Is it a bombshell or a dud?

Almost two weeks ago on Oct. 4, Lei Ann Larson spoke before the Manteca City Council to share the contents of “a letter” that was left in her mailbox.

It was about the soon-to-break ground Highway 120 Bypass/Highway 99 upgrade project.

Larson is one of three candidates seeking the mayor’s seat on Nov. 8. She was speaking to five elected leaders, two of whom are her opponents, incumbent Mayor Ben Cantu and Councilman Gary Singh.

Her target that Tuesday was Singh.

And although she couched the accusations by peppering her remarks with the words “appears” several times as she was relaying what was in the letter, it was clear what she was implying.

 She asked that the city thoroughly investigate matter.

The specific of Larson’s concern in just a moment.

Manteca City Attorney Dave Nefouse looked into the issues that Larson relayed following the Oct. 4 council meeting. Nefouse determined there was no conflict under either state law or city rules.

The same goes for a look at the concerns by the San Joaquin Council of Governments’ attorney. Singh serves as the City of Manteca’s representative on the 12-member SJCOG board.

Then this week one of Larson’s advisors — Frank Aquila — posted on various social media sites that he was going to drop a “bombshell” in today’s Bulletin via a letter to the editor.

It is a letter the Bulletin opted not to publish. That decision wasn’t based on a wish to censor Aquila but due to the fact it is an issue that needs to be viewed in context, how the project and funding evolved, and state law.

If you want to read how Aquila framed the matter he may post it online. Aquila was careful not to state what he described as fact. He used words such as to “appear” as well to describe what he believes certain actions implied.

Clearly,  people of opposing viewpoints can look at a situation and interpret why actions occurred differently. But malfeasance needs to be determined by the law and not perception.

In this case legal counsel of the two agencies involved — the City of Manteca and SJCOG — did not see an issue.

Issue centers around

Austin interchange

The matter centers around a decision by the Manteca City Council to not have to go back at a later date and pay to widen the new Austin Road crossing of Highway 99 that will bridge both the freeway and the railroad tracks.  As such did Singh’s role as a Manteca council member and as an elected official representing the city on the SJCOG board somehow benefit him personally?

Larson — by channeling the apparent anonymous letter writer — implied that Singh had a conflict of interest due to a property deal his father entered into with other investors in 2019. The letter writer also contends Singh arranged to get taxpayers in Manteca to cover the cost of two additional lanes on the replacement bridge for Austin Road.

The city in 2012 when Karen McLaughlin was city manager had decided that based on growth and zoning the city had put in place for the 1,080-acre Austin Road Business Park that would access the interchange to have the new overcrossing built as four through lanes in much the same manner as the Lathrop Road crossing that replaced the original two-lane narrow overcrossing that was put in place in 1955.

Caltrans, when they do interchange upgrades, will not fund improvements that induce growth. Making Austin Road four lanes instead of two lanes would accommodate growth — such as the Austin Road Business Park — that has yet to happen.

The initial council discussion and a decision to pay SJCOG $60,100 for project management services for a future replacement interchange was made in August of 2012.

When the Austin Road Business Park project stalled in 2015, the city stopped efforts to proceed with an updated interchange.

Then a gift horse of sorts was dropped in Manteca’s lap.

Based on extensive regional lobbying led by former Mayor Steve DeBrum and later on by Singh, the Caltrans schedule for improving the 120 Bypass/Highway 99 congestion issues which wasn’t even on Caltrans’s list of potential projects until almost 2040 was moved up to next year.

2012 widening decision was

prior the 2019 land purchase

The city succeeded by obtaining the support of other cities. Manteca’s elected leadership — which did the heavy lifting of outreach  — pointed out how the congestion was impacting commerce throughout the Northern San Joaquín Valley and the fact the last two miles of the 120 Bypass eastbound was six times more dangerous than a typical freeway sec when it came to accidents and fatalities.

In other words, the entire region and not just Manteca would benefit immensely from a more functional and therefore safer 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange that required reconfiguring the Austin Road interchange as well to make it work.

With Caltrans picking up the tab for replacing the existing Austin Road freeway bridge in a three-phased endeavor unveiled in late 2018, a rough estimate was given of $8.8 million of the planned replacement bridge of two lanes was made four lanes at a future date.

It was just that — a preliminary estimate made without the exact known cost of the added issue of also clearing the railroad tracks.

Now that the final design has been made of the first phase of the $154 million 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange upgrade, the actual cost of the oversize is $4 million.

Of that, $3.3 million will come from a regional transportation fee collected from developers in Manteca on new homes they built to go toward projects such as the Austin Road interchange.

Since the council, committed to the four-lane option, SJCOG has secured additional funds that will cover the remaining $700,000 of the oversizing cost.

For additional perspective when Caltrans was trying to fine tune costs, SJCOG associate regional planner David Ripperda in March 2019 indicated the four-lane bridge conversion would cost $18.8 million and a two-lane version $12.6 million. At the time, Ripperda shared it would cost $8.8 million more— as opposed to $6.2 million more it the bridge was widened to four lanes upfront —  to make it four lanes at a future point. However, Caltrans would not be able to purchase the right-of-way at a future point.

In the same email, Ripperda stated, “Phase 1C (which restores the ramps) is anticipated to be built when the Austin Road Business Park development moves forward.”

In other words, the ramp restoration was designed primarily with development south of the interchange in mind and not north where the investment group Singh’s father is a part of purchased property.

The oversizing will not cost Manteca taxpayers a cent as Larson alluded was the belief of  whoever placed that letter in her mailbox.

Singh not part of deal &

based on law has no conflict

 Singh did not handle the transaction nor does he own a part of the 47.86 acres that the Austin Investment Group that his father is a part of that acquired the property on June 28, 2019 for $2.9 million.

The property originally was placed on the market in April 2018 for $3.7 million. It sat on the market for 362 days. The agent that listed Dan Holly from Stockton — represented both sides of the transaction.

In March of 2021 Singh indicated he was working with SJCOG to try and secure the $53 million needed for the third phase.  

The $53 million would widen part of the 120 Bypass to six lanes plus pay for elaborate braided ramps to allow the replacement of the northbound onramp and southbound off-ramp from Austin to Highway 99 that will be removed in early 2023 to allow work on the first phase to start.

The ramps will not be replaced until funding is found for the third phase which, by Caltrans’ estimate, will be a minimum of 10 years after working starts on the first phase.

A question was raised that Singh committed what amounted to “insider trading” by providing information to his father about the interchange going to be replaced with four lanes.

But that was a very public decision made in 2012 seven years prior to the land purchase, and four years  before Singh was elected to the council. Singh’s first connection with city government was in 2014 when he was appointed to the Planning Commission.

There has always been an interchange with freeway access at Austin Road since 1955.

The Caltrans project getting underway next year will remove half off the off-ramps at Austin Road for at least 10 years reducing the commercial value for parcels that require ramp access to the freeway for at least a decade if  not longer.

Why that matters is because there is a belief the investment group would ultimately like to pursue a truck stop and hotel on the property. Neither could work without full freeway access.

The question whether Singh should have recused himself because his father was part of a partnership that bought land near the interchange has been answered by the City of Manteca and SJCOG with a  “no”.

One could argue that Singh should have done so but under the law given he doesn’t have a direct benefit from the project that is not the case.

The preceding may qualify as a “bombshell” for the supporters of Singh’s political opponents but under state law it’s a dud.

To contact Dennis Wyatt, email dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com