.40 back from every tax dollar collected by the County.  (Note the 40%/60% property tax split applies only for future property development, not for all existing properties) 

A final benefit of incentivizing commercial growth with preferential wastewater connection fees and time frames is that it will attract more retail development, entertainment options and grocers (think Trader Joe’s, Winco) and sit-down restaurants. 

GALLETTA: Manteca’s rapid growth, supported by Ordinance #800, requires forward-thinking solutions to manage its infrastructure needs. One area we can focus on is the city’s sewage plant, which should be retooled to handle more organic material and convert that waste into fuel. This would not only make Manteca more sustainable but also create a revenue stream by charging neighboring cities to process their organic waste. 

Furthermore, we should consider bringing back the successful “bonus bucks” system from 1998, which generated $30 million in infrastructure funding. Developers paid a premium for expedited sewer allocations, which allowed the city to fund vital projects without burdening residents. 

A modernized version of this program could once again help Manteca fund necessary expansions in line with our growth while keeping the financial load off local taxpayers. 

By taking these steps, we can ensure that Manteca’s infrastructure supports future growth while generating new revenues to maintain and improve city services. This combination of innovation, sustainability, and fiscal responsibility will position Manteca as a regional leader in smart growth and infrastructure management.

LACKEY: Yes, I favor revisiting Manteca Municipal Code Ordinance No. 800, the growth management ordinance, to promote an incredible quality of life for our current and future residents. 

When Ordinance 800 was enacted in 1988, it was designed to manage and limit growth so that Manteca's infrastructure could adequately support its population. While this was a forward-thinking move at the time, much has changed in 36 years! Our city has grown to nearly 100,000 residents with a growth limitation in place and it is essential to reassess whether the ordinance still adequately protects public services, schools, roads, and utilities.

 Updating the ordinance could allow the city to better manage its growth in a way that promotes sustainable development, encourages economic growth, and enhances Manteca’s ability to meet contemporary challenges. A thorough review and potential update of Ordinance 800 could ensure thoughtful, healthy growth and a vibrant quality of life for all Mantecans.

QUESTION: Do you favor or oppose Measure Q? Please explain your answer.

BLUMHORST: I support Measure Q. Without Measure Q, we will be waiting 20 years to fix our roads, or build a new police station, pool, a community center and more.  Without Measure Q, we can’t hire more police and firefighters to keep our community safe.

If Q doesn’t pass, the city will have to cut existing services, which are already too low. Just last week, two fire engines broke down due to old age. 

Measure Q will add about $13 million in stable sales tax revenue annually.  

With this much-needed infusion of money, we can finance the $56 million needed for a new police station to replace our outdated facility by issuing a bond. A municipal bond works like a mortgage. We could build a new police station before 2030 and pay it off over the next 15 years. Plus amenities like a new pool or community center. It’s like getting a mortgage for a house. 

With Measure Q, we could hire and pay the annual salaries for 10 new sworn Police Officers and 9 new firefighters – just one year after Measure Q is implemented. 

Don’t believe the anti-Q people who say all we have to do is fill all the empty storefronts in town.  Even if we filled every empty storefront in town, it wouldn’t be enough new revenue. We’d need to nearly double the number of retail stores in Manteca to produce the same sales tax as Measure Q.

Don't believe anti-Q people who claim that the Council’s new 60/40 property tax split with the county will provide the revenues we need in just a few years.  It won’t. All the new homes under construction today are under the old 80/20 property tax split. It will take 20 more years of growth in the future before the new property taxes are adequate.  

For seniors and low-income residents, there’s no sales tax on necessities like groceries, medicine, doctors, and services.  The three-quarter cent tax is less than $0.01 for every dollar you spend on other stuff.  It’s $0.75 for $100 you spend - a small price to pay for more public safety officers, amenities and an improved quality of life in Manteca.

Manteca has been ailing financially for decades. The package of  Measure Q, balanced future growth, and the new property tax deals can and will reverse the decline. Support   Manteca’s Future.  Support Measure Q.

GALLETTA: I oppose Measure Q because it unfairly burdens Manteca’s low-income and fixed-income residents, many of whom are already struggling to afford housing and basic necessities. 

A sales tax increase, as proposed in Measure Q, would make daily living more expensive, disproportionately affecting those who can least afford it. While the city claims it needs the revenue, there are already several revenue streams set to bolster the general fund in the near future, making this tax hike unnecessary. 

For instance, Manteca will benefit from the Urban Facilities District (UFD) fees paid by new developments, which are expected to generate significant revenue. Additionally, the transit tax from the Great Wolf Lodge, a major local business and tourist attraction, is set to contribute to the city’s income, helping fund public services and infrastructure improvements.

 Finally, the city’s property tax base will grow significantly as new properties are annexed into Manteca under the updated general plan. This expansion will result in a larger, more stable source of property tax revenue without the need to further tax residents through a sales tax increase. Rather than placing additional financial strain on residents through Measure Q, Manteca should focus on maximizing these existing and incoming revenue streams. 

The city’s leadership must prioritize efficiency in spending, ensuring that the current and future revenues are used to address the most pressing needs — like public safety, infrastructure, and social services—without overtaxing its residents. There are ways to maintain and improve city services without making everyday purchases more expensive for families already struggling to get by. In short, Measure Q may seem like a quick fix, but it ignores the fact that Manteca has other revenue options that don’t put undue pressure on low-income and fixed-income residents.

It’s important to seek solutions that prioritize fiscal responsibility and protect our most vulnerable citizens, rather than opting for regressive taxation measures that hurt those who are already facing financial challenges.

LACKEY: No, I do not support Measure Q. Despite agreeing with the City on the urgent need for improvements to public safety, infrastructure, and other essential services, I cannot support an additional tax on my neighbors and friends. 

Inflation has hit many of us where it hurts and people are struggling. Measure Q is ill-timed and out of touch with the daily situation of most Mantecans. Measure Q proposes a three-quarter cent sales tax increase that would generate $10 - $13 million annually for the city. Besides my genuine concern about the impact of this measure on the financial picture of many residents, I am also concerned that Measure Q is formatted as a general fund tax. 

As a general tax, there are no guarantees on how the funds will be spent, which raises serious doubts about whether the money will be used for the intended purposes. Measure Q lacks specific safeguards to ensure the revenue will be directed toward Manteca's most pressing needs, such as police, fire protection, and road repairs. Once the Measure Q funds are placed in the general fund, future city councils will have full discretion on how to allocate them. 

While today’s city leaders are promising to use the funds for critical services, there is no legal mechanism to hold future councils accountable to these promises. As a result, no one can guarantee that future city leaders will prioritize the same projects or maintain the same level of commitment to public safety and infrastructure improvements. Additionally, the 20-year duration of the tax presents additional concerns. 

Over two decades, priorities and leadership will inevitably change, making it difficult to ensure that the funds will continue to be used effectively in the ways residents were promised. A more targeted, specific tax that allocates funding directly to public safety or infrastructure would be a more appropriate approach. Without these guardrails, Measure Q risks becoming a blank check with too much flexibility for future misallocation of funds. 

The lack of accountability and guarantees in Measure Q make it a flawed solution and puts the burden of solving the City’s safety and infrastructure concerns on the receipts of residents with zero guarantee of improved or continued City service. Mantecans deserve a more transparent and focused plan to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely and responsibly.

QUESTION: As a council member, do you support or not support the Delicato settlement? Please explain your answer.

BLUMHORST: I support the Delicato settlement.  

It’s a good settlement because It stops Manteca’s over-reliance on residential growth which has largely funded the government almost entirely through property taxes to run the city.  This agreement will spur commercial and industrial development to bring in jobs and sales tax revenue.   

The settlement also provides the right of way  to construct a  large segment of the Roth Road connection between Highway 99 and Interstate 5  - a dedicated east-west STAA truck route that will redirect heavy truck traffic away from Airport and Lathrop Roads reducing congestion and commute times.  STAA trucks are allowed on the Interstate highways, but are  larger than the trucks allowed on California roadways in general.

The synergy between having a dedicated STAA truck route connecting the major highways directly to the new industrial area is obvious.  It will attract new companies to Manteca, bring  good paying jobs to the city. It will also help attract more amenities like retail outlets, dining opportunities and entertainment options.

Finally, the settlement grants 50 acres to the City for building a new community park, similar to Woodward Park in size and level of amenities.   It will serve as a buffer between new residential growth to the south and trucks along the STAA route and provide a green space that our families and children can utilize.  While the Delicato settlement was initially contentious, our city leaders worked out a mutually beneficial deal which provides a healthy balance between commercial and residential growth

GALLETTA: I support the Delicato Settlement because it offers significant benefits to Manteca. First, the set aside of a 50-acre park for public use will provide valuable green space, enhancing the community’s recreational options. 

Additionally, the settlement allows for strategic growth, including the creation of employment opportunities through creative development patterns. A key aspect of the settlement is its impact on the city’s solid waste management. My experience in this area makes me confident that transitioning to a locally owned and managed transfer station will save Manteca substantial costs.

 Currently, the city relies on a county facility on Lovelace, which has led to higher expenses for residents. By eliminating these third-party costs and putting the transfer services out for bid, the city can contract private-sector providers that offer good union jobs, ensuring both cost savings and high-quality service. 

This settlement represents a win for the community by reducing government waste, promoting local management, and creating long-term financial and social benefits for Manteca. The combination of job creation, public space, and reduced city costs makes the Delicato Settlement an important step forward for our city.

LACKEY: Yes, I support the Delicato settlement because it strikes a critical balance between sustainable growth and the preservation of Manteca’s vital agricultural industry. Delicato Family Wines is not only a significant employer but also a cornerstone of Manteca's agricultural identity. 

Ensuring the winery's operations are protected from potential conflicts arising from residential encroachment is essential for maintaining the long-term viability of our local agricultural businesses. The Delicato settlement allowed the City to avoid a lengthy and costly legal battle, which would have drained public resources and created unnecessary division within the community. By resolving the conflict through negotiations, the city and Delicato have shown that it’s possible to work collaboratively toward solutions that benefit both parties. This approach fosters goodwill with local businesses, which are essential to Manteca’s economy, and demonstrates the city’s commitment to thoughtful, inclusive decision-making. Moreover, the settlement provides the city with the opportunity to revisit its zoning plans, ensuring that future growth can be managed more effectively while minimizing disruptions to agricultural operations. 

This creates a framework for future development that is not only cohesive but also respectful of the city's rural and agricultural heritage. As Manteca grows, maintaining a balance between urban expansion and agricultural preservation is key to ensuring that the city’s development remains sustainable over the long term.

QUESTION: What is the biggest need specifically of Area 2 and what steps would you take to address it as a council member?

BLUMHORST: The biggest need in District 2 is to reduce the traffic congestion caused by existing and future development.  Many intersections are jammed at rush hour and school drop-off and pick-up.  

The intersection at Main and Woodward is backed up every day.  The responsible developers should have widened and installed traffic signals a long time ago, as promised.  

In hindsight, the City should have required road improvements before the new homes at Griffin Park were occupied.  The present City Council now requires that all future developments must complete road upgrades before they build.

South Main from Atherton to the 120 onramp will be widened too.  This will be completed before the shopping plaza at Main and Atherton is built, in accordance with the new, stricter Development Agreements . 

There are two big housing developments which have broken ground and will bring about 1500 units to District 2 over the next 10 years.  As a Planning Commissioner (and now Chair), I worked to ensure that all the roads and infrastructure will be completed before occupancy.  

Before any new residents move into the Hat Ranch development project, there will be a section of the new Raymus Parkway built to the south, running east/west between Atherton Drive and Union.  This will funnel traffic away from Pillsbury Road and other neighborhood streets 

East of 99, Yosemite Square, will add new homes over the next 10 years, and bring more traffic on Austin Rd, and the Yosemite/99 intersection.   Again, all road improvements will be complete prior to occupancy.  I will work to ensure that the impacts during construction will be minimized. 

Finally, workers recently broke ground for the new, expanded 99/120 interchange.  After 20 years of planning, the City, SJ County and Caltrans are upgrading the interchange and building a new 4 lane bridge on Austin Rd over the railroad track.  Phases One and Two will be completed in about two years.  As your Council Member, I will work to see it proceeds as smoothly as possible. It will be wonderful when completed, but it’s going to take patience.

The second most important need in District 2 is better shopping and restaurant access.  There are two new grocery chains already approved, as well as more restaurants and entertainment sites along Atherton Way.  I will work to attract more shopping, restaurants, and entertainment opportunities, like Trader Joes, Winco, and Whole Foods,  to the District.

GALLETTA: Area 2 of Manteca has several key needs that must be addressed to improve the quality of life for its residents. One of the primary concerns is the need for more schools and community centers to serve the growing population. These facilities are essential for fostering education and providing spaces for community engagement. 

Additionally, the area lacks sufficient grocery stores, making access to basic necessities a challenge for many families. Parks and recreational areas are also crucial for Area 2, providing safe spaces for families and children to gather and play.

 Improved road infrastructure and street lighting, particularly near schools, are needed to ensure the safety of schoolchildren, especially during the early morning and late afternoon hours. Another major need is the establishment of a police Substation in the area. As the community grows, so does the demand for public safety services. A local police Substation would improve response times and ensure that residents feel safe in their neighborhoods. To address these needs, as a council member, 

I would advocate for strategic use of development fees, specifically ensuring that funds generated from Area 2 developments are reinvested directly into the district. This includes prioritizing road improvements, parks, and community services such as schools and a police station. Additionally, I would push for the creation of new grocery stores and essential services to serve the area’s growing population. By allocating resources efficiently and advocating for smart development, we can ensure that Area 2 receives the attention and investment it needs to thrive.

LACKEY:  As someone who lives in District 2, one frustration I hear my neighbors voice is traffic. As our population has grown, traffic has increased – especially in residential neighborhoods where speeding is a concern. There is a need for improved traffic management to improve safety and reduce congestion. 

To address this, I would advocate for the installation of additional stop lights and stop signs at high-traffic intersections to regulate vehicle flow and improve pedestrian safety. In areas where speeding is a significant problem, speed bumps could help slow down traffic and reduce the risk of accidents. These measures would not only improve the safety of our roads but also make daily commutes smoother for residents. Implementing these traffic management solutions is a key step in creating safer, more livable neighborhoods in District 2. 

Another solution could be to prioritize construction of the retail promised along the Atherton corridor. Additional retail could discourage the flow of traffic from the highway into city roads. By focusing on building more retail options, District 2 (and all of Manteca) will not only experience relief from traffic congestion but the City could avoid excessive, preventable wear and tear on its streets and enjoy increased tax revenue. But these are just some ideas! District 2 is split into two distinct areas- southeast of HWY120 and east of HWY99- and the needs of each are unique. 

As a council member, one of my first actions would be to meet directly with residents of District 2 to gain a clear understanding of their priorities and concerns. Organizing town halls, surveys, and community forums would allow me to listen to residents and incorporate their feedback into actionable solutions and improve the quality of life for those living in District 2.