Measure Y: 33¢ per square foot to build — and run — a new Barrett Community Center

New Barrett Community Center — not a light remodel. The City Attorney’s impartial analysis and the ordinance text authorize a special tax “for constructing and operating a new community center,” with spending priorities for construction, operations, staffing, maintenance, and programs at the new Barrett Community Center.

• Election: Tuesday, November 3, 2026 (consolidated general).
• How it got on the ballot: Citizen initiative (Friends of Belmont Community Center / Build Belmont Together). City Council Resolution 2026-69 (adopted July 14, 2026) placed it after San Mateo County verified 1,799 valid signatures (threshold 1,750 / 10%). Councilmember Tom McCune (personal outreach, Sep 18) restates: Council only found signature requirements met — it did not author the measure.
• Vote needed: Simple majority — courts treat citizen-initiative special taxes differently from council-placed special taxes that need two-thirds. BCF President Ulla Foehr (advocacy framing) notes the 2/3 threshold rises after this year.
• Rates (tax year 2027–28): $0.33/sf dwelling-unit building floor area; $0.54/sf other buildings’ floor area. Tax is on building square footage (gross floor area of all floors) — ordinance word “improvements” = buildings/structures on the parcel, not home-renovation “improvements.” Council may later inflate-adjust by CPI-U (SF–Oakland–Hayward) or CA per-capita personal income growth.
• Exemption: Owner-occupants age 65+ on their dwelling unit (annual application).
• Guardrails: Revenue to a restricted Community Center Special Fund; annual audit; cannot be taken by the State for general use.

Ordinance definitions (primary: SMC ACRE resolution PDF / Res. 2026-69): “Improvements” means all buildings or structures erected or affixed to the parcel. “Square footage” means the total gross horizontal areas of all floors (including usable basement/cellars and porches; excluding parking/loading and certain outdoor/semi-outdoor areas and street-level arcades open to the public).

Tax base = existing (and future) building floor area — for houses, your living / building floor area under that formula, not renovation upgrades. Same-footprint remodel adds $0 Measure Y; added floor area adds +33¢ × new sf / year.

City of Belmont’s Community Center project page (Group4, Q4 2022) projected $67.6–$69.3 million to build the building and amenities concurrently — a planning cost estimate, not a fixed price written into Measure Y. The measure funds construction and ongoing operations/programs from an ongoing square-footage tax (~$7.1M year one), not a one-time bond amount. Locked $68–84M budget in the measure: still NOT in ballot.

Belmont Community Foundation (Sep 17, 2026) pointed supporters to buildbelmonttogether.vote and Yes-on-Y organizing (Jim Howard among Yes-on-Y organizers (argument paperwork)). Campaign site: Barrett built 1949 for ~5,500 residents; city now ~27,000; facility described as past useful life (leaks, failing systems, code gaps).

BCF President Ulla Foehr ([email protected], Sep 18): BCF supports the measure but “we are not the campaign”; points to Yes on Y contact. Treat as BCF/advocacy — not City of Belmont.

Campaign/city still frames Belmont at about ~27,000 residents (Barrett built for ~5,500; ~2.5 persons/household). Citywide tax/build/space averages use ~10,500 households (U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts Belmont city, CA — Households, 2020–2024). Illustrative averages — the tax is billed per building sq ft, not per household (~$7.1M year-1 also includes non-dwelling parcels at 54¢):

• Tax: ~$7.1M year-1 ÷ 10,500 ≈ ~$676 per household per year citywide average.
• Build cost (one-time equiv.): ~$68–69M ÷ 10,500 ≈ ~$6,500–$6,600 per household; full CC+pool+gym band ~$84M ≈ ~$8,000 per household.
• Space: existing Barrett ~16,370 sf (~1.6 sf/household). Planned new center 31,000–45,000 sf ≈ ~3.0–4.3 sf per household.

No official “daily capacity / users per day” figure is published in Measure Y materials.

Path under study (elevated). Councilmember Tom McCune (personal email, Sep 18, 2026 — not official City/Council position) states the common formula: sell bonds for construction, repay from the tax over time; staff studying options; instrument/terms not locked. Ballot/ordinance still does not name a loan, bond, or COPs.

Cost planning band is roughly ~$68–84M (~$80M midpoint / campaign–city project-cost figure; Strinden / city deck all-in ~$83.8M) vs ~$7.1M/yr yield — not a locked instrument. Ulla (BCF advocacy): low-interest bonds; ~5–6 years complete from summer 2027.

If the city borrows roughly ~$80M (planning midpoint — not named in the ballot) and dedicates year-1-rate revenue to debt:

• Principal-only clock (illustration only): $80M ÷ $7.1M ≈ ~11 years.
• Primary ILLUSTRATIVE debt service (Social Monitor fold): at roughly ~5–6% / 20 years, debt service on ~$80M can consume most or all of ~$7.1M/yr for decades — ILLUSTRATIVE / NOT LOCKED / not ballot law. No official repay years; tax continues until voters repeal.
• Capacity band sometimes sketched ~$80–120M+ by rate/term — CONTEXT only; not official amortization.
• Build can start sooner with debt: Ulla’s ~5–6 years complete = advocacy timeline CONTEXT, not ordinance.
• Tax still continues until voters end it — bond payoff ≠ tax sunset. Bridge here = illustrative 20-yr debt service, not ordinance.

Do not invent a locked $80M loan or Council-adopted terms. Financing instrument/terms in the ballot remain NOT STATED.

Not the city’s plan. McCune (personal, Sep 18 — personal opinions footer, not official City/Council): “waiting until the fund from the measure accumulates to a level adequate for construction is not a viable option. Construction costs are increasing too fast.” Grade: HOLDS WITH CAVEAT / CONTEXT (personal email).

Measure Y meters ~$7.1M/yr (from Jul 1, 2027) into a restricted fund for construction and operations — not an upfront $70M check and not a bond written into the ballot. Pure cash-accumulation arithmetic only if all year-1-rate revenue went only to capital (labeled arithmetic only / path McCune says not viable):

• ~$68–69M (Q4 2022 concurrent build estimate) ÷ $7.1M ≈ ~10 years.
• ~$84M (Oct 2025 full CC+pool+gym band) ÷ $7.1M ≈ ~12 years.
• If half the stream is needed for ops/reserves during the wait: roughly ~19–24 years to stack the same capital — order-of-magnitude only.

Group4 FAQ separately says schematic→construction ≈ 36–42 months once the budget is approved — that is build time after money is lined up, not years of tax collection.

This is new construction / replacement, not a light remodel of the 1949 Barrett building. Remodel volume does not fund the measure. Do not present ~10/~12 yrs cash-stack as the city’s plan.

How does ~$7.1M/year become the ~$68–84M lump sum in time to build? Independent primary-source check (impartial analysis, Res./ordinance, Group4 Oct 2025 packet, city Conversation page, Build Belmont Together) still finds the bridge mechanism NOT STATED in ballot docs. Ordinance spending priorities allow Special Fund use for constructing/expanding/remodeling or financing facilities — that permits financing costs but does not name instrument, terms, or a cash-stack schedule. Cash-stack rejected as viable per McCune (personal Sep 18 — not Council vote) while the financing instrument is still not adopted by Council.

Councilmember Tom McCune · personal · Sep 18, 2026

[email protected] — personal opinions; open-meeting disclaimer; not Council-adopted.

• Bonds / tax repayment under study — staff authorized to study options; common formula = sell bonds for construction, repay from the tax. Instrument and terms not locked.
• Cash-stack not viable HOLDS WITH CAVEAT / CONTEXT — “waiting until the fund from the measure accumulates to a level adequate for construction is not a viable option. Construction costs are increasing too fast.” Common formula = sell bonds, repay from tax; staff studying options; instrument/terms not locked (personal — not Council-adopted).
• Tax continues until voters end it — after construction/bonds paid, can fund improvements. ~$594–600 @ 1,800 sf math OK per him.
• Stanford $5M did NOT materialize (NDNU public-benefit example); grants + developer fees still sought; none committed covering the tax burden.
• Tenants: if measure passes, staff will look at alternate city facilities; some may move offsite; demo likely ~2–3 years after pass (design/permit/bid), giving time to relocate.
• Citizen initiative put it on the ballot; Council only found signature requirements met.
• Schematic: city schematic PDF — tax needed for detailed design pre-construction.

BCF President Ulla Foehr · BCF · Sep 18, 2026

[email protected] — BCF supports but “not the campaign”; not City of Belmont.

• Bond path + forever tax for ops — first phases secure low-interest bonds; later shift to ops/staffing; no sunset; ~5–6 years complete from summer 2027 (her framing).
• BCF furnishings/tech if measure passes — aspirational; not committed construction dollars named.
• Continuity claim: plan moves buildings to Ralston side → current buildings usable during construction of new spaces. Flag tension vs ballot closure NOT STATED and McCune’s relocation / demo timeline — unverified against an adopted city phasing plan.
• 2/3 threshold rises after this year (advocacy framing). Exact poll % she cites (~60–64%) — see Polling card: sits near Godbe informed 63.3%; prefer primary PDF over advocacy.
• UNITS SLIP She wrote “0.33 cents per square foot” — unit wording slip, not a different tax rate. Ordinance is 33¢ / $0.33 per sf. Math check: $0.33 × 2,000 sf = $666/yr (matches her household figure); 0.33¢ × 2,000 would be ~$6.60.

Scoreboard · prior NOT STATED cards after Sep 18 outreach

Speaker caveats apply. McCune ≠ ordinance. Ulla ≠ City. Ballot text still controls what is locked. McCune’s cash-stack view is HOLDS WITH CAVEAT (personal / staff-direction) under financing — kept there, not graded as a wrong initial-question claim.

Polling — CONFIRMED vs UNCONFIRMED

Lead numbers from the 2025 Godbe PDF. Keep instruments separate. No Yes/No call here.

Needs more data

Items still open — do not treat as locked or disproven:

• Official Council-adopted financing instrument & terms
• Full Godbe questionnaire instrument (wording still slide-paraphrase only)
• Locked construction budget in ballot
• Closure duration / tenant guarantees

Billed on your home’s building / living floor area (ordinance: sq ft of improvements = gross floor area) at 33¢/sf/year (dwellings), starting tax year 2027–28, until voters end it — not a one-time rebuild invoice. Illustrative household bills (rate frozen; real bills may rise with allowed CPI/income bumps):

Those multi-year totals are not a payoff that stops the tax: the ordinance keeps collecting for ops + debt service + programs after the building opens, until voters repeal it. McCune (personal) and Ulla both treat the “until voters end” reading as correct. 65+ owner-occupants can exempt their dwelling (annual application). Same-footprint remodels add $0 Measure Y; added floor area adds +33¢ × new sf / year, on top of any Prop 13 reassessment.

Belmont has not published a Measure Y design→open schedule. Nearby California municipal examples (primary city pages):

• Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Community Park: City said construction expected ~18 months; park closed late March 2022; grand opening Feb 23, 2024 (~23 months closed/build). Planning/master-plan work ran for years before shovel. Source: rpvca.gov project page.
• Order of magnitude: For a full replacement community facility, municipal practice is often ~1.5–2+ years of construction after design/CEQA/bid, with multi-year planning beforehand — not a few months of patch work.

Footnote: Exact Belmont duration will depend on final scope, phasing, and whether programs move off-site — none of which is locked in the ballot ordinance.

Reviewed official materials — City Attorney impartial analysis, Resolution 2026-69 / ordinance text, City “Community Center Conversation” page, and Build Belmont Together campaign pages — do not state how many months or years Barrett will be closed, whether demolition is full-site, or any phased temporary-service plan during construction.

Outreach (non-ballot): McCune (personal) — if measure passes, demo likely ~2–3 years later (design/permit/bid), with staff seeking alternate facilities for tenants. Ulla (BCF) — claims current buildings remain usable during Ralston-side construction. Those statements do not fill the ballot gap and are in tension with each other; treat closure duration as still NOT in ballot.

Campaign language warns of “sudden closure” risk if the building fails, but that is advocacy about the status quo — not a construction outage schedule.

Official No side is Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association (SVTA) — Primary Argument Against (Elizabeth C. Brierly, Director) plus Rebuttal to Favor. Rebuttal signers include former Belmont Mayors Pam Rianda and Coralin Feierbach, plus David Altscher, Kristin Mercer, and SVTA President Mark W. A. Hinkle. Site: svtaxpayers.org (lists Belmont Measure Y as a recommended No). No separate FPPC “No on Y” committee name found in the ballot PDFs.

Their claims largely confirm cutline gaps rather than invent a rival financing model:

• “Forever tax” — matches ordinance: no sunset until voters end it; rates may rise with allowed indexes. Outreach (McCune personal; Ulla) aligns on that reading.
• ~$600/yr on 1,800 sf (33¢×1,800) and $726 on 2,200 sf — same household arithmetic; landlords/business pass-through noted by opponents.
• No concrete plan / cost / completion date — ballot still lacks locked instrument/terms; outreach says bonds under study (non-binding); cash-stack not viable (McCune personal — HOLDS WITH CAVEAT).
• Childcare / broad program uses — confirms ordinance spending priorities include childcare/programs whether or not a household has kids.
• Disaster sell — ADD policy critique: if priority, why not General Fund; Belmont already uses shared school sites (opponent claim).
• ADD (unverified here): Parks budget ~46% growth ($7.6M FY21–22 → $11.12M) — verify on Belmont adopted budgets before HOLD.

Vote-No framing: rejecting a permanent tax without a defined project ≠ rejecting any future community center.

HeartBeat Dance Academy lists its main location + office as “Barrett” — 1835 Belburn Drive, Belmont — with a secondary studio “Crystal” at 774 Polhemus Road, San Mateo. Classes for 2026–27 are advertised at Barrett.

No City of Belmont, parks, Measure Y ordinance, or impartial-analysis language reviewed here assigns a temporary dance venue during construction or guarantees return space in the new building.

Outreach (non-ballot): McCune (personal) — if measure passes, staff will seek alternate city facilities; some tenants may move offsite. Ulla (BCF) — claims current buildings usable during Ralston-side construction. Tension / unverified against an adopted city plan; no HeartBeat guarantee. HeartBeat’s existing Crystal Springs studio remains the only publicly listed alternate address.

Belmont is not Palo Alto, San Mateo, Redwood City, or San Carlos on General Fund scale. Sourced GF (or closely labeled budget) figures put Belmont’s adopted GF revenues in a lower band than those larger Peninsula cities. Measure Y’s Year-1 ~$7.1M is a restricted Community Center Special Fund — not a General Fund expansion and not interchangeable with the GF lines below.

Hero / context numbers (sourced)

Sources: peer city adopted budgets / CAFRs / finance dashboards (Palo Alto, San Mateo, Redwood City, San Carlos); Belmont via EPS Table 6 citing Adopted Budget; Measure Y yield from City Attorney impartial analysis.

GF size alone does NOT prove poorer/wealthier or capacity. Assessed value, reserves, grants, enterprise funds, population, and CIP mix differ. Do not invent peer rankings from these budget lines. Capacity to fund a ~$68–84M capital project depends on AV, voter willingness, reserves, grants, and competing needs — not GF revenue rank alone.

• CONFIRMED Belmont FY2023-24 adopted GF revenues ~$30.3M (EPS citing city budget).
• CONFIRMED Peer GF figures above as labeled (Palo Alto $301.2M; San Mateo ~$175.8M; Redwood City ~$206.9M; San Carlos ~$65.9M / ~$57.2M).
• CONFIRMED Measure Y ~$7.1M Year-1 is restricted special-fund revenue, separate from GF.
• STILL OPEN Native Belmont FY2025-26 GF revenue total from the city’s own adopted-budget PDF (operating ~$81M / ~$94M w/ CIP is press scale, not GF revenue).

Mid-Peninsula peers rarely use an open-ended square-footage special tax for both capital and ops. Typical stacks for community centers / pools / gyms are reserves, lease-revenue debt, private capital + existing GO authority, impact fees, or a general sales tax to the GF — not a forever dedicated sf special tax that funds construction and ongoing ops. Atherton omitted (out of scope).

Vs Measure Y: dedicated ~$7.1M/yr special tax (dwelling/other improvements) until voters end it, for construction and ops into a restricted Community Center Special Fund. That combined, open-ended structure is the outlier among the peers retrieved below.

Documented peer stacks

Sources: peer city budgets / CIP / FAQs / ballot results. Some dollar splits remain secondary — grades stay HOLD for the documented mechanism, not every cited secondary dollar.

• HOLD Documented peer stacks above (Menlo Park Meta+Measure T; Foster City CAAR+GF; Burlingame lease-revenue+Measure I; RWC lease-revenue+fees; Palo Alto Measure J general sales tax; Millbrae II failed then insurance/fees/city).
• CONTEXT Pattern vs Belmont: peers typically separate capital financing from ops (GF/fees); Measure Y combines construction + ops in one ongoing sf special tax until voters end it.
• CONTEXT No Yes/No grade — funding-pattern comparison only.

Measure Y funds a new Barrett Community Center — not a remodel-only CIP. The City Attorney’s impartial analysis frames the special tax for constructing and operating a new community center. City FAQ (Oct 2025 packet): reuse of existing buildings was considered first, then recommended new construction for age, poor condition, inefficient layout, and security/functionality challenges.

• Existing Barrett ~16,370 sf vs planned new center 31,000–45,000 sf.
• Cost bands for preferred new amenity stack cluster ~$68–84M (city/architect estimates — not locked in ballot text).

What Barrett hosts today

• The Hideout (middle-school after-school)
• Preschool / daycare (Belmont Community Learning Center)
• HeartBeat Dance Academy — five dance rooms at Barrett (“Facilities provided by Belmont Parks and Recreation”)
• Partner / contracted youth programs and youth sports
• Community gardens, playground, multi-use field, reservations/rentals

Staff report: classrooms used for full-time licensed childcare, afterschool, and multi-generational recreation.

Joint use & distributed capacity already in play

• BRSSD joint use: City schedules athletic fields at Fox, Ralston, Central, and Nesbit (non-school hours); City keeps program/registration revenue; maintains fields; splits water. Summer use of Ralston gym + multi-purpose room + classrooms.
• Facilitron for BRSSD indoor rentals (fee schedule; summer constrained by district programs + existing joint-use).
• SMCL Belmont Library (1110 Alameda de las Pulgas) — meetings, workshops, literacy/senior/youth programs that do not need a full rec gym.
• Twin Pines / City Hall campus — Parks & Rec office, meeting/registration capacity.
• Carlmont PAC (Sequoia UHSD) — example of borrowed auditorium capacity (HeartBeat already uses for shows).

Existing inventory residents can use

Pools, gyms, and meeting rooms already in the area — fees, schedules, and eligibility vary; this is not a claim that everything is free forever. Many rooms and pools are fee-based or joint-use. No single Belmont site matches a full CC+pool+gym stack. Distributed assets can cover some program purposes — but the City FAQ already preferred new build over reuse for Barrett itself.

Pools

• Highlands Recreation District Pool (San Mateo Highlands) — outdoor L-shaped; lap/rec swim, lessons; open to Highlands residents and the public (fees apply; confirm current drop-in rates).
• Carlmont HS pool — Belmont Parks & Rec summer aquatics (seasonal; city aquatics page).
• Menlo Park — Belle Haven Pool (BHCC campus, reopened May 2024) and Burgess Pool; resident vs non-resident fee differentials typical.
• CONTEXT Winter outdoor-pool economics (ops cost vs low winter demand) are a planning consideration — not proof that a Measure Y pool “fails.”

Gyms / indoor recreation

• BRSSD Facilitron — school gym / facility rentals (advance notice, insurance, fees; not a drop-in membership substitute).
• Commercial gyms nearby (Belmont / San Carlos / San Mateo corridor) — membership products; inventory pointer only.
• City of Belmont rentals — Parks & Rec facility rentals / ActiveCommunities; Barrett availability during any rebuild is the open question.

Meeting / community rooms

• Belmont Library (SMCL) — 1110 Alameda de las Pulgas; meeting rooms via SMCL reservation system (policies/fees on SMCL pages).
• Twin Pines Senior & Community Center (up to ~250) + Lodge (up to ~125); city rentals / ParksRec.
• Nearby libraries — SMCL network; Redwood City / Menlo Park library systems as additional room options.

Schedules and fees change — verify on Highlands Rec, Belmont Parks & Rec, SMCL, Facilitron, and Menlo Park recreation pages before treating as current. Evolving peer aquatics (e.g. RWC YMCA / San Mateo MLK) are not listed as stable Belmont drop-in substitutes here.

Policy alternatives (not what Measure Y enacts)

Policy options — not city commitments and not what Measure Y enacts. Each must state what it drops (pool / gym / shelter sf / modern code standard). Special fund is restricted to the new community center construction / ops / programs framework (impartial analysis) — not a free “distributed only” spend.

• Intensify rentals & partner leases on existing Barrett (and parks) — funds ops, not a full seismic rebuild.
• Expand indoor school joint use beyond summer (gyms / MPR / classrooms) using the proven field-revenue model.
• Phased life-safety remodel (seismic/fire/ADA + select refresh); defer pool/gym; budget temporary swing space explicitly.
• Distributed programming — library + Twin Pines + BRSSD + Carlmont PAC + partner sites instead of one new building.

• CONFIRMED Impartial analysis frames Measure Y as funding a new community center; FAQ: reuse considered first, then new construction recommended.
• CONFIRMED Existing uses (Hideout, preschool/daycare, HeartBeat 5 rooms, gardens/sports) and BRSSD joint-use fields + summer indoor.
• HOLD Highlands Rec public-access pool; Belmont summer aquatics at Carlmont; Twin Pines / SMCL Belmont meeting capacity; BRSSD Facilitron rental path — public facility pages / fee schedules.
• CONTEXT Fee-based / joint-use framing — do not claim free forever; contrast with indefinite sf tax (until voters end; ops after construction per Ulla/McCune).
• STILL OPEN Any adopted remodel-only or distributed-only CIP as a substitute path if Measure Y fails — not on this ballot; City FAQ preferred new build for Barrett.

Community discussion — not ballot text. Thread: nextdoor.com/p/SQ6bMj3xq2w9/ (11 comments; no in-thread image slides). Commenters cite a city presentation and debate tax design. Treat as advocacy/discussion, not ordinance or impartial analysis.

Timothy Strinden · cites city deck 10/14/25

Strinden cites the City of Belmont / Group4 Community Center Master Plan presentation to City Council (Oct 14, 2025) estimate of ~$83.8M all-in; argues ~12 years of tax for construction alone; notes the tax also funds existing ops; and frames that there is no guarantee of a new building. Deck p.20 cost bands (2025 Q2 dollars):

Chart from City of Belmont / Group4 Community Center Master Plan presentation to City Council, Oct 14, 2025 (deck p.20). Planning estimates — not a locked Measure Y budget. See also Needs Assessment / Group4 cost update on belmont.gov.

• HOLD $59.9 / $68.8 / $74.7 / $83.8M bands — as presented on the Oct 14, 2025 city deck (p.20). Planning estimates, not a locked Measure Y budget.
• HOLDS WITH CAVEAT ~12 yrs tax for construction alone — arithmetic ≈ $83.8M ÷ $7.1M/yr ≈ 12 years if all Year-1-rate revenue went only to capital. Measure Y also funds ops/staffing/programs; if a share goes to ops during the wait, the capital clock lengthens (see §2 cash-stack arithmetic card — rejected as path).
• RHETORIC / POLITICAL FRAMING “No guarantee of a new building” — advocacy framing. The measure authorizes a special tax for constructing and operating a new community center, but does not lock construction schedule, final amenity scope, or a locked $ budget in ballot text. Funding path ≠ guaranteed delivery date/scope.

Other commenters (not ballot text)

• Stephanie — prefers a fixed assessment instead of ongoing sq-ft tax. CONTEXT — policy preference in discussion; not what Measure Y enacts.
• Peter White — discusses sales tax vs Belmont’s relatively thin commercial base. CONTEXT — alternative financing debate; not ballot text.
• Sharon (Nextdoor thread RYYMnwBQKDY2) — light discussion CONTEXT only; not ballot text.