Vote: Yes (Unanimous)

Listen to me chat about this motion on CBC’s Eyeopener here.

I brought forward this Notice of Motion to potentially double fines and/or adjust demerits for those speeding in playground/school zones. Because this motion would require amendments to the Traffic Safety Act, which is Provincial legislation, it has been forwarded to the annual Alberta Municipalities conference in September 2024. It needs to pass at this conference before we can advocate to the Government of Alberta.

This Notice of Motion is one of many steps needed to address the very prevalent issue of traffic safety in and around playground/school zones. In 2023, there were 1019 summons for speeding in playground zones in Calgary, with a few of these zones being major hotspots for offences. Over the last few years, I have worked with members of the Calgary Police Service, school administrations and parent councils, advocacy groups, and concerned residents to understand the spectrum of traffic safety issues in our city. component of this is legislating playground and school zones pedestrians as vulnerable roadway users – just as we have done with first responders and construction workers.

While this is not a one-stop solution to a broad issue, I believe we should recognize these zones as areas of significant concern. There is also research to suggest that doubling fines (and advertising that) can have an impact on human behaviour long term. A number of other provinces, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario, have passed similar legislation, and I look forward to continuing the conversation about amending the Traffic Safety Act with other municipalities across Alberta.

Vote: Yes

(I brought this Notice of Motion)

Motion passed 11-2.

I’m pleased that this proposal passed. For more information about why I proposed this Notice of Motion, read this livewire article.

Vote: No

Motion Passed 7-6

This notice of motion was brought by Cllr Wong and Cllr Chabot. While I agree that tree preservation is important and this Notice of Motion is well intentioned, encroaching onto private property is not the direction we need to go. The city has thousands of public trees under it’s stewardship that could use more resourcing.

Since I was elected, I’ve received many complaints from Ward 3 residents about public trees being planted and then not taken care of. With a few exceptions, private residents generally care for their trees and should have full flexibility to decide what happens on their own property. The movers of this motion seemed more interested in private tree preservation incentives vs. penalties, which is positive, but I still think public dollars should be spent on public trees.

Vote: No

Motion defeated 8-6

I did not support the motion to send the rezoning to a plebiscite. Direct democracy sounds great—why wouldn’t you want everyone to have a vote? The simple answer to this is that rezoning isn’t an issue that’s going to affect all of Ward 3 or the broader city in the same way.

Every new community built in the last decade already has the zoning that city administration is recommending we apply to the rest of the city. Rezoning is going to affect Ward 3 communities south of Stoney Trail, but not Ward 3 communities North of Stoney trail because they are already zoned base RG. As such, it does not make sense to me that all residents get a vote on zoning parts of the city that they don’t live in. It would mean tens of thousands of people voting on something that they already have.

When these kinds of nuances exist, it’s best to hold a public hearing, which is what’s happening on April 22nd. I know Ward 3 residents have specific questions about the proposal and what it means for us, which is why I’m hosting a virtual townhall for Ward 3 on April 15, 2024.

All plebiscites held in the past have affected residents equally. For example: In 2021, a plebiscite was held on Water Fluoridation because everyone’s water would be affected. Rezoning is going to have different impacts in different places making it an unsuitable plebiscite question.

Vote: No (7-8)

Councillor Wong, supported by 5 other councillors, brought forward a motion to reopen to budget to find $23 million of savings.

$23 million dollars of savings across the entire budget would save Calgarians 1% on their approved tax bill. Finding budget efficiencies is important, but it takes place during budget deliberations so that Administration has time to implement Council’s direction and ensure tax bills are correct.

There are two issues with this proposal. The first is the timing. To send Administration back to the table at this late stage (three months after we approved the budget) means all the approved work needs to stop, so that cuts can be proposed and contemplated by Council. The second issue is that the group bringing this forward couldn’t identify what they wanted to cut, which means we’d see across the board cuts to all city services - including important services like police and fire.

Looking for budget efficiencies is a critical component of our job, so I supported a motion arising to bring the topic of cuts to a strategic session, so Council can deliberate on where improvements can be made. It’s great politics to propose cuts—it makes some voters very happy because paying taxes isn’t anyone’s favourite thing to do, but if you can’t identify what you’re cutting or why you want it cut, it’s hard to support the proposal.

I think the direction of contemplating this further as part of our on-going strategic work is the best way to go. If cuts are approved, they will be applied to next year's tax bills. Without knowing what will be proposed, I can't say whether I will be supportive. In general, I have significant concerns about making cuts to our services at a time when we are facing significant demand as a result of rapid population growth

Vote: Direct administration to bring back a full repeal: No (8-7)

The Single Use Bylaw which rolled out in January has received significant criticism. Council asked Admin to bring forward information about the bylaw so we could discuss our concerns.

Administration advised Council that 15 million single use items enter our landfill every week. This presents a significant long-term liability in terms of landfill maintenance and the user fees Calgarians pay to support waste management. Administration advised us that the bylaw would help Calgarians reduce their consumption, similar to bylaws seen in other major cities like Edmonton. The single use bylaw pushes Calgarians to ask themselves “Do I really need this item?”. Admin’s perspective is that even if some single use items can be recycled or composted, that processing is resource intensive. All experts in this area will tell you the most efficient thing is to REDUCE before you reuse or recycle.

Virtually all of council agreed that we need some version of this bylaw but there was also agreement that this bylaw was not meeting the mark.

Some Councillors felt we should scrap the entire thing and start again, and others (myself included) felt that there were amendments that could be made to improve this without starting all over. I don’t think anyone around the table felt the bylaw was perfect as it was. In my experience at city hall, policy is rarely optimal from the outset and refinements generally get it where it needs to be.

So let’s talk about refinements! I drafted an amendment to exempt paper bags in fast food establishments. The vast majority of complaints we’ve heard pertain to this area because it’s where single use items are most needed and time is of the essence. Other Councillors had other amendments too, but we didn’t get to review any of them because Council decided to scrap the entire thing and start again. I do think it’s unfortunate to completely start again because there are parts of this that were okay, and the negative parts could be removed based on the feedback we heard.

At the end of the day, we disagreed more on process than the idea that the bylaw needed to be changed--virtually everyone agreed on that.

Please note that despite the repeal direction passing, the bylaw won’t be repealed until it’s repeal is advertised and another vote occurs. You won’t see changes for several months.

Vote: Yes (10-5)

Council voted 10-5 to approve an updated version of our off-site levies bylaw.

One of the biggest strategic debates at City Hall over the past 20 years has been how the City grows and who pays for that growth. When a new community is brought online, it’s not as simple as putting up the houses. To make complete communities, residents need the following 10 essential things which are funded jointly by the City (50%) and Developers (50%):

1. Drinking water

2. Wastewater

3. Stormwater drainage

4. Pathways

5. Buses

6. Streets

7. Fire and emergency response stations

8. Police stations

9. Libraries

10. Recreation facilities

To fund these essential items, developers pay a fee known as an “off-site levy”. The term offsite is used because these 10 items don’t necessarily exist “on site” of the development but the development still benefits from their presence. The last time an off-site levy bylaw was approved was 2016 and the levy was $564,006 per hectare. Administration advised Council that the levy requires updating.

I supported the updated off-site levy because Administration is using a new methodology that is much more transparent and ensures that the levy captures the true cost of growth. The new levy is $609,059 per hectare which represents an 8 per cent increase.

We need more housing in this country, and I am supportive of providing that, but we must grow as responsibly as possible. If the City didn’t adjust the levy rate that developers pay to reflect the current cost of growth, existing taxpayers would be unfairly left with the bill.

YES (9-6)

Please view my full response here.

Vote: Yes (12-3)

Background:

In June 2022, Council directed Administration to develop a Housing and Affordability Task Force comprised of experts that would report to Council on improving both market and non-market housing in Calgary.

The Housing & Affordability Task Force created six recommendations that are designed to meet the unique needs and context of Calgary. These recommendations were informed by best practices from other jurisdictions, 18 experienced panel contributors, and an open forum through The City’s engagement portal. You can read the full strategy here.

Why do we need a Housing Strategy?

84,600 Calgary households are unable to afford their housing, and with Calgary expecting to welcome another 110,000 new residents over the next five years, the scale of the problem is not only significant but has been worsening over time. Between 2020-2023, the average rent has increased 40% and the average price of single detached home has increased 37%. While the city cannot control all the factors that drive housing costs, there are important steps we can take to do our part.

What happened in the public hearing on the Housing Strategy?

Over 150 individuals came to speak—many of them sharing harrowing stories of the hardship of navigating the housing market as first-time home buyers, students, single parents, newcomers and senior citizens. We heard from non-market housing providers about long waitlists and capacity limitations, and we heard support for the strategy from organizations such as Calgary Economic Development, The Calgary Chamber of Commerce and the Calgary Chamber of Voluntary Organizations. Approximately 70% of speakers spoke in favour of the strategy and about 30% expressed concerns or disapproval, which I will explain below.

What aspects of the Housing Strategy are controversial?

The vast majority of the opposition to the strategy is aimed at one recommendation, which is to explore a city-wide rezoning to a residential district known as RCG. RCG is a form of low density housing that includes single family, but also allows duplexes and row houses by right across the city. Experts across the world agree that single-family only zoning is a significant factor that constrains supply and keeps prices higher than they need to be. Any new community built in Calgary since 2013 has been built to the RCG standard. Single family homes are still a popular choice for redevelopment, but by changing the base district in established communities to allow more flexibility, properties can redevelop into more units. Vancouver and Toronto have moved to implement a base district similar to RCG, as have several entire American states. The approval of the Housing Strategy means that Calgary will host its own hearing to decide whether to make this change.

How will RCG affect the residents of Ward 3?

Ward 3 already has two communities (Livingston & Carrington) zoned as base RG (the suburban version of RCG). The rest of the communities would be subject to this city-wide rezoning, however, the probability of redevelopment in Ward 3 is very low (likely less than 5%). The housing stock in the Ward is considerably newer than the rest of the city, which makes the economic case for redevelopment quite poor. Put simply, you don’t knock down new houses to put up new houses. City administration is in the process of compiling more data for our consideration in advance of this public hearing that will occur on this item (likely by the end of Q2 2024).

Why did I vote in favour of the Housing Strategy?

I believe all levels of government need to do their part to tackle the rising cost of housing. The strategy isn’t perfect, but it’s a really solid start. The most controversial part of the strategy (the base RCG rezoning) will have its own hearing and engagement over the coming months and will be voted on separately. At the time we will hear from residents on that specific issue.

Provincial Advocacy

While the Housing Strategy is part of the many long term solutions to housing needs, it does not address the immediate needs of tenants. The Housing Strategy does include several points of advocacy to the Provincial government that can be viewed under Objective 2C.

The Residential Tenancies Act sets out specific responsbilities and abilities of both landlords and tenants and is managed by the Provincial government. Many residents have reached out to us regarding topics that are solely managed by the Province, such as rent control. If you would like to advocate on behalf of these measures, reach out to your local Member of Legislative Assembly. You can find out who your representative is here.

Vote #1 was defeated 8 No’s to 7 Yes’s (I voted YES)

Vote #2 was supported 5 No’s to 14 Yes’s (I voted YES again)

Council directed a group of experts on affordable housing to make some recommendations back to council about steps that could be taken to improve housing supply & affordability. You can read the recommendations here.

While it may be worse in some other cities, there is no doubt that Calgary is in a housing crisis. Analysis from Calgary Economic Development has shown that individuals earning less than $87,000 per year have affordable access to only 40 per cent of Calgary’s market housing stock. Calgary’s reputation as a world class, affordable and livable city is fundamentally at risk. Once lost, Calgary’s long-standing housing affordability, and its associated economic advantages, will be very hard to regain. Not only do we risk not being able to provide adequate housing for residents if not addressed, but a lack of housing is a contributor to many other societal challenges that can exacerbate crime, inequity and poverty.

The recommendations from the task force aim to 1) Increase and diversify the supply of housing by boosting development by 1,000 more market homes beyond what is normally built in a year, and at least 3,000 non-market affordable homes a year; 2) strengthen the housing sector to support partner collaboration and foster greater impact than if they were to act alone; and 3) improve living conditions for people in rental housing.

This likely sounds straightforward, so why did 8 of my colleagues initially vote against the recommendations?

I can’t and won’t speak for them, so please reach out directly to them for comment.

I can tell you that there are some recommendations that require changes to zoning (a base RCG district) and parking (no government mandated minimums) that are more controversial. The important point here is that any changes to zoning and parking would go a public hearing—this wasn’t a decision point or go/no go situation. There wasn’t a good reason, in my view, to vote down the recommendations because you didn’t like a few of them. That debate can and will occur on another day—so when is that day?

A reconsideration was brought forward by council that brings these recommendations back into the discussion again in September when the Corporate Affordable Housing strategy is brought to Community Development Committee. From here, we’ll have a better sense of when further public hearings will be held on any of the recommendations. Although I felt this work should not wait until the fall, I supported the recommendation because the vote to start immediately failed and it’s better to move forward than to see such great work not take place at all.

More updates to come in the Fall!

In an effort to reduce taxes, previous Calgary City Council opted to defer some capital maintenance on our roads. The current budget for road rehabilitation is about 40 million dollars, which results in only 41% of our roads being in “good” or “very good” condition. The Canadian municipal average for roads in “good” or “very good” quality is 60%, so Calgary is falling behind. To get Calgary back to the municipal average would require an additional 50-60 million dollars. This notice of motion directs administration to bring back a Pavement Quality Index and minimum annual capital spend required to maintain the index. The report will come back for budget deliberations in November 2023.

I support this work because I often hear from residents about pavement quality concerns. This report will allow us to have a discussion at budget about increasing our road maintenance.

Passed Unanimously (I voted yes)

This notice of motion directs administration to review its compassionate property tax penalty relief policy. As it stands, a 7% penalty is administered when residents pay their property taxes late. There are limited circumstances where that penalty will be forgiven (note that while penalties can be forgiven, taxes owing must always be paid). There is some thought that the list of circumstances where penalty forgiveness is granted is too limited (e.g., restricted to critical illness only vs. other significant life events). This notice of motion directs administration to review the policy with a wider lens and report back with an improved policy that better accounts for the situations Calgarians may find themselves in.

I supported this work because we’ve had a couple of situations where residents have been levied a penalty due to circumstances outside their control, and due to the narrow scope of the current policy, there’s nothing that can be done to help them.

Passed Unanimously (I voted yes)

After receiving direction from Council in Sept 2022, Administration brought back a bylaw to regulate how flyers depicting images of a fetus can be delivered to the private homes of Calgarians. The bylaw requires that any such flyer be concealed in an envelope and include the address and name of the sender. If these rules are ignored, the sender can face a $1000 fine.

I supported this bylaw because the distribution of anti-abortion flyers has been upsetting residents particularly women who’ve had pregnancy loss, or young children who have come across graphic images in their mailbox. It brings Calgary in line with other municipalities who have enacted a similar bylaw and all public submissions supported the enactment of this bylaw. It strikes the right balance between freedom of expression and protecting individuals who wish not to see these graphic images without warning.

15-0 (Yes)

In 2019, City Council committed to delivering 4 major capital projects: The new BMO Convention Centre (originally built in 1982), The revitalization of Arts Commons (originally built in 1985), a new Event Centre to replace the Saddledome (built in 1983) and a Multisport Fieldhouse (not built).

There was a recognition that a city heading towards 2 million people could not be sustained by this aging infrastructure, and the decision was made to re-invest in the infrastructure that has made Calgary a great place to call home. The Arts Commons revitalization is funded and underway, the new BMO Convention Centre opens next year and I can confidently say as Chair that we’re making good progress towards design on the Multisport Fieldhouse.

Calgarians understandably have favourites amongst these projects (and so do I), but when you take a holistic view of a city, each of them have value, and I’m proud that this council has largely resisted the temptation to pit the projects against each other.

That brings us to the Event Centre deal announced yesterday.

For a full breakdown of costs, read this report.

This total project cost will be shared among public and private investment partners as follows: The City: $537.3 million, the Province: $330.0 million, and CSEC: $356.0 million. From the City perspective, we receive not only a new Event Centre, but an entire district as a 44% partner.

The issue of using public money to build an Event Centre has dominated the discussion about this project. It’s a fair point—there are a lot of priorities for public funds, but I think it’s important to recognize that our current Event Centre--- the Saddledome—was 100% publicly funded.

The Saddledome is a big part of who the city is. It’s not only been home to the Calgary Flames, but it has hosted Olympics, concerts and been an important venue for the Calgary Stampede. Very few people would deny it’s value to the city or wish that we didn’t have it for the past 40 years.

We’re in a new era where there’s an expectation from the public that CSEC contributes if they want to stay in Calgary. In this tentative deal, the present value of CSEC’s contributions is 42.8% of the Event Centre to the City’s 57.2%. No matter how you splice it, this is more private sector investment than Calgary has ever had in an Event Centre, and better than the private sector contribution to Edmonton’s Event Centre.

There is also important context that affects how this deal is viewed:

1) The Saddledome is 40 years old and in the mid-term needs between 50-100 million dollars of renovations, which must be paid by the City

2) None of the renovations that can be done to the Saddledome will make it a Tier 1 facility capable of hosting bigger events that are becoming more and more common, so it’s not well positioned for the future.

3) We get a full entertainment district in this deal vs. just an Event Centre, and much of the costs of district that would’ve fallen 100% on the City are now covered by the Province

4) There’s value in building with other financial partners and those partnerships are not a given.

5) There’s the time value of money. We see how quickly costs rise and if you’re committed to building the Event Centre, continued delays work against the project.

At the end of the day, I know this is a controversial decision, but so was the Olympics back in 1988 and so were smaller projects like the Peace Bridge. We largely recognize those initiatives as positive city shaping investments, and I believe the same perspective will emerge with the Entertainment District.

Everything announced thus far represents an agreement in principle. We’ll see how the situation unfolds over the election period, and I’ll provide further commentary as I can.

14-0 (Yes)

Nobody likes paying for parking, but the funds can and should be used to fund important roads improvements. With this Notice of Motion, Council directed Administration to report back with options to fund the Street Light Lifecycle & Upgrade, and Pavement Rehabilitation with on-street parking revenues

14-0 (Yes)

This Notice of Motion directs City Administration to review opportunities to direct operating surpluses from the Snow and Ice Clearing Reserve and the Winter Operations operating budget to be allocated for street repairs. I supported this initiative because I think it’s important that we invest unspent money in the same general area of roads. The last City Council deferred maintenance on roads, and that has implications that we must address now.

14-1 (Yes)

Foxtail Barley poses a danger to animals, especially dogs, when their spreading seeds (awns) are ingested, inhaled or embedded in the fur. This Notice of Motion allows administration to draft amendments to the Community Standards bylaw that will target large non-residential parcels of land that are allowing the weed to proliferate. This will mitigate the impact that Fox Tail Barley has on pets in our community.

Vote: 10-5 (Yes)

Why did this bylaw come about?

A small group of people started interrupting programming called Reading with Royalty at the library. If you don’t agree with something, you don’t have to attend. If you want to protest, you can do so peacefully and respectfully, but unfortunately, that wasn’t happening. As a result, LGBTQ+ programming had to be repeatedly cancelled in this city due to safety concerns.

In response, city administration drafted a bylaw that creates safe zones around libraries and city recreation facilities. If you want to protest anything related to another groups’ protected human rights (as dictated by provincial human rights law, not city council), you have to give 100 meters of space. If it’s not a protected human rights area (e.g., climate change), you can be closer. It’s as simple as that.

I wish that we didn’t have to draft such a bylaw, but this is an instance where a balanced and measured response was needed because a small group of people demonstrated that they don’t have the ability to be balanced nor measured. I respect that people have different views, and will always vote to prioritize safety.

Was this bylaw passed quickly?

The bylaw was drafted thoughtfully and diligently to respond to ongoing events. I’m glad that we live in a democratic society where the appropriate checks and balances exist on power.

Vote: 8-7 (Motion to keep the status quo was supported, but I voted against)

Who should pay?

The city’s budget is paid for by the residential and non-residential sector. Compared to other Canadian cities, Calgary’s tax responsibility falls on businesses to a greater extent. In 2021, businesses in Calgary paid 3.4 times that of a residential property owner in property tax, per $1,000 of assessed value. If left unaddressed, the ratio will climb to 4.26 to 1 in 2023 – the highest among comparable Canadian cities – by a significant margin. Once that ratio reaches 5, the city would be in violation of the Municipal Government Act and provincial intervention would be required.

Business owners make up just 2.7 per cent of taxpayers but account for 48 per cent of the taxes collected. While it is typical across Canada for businesses to pay more, this ratio is highest in Calgary and businesses don’t use 4x more services. There’s general consensus on council that this ratio has gotten to problematic levels, but there’s a reluctance to change it because the decision is unpopular on all fronts. By virtue of changing the tax share for businesses, residents would have to pay more, which they feel is unfair given that they face rising costs all the time. When businesses pay more, they raise prices on residents, lay off or limit hiring, or choose to invest in neighboring municipalities instead of Calgary. It’s not an easy decision, and it affects all of us no matter what decision is made.

Calgary is dangerously approaching a tax ratio of 5:1, at which point the provincial government will intervene on the tax share debate and force the city’s hand. I believe that it’s my job as a city councillor to be a responsible governor, even at times when it’s unpopular and not just wait for a higher level of government to intervene when we know exactly what the problem is and how to solve it. There is a wealth of analysis by experts that Calgary should gradually adjust the tax share (you can read more here), and I’m committed to addressing this problem slowly over the long term, which is why I voted against the tax share remaining status quo.

Vote: Yes (10-4)

During the October 4, 2022 Combined Meeting of Council, Council approved the Single-Use Items Reduction Strategy and directed Administration to bring the full bylaw in 2023. I voted in favour of this motion.

During the January 17, 2023 Combined Meeting of Council, the bylaw was presented and passed 10-4 with myself in favour.

The overall goal of the bylaw is to reduce waste from all types of single-use items that enter Calgary’s waste and recycling stream. This bylaw will require businesses to charge a minimum fee on shopping bags, in addition to requiring that single-use food ware accessories are only given upon request. The minimum fee will be set at 15 cents in order to standardize the fee across all stores. All revenue from the fee will be kept with the businesses in order to recoup costs associated with the transition and purchase of alternate materials. The City does not collect any revenue from this bylaw, and will take an education-first approach when enforcing the bylaw in 2024.

This bylaw was created largely in response to the federal legislation prohibiting the manufacture, import, and sale of six categories of single-use plastics, as Calgary will need to align with federal policy over the stages of implementation.

A major element of the debate during the Public Hearing was regarding Calgary Co-Op’s compostable shopping bags and whether they would qualify for an exemption. To be clear, Calgary’s single use items bylaw does not ban co-ops bags. The reason the bags may go away is because the federal government is banning their manufacture. City Council and the city is committed to assisting Co-op in their quest for an exemption.

On November 25, 2022, Calgary City Council, including myself, voted to approve the 2023-2026 budget. After several amendments and lengthy debate, the budget included a 3.87% residential property tax increase for the typical ($550,000) single family home. This equals roughly $10 more per month for the average family. As well, Council also voted to draw $75-million in one-time capital funds to be taken from the franchise fees program and allocated towards Future Capital and Lifecycle Maintenance and nearly $65-million of operating surplus towards essential services and community groups.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

• $200M over 4 years for civic partners including Calgary Arts Development, Calgary Economic Development, Tourism Calgary

• Increased investment in festivals & events

• Waived fees for businesses that apply for outdoor patio & café permits in 2023

• Freezing of building & planning application fees

DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION:

• Capital funding of $108M for projects including Olympic Plaza & Stephen Ave redesign

• $63M for office-to-residential conversions

• $9M for office-to-post-secondary conversions

• 9 new peace officers dedicated to the downtown area

TRANSIT:

• No transit fare increases in 2023

• Children 12 & under will ride for free in 2023

• $5M over 4 years for new bus shelters and benches

• Operating base increase of $23M for improved service

• Capital funding of $559M including:

o $138M to replace 25 Ctrain cars

o Investment for electric & renewable natural gas vehicles

TRANSPORTATION:

• $73M for improvements that address pedestrian safety, traffic calming, & missing sidewalk & pathway linkages

• $71M for pavement resurfacing & repair

• $60M for Main Street enhancements

• $12M for enhanced snow & ice clearing

FIRE DEPARTMENT:

• Operating base increase of $44M including:

o Hiring more firefighters

o Reinstating a medical response unit

• Capital funding of $50M including:

o 4 new fire stations (South Shepard, Belmont, Haskayne & Walden)

o Relocating & replacing the Forest Lawn fire station

• $51M for 911 infrastructure

CLIMATE ACTION:

• Operating base increase of $41M to initiate the Climate Implementation Plan

• Capital funding of $42M for building retrofits to reduce GHG emissions

POLICE SERVICE:

• Operating base increase of 7.8% over 4 years, including:

o Continuing to transform crisis response

o Addressing staff shortages

o Partner with The City on traffic safety initiatives

• Capital funding of $77M (including communication tech & facility upgrades)

SOCIAL INVESTMENT:

• $153M to repair, maintain & replace affordable housing units

• $12M to leverage Federal & Provincial housing programs to create new affordable housing units

• $19M for the Mental Health & Addictions Strategy

• 3 new Partner Agency Liaison team members who assist unhoused people encamped in public spaces

COMMUNITY SPACES & PLACES:

• 3 new libraries (Waldon, Belmont & Skyview)

• $47M for recreation facility upgrades

• $20M to further advance the Foothills Fieldhouse

• $20M to fund Local Area Plan amenities (like parks & pedestrian infrastructure)

• $9M to revitalize the Vecova building

• $2 million to protect heritage buildings

ADVANCING RECONCILIATION & ANTI-RACISM:

• $3M for Closer to Home's new affordable housing for Indigenous families

• 2 new peace officers dedicated to engaging racialized & Indigenous communities

• Mapping areas of Indigenous cultural importance

• $1.5M to the Indigenous Relations Office

For a full list of every amendment brough during the budget, view here.

Rationale: One of the challenges with municipal taxes is unlike income taxes, they are not indexed to growth or inflation. This is why small increases are typical each year. Calgary’s 4-year budget was approved with around at 3.87% average increase over the next 4 years. To give you some context, Montreal was 4.1%, Toronto’s is 5.5%, Vancouver’s is 6.35%, Edmonton’s is 5%. Even smaller cities around us are seeing the same inflationary cost pressures reflected (Okotoks residential rates are rising by 4.5%, Airdrie’s is 5.97%).

I appreciate that no one likes taxes going up, including myself, and I work to keep the increases we face as stable as possible. The cost of everything is rising, including the cost of providing all the essential services that the city provides like roads, transit, police and fire. With the average residential home value increasing by 14% last year, Council and Administration worked to find a balanced approach to avoiding increasing property taxes by that margin. The items listed above were funded through surplus and operating funds, meaning they did not come from an increase to property taxes. Property taxes pay for these essential services, which increase relative to inflation and growth in our city.

• 19.69% Bylaws and Public Safety

o Police, Fire, 9-1-1, Bylaw, etc

• 13.89% Transportation

o Public Transit, Streets (building & maintenance), Sidewalks & Pathways, etc

• 12.45% Enabling Services

o Civic facility management, fleet management, HR & IT, City Administration, etc

• 9.22% Capital Investment Contributions

o Lifecycle maintenance, community infrastructure, etc

• 5.12% Parks, Recreation and Culture

o Parks and open spaces, library services, recreation, arts & culture

• 1.81% Social Programs and Services

o Social programs, affordable housing, etc

• 1.44% Building, Planning and Business

o Economic development, tourism, real estate, land development and sales, etc

• 0.96% Environment

o Waste and recycling, urban forestry, cemeteries, stormwater management, wastewater treatment, etc

• 0.78% Information and Communication

o Marketing and communications, citizen information services, records management, etc

• 0.75% Tax and Property Assessment

o Property assessment, taxation, distribution

• 0.12% Animal Services

o Pet ownership and licensing

This breakdown can also be viewed in more detail and specific to your bill by visiting the property tax calculator. If you enter 500,000 of assessed value into the calculator, you’ll see that $1111 goes to the province and the remaining $2164 goes to the city. If you scroll down a bit further, it breaks the spending down by area so you can see exactly where the money is going.

The last factor in the 2023-2026 budget is the split of property tax between residential and non-residential owners. The decision being contemplated is a tax distribution shift of 1% between residentials, which currently pays 52% of the tax base, and non-residential, which currently pays 48%. This decision was not made during the November 2022 deliberations, but will be re-approached in Spring of 2023.

Vote: Yes (9-6)

A new land use district (Housing – Grade-Oriented (H-GO) District) is being proposed to provide more consistency for the development of grade-oriented housing forms such as: semi-detached dwellings, rowhouses, townhouses, and suites. Grade-oriented housing forms have all dwelling units with clear pedestrian access to the entrance of each unit from the street. Often referred to as “missing middle”, this form has seen limited development in many cities across North America including Calgary. These forms were not anticipated in Calgary’s current Land Use Bylaw resulting in inconsistent and unique direct control districts.

This new district enables citizens to grow and age in place, diversity of housing choice in Calgary, and is a step towards the larger picture of how our city grows. I was in support of the approval of five new communities in suburban areas, but this district of housing is equally as important as it reduces barriers for established area growth as well.

I also brought forward an amendment to this bylaw that would remove parking minimums for developers altogether. Throughout the public hearing, we heard from several inner-city developers that they regularly created parking in numbers well above the minimum as that was what the market demanded. If developers are reacting to the market, I do not believe we need government to regulate these types of requirements in development.



Vote: Yes (unanimous)

This notice of motion was brought forward in response to graphic anti-abortion flyers being left in the mailboxes of residents. They were often found by children.

As such, administration has been given the following direction.

No later than Q2 2023, bring forward for Council’s consideration a bylaw:

i) Requiring that flyers containing one or more images showing, or claiming to show, a fetus or any part of a fetus, must conceal these images from view through means such as, but not limited to: securing through adhesives and envelopes;

ii) Requiring that flyers containing one or more images showing, or claiming to show, a fetus or any part of a fetus, include a viewer discretion warning; and

iii) Including any other related measure that Administration deems advisable.

Vote: Yes (11-3)

Once every two years, developers can submit requests to the city to remove what’s known as a Growth Management Overlay (GMO), which allows them to develop in a new area. GMOs are utilized to prevent market growth from outpacing the city’s needs and resources. From 2023-2026, Calgary’s population will grow by 88,000 people, which is greater than the population of Airdrie. A growing city is a good thing, but it creates challenges for housing. Both densifying established areas and creating new suburbs are part of the solution.

In 2022, council decided to approve 5 new communities out of the 19 submitted by developers. The rationale for approval was based on a variety of factors, but mainly that there would be no new capital costs to the city for these approvals. In Ward 3, the business case brought forward by Genesis was approved for Keystone Hills Lewiston, which is directly beside the existing community of Livingston.

Vote: Yes (9-6)

The overall goal of the strategy is to help the city realize it’s target of reaching net-zero by 2050.

This net-zero commitment has been made by the federal government and many companies in the private sector. It’s important that the City of Calgary also has a credible plan because it attracts investment, economic opportunity and it’s important to take action on a collective problem that future generations will inherit.

The strategy can be read here. I encourage you to read it as it’s quite thorough and has an accompanying implementation plan.

There has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding about this plan, which I will attempt to clarify below:

1. Myth #1 : The Strategy will cost taxpayers $87 billion dollars. The 87-billion-dollar amount is the total societal cost of transitioning the Calgary economy to net zero. It is not an amount that could or would be levied through property taxes (note the city’s entire annual operating budget is only $4 billion). Furthermore, the city does not even have the legislative ability to levy any kind of new tax including a climate tax. It will be paid by changes in consumer decisions, private and public sector investment, funding from other levels of government, and potential future programs and decisions made by business units within the City.

2. Myth #2: This strategy is an attack on the Oil & Gas sector. Alberta’s oil & gas sector has already made their own commitments to reaching net zero by 2050. You can read more about that here.

To see what your property taxes are spent on, utilize the property tax calculator.

Vote: Yes (12-1)

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council direct Administration to:

i) Implement a temporary pilot program to allow bicycles on CTrains at all hours of operation, to begin May 1, 2022 at the earliest and to terminate by September 2022 on a date to be determined by Administration;

ii) Promote the above pilot program to raise awareness among Calgarians; and

iii) Evaluate the above pilot program and report back to Council through the Infrastructure and Planning Committee with any recommendations including, but not limited to, potential bylaw amendments, by no later than Q4 2023.

Vote: Yes (12-2)

I co-sponsored this Notice of Motion to request a high-level overview of risks facing the Calgary Fire Department, what it would take to get them to NFPA 1710 standards.

Vote: Yes (unanimous)

I co-sponsored this Notice of Motion to allow public members of City Board, Commissions, and Committees to retain their positions should they need to take a pause in their term due to a leave of absence for, but not limited to, parental, bereavement, medical, or caregiver leave.

Vote: No (8-7 motion carried)

In the weeks prior to this vote, I received nearly 400 emails about masks. Of that, approximately 75% supported keeping the masking requirements in place a bit longer.

Council ultimately decided to rescind the mask bylaw with the province. I felt that the decision did not need to be made by council on Feb 15th, but could have been done on February 28th at the call of a special meeting prior to the March 1st provincial rescindment. To summarize, I am not opposed to the removal of masks, but I was concerned about the pace.

Giving more time before rescinding the bylaw would have allowed council to ensure that hospitalizations continue to trend downwards over the next two weeks. The rates at the time seemed to be heading in the right direction but were still at or near the highest point since the pandemic began. We had not yet seen the effects of removing masking requirements for those under 13 as well as the removal of the Restrictions Exemption Program.

Ultimately, the mask mandate has been removed and will not come back as provincial regulations now prohibit city’s from implementing such regulations

Vote: No (10-4 defeated)

When the provincial restriction exemption program (REP) was rescinded, the city’s vaccine passport bylaw also expired. A request was brought forward to explore the possibility of a standalone municipal restriction exemption program. That request was defeated 10-4. I was amongst the 10 councillors who voted not to explore implementation of a municipal vaccine passport system. Unlike the mask bylaw, the city hadn’t been involved in the vaccine passport system and creating such a program was beyond the resources and the expertise of the city at that time.

Vote: Yes (8-7)

A motion was brought forward to allow city councillors to expense home security systems after protests started occurring at the homes of councillors and the mayor. Security is something that MLAs and MPs can also expense, but it required approval for city council to do it.

I voted in favour of this motion because safety is not a perk or a privilege. Our current political environment has changed dramatically. These protests at elected official’s homes not only affect them, but their loved ones, children, and neighbours as well. I do believe in the right to protest, but firmly note that it should not be taken to private residences, and when it is, corporate security needs to have the budget to ensure those employees are safe.

Vote: Yes (unanimous)

“Council affirms its previous strategic vision to develop a culture and entertainment district (that includes an event centre) which fits the long term goals of The City of Calgary (including the Downtown Strategy and the Rivers District Master Plan), by directing Administration to:

o Engage a third party that will work to establish:

i) whether Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation is interested in re-entering discussions on a partnership to construct an event centre and what conditions might be required to do so;

ii) whether there are other parties interested in partnering with the City of Calgary to construct an event centre; and

iii) report back at the 8 March 2022 Combined Meeting of Council.

o Re-establish the Event Centre Assessment Committee, bringing terms of reference based on the previously established ones in ECA2018-0766 for approval by Council at the 8 March 2022 Combined Meeting of Council.”

Vote: Yes (10-5)

I believe that Bill 21 is wrong and I supported our city’s opposition to it. However, my stance is that we can show opposition to Bill 21 without the commitment of public funds. I voiced my concern about the proposal to my colleagues and worked hard to bring forward a notice of motion that set the foundation for greater consultation with community about what an appropriate response would look like that does not include a commitment of public money. I heard from many constituents and reached out to our religious communities to discuss how we can work together to show opposition without public money which may include private fundraising, a protest, a letter to other levels of government or something else. This effort eventually led to a collaboration between Council, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the World Sikh Organization, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Working together, we launched an online fundraiser where residents could donate to the legal challenge against Bill 21 on their own accord.

Vote: Yes (13-2)

I voted in line with the plebiscite and was very transparent while campaigning that I would do so in order to not undermine the democratic process. Please also note that both the Canadian and American Dental Associations recommend fluoridation as a benefit to dental health.

You can also read the report to Council if you would like to learn more about fluoridation in Calgary.

Vote: Yes (13-2)

Too often, climate conversations centre exclusively around oil & gas, but municipalities have significant influence over transportation and buildings, which are the second and third largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

I have heard some concerns about what impacts the declaration may have on investor confidence and the private sector. It’s important to note that the scope of the declaration applies to the City of Calgary’s operations. Furthermore, private sector counterparts are already doing very innovative work in this space. Although the path to net-zero won’t be easy, many see it as an opportunity for Calgary to continue to as the energy capital of Canada. We can take notes from other energy centres like Houston and Austin, who have taken similar or more aggressive action towards net-zero. For more information on why I supported the declaration, please see this op-ed I co-authored in the Calgary Herald.

Vote: Yes (11-4)

Council voted (including myslef) in favour of increasing the municipal tax rate by 3.87%. (Item 4.3) This was done to support service priorities such as improved public safety (the addition of frontline police officers, transit peace officers and additional fire fighters), improved access to programs, affordable housing initiatives, and increased funding for Snow and Ice Control. The budget changes also include more than $60Million in spending reductions through a corporate savings program.