{ "segments": [ { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 953.865, "end": 957.265, "text": "Welcome to Calgary City Council. Uh Mr. Clerk, please call the role.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 960.285, "end": 965.965, "text": "Uh thank you Mr. Mayor, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot,", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 967.365, "end": 967.785, "text": "President.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 968.365, "end": 972.985, "text": "Councillor Clark, Councillor Dollywall, Councillor Jameson,", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 973.205, "end": 973.625, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 974.125, "end": 974.905, "text": "Councillor Johnson,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 975.405, "end": 975.625, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 976.125, "end": 976.865, "text": "Councillor Kelly,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 977.005, "end": 977.385, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 978.005, "end": 978.805, "text": "Councillor McLean,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 979.285, "end": 979.625, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 980.185, "end": 983.025, "text": "Councillor Panthezopoulos, Councillor Schmidt,", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 983.605, "end": 983.965, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 984.285, "end": 987.165, "text": "Councillor Tyres, Here, Councillor Ward,", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 987.165, "end": 987.425, "text": "Your", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 987.745, "end": 990.045, "text": "Councillor Wyness, Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 990.365, "end": 1191.625, "text": "Here. Oki, Umbawastesh, Danitada, Tanche. Indigenous peoples have their own names for this area that have been in use long before settlers named this place Calgary. In the Blackfoot language, it's called Mokinstis. The Eskenokota Wastabi First Nations referred to this place as Wachispa Oyude, and the people of the Sutina Nation call it Guts. The Metis call the Calgary area Otasquini. We appreciate and acknowledge they were gathered on the ancestral and traditional territory of the Blackfoot Nations of the Sikhsika, Pikani, and Kainai First Nations, the Ithka Nakota Wustabi First Nations, comprised of the Chinniki, Berespa, and Goodstoney First Nations, and the Satina First Nation. The city of Calgary is also homeland to the historic Northwest Metis and to the Atomiswa Metis Government, Metis Nation Battle River Territory, Nosil Metis District 5, and Elbo Metis District 6. We acknowledge and give gratitude to the Many First Nations, Metis. and Inuit, who live here and call Calgary home. Deputy Mayor Tyres, would you mind taking the chair? I just have a uh brief acknowledgement down at the podium. Thank you, colleagues. Today it is my pleasure to share that the City of Calgary has been selected as a Call to Recycle 2025 Leaders in Sustainability Award recipient. This national award highlights organizations across the country that are demonstrating real leadership in environmental stewardship through the safe and responsible recycling of batteries. As more of our everyday items rely on batteries, safe handling and disposal is increasingly important. Proper battery recycling helps reduce fire risk, protects collection workers, and keeps hazardous materials out of our waste system. Our city is proud to be part of this effort through our participation in the Recycle Your Batteries Canada program. This program helps ensure that household batteries are collected safely and kept out of our landfills. For Calgary, this award reflects the strength of that program and the collective efforts behind it to meet our shared commitment to making recycling programs accessible and easy to use, managing household hazardous waste safely and responsibly, and leading in responsible waste diversion. But this recognition belongs to more than just the organization. It belongs to our entire community. To our residents, thank you for taking the extra steps to recycle your batteries properly. To our partners and frontline staff, thank you for making these programs work safely and effectively every day. Together, those individual actions add up. On behalf of City Council and the City of Calgary, I would like to thank Call to Recycle Canada for this honor. I'll now turn it over to Sharon Howland, Leader of Program Management with Waste and Recycling Services, to share a few additional remarks. Thank you for being here.", "segments_merged": 19 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 1191.625, "end": 1303.025, "text": "Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. On behalf of Waste and Recycling Services, I'd like to thank Cultura Recycle for the recognition. We are honored to receive this award and are proud of what Calgaryans, our partners, and city staff have accomplished together. This award reflects more than a successful recycling program. It reflects a community commitment to safely managing items that can pose real risks when disposed of improperly. Batteries that end up in garbage or recycling trucks can cause fires at processing facilities, in the trucks, and at landfills. Recycling them properly helps protect workers, facilities, and our community. In 2025, Calgarians recycled more than 92,000 kilograms of batteries, including 25,000 kilograms collected through our city ecocenters and HHW depots. This result demonstrates Calgarians' willingness to take the extra steps when convenient options are made available. Accessibility has been a key part of this success. By the end of 2025, Calder Recyc successfully worked with partners like the City of Calgary and Calgary Co-op to establish 157 battery drop-off locations, nearly doubling the number available just eight months prior. And now this number is nearing 200. That rapid expansion has made it easier than ever for residents to recycle batteries close to home, making it safe and convenient. I'd also like to thank our partners at Call to Recycle, Alberta Recycling Management Authority, and participating retailers, and our waste and recycling services staff who support the collection of batteries every day. And most importantly, thank you to Calgarians for participating. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 1303.645, "end": 1303.925, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 1312.325, "end": 1334.885, "text": "Thank you, Sharon, and to your entire team for being here today to share this accomplishment with us. Congratulations on this well-deserved award and and thank you again to Calgarians for your continued commitment to building a cleaner, safer city for everyone. I'd like to welcome forward the team to come forward for a group photograph. Did you want to hold this?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 1335.145, "end": 1338.925, "text": "You can hold it. Almost broke it.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 1350.685, "end": 1351.765, "text": "Thank you. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 1352.725, "end": 1354.225, "text": "Thanks again.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 1354.325, "end": 1355.325, "text": "Thank you. Thank you for that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 1358.585, "end": 1363.865, "text": "Michael, would you mind letting me guys could go on with us?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 1365.865, "end": 1381.505, "text": "And uh Mayor, I was just given a little note here from a birdie that there's another recognition, which was your birthday yesterday. Fourtieth? Fourtieth birthday. Well happy birthday, Mayor. Thanks. From all accounts.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 1388.765, "end": 1412.225, "text": "Thank you, Deputy Marin. Thanks for the uh amazing card and balloons that were left in the office. And if I could ask for one thing for my birthday. How about we're all out of here by six o'clock? You guys good? Well, we'll we'll see if miracles happen. So I think we're in uh question period with uh Councillor Chabot to start us off. Nope. Oh uh Mike Councillor Atkinson, sorry.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 1414.205, "end": 1439.485, "text": "Great. Um, yeah, so there's uh there's been some changes uh over the past week in terms of the uh what's happening with the finalized rules regarding the Stampede Music Tents and the Cowboys Music Festival. So I was just wondering if we can get some clarification about what residents can expect around noise, uh, and how should people get in touch if they have concerns around the volume, public disorder, or the accommodations made for the loss of the skate park.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 1442.085, "end": 1686.705, "text": "Councillor Atkinson, I'm so happy that you asked. What I thought I would do is start by describing some more about the changes and then the so what, what we are anticipating these changes will result in, and finally what Calgarians can do if they have concerns. So, in terms of what's changing, first of all, we are looking forward to a less impactful, more positive Stampede Festival, hopefully with a little bit more sleep for anyone who wants it. We believe that the changes that we've made around nighttime noise are going to strike a good balance, preserving the quality of life for new nearby residents at the same time as we are enjoying all the festivities of Stampede and the Stampede season. So, in terms of specific changes, last year live music went until 1 30 every night of the Stampede. This year, all concerts will end at midnight. The bass levels, which I know were a particular concern for a lot of residents, have been reduced from last year's levels as well. After the concerts end on weekends, music at reduced decibel levels can be played until 1 30 with a cool down period following from 1 30 to 2 a.m. And that's going to allow for safe and orderly exit of remaining patrons. On weeknights, The cool down period starts immediately after the concerts end. And that so that will be starting at midnight and running until 1 a.m. In terms of why we're doing this, we are looking for a more gradual exit from the event and reduced concerns, of course, about the potential of overcrowding on sidewalks, traffic congestion, pressure in our transit system, as well as the disruption for people who live nearby. All in all, we're anticipating that this is going to reduce the social disorder that we know was one of the challenges last year. In terms of what people can do, I want to assure you that peace officers will be monitoring noise levels and will ensure that events are complying with permit conditions. But if residents have noise concerns, we need to hear about it through 311. And they can call 311, they can use it online, they can use the app, but uh tracking the complaints that way allows us to make sure that we're responding to real time concerns and also collecting information that will inform what kinds of adjustments we may need to make for next year. If people are communicating with 311, uh it would be useful to communicate the source of the noise. Details of how the noise is impacting the caller and contact information, including the address, so that we can follow up if required and do that kind of mapping that we saw last week that we know is important. Finally, 311 is a great general information resource. If there's something that's making people feel actively unsafe, 911 remains the best resource. There's also a non-emergency police line that's 403-266-1234 if people just want to register something with the police. So lots of resources. The final thing I'll say is that we're looking forward to an enhanced activation of skate park facilities at Pixel Park to accommodate what we're going to be missing at the Stampede or at the Cowboys Park. That enhanced skate park or resource at Pixel Park will be from June 20th until July 21st. So that means we're already happening there. Thanks a lot.", "segments_merged": 13 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 1686.885, "end": 1687.805, "text": "Perfect. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 1690.325, "end": 1776.445, "text": "Thank you. I am next in the queue. This is a bit more of a a detailed question, and I just wanted a a high level answer to it based on what you can provide at this point, and I'll provide it. In uh exact text as part of an administrative inquiry at the end of the meeting, so so bear with me. On October 19th, 2026, the province of Alberta is conducting a referendum involving 10 questions, including a question about whether Alberta should remain a province within Canada. Given the results of this referendum will have significant impacts on the economic well being and fiscal sustainability of the city of Calgary, as well as direct impacts for Calgarians, I have the following questions for administration. One. Does City Council have the legal authority to deploy City of Calgary resources and relevant civic partners, including Calgary Economic Development, to firstly conduct research on the historical precedents and municipal impacts of separation referenda in comparable jurisdictions? Secondly, report on the current and projected economic and fiscal impacts of the October 19, 2026 referendum on Calgary. And two, does the City of Calgary have the legal authority to engage in official public advocacy in favor of Alberta remaining a province within Canada? If such authority exists, what are the mechanisms and budgets available to the city of Calgary and our members of City Council to conduct this advocacy?", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 1779.465, "end": 1934.645, "text": "Thanks for those questions. So I'll start with the first part about City Council having the legal authority to deploy city resources and your two parts on the research and reporting on that. So council could request that a third party, such as Calgary Economic Development, complete an analysis. The city could also conduct their own research into the impacts of the referendum questions. One of the municipal purposes under section three of the municipal government act is to develop viable communities. So researching how the referendum may impact the city would seem to come under this purpose. The issue will be whether the city can report on and make public those conclusions that are reached. This is a little bit more of a more difficult. Question to answer. Under the Elections, Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, the city cannot be a third party advertiser and therefore cannot engage in third party advertising. So third party advertising is defined as advertising a message that promotes or opposes a question in a referendum. So while good faith economic analysis does not in itself promote or oppose an outcome, it may do so implicitly, and it's not clear from the legislation as to whether this would contravene those rules on advertising. There are some exceptions that the city may be able to leverage, so this is something that we could look into further. In terms of your second part of your question, in terms of legal authority to engage in official public advocacy, I'm going to give a very lawyerly answer and say it depends. So if it were a council resolution that expresses support or opposition to a referendum question without anything more, I would argue that this would be permissible within the referendum advertising rules. It is an exercise of the city's natural person power and furtherance of a municipal, valid municipal purpose. However, again, the legislation says that no third party shall incur referendum advertising expenses in a total amount of $1,000 or more if the third party is not eligible to be registered as a third party advertiser. And as I mentioned previously, the city is not eligible to be registered as a third party advertiser. So expending city resources to promote or oppose a referendum question in excess of $1,000 would contravene the rules.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 1936.605, "end": 1936.785, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 1936.785, "end": 1937.785, "text": "Did I get it all?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 1938.465, "end": 1959.265, "text": "And I'll I'll provide that through the administrative inquiry for a little bit more uh belts and braces around it, but I just want to clarify uh again, simply stating an opinion, being involved in the public discourse and and debate is certainly permissible by members of council. It's purely the spending of money that contravenes the advertising restrictions.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 1960.105, "end": 1968.305, "text": "That's correct. Members of council are free to engage in their own related activities as an individual, as long as they're in compliance with that legislation.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 1968.785, "end": 1974.705, "text": "Thank you very much. All right. Over to Councillor McLean for last question. Question B.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 1974.945, "end": 2034.465, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. My question is probably best suited for Director McLeod regarding parking tickets on street sweeping days. I always hear every year from many residents frustrated about receiving tickets after the street sweeper has already gone by. I understand there's like 39,000 tickets have already been issued this year, up 5,000 from last year. Now I understand why the restrictions remain until effect until 4 p.m. in case those crews need a second pass. But the question is the residents are saying why is enforcement focused on ticketing after sweeping has occurred rather than ensuring vehicles are moved before the sweepers arrived. This is especially difficult when sweeping overlaps with garbage pickups, leaving residents with few practical parking solutions. So can the administration maybe help me explain if there's maybe a more common sense approach that could target actual obstruction of street sweeping instead of penalizing residents after the work appears to already have been done?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 2035.045, "end": 2119.145, "text": "Yes, thank you, Mayor. Councillor McLean, our street sweeping program uh starts in April, uh goes to the end of June. We are on time, 100% complete. Uh with respect to vehicles, we have a number of measures that citizens can employ to be warned of the of the pending street sweeping, the schedule. We keep it fixed all year long. If we get a a snow day or something, we move uh that to the end of the cycle so everybody gets the same day that's scheduled at the beginning of the year. There's a number of ways to get notice as far as when sweeping occurs. With respect to enforcement, our enforcement team precedes our sweeping operation and there's a cessation to that enforcement once a crews are fully complete, although it's not obvious. And so we have a parking restriction that goes from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily when it's street sweeping. And so those are the restricted time periods to avoid and to park elsewhere for that one day. In Bridlewood, in the area that you're in, that street sweeping end uh was completed around 11, and so did the enforcement. So there was no further enforcement for the remainder of the day, and so that is the process that we do take. If citizens feel that they received a ticket in air, they can apply for an appeal and our team would review that. But we do try to be as sensitive as possible. Once the streets uh completed, um, we don't conduct any additional enforcement because we don't require the street to be kept clear, but it is restricted for the entire day.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 2119.965, "end": 2125.705, "text": "Thank you for that. You know exactly the residents at risk in Bridlewood that are asking me to ask the question. So thank you for that answer.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2128.685, "end": 2141.465, "text": "Thank you. Uh can I get a mover for the confirmation of agenda? Moved by Councillor Chabot, seconded by um Councillor Dallywall. It's uh on the table now on the agenda, Councillor Ward.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 2142.065, "end": 2152.825, "text": "yes, uh we would just like to add a matter of ur uh urgent business, a verbal update from the Water Utility Oversight Board Chair Selection Committee, please. And uh I believe clerks have that ready.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2153.805, "end": 2188.145, "text": "Okay. That's ready to go and uh colleagues well were on this. You'll note later on we're gonna have a procedural motion to uh recess for lunch to the call of the chair. The intention here is to have a meeting of the nominations committee to begin at uh 1 15. Uh and then once nominations committee is concluded, then council uh will resume to to consider the recommendation from that committee. So that's been moved by councillor ward, seconded by Councillor Penazopoulos. That's on the table. Any uh discussion on the adding of this business? Okay, seeing none, uh Mr. Clerk, let's engage the e vote, please.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 2200.085, "end": 2203.505, "text": "Councillor Clark, your vote please, and Mayor Farkas?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2204.125, "end": 2217.365, "text": "Yes. All right, please display the results. And that motion is carried 15 to 0. Can I go to Councillor Clark, please?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 2218.025, "end": 2230.525, "text": "Yes, thank you chair. Um also uh an item of uh urgent business. I've got a uh uh notice of motion here to bring forward the third and final reading of uh proposed bylaw from our public hearing to conclude that business.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2231.685, "end": 2241.505, "text": "Okay. Do we have a seconder for that? Seconded by Councillor Atkinson. Mr. Clerk, I was not present for the public hearing, but I'm still good to add it as business. Is that right?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 2243.425, "end": 2244.065, "text": "That's correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2244.285, "end": 2251.845, "text": "Yeah. All right, uh, any further discussion on this? Okay. Seeing none, let's engage the e vote on that. Uh, please, Mr. Clerk.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 2261.425, "end": 2272.405, "text": "Councillor Jameson, your vote, please? Councillor Tyres? Okay, all the votes are in, Mr. Mayor.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2272.645, "end": 2291.465, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. All right, that motion is carried. 15 to 0. And we have some process motions on distributions, but we're still on the agenda, so I'll go to the process motions after. Anyone else specifically on the agenda as amended? Mr. Clerk?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 2292.645, "end": 2293.145, "text": "Sorry, sir.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2295.165, "end": 2300.545, "text": "Okay. Seeing none, I'll call the question on that. Let's engage the evote on the confirmation of the agenda as amended.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 2311.325, "end": 2312.265, "text": "All the votes are in, sir?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2313.205, "end": 2344.785, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. That motion is carried unanimously. I hope. Before I'm assuming. Yep. Sorry, I should not call the results before we know. That is carried, 15 to 0. On process, uh Councillor Ward, do you mind moving the uh procedural motion to modify the lunch recess to the end of the call of the chair to allow for nominations committee? You're good with that one, uh, Councillor Ward, to allow the the lunch break to to start after nominations?", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 2344.785, "end": 2345.325, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2345.325, "end": 2345.665, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 2346.325, "end": 2346.525, "text": "All right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2346.605, "end": 2367.985, "text": "Second by uh Councillor Panasopoulos. And again, this is to allow the lunch recess to end at the call of the chair. The intent still is to have a full one hour, 15 minute lunch break, but we'll just come back as a nominations committee first. Uh deal with that item and then we'll proceed on to uh the council meeting after that. Alright, uh let's engage the e-vote on that modification, please.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 2378.385, "end": 2379.085, "text": "All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2379.685, "end": 2392.285, "text": "Thank you, please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 15 to 0. We have a few process ones. Uh Councillor Schmidt, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 2393.185, "end": 2409.065, "text": "Uh yes, just on item nine point four point five, the improving community traffic safety have a letter of support which was circulated around 9 a.m. to be added to the corporate record from Alberta Motor Association, which the clerks have in their possession now.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2410.565, "end": 2415.845, "text": "Okay. Uh seconded by Councillor Atkinson. Let's uh engage the e vote on that one.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 2427.105, "end": 2430.885, "text": "Councillor Deliwell? All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2436.845, "end": 2449.725, "text": "Thank you, please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 15 to 0. Uh was I right, Councillor Dalwell? I think you had a distribution, was that right? Okay.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 2450.605, "end": 2461.265, "text": "Sorry Mayor, uh clerks have it. Thank you for doing this on such a short notice. This is just a letter of support uh we're gonna add to nine point four point six, which is notice of motion for multi sport fuelhouse committee update mandate.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2461.765, "end": 2469.445, "text": "Okay. All right. That's been seconded by uh Councillor Atkinson. That's on the table. Let's uh engage the vote on that.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 2480.665, "end": 2483.825, "text": "Councillor Johnson, please. All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2484.505, "end": 2498.005, "text": "Thanks. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 15 to 0. Mr. Clerk, I think that's it for process motions. Okay. All right, uh Councillor Shabot on the minutes.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 2498.865, "end": 2507.685, "text": "Yeah, no, happy to move uh all four sets. Um I did not see any errors or omissions and again uh kudos to administration because there was a couple of pretty hefty", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2508.005, "end": 2508.105, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 2508.105, "end": 2527.185, "text": "sets of minutes there, and so good job. Uh like I say, I I struggle to find any errors. So if somebody caught something that I missed, uh please come forward. But uh outside of that, uh I think uh kudos goes to clerks on doing a great job on creating these minutes. So happy to move them, all four sets.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2527.445, "end": 2551.085, "text": "I I second that. I don't formally second that. I proverbally second that. But big shout out to the the clerk's team for the accuracy as well. If you can get it by Councillor Shabot, I think you could get it by anybody. So Uh that's been seconded by uh Councillor McLean. Let's engage the vote on the minutes of 2026, May 12th, May 21st, May 26th, and uh June 16th of 2026.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 2558.565, "end": 2562.105, "text": "Councillor Schmidt, your vote, please. Okay, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2565.185, "end": 2591.865, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. All right, that motion is carried 15 to 0. Before I go to item 7, consent agenda, which does include that civic census implementation item. Was there Any Councillor who wanted to say anything to that? Wait, just before I go to the item of business. No, we're good? Okay. Oh, Councillor Shabot? Yep.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 2592.045, "end": 2628.945, "text": "I'm just curious about 7.19, the appointment of the uh two members to the license um uh community license community standards appeal board, whether or not that needs to be polled and voted on separately. There is an in camera portion with all the other uh nominees, potential nominees, but I I mean I'm okay with the recommendations, and there are some good recommend recommendations as alternates. But I thought if there was an interest in having further discussion on that, maybe we should pull it. Out outside of that. I I don't know. Do we need to pull it separately to vote on it?", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2629.845, "end": 2635.005, "text": "No, my my understood well first, just a process. Do you mind moving the consent to agenda omnibus?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 2635.085, "end": 2635.385, "text": "Sure.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2635.445, "end": 2652.825, "text": "Okay. That's been moved by Councillor Shabeau, seconded by Councillor Atkinson. So that's on the table. On um 719, uh we had a pretty robust uh conversation at the nominations committee. It's probably not necessary for me, but I was privy to the conversation. But If are you looking to pull it?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 2652.965, "end": 2667.065, "text": "No, I was more. I wasn't there, so I was kind of interested to see if there was any debate at all about any of the nominees or the recommendations versus as well as the alternates, because I looked them all over and I I thought they were good decisions.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2667.385, "end": 2674.605, "text": "Yeah, we had a certainly a robust uh number of candidates, and I I don't think there was much uh contention or discussion uh at nominations committee.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 2674.605, "end": 2676.705, "text": "Okay. That's all I want to know. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2677.705, "end": 2682.685, "text": "All right, on uh the consent agenda we're gonna start pulling some items. Uh Councillor Penazopoulos, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 2682.865, "end": 2688.285, "text": "Thank you so much. I'd like to pull 7.13 just to make uh an additional recommendation. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2689.905, "end": 2696.685, "text": "All right, 7.13 has been pulled. Civic census implementation. Uh Councillor Wines, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 2697.585, "end": 2701.565, "text": "Uh 7.30 please to provide an alternate recommendation.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2708.385, "end": 2709.765, "text": "Councillor Schmidt, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 2710.465, "end": 2725.945, "text": "Uh yes, two items 7.1.2, the open drug use enforcement on behalf of the uh of administration who have a report to add to that. Uh Update and deferral.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 2727.285, "end": 2727.605, "text": "Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 2728.825, "end": 2741.045, "text": "And then the other one, sorry, I'm just finding my number. 7.12 as I have an amendment that has been circulated and the clerks have in their possession as well.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2741.825, "end": 2743.385, "text": "That's an amendment, uh, Councillor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 2743.485, "end": 2743.785, "text": "Yep.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2744.785, "end": 2779.205, "text": "All right, so We have 7.1.2 deferral request for open drug use enforcement. That's to add a report. We have 7.12 notice of motion to accelerate housing development. That's an amendment. 713, that's civic census implementation for an amendment. And 730, which is funding recommendations for the Ward Community Event Fund, alternate recommendation. Those four have been pulled. Anybody else? Okay, seeing none, any Mr. Clerk, please go ahead.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 2779.945, "end": 2793.065, "text": "Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to note too um administration does have a revised attachment one with respect to item 7.5, 2 billion trees agreement program update. So", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2793.065, "end": 2815.365, "text": "Let's pull that one too to allow for the revised attachment. Okay, so we're at 7.1.2, 7.5, 7.12, 7.13, and 7.30. Anyone else? Okay. Seeing none, uh, let's engage the vote on the omnibus motion.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 2825.625, "end": 2838.745, "text": "Councillor Jameson, your vote, please. Councillor Johnson. Okay, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2839.685, "end": 2864.485, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. That motion is carried, 15 to 0. All right, uh, we're on items from officers of council and the consent agenda items selected for debate, starting with uh 7.1.2. Take us away as well.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 2865.365, "end": 2900.805, "text": "Thank you, Your Worship. I just wanted to explain that the deferral report that is in the system needs to be updated. Clerks has an updated version. What happened was that the approval that had been referenced in the deferral report about expansion of drug handling and transporting authorities for City of Calgary peace officers was subsequently rescinded. So The circumstances have shifted and we have updated that in the deferral report.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2904.925, "end": 2927.825, "text": "Alright, uh could I go to you, Councillor uh Schmidt, to move it with the added report? So moved. Okay. Uh Councillor Atkinson to second. Any further discussion or debate on this? Uh Councillor Weinus, please.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 2928.205, "end": 2933.285, "text": "Thanks. So with the province rescinding what processes changes are we making?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 2936.605, "end": 2963.745, "text": "Councillor Wynus, the approval had just been received at the beginning of this month. So the whole approval and then rescindment happened in the course of 18 or 19 days. So we were just working on what our processes could be, hoping to enhance the efficiency of the process by giving peace officers that authority. The rescindment means that we're just no further ahead than we were last month.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 2964.025, "end": 2968.445, "text": "Will our policies align with the police commission's policies on zero tolerance?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 2970.105, "end": 2981.825, "text": "Our existing policies will remain in place, and so now we have to make sure that we have all those alignments cross checked, and that's the reason for the deferral report in the first place.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 2981.925, "end": 2982.665, "text": "Okay, great, thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 2986.825, "end": 3072.485, "text": "I'll just jump in and I've I'll say really good opportunities to engage with Minister Amory on this topic. Uh obviously won't put words in his mouth, but he really re reiterated the the success story the community court has posed. Uh they've indicated a lot of really strong uh moral support and potentially forthcoming fiscal support uh for the sponsorship uh for this partnership. It's checking all the boxes, it's working to serve our most vulnerable Calgarians, it's releasing reducing the burden on the overall system, otherwise. So uh I'll have a more formal update hopefully soon on that. But uh really good, uh, really optimistic, super positive first meeting with Minister Amory. And I just want to uh personally recognize and applaud his leadership. He's extremely engaged on this file. Uh incredibly well briefed, and I would say of the interactions I've had with any minister at any level of government on specific topics, he came the most certainly the most prepared and engaged. So uh hope to be able to have uh more good news for that. And it's also uh a demonstration of when us as a council we show leadership. It can uh encourage and motivate our other partners to be able to come to the table as well. So thank you, council, for uh supporting this uh through the the previous budget. We're now at an opportunity to really be able to scale this investment and reduce overall costs of the system, but also uh drive home public safety, which is what many Calgaryans should are telling us needs to be the top priority right now. Over to you uh to close, Councillor Schmidt.", "segments_merged": 14 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 3074.065, "end": 3074.545, "text": "Closed.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 3076.325, "end": 3078.165, "text": "All right, uh let's engage the e votes on that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 3089.905, "end": 3095.005, "text": "Councillor Shabot, your vote? Councillor Johnson? All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 3108.505, "end": 3118.905, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. All right, that motion is carried. 15 to 0. We'll go to 7.5, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 3124.025, "end": 3145.465, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. Um there's report IP 2026 0356. An error was uh discovered, I believe, by one of the members of council. Thank you for that on the uh number of trees planned per community, and that error then transferred into attachment two. So both attachment one and attachment two have an amendment, and I believe clerks has a copy of the updated uh attachments.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 3147.545, "end": 3149.305, "text": "Thank you. Over to Councillor Kelly to move it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 3152.065, "end": 3157.385, "text": "Uh thank you for the updated attachment. We really appreciate it. Um yeah, happy to move this item. Thank you, Mayor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 3158.005, "end": 3169.565, "text": "I'm gonna say second by Councillor Ewell. Do you like trees? Councillor Ewell. Any further discussion, debate on this, colleagues? Alright, uh let's engage the evote, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 3181.845, "end": 3186.465, "text": "Councillor Jameson, your vote, please. Mayor Farkas?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 3187.365, "end": 3189.125, "text": "Thank you. Um please display Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 3189.725, "end": 3190.805, "text": "Thank you. And all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 3195.425, "end": 3209.285, "text": "Do you guys ever have it where it says like vote in progress and you click it and then it closes before you you guys can click it? No? Just me? Okay. Alright, that motion is carried 15 to 0. Uh we'll move on to 7.12.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 3220.745, "end": 3235.625, "text": "Uh good morning, members of council. My name is Eddie Lee, Director of Assessment Tax and City Assessor. Before you today is a response and notice motion to EC 2025-0117 to accelerate housing development. Would council like a presentation?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 3237.045, "end": 3243.185, "text": "I think given that we're gonna go into some meaty amendments and changes, I think it would be valuable to have a refresher. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 3243.345, "end": 3686.205, "text": "Sure. Next slide, please. So administration is recommending not to proceed with the creation of the proposed programs. Our first recommendation is that council should not proceed with a vacant property tax program or for a vacant land subclass or a derelict subclass. Our second recommendation is not to proceed with a purpose built rental tax exemption program. And finally, we recommend council receive the report for the corporate record. Next slide, please. So this report responds to the council's January 2025 notice of motion titled Accelerating Housing Development Bill 20 and Residential Subclasses. This notice of motion directs administration to report back to Council in Q2 2026 with a scoping report to evaluate a vacant property tax program, including a vacant land subclass and a derelict subclass, and a purpose built rental tax exemption program for existing market ready, city identified, transit oriented development sites. As part of the deliverables, this report includes three scoping reports and the cost, resource, and timeline implications of the proposed programs. Next slide, please. The 2024 housing context that prompted this NOS motion has since shifted. In 2023, the city's housing needs assessment found that one in five households could not afford their housing. This led council to approve the cities of Calgary's housing strategy to increase the supply, choice, and affordability of housing. In combination with the actions in the strategy, market changes, and collaborative cross governmental efforts, 23,000 market homes and 1,800 non market homes received development permits in 2025, and Calgary went to lead the country in housing starts. Although the city and the market continue to support the development of new housing and other market factors, city growth and housing demand still create a need to increase the housing supply, which in turn would improve affordability. This report analyzes whether supply side tax programs such as the subclasses and incentives can accelerate development of housing. Next slide, please. So, attachment two evaluates an assessment subclass program for residential vacant land properties, applying a higher tax rate to incentivize owners of vacant land properties to begin development and building activities, increased supply of housing in Calgary. To meet the objectives, the criteria for subclass eligible vacant land is set as taxable residential property vacant of a permanent dwelling for five or more consecutive years after being fully serviced and subdivided and designated as construction ready. The subclass is expected to cost roughly $930,000 in one-time cost for technology implementation and $95,000 in ongoing annual costs for administration of the program, data maintenance, program processing. Administration would request an additional FTE for this work if directed by council. A subclass would not generate additional tax revenue but would redistribute it. Overall, administration found that the majority of the 15,000 vacant land parcels in Calgary, less than 3% would meet the criteria of developable residential vacant land. Of the 3%, roughly 62% were already. Undergoing market-driven development activities. This results in less than 1% of vacant land or 183 properties eligible for the proposed subclass. The analysis also found that no evidence of persistent land speculation occurring on these vacant lands. Therefore, a vacant land subclass would not be an effective tool to accelerate housing development. Next slide, please. Attachment 3 evaluates a derelict residential property program that is intended to encourage owners to return derelict properties to functional residential use as well as to reduce safety and nuisance impacts associated with these properties. Consistent with these objectives, the proposed definition of derelict residential property applied in this analysis, targets residential property showing serious signs of dilapidation or significant disrepair such that it is functional, unusable for its intended residential living purpose, andor its physical condition poses a material safety risk. Using this definition, administration identified potential derelict properties using data from the Coordinated Safety Response Team, Calgary Fire Department, and publicly available information from Alberta Health Services. This analysis found that derelict residential properties in Calgary are limited in number, and that many identified cases are being addressed through existing enforcement tools and market activity. Overall, while derelict's residential subclass would directionally align with objectives of increasing carrying costs to promote repair, redevelopment, or demolition, the added benefit of the subclass is not sufficiently demonstrated relative to the significant administration costs, program complexities, and equity risks that a subclass would introduce. Administration does not consider a dedicated derelict subclass an appropriate tool to accelerate housing development. Next slide, please. And finally, in attachment four evaluates a proposed purpose-built rental tax exemption program, which would create a tax incentive for development of rental apartments near city-identified, market-ready, transit-oriented development areas. Our analysis indicated's low and medium rise purpose-built rentals are being developed in Calgary at record rates, and land suitable for multi residential development near primary transit network is often already slated for development. The city is also taking numerous actions to support transit oriented development, such as public realm improvements near transit station areas, and supporting the Calgary Municipal Land Corporation exploring transit oriented communities. The direct costs to implement a tax incentive program are relatively low. However, it is unclear whether a broad tax incentive would meaningfully result in more development than that that is already occurring. Tax exemptions are redistributive in nature, meaning other taxpayers would pay more to offset the taxes not being paid by the exempt incentivized property. To avoid potentially unnecessary government intervention and complication of the tax system, as well as to avoid those increased costs to other taxpayers, administration is recommending not to proceed with this program at this time. Next slide, please. In summary, the housing landscape has changed since the notice of motion is approved. Calgary has seen record housing starts in development. Given the increased housing starts and long-term strategies already in place, there is limited evidence that tax policy, including subclasses and incentives, would meaningfully accelerate housing development in today's housing context. And as such, we are recommending that council should not proceed with the proposed subclass for vacant land, derelict properties, or the purpose built rental tax exemption, and receive this uh report for the corporate record. Thank you. And I'm open to uh any questions members of council might have.", "segments_merged": 28 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 3689.545, "end": 3717.445, "text": "Thank you. I think uh m Mr. Clerk, when there's the intent of a Councillor to put forward a like a materially different amendment, uh do you think just best practice for me is to seek a mover for what the committee recommendations were and then allow that Councillor the chance to amend the recommendation or should I go to the Councillor first with their alternate recommendation?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 3719.825, "end": 3723.465, "text": "Will we proceed with the main motion and then deal with the amendments?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 3724.025, "end": 3737.485, "text": "Yep. Is there somebody here who can move and second the main motion from committee? Okay, Councillor Chabot will move it and second by Councillor Clark. And over you, Councillor Schibel. And then uh I'll come back to you at some point, Councillor Schmidt.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 3737.705, "end": 3795.445, "text": "Thanks. No, I appreciate the the report. Um I know Edmonton has implemented a derelict um tax. Um I guess subclass, if you will. I I'm not sure how they're applying it. Um, my question is strictly in relation to a supplementary tax, whether or not something can be applied to derelict properties in addition to the regular property tax, kind of like a local improvement, because of enhanced requirements from a safety and security um obligation for the city of Calgary to. to monitor those sites to ensure that that they remain safe and and uh and uh I d I don't know I I guess we can make a sketch case as to additional work that's that's required by the city to ensure that uh the sites remain at least safe and uh uh for for the community and I I don't know so that there's no off site kind of things that occur on site.", "segments_merged": 17 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 3796.345, "end": 3828.205, "text": "So the Municipal Government Act does not allow us to apply a surtax, but it does allow us to have a derelict subclass. So that is exactly the same thing what uh the city of Edmonton has, and we've used the uh very similar definition that the city of uh Edmonton has. So with the subclasses, it is redistributive in in nature, so there is no additional tax that uh you get. Council could add in a budget line item to uh, you know, but it would be an increase in tax over overall.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 3828.425, "end": 3838.265, "text": "There's no tools in the MGA that would allow us to charge uh a supplementary fee on those properties for that enhanced security and and safety oversight.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 3838.985, "end": 3862.545, "text": "There are uh existing tools right now. You know, if uh we required um us to uh demolish a property, we can uh take that cost and the administration cost of administering that demolition and put it uh uh tax roll it or uh any you know fine similar to you know if you're you've got weeds and you don't pay that uh fine, you can uh add into tax roll at the end of the day.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 3863.065, "end": 3878.305, "text": "So if the property is derelict then we have to do um like yard maintenance is an example because the weeds are too tall, that would get added to the tax roll. At what point would it trigger the um I guess the need for demolition?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_37", "start": 3883.065, "end": 3947.005, "text": "Uh good morning. Thank you for the question. So when we look at a rundown derelict property, we and through our program, and we have a lot of partners that we collaborate with, we look at the totality of the issues and the severity of the offense, and we have to make a determination that's proportionate to that severity of the offense. So I use this example often. I mean, we can have a property that has a hundred bylaw complaints and never get to a point where we can justify moving forward with an order to demolish that that building. But you add in the fact that that building is also unfit for human habitation, that there's structural issues with the building itself, that there's fire hazards, that it's continually being broken into, then it becomes easy that uh to determine that this isn't a problem that can be solved with you know a couple cans of paint and uh minor fix ups. It's a building that needs to go. So that's how we make those determinations uh as to whether to demolish or require an owner to do remediation of the property.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 3947.545, "end": 3985.225, "text": "Well, Chief Placidus, the the reason I'm I'm asking these questions is because uh in in my past I've seen a lot of properties, even homes that have burnt, and then they get at least demolished, but not completely. Taken out, and there's still a basement. And those remain static in those conditions for for years. And and I guess I I'm just I'm frustrated by the inability for us to take action sooner. And I'm just wondering if there's a mechanism that we can actually move forward more more more efficiently on remediating those properties. And do you do you think you have the tools to be able to do that?", "segments_merged": 13 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_37", "start": 3986.285, "end": 4006.325, "text": "Uh well I I suppose it depends on the exact circumstances. Um, you know, there is other provisions in the MGA that deal with open excavations, so that can be addressed through section five forty six of uh of the MGA. Uh I'd have to look at uh I'm happy to take this offline and and if you have uh concerns review them and and uh", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 4006.245, "end": 4017.685, "text": "It's been remediated, but it it stood for years. And so it was an open basement. It was fenced off, but people were dumping stuff on the site because they were using it as a dumping ground. Anyways, it just stayed that way for so many years.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_37", "start": 4017.685, "end": 4029.785, "text": "and it might be you know which agency is leading that response, and there might be different authorities within the fire code versus versus the MGA. So Uh, these are sites that can be reevaluated to see if we can do anything further.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 4031.125, "end": 4073.525, "text": "I do have some other properties we'll have to discuss offline. Uh thanks. So those are all the questions. Um no, I appreciate the report um as uh moving it uh from uh uh the discussions around this and and the that it's not actually gonna generate additional funds. So it's kind of pointless to move into uh Something that's just going to be redistributed amongst all the rest of the ratepayers. So why I appreciate uh Mr. Lee's uh summation of of the report and and the cost associated with actually going to one of these different subclasses and a rationale around why the recommendation is not to move forward with the new subclass. So that's my open and see if I can address any issues in my close.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 4074.385, "end": 4076.625, "text": "Alright, at this time I'll go to you, Councillor Schmidt.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 4077.725, "end": 4259.985, "text": "Yes, I have an amendment which the clerks have in their possession that is addressing recomm uh recommendation two to be deleted in its entirety. Um and this only addresses the purpose-built rental tax exemption program. And so the motivation for going down this route was this seemed like the highest benefit, lowest risk of the three different programs that were listed in here. Given council's indication throughout the last six months that we want to prioritize transit-oriented development nodes and corridors, that type of development, that this allows us to proceed with this incentive that would only affect tax abatement during construction period. So what it does is it uh gets us moving on the transit-oriented development incentive with further work done by uh Director Lee and his team and other teams, uh the downtown the downtown team uh became part of this as well to give some recommendations, uh, and then a further scoping report for other opportunities in the greater downtown, which can help us accelerate uh this type of higher rise development, which has become somewhat restrictive given costs and risks, uh, where we're seeing the favoring of six-story and lower buildings, and we should really be seeing the maximization of the opportunities around transit-oriented development. And my mind goes to sites like Westbrook Sea Train Station, which is moving forward at a higher pace now. We have the green line coming online that has a lot of TOD that could be looked at and other sites around the city as well. So uh I will say it's not the perfect thing that we should be doing, but it is something that we can be doing that can help support what we've indicated are the priorities of this council. Uh and in speaking with Mr. with Director Lee, uh initially the report backday was Q2 2027. I was concerned about the resources of him and his team. I did not want this to unnecessarily burden them or require extra staffing. So by moving it back to Q3 2027, uh Director Lee indicated uh that this would give them time to work within their current resources. It wouldn't take away from other projects. If I'm incorrect about any of that, he can correct me here now. Uh and so this uh it could still come back in Q2, but otherwise, the uh aside from the $130,000 uh for the initial base operating funding, this does not require any other resources and would not take away from any other important projects. So I'd hope uh I can get your support for this small change so that we can have this as a tool in our toolkit moving forward.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 4262.165, "end": 4271.345, "text": "All right, is there a seconder for this? Second by Councillor Atkinson. Gonna maintain a different speaking cue now for the amendment. Uh Councillor Panasophilos, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 4273.805, "end": 4277.065, "text": "Uh was Councillor Jameson and Johnson want to speak to it or is that to the main item?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 4277.265, "end": 4279.125, "text": "Uh Councillor Jameson on the amendment?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4283.245, "end": 4287.225, "text": "Is this is now the time to ask administration questions? Or is this debate?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 4287.225, "end": 4292.285, "text": "I think it's all one d largely one debate. If if you want to get into it now, I'll come back to you, Councillor Panasophilos.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4293.345, "end": 4293.565, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 4294.625, "end": 4295.245, "text": "Yeah, go for it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 4295.745, "end": 4321.585, "text": "Yep. Thanks so much. Um maybe just because this the the the big amendment is the change to downtown, maybe just sort of speak about the potential, the dollars, you know, a typical parking lot that exists, and I know there's no such thing as a typical, but uh, you know, what would that look like? Um During construction, the dollars, the quantum, deferring um you know property taxes or just just for a quantum perspective, if you could.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 4321.585, "end": 4379.025, "text": "Yeah, so uh part of this work would be to uh take a look at those numbers. So we have uh in this report, we did not look at the downtown portion of it. So this work would have us do it. We did look at what it would uh look like if it was in a TOD site. So if you're uh familiar with the Bloom Towers in Dalhousie uh as an example, um if we applied a uh property tax exemption program and that uh exempted the uh incremental taxes while it was during the construction phase, uh that developer would have received roughly 750,000 uh off their taxes. And because property taxes are redistributive in nature, um your typical household would have paid uh $1.60 over the uh more uh for that construction period. So a very negligible piece. So you would expect a downtown development to probably be a higher value uh than than that in general, but that would just give you a sort of a uh ballpark picture.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 4379.345, "end": 4396.465, "text": "I appreciate that. What's sort of the quantum for for downtown, you know, vacant lots, really small buildings that could be knocked. You did a great job of identifying on the derelict and everything, if any sense, and and maybe just even a ballpark would be great, including the belt line or the greater downtown area.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 4396.745, "end": 4401.745, "text": "Yeah, perhaps I'll uh look to my uh colleagues in uh downtown strategy, uh Patrick Mann.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 4410.585, "end": 4414.805, "text": "Uh good morning. Council. Thanks, Eddie. Uh can you repeat that question, please?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 4415.145, "end": 4424.105, "text": "Uh just around uh quantum of properties that could potentially uh vacant lots, old buildings that might be be able to knock down.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 4424.865, "end": 4439.065, "text": "I think as part of the work we would we would dig into that deeper. I wouldn't want to give I I don't have that at my fingertips right now, but I think if we were um supported here, we would go away and we would dig into that and come back with to to tell that to council.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 4439.985, "end": 4469.225, "text": "Okay, so the the information's not there. And then um I guess you sort of addressed it, the potential. It's a pretty material impact from a property tax perspective, from a parking lot up to a 20 story cement building fair assessment, like like that value goes or is most of that value captured in line. What I'm trying to get at is that incentive, and if you give $100, what's the potential sort of payback uh we we would generally experience on that? If you had that example in Dalhousie, what would be sort of that metrics?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 4471.145, "end": 4490.945, "text": "Yeah, so in terms of the um full property tax value in the uh Dalhousie example, so uh as a vacant lot it would be the the tax generation of that for on municipal property tax side would be roughly about uh twenty thousand dollars and then fully built um six hundred twenty thousand.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 4494.065, "end": 4551.765, "text": "Great. Maybe I'll just y you know, go into a little bit of debate. Yeah, I I that was something that stuck out with me is the the excluding of the downtown, and and I understand that was the notion motion went through there um where I voted against this generally because I hate too strong a word, but really don't like that, you know, using that as an incentive. But I do appreciate Councillor Schmidt going out and saying, hey, let's look at it. Let's see if downtown and that scoping report was amazing you put together, it gave the details. So while I I'll uh looking forward to coming back on Q327 with with the data, I think I really appreciate that instead of just a no saying, hey, is there something we can do here? A 600,000 incremental for an investment, that starts becoming pretty darn material, particularly all we're giving up is money we just never had during a construction period downtown, particularly that you're not just doing your six. So I think I can get my head around this and then looking really forward to that scoping report and uh because the potential there is pretty material and we can make a decision whether it makes sense to proceed at that time. Thank you so much, Mayor.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 4553.125, "end": 4561.065, "text": "Thank you. I'll go back to you, Councillor Jameson, after the amendment's done. Is that okay? Or did you want to jump in now and Okay, go for it.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4563.125, "end": 4627.665, "text": "Thank you, Chair. I think I think actually uh Councillor uh cl um Shabot uh mentioned um what I was thinking uh because uh s essentially um you got you guys are you guys are asking to walk away from this because In his words, it's it's essentially pointless now, um, g given the the matrix that we have. And so to kind of reconcile this, um we have uh CMHC's spring twenty twenty six housing report says that you know we're already the fourth consecutive record for housing starts in in Canada and um year over year. So I guess even to support this amendment, uh what evidence exists that the tax exemption would generate any rental units that wouldn't already be built? That's what I'm looking for.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 4628.285, "end": 4690.085, "text": "So we've only completed the analysis on the transit-oriented development sites. So in our analysis, in our opinion, we believe that for the TOD sites, the market uh ready TOD sites that we looked at, then incentive is not required because we are seeing still significant uh development, you know, evidenced by you know two towers being built by Chinook Center, uh, three properties uh built built by Heritage and so on and so forth. We haven't done that exact same analysis on the downtown uh uh portion yet. We do understand that uh you know some uh market dynamics uh have changed. You we have seen um you know uh softening of uh As an example, condo values and in other properties, and overall, we're not in a pace where residential values are accelerating at double digits. They have moderated uh quite a bit. But uh in in short, Councillor Jameson, we haven't uh done that work on the downtown uh portion yet to determine if an incentive uh it is necessary.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4690.625, "end": 4709.125, "text": "And and if it were to go through um overview, what would it look like uh for the average uh household uh in terms of so if if the tax exemption got put in, um how would it affect every other residential tax pair?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 4709.945, "end": 4733.945, "text": "So it would depend on how much uptake there would be. So going back to that uh the bloom development uh example in Dell Housing, so if we had applied an incentive for that one uh uh property, um each uh uh your average typical home would have paid $1.60 uh more in taxes over that three year construction period for that project.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4735.825, "end": 4777.105, "text": "Okay. So we're okay. So it looks like we're at record levels right now. Your engagement with uh industry uh confirmed uh property taxes uh are not the deciding factor uh in in in in where you're going with that. Um I I'm not yeah so I I don't think this is fair to every other taxpayer, and uh so I will not be supporting this amendment, but I will be supporting it if it goes uh back to the original. Um admin's admin original recommendation uh to abandon this. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 4777.725, "end": 4779.425, "text": "Alright, Councillor Johnston on the amendment.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 4781.625, "end": 4792.005, "text": "Yeah, quick question. Um the office conversion was a way of um basically bringing tax base back to downtown. Wouldn't this do the opposite", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 4794.605, "end": 4829.265, "text": "So it it wouldn't so it it really depends. So if a construction project, say on a vacant parking lot uh downtown, If the market conditions are not ripe for it and nothing is gonna get built, then uh it's sort of a lost opportunity. However, if we are uh they if the this incentive put forward and then there's uptake on it, and then they develop that vacant parking lot to, I don't know, 20-story tower, twin towers, or something like that, then there is uh uh additional development, more housing, um, more property taxes for the city to collect upon.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 4829.965, "end": 4831.785, "text": "with with this amendment you're saying?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 4832.505, "end": 4842.805, "text": "Um if we conduct that analysis and the analysis finds that an incentive would help and it is required uh for the downtown. But we haven't done that analysis yet.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 4843.505, "end": 4846.905, "text": "No no preliminary analysis, thoughts on it?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 4847.425, "end": 4858.905, "text": "No, we haven't done in the downtown. In the TOD sites, we we find that currently it's likely that incentive is not uh necessary at this point in time. But we haven't done that in the downtown.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 4859.885, "end": 4867.525, "text": "Okay, just to help me figure this out, so this isn't counteracting what we did with office conversions.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 4869.605, "end": 4899.085, "text": "No. So the downtown conversion project would be different. Um and this uh program would not you know stack on top because we are looking at vacant sites, brand new development from vacant land to uh something built, versus the uh the downtown incentive program is looking at removing um uh vacant office space that is not being fully utilized, converting into other uses like hotels, housing, university spaces.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 4899.825, "end": 4916.005, "text": "Right, but the office conversions were to take a vacant office that was not generating a lot of taxes to start generating more taxes. And then this would be even vacant properties generate a little bit of tax?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 4916.165, "end": 4925.685, "text": "Yes, vacant properties do generate a little bit of tax, but obviously a 20-story uh rental building would generate significantly more than a vacant lot.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 4929.885, "end": 4930.845, "text": "Okay. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 4934.325, "end": 4936.285, "text": "Alright, uh Councillor Wynus on the amendment.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4936.785, "end": 4944.825, "text": "Thanks. Uh is this amendment going to differentiate between below market, affordable, or for profit building?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 4946.225, "end": 4960.745, "text": "Um, when we were looking at it for the uh TOD, we were s uh strictly looking at uh incentivizing all uh uh uh purpose built rentals. We did not um have a caveat to say it would be only non market.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4960.905, "end": 5005.085, "text": "Okay. With that answer, I think this is sorry, it's not about housing affordable people. Calgarian families are struggling. The tax increase we are discussing is going to be a burden on Calgarian families. To pretend that council has been talking about this kind of incentive that only incentivize for profit condo department developments, I think we just have to look to BC and the 1.3 billion failure of the Kearney government on bailing out banks and developers. This is not the kind of incentives that Calgaryans are looking for. Um to ask Calgaryans to pay a dollar sixty more for for-profit housing is ridiculous, and I will not support it.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 5007.865, "end": 5009.585, "text": "Thank you. On the amendment, Councillor Shabot.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 5011.345, "end": 5021.525, "text": "So, Mr. Lee, um insofar as the tax that a property has to pay, it's whilst it's in construction, what rate would they be paying?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 5022.545, "end": 5058.365, "text": "So it would be paying the uh residential rate. So throughout the construction period, so we um we do annual reassessments each year and we base upon the condition of what's built there as of December 31st. So if it's a three year project, it would be incrementally uh higher. So uh as an example, going back to the um the the Bloom building, so as a vacant lot, it would have been roughly about 20,000, and then one year later it was about 56,000, one year later 181. Uh and then another year 571,000, and then fully built 620,000.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 5059.105, "end": 5078.725, "text": "So it's predictable insofar as if someone wanted to build a facility that they could build that into their pro forma, it would be wouldn't be difficult for them to connect the dots on what their projected uh incremental increase in taxes are versus their projected timeline for completion, right?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 5079.425, "end": 5082.645, "text": "I do not think it would be uh that that difficult to do.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 5083.485, "end": 5160.265, "text": "Yeah. Anyways. Um, I'm not going to support this amendment, and and the primary reason is that we invest billions of dollars into our public transit system. Uh and through that process, we actually increase the value of those properties directly adjacent to those transit uh to those transit nodes and corridors. So for me, we've already provided a huge incentive to all of those individual. For-profit property owners to actually redevelop their sites and it's supported through transit. It's their property values have increased dramatically at the expense of taxpayers to actually build the infrastructure in the first place. Further incentivizing them to me is I I don't I can't rationalize it. If it's a not for profit and they're looking for some sort of tax relief during construction, we can address that on a one off basis. I think this is too much of a blanket approach to try and incentivize something that's not really needed right now, at least that's what I've heard. So I'm not sure what we're trying to do here, what problem we're trying to solve. It's there's a it's a problem that doesn't exist. I mean we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, maybe in a downtown, but there's plenty of other opportunities. For me, this is a definite no. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 5161.205, "end": 5162.865, "text": "All right, uh Councillor Kelly, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 5163.825, "end": 5238.605, "text": "Thank you, worship. Um this has been a great debate so far. I really appreciate it because I'm kind of on the fence on this one for sure in terms of where it goes. Definitely appreciate the original recommendation uh um to not uh move forward the vacant land subclass and the derelict class. Uh but I meant when you came to committee and and we were taking a look at this, I was like, Wow, this feels a little wholesale that we're just like wiping it off the board and in in entirely. Um You know, I I'm happy to continue having this debate by getting this report and having you do the extra work that's uh that's here. Um by your own omission, you focused on TOD, whereas this takes a look at a little bit more. So uh I think I'm while I'm n still on the fence in terms of whether or not I I I think that this will actually have the positive uh outcome that uh We'd all love it to have. Um yeah, I I think that the uh the the cost being outlined here is uh is is worth us uh hearing back in in terms of uh where it may go. So I'm I'm happy to support the amendment here and then have the debate uh when we actually have uh actual answers in front of us. So thank you for uh bringing this forward, Councillor Schmidt.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 5239.485, "end": 5241.525, "text": "All right, uh Councillor Atkinson on the amendment.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 5242.805, "end": 5253.385, "text": "Um how much redevelopment would this have to directly incentivize to make up for that dollar sixty uh to Calgarians? Like.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 5254.165, "end": 5303.825, "text": "Yeah, so it's uh every development, so cr because it's redistributive. So when you're exempting something, there's less uh properties paying or less portion of a property uh paying taxes. So so in that short term. There will be for every each project during the construction phase, Calgaryans will pay slightly more. But there's an argument. If that development was not going to uh uh uh proceed, but sorry, after afterwards, after the construction phase, you get more taxes out of it. Um so incentive is only good if it um allows for something that was not gonna occur naturally in the marketplace, right? So you get that big uplift um uh as a result of the incentive. But if it's already gonna be happening anyways, there's there's no benefit.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 5304.145, "end": 5339.265, "text": "Yeah. So but so four ones that maybe would be turned on by the incentive. So if you're gonna be doing this analysis, like what level of development would you need to see turned on for this to actually be of a benefit to Calgarians in terms of making it's sure a dollar sixty for the next three years, but if it turns on this level of development, then that actually is better. It's making Calgarians better off on and more affordable, providing more housing in the long run. Like, what's that level that we would actually have to see that are directly incentivized from something like this?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 5339.625, "end": 5361.685, "text": "So I would probably say like any level of development. So like if it's a vacant lot and you have uh you build a 20 story uh tower on it, any anything is better. Um so going back to that bloom example, so uh as a vacant lot is roughly $20,000 in taxes, as fully built is uh roughly $620, so you're getting a gain of $600,000 for that project.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 5362.205, "end": 5406.525, "text": "Right. Um and then just to dig in on Councillor Chabot's earlier question, I I understand that it's a redistribution around the vacant tax side of things, um, but it is also Where we're talking here about an incentive, it's a disincentive to keep derelict properties or a disincentive to keep vacant land that potentially then pushes things. So while it doesn't generate more further tax revenues, these properties are costing us more. And potentially if it leads to further redevelopment, it's lowering the city's costs while also hopefully disincentivizing people continuing to sit on those properties. Is that the right read on", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 5406.525, "end": 5406.865, "text": "Um", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 5406.865, "end": 5407.165, "text": "that?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 5407.165, "end": 5430.085, "text": "So for vacant land in in general, we're finding it it isn't costing us more because you know obviously if there's a dweller in there, then it would cost us uh uh more in terms of city services. On the derelict side, uh absolutely derelict properties, you know, yeah, they have more fire calls, more uh uh bylaw calls, those that sort of things, they definitely uh cost us more in terms of city services.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 5430.505, "end": 5436.785, "text": "Were you looking at vacant land in the downtown or was downtown completely excluded on both sides?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 5436.785, "end": 5444.325, "text": "Uh for the vacant land subclass, we were looking at um vacant land across the entire city, so both green fields and uh brown fields", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 5444.385, "end": 5446.665, "text": "Okay. Okay, thank you. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 5446.665, "end": 5446.905, "text": "there.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 5448.925, "end": 5544.665, "text": "Kell, I will jump in. Uh I'm open to persuasion on this item. I I really get both sides. Uh I don't think I'm revealing too much by saying I I think we're we're looking at potentially a CRL model uh in the future to be able to to fund some of the uh transit-oriented communities, the upfront infrastructure that we required. I think that that has a significant uh cannibalization of some of the uplift. And if we are proceeding, if if we're exploring proceeding around that lines, it doesn't make sense to provide uh even further purpose built exemptions. It seems like this is a really blunt instrument that's not that's really agnostic in terms of need. Uh to Councillor Chabot's point, I think it makes a lot of sense to hear the nonprofits out in terms of, you know, if this is actually a charitable organization that uh is serving a charitable purpose, there might be some other ways to be able to work with them, say during construction or other tax cancellations. But I'm not compelled by the evidence that's been available to us that it's really municipal property taxes that are holding back these longer term uh investments, especially for purpose built rental, what I understand in sort of the pro forma and the businesses. Maybe just I know this is kind of an impossible question, maybe to ask administration, but do you have a sense of what could potentially be holding back some of these major projects? Are we hearing a lot about municipal property taxes? And I don't ever like you to speculate, but if you can speculate how much of their overall perform and their cost is municipal taxes versus their carrying cost, cost of construction, and so on.", "segments_merged": 16 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 5549.805, "end": 5591.165, "text": "So in in terms of the engagement that we we did, you know, uncertainty in terms of development is is always a thing. And obviously the larger the project, the higher the carrying cost, the larger the amount of uncertainty there is. Some of these lands are potentially zoned not uh residential to begin with, so there are larger carrying costs in terms of property taxes uh uh uh that way. Um but we did hear like in terms of uh property tax, it wasn't the the the the the their biggest uh uh concern, definitely was a concern. Um, and you would have seen that in it within uh attachment six, one of the uh uh letters from one of the groups that we uh uh engaged.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 5592.685, "end": 5623.605, "text": "And to add to that, I mean if if this direction passed through in the downtown piece, um we would we would break that out and really dig into that. Um but Through our conversations with downtown developers doing high-rise concrete, it's all the things you said. I don't know what proportion on the municipal tax, but basically they're saying those projects right now are really tough to move forward on. And that's across the board from all the developers that are in that market are saying to us.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 5624.665, "end": 5655.505, "text": "Okay. Uh colleagues, I guess based on that, I'm I'm open to Asking for a scoping report with some of that more detailed information. I'm I'm quite skeptical that this is the road that we should go down, but I think it behooves us as a governance body to at least have that information on hand, even if it uh confirms what our biases may be or or may not. And I'm okay with the information uh and I'll be supporting this. Uh I think nobody else in the queue. Can I go to you, Councillor Schmidt, to close?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 5656.065, "end": 5835.265, "text": "Uh yes, thank you. And I I appreciate all the comments of my colleagues uh and understand where they're coming from with this. Um I think specifically uh two sub-C Where we will be able to get that scoping, we'll be able to give time for the experts in administration to look at sites and areas that could be appropriate for this. It at least gives us something to work with before making that final decision on those bylaws because we could ultimately always have those bylaws before us and not support them if this is not needed. But of course, this area of the market and of city building is unpredictable. So by having this tool in our toolkit moving forward and being able to look at how things are changing throughout next year, we're not committing to doing this now. We are committing to seeing how much of a benefit this could be. Because building on these sites, of course, we leverage existing infrastructure, we get tax uplift, we get more people around transit-oriented development. And of course, the greater downtown could be, I think, logically all considered transit-oriented development. And with what all the other things we're trying to do with the revitalization of downtown, we saw, even though it's a unique uh situation, that Westbrook Sea Train station area sitting vacant for so long. Perhaps something like this may have helped get that built sooner. And with that new plan making its way to council, uh something like this could help us accelerate those things because there's there's the aspect to this as well, where we have transit stations uh around the city that are underused, that have safety issues. Uh, people bring safety. And if this is a tool that we want to use to help uh get those built up faster and get changes around there that helps manage the other issues while getting a tax uplift and and relatively low risk with abatement only during construction period, uh then I think it's something that is worth us looking at. And in the greater downtown where we do have a lot of parking lots and other areas that are being underutilized, if we can get that uplift sooner, then that's I think ultimately becomes a benefit, even if there is a small cost uh in the early stages of doing that. So I I think there are some benefits here that are worth exploring, relatively low risk, and again, we're not committing to anything at this time. Uh so I I thank Director Lee and and the downtown team for taking a hard look at this and coming up with something that I think is workable and at least that we can say that we explored and that we did without uh leaving this out to dry too early. So I hope I can get your support today.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 5837.105, "end": 5838.685, "text": "All right, let's engage the e vote on that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 5850.265, "end": 5852.425, "text": "Councillor Ward, your vote, please. Councillor Johnston?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 5854.145, "end": 5854.365, "text": "No.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 5855.185, "end": 5855.845, "text": "Mayor Farkas?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 5856.405, "end": 5856.705, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 5857.165, "end": 5857.945, "text": "All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 5858.825, "end": 5882.345, "text": "Thanks. Uh please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 8 to 7 with counselors Ward, Johnston, Jameson, Tyre, Shibo, Weines, and McLean opposed. All right, so we are back on the main. Anyone want to speak on the main as amended? Councillor Atkinson?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 5883.185, "end": 5956.165, "text": "Uh yeah, I'm gonna be just calling for division one, two, and three. Um I actually, as much as uh I think that this is an interesting thing, and I'd like to sort of see the report on the incentive program uh and and whether that can level things out a bit. I think that's actually a thing. We're hearing about a softening market, and I think we need to be a little more careful about how we're incentivizing rentals to smooth out the rates. Uh, and these projects take a long time to turn on. So I'm interested to sort of see the report. I'm actually more interested in looking at vacant and derelict lands. Uh, while I recognize vacant lands don't necessarily cause as much cause for concern. They do cause a lot of concern in the downtown. That's where we actually see a lot of um, it's it's those spots. Uh, and we need to be incentivizing housing, period. And I think uh derelict subclass trying to make sure that those are are taken away, that they're not costing the city as much, that we're not putting that onto taxpayers. Uh so I will be asking for division. Uh I will be voting against number one uh for that reason. Okay, thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 5956.625, "end": 5970.205, "text": "Maybe just for clarity administration, uh if we vote down one A, B, and 1A and B, does that mean you proceed with a vacant subclass and derail subclass because we're voting not to proceed? Or against not proceeding?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_20", "start": 5971.125, "end": 5980.745, "text": "No, we would not be proceeding. You we would need uh additional direction to uh proceed to do either vacant land or subc uh the derelict subclass or both.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 5981.425, "end": 6001.605, "text": "Okay, I just want to make that uh clear, Councillor Atkinson and everybody else. If you vote against one A and one B, it does not mean that those things proceed. You're just voting against not proceeding with that. Okay. Uh anybody else on this? Okay, seeing none, uh gonna go back to you, Councillor Shabot to close on a very different motion than you moved.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 6002.465, "end": 6122.725, "text": "Well, it's kind of like weird closing on something that I actually don't support. Um but I'll I'll do my best. Um so I I appreciate the intent of the um direction that the council gave to administration to bring back this report. To look at alternate ways of incentivizing redevelopment, especially of vacant sites andor derelict sites. But as we heard, the net benefit is not going to be achieved. It's going to actually just redistribute the costs amongst other taxpayers. And when we're looking at creating affordability for Calgarians, this does not do that. This does the opposite. Recommendation number two, which just got passed as an amendment, it uh it talks about a small nominal amount there in base operating funding, but You have to remember that whenever we give administration direction to do work, it's not free. There is a cost. And that will be part of the budget deliberation. So whilst this all looks like it's nothing, there is a cost to it. And it's also going to take resources away from other tasks that administration has already got on their work plan. So not to say that maybe the information might not be valuable to have. I think we already got most of the information that we needed through the questions that were asked here by administration as to whether or not this was an impediment to um redevelopment in a downtown core. And we heard that it's phenomenal. And and if they want to reduce their taxes, they could just change their land use from non residential to residential. That will lower their taxes significantly. Anyways, having said that, um I'm uh I'm supportive of at least the majority of this and uh and it being as it's been asked to be called separately, I I don't have to make that request myself and uh on that basis I I still stand by what I said previously and we'll vote accordingly. So close.", "segments_merged": 33 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 6123.605, "end": 6144.165, "text": "Okay. Mr. Clerk, let's uh vote on one, two, and three separately, and we can engage the e vote on one. And this is to not proceed with a vacant property tax program, but I should tell you, colleagues, if you vote. Against not proceeding, that does not mean that it will proceed. So do as you will. Let's engage with your vote.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 6156.965, "end": 6160.525, "text": "Councillor Jameson? Councillor Shabot? Mayor Farkas?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 6162.165, "end": 6163.005, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 6163.265, "end": 6163.925, "text": "All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 6164.425, "end": 6175.785, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. And that motion is carried 13 to 2 with counselors Daliwan Atkinson opposed. Let's now vote on uh bullet two, please.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 6190.925, "end": 6191.745, "text": "And Mayor Farkas?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 6191.965, "end": 6192.285, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 6192.725, "end": 6193.425, "text": "All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 6194.365, "end": 6212.545, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried eight to seven with counselors Ward, Johnston, Jameson, Tyres, Shabeau, Wyness, and McLean opposed. And then let's vote on three, just receiving the report from information.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 6227.905, "end": 6236.465, "text": "Councillor Jameson, your vote, please? Okay, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 6236.845, "end": 6253.185, "text": "Thank you. Please uh display the results. All right. That motion has carried 15 to 0. Let's move on to 7.13, Civic Census Implementation.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6262.885, "end": 6278.225, "text": "Good morning, members of council. My name is Dale Culkins. I'm the acting manager of growth and change strategy within city and regional planning. I'm joined by Yousuf Shaw, Census Program Coordinator. I believe we had a very excellent uh discussion about this at committee, but would Council appreciate a presentation on our item?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 6283.885, "end": 6284.685, "text": "Yeah, let's go for it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 6285.845, "end": 6425.285, "text": "Okay. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mayor and members of Council. Uh my name is Yusuf Shah. I'm the Census Program Coordinator here to review our presentation to Council, uh to Executive Committee on June 9, 2026, pertaining to an update on the implementation of the civic census, seeking direction to adjust the census delivery model from contractor led to city led and to adjust the timeline for delivery from 2027 to 2028. Next slide, please. So the recommendation before you to council amends previous council direction that was approved in October 2024. Next slide, please. This is recommendation of council for previous council was a wording regarding the civic census timing to reinstate the biannual census in 2027. Next slide, please. This slide provides the previous or this slide as presented to executive committee provides an overview of how the administration arrived at the recommendation presented through an RFI process and further due diligence. In the following slide, please. And here's the recommendation the options investigation that staff conducted, administrative conduction through the RFI process, which identified a number of risks to the 2027 delivery as originally approved. Next slide, please. And following some due diligence work undertaken by the census team, uh, to date identified both strengths and weaknesses of proceeding with a 2027 census outsourced to a contractor, as opposed to both strengths and weaknesses of a 2028 census led by the city. Next slide, please. Each option has its own risks summarized for both the 2027 contractor led and a 2028 city led process. Next slide, please. Then we return to the original recommend or to the recommendation presented to Executive Committee requesting an amendment to council's decision to deliver the civic census in 2027, amending it to deliver in 2028. And that's the summary of the presentation presented to executive committee. Thank you for your your time today, and my team are here to answer any questions you may have.", "segments_merged": 17 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 6427.625, "end": 6442.185, "text": "Okay. I believe that we have this recommendation from committee, so I'm gonna seek a mover for the committee recommendation. Uh Councillor Ward has moved that. Uh Councillor Schmidt has seconded it. Councillor Ward, did you want to open on that?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 6444.185, "end": 6470.345, "text": "Um yeah, sure. I I think it makes sense to defer this to twenty twenty eight given the circumstances of what we heard. Um I'll be interested to see. How we design uh an eventual census and if there is overlap with data from the twenty twenty-six federal census. Um so I I'm hoping that council would be part of a discussion to determine what sort of questions we're asking in a civic census. But uh yeah, happy to move. I think this is the right move.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 6470.885, "end": 6472.845, "text": "Okay. Uh over to Councillor Panizopoulos.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 6474.745, "end": 6608.645, "text": "Propose an amendment to the uh recommendations. If you could pull that up. So I think you know, picking up from Councillor Ward, um How important this census is. I think it's the one question that we as a council, uh as a Calgarians, have no idea. How many people live in our city, how many people live in our ward, and that's why doing this census is so critical. I fully supported going from 27 to 28, let's get it right, instead of trying to rush it. But what we're proposing does have some new risks, and even administration said the implementation and financial risks, the biggest change being that we're creating software ourselves. I totally support that. I totally understand that. There's nothing off the shelf. There's something we need to have, and as we go forward to our two millionth Calgarian and we have regular census, we need to have this information. But I think what this is, is brings a bit of belts and suspenders. Uh we did experience our our other colleagues from other levels of government tried to do uh uh programs and cost escalated 100x, 200x. And I think it goes back to having off ramps, having to understand. Came to surprise as me that we needed to postpone the census to 20, excuse me, to 28 from 27. And you know, it would have been great to have some sort of uh check-ins as we sort of go through there. I think that's the important part of this is just really understand administration will lead with it. I think they're excited about it. They have a what appears to be a good plan. And I think what's important, often the question comes, are you going to do this anyway? It codifies it. It makes sure that there's a timeline. Again, we don't want to have a surprise, something comes up. We have, and then there's off-ramps. If the costs start escalating 10x, 20x, 30x, well then we have to check in. Nobody wants to come, worst case, come to 28 and say, oops, we now we have to do it 29-30. It creates a whole conversation. Now we're back in the federal census and whatnot. I think everybody, hopefully on this council, wants to get that information. It's so critical. Um when we talk to any order of government, what's your population? 1.4 to 1.8 is the number that we throw out, and we have to have something a little tighter. And I think a city that's growing at 100,000 people a year, uh, maybe it'll slow down to 25 or 50,000. That's still the city of Medicine Hat moving to the city of Calgary each and every single year. So we need this. So for this support, uh, it adds a little more clarity. I think the administration is working on this and gives them some opportunities to check back into executive committee and ultimately through council. Hopefully, you'll support and we can get this uh census going. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 6609.145, "end": 6621.445, "text": "Alright, uh moved by Councillor Panasopoulos. Uh can I get a seconder? Second by Councillor Kelly. Uh anyone specifically on Councillor Penazopoulos? Yeah. Go for it.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 6622.105, "end": 6697.945, "text": "Thank you, worship. Uh yeah, I'm thank you, Councillor Penosopoulos, for bringing this forward. I I I I share your disappointment. I think most members of disappointment that we're not able to proceed as uh uh as originally planned, and certainly as uh uh uh relatively new council members. Um we'd like to keep getting updates to make sure that it do we don't I love your I love your description of off-ramps gateways throughout this project. While I don't really have much interest in micromanaging anything that uh that administration's doing, the census is critically important to us, and I I personally think that uh it would have been good for us to hear about the uh the census not being able to go forward in 27 and a decision to be made earlier than what it is that we did. So I I appreciate this uh this amendment from Councillor Panasopoulos to uh just get us a couple of check-in points along the way to make sure that we're uh we're getting the job done, and if we need to make any uh alternate decisions along that way, that we as council are uh are are able to facilitate that uh uh for administration. So, yeah, uh gonna be supporting this amendment because I think it just adds to the uh uh the original intent of the original um motion. Thank you, Worship.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 6698.125, "end": 6701.685, "text": "All right, uh Councillor Shabot on this amendment by Councillor Panasopoulos.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 6702.085, "end": 6729.165, "text": "No, I'm just curious. In November of this year, you the report says that you're gonna bring forward a recommendation on budget requirements to to do this work. Um just trying to rationalize. How this improves that. If you're gonna have an idea on how much it's gonna cost in in November, why why do we need all this additional reporting?", "segments_merged": 14 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 6731.285, "end": 6747.345, "text": "The reporting request uh for this is more to do with the overall design of the census program. We will include costing information. So, in the event that our estimates have to would need to change based on the design process, we'll be able to present that to you in advance of budget discussions.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6747.945, "end": 6761.625, "text": "And maybe just Councillor Chabot, I think ultimately, I think you can have confidence in us that we're on top of all these items, including the budgeting requirements. What we see from Councillor Pannozopoulos here is really just a little bit more of so you're more in the loop on the work, which we're supportive of.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 6763.185, "end": 6812.005, "text": "So if it has to do with money, it's obviously gonna come back to council. Uh if you haven't budgeted enough money, you'll come back with a request for additional funds, and it can happen at any course, any time during the course of the year. I and just I'm trying to understand why this, like, is this necessary? Is this going to add value to what it is that you're doing? Or is it strictly to better inform counsel on what you're doing as opposed to how you're doing it? Because we don't we govern, we don't manage how you do it. Shouldn't shouldn't have the oversight of counsel. Rather, what you do should be what council is directing. And and I'm trying to rationalize the difference between the two.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 6812.745, "end": 6831.965, "text": "Councillor Chabot, thank you. Uh through the chair, I think what I would offer to your question is this is a matter of importance to Calgarians in Council, and this gives us an opportunity to be really transparent about the progress of the work and daylight really early if there's any issues or concerns.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 6832.445, "end": 6838.805, "text": "So you see value in this in so far as bringing the public along in so far as what it is that we're doing?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 6838.845, "end": 6857.345, "text": "Yeah, bringing the public and council along and being open to any questions that council may have as the census program develops and unfolds. We see this as briefings, probably, to council. And so not a lot of extra work from what we'd already already be doing on our program management.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 6857.485, "end": 6875.185, "text": "So so having been involved in municipal census in my s in the past myself as well as my wife, having actually worked them, um I know that our compliance requirements are very tight compared to federal and provincial. Um there's no intent on changing that that requirement through this process?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 6876.665, "end": 6876.925, "text": "No.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 6878.225, "end": 6880.865, "text": "Keep maintaining our high level of compliance.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 6881.885, "end": 6882.285, "text": "Yes, sir.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 6883.565, "end": 6885.625, "text": "All right. I have no further questions. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 6887.525, "end": 6890.885, "text": "Councillor Councillor Wynus on this amendment? Go ahead.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6891.245, "end": 6915.105, "text": "Shabot is kind of getting there, and I'm I'm just kind of curious, is this like a distraction from other work? Because we know we have to complete the federal census before we have the timeline that you're presenting. Um and council has a lot of different priorities coming out administration. Uh I'm just curious, yes, you can do it, but How many other priorities can you actually take on from council if this is a reporting structure we're creating?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6915.325, "end": 6937.925, "text": "Thank you for the question, Councillor. It's fair, and as Councillor Chabot mentioned in his debate for the previous item, everything we're directed to do takes time and takes money. Briefings are relatively straightforward for us to be able to do, and I think we have confidence to be able to absorb that within the existing program without having to drop any balls on anything else. And I think it's ultimately up to you as members of council about whether you want this coming on your plate.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6938.905, "end": 6940.705, "text": "Okay, so I won't support this. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 6943.005, "end": 6947.945, "text": "All right. Uh back to Councillor Panasopoulos to close, I guess.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 6947.945, "end": 7020.405, "text": "Yeah, thanks for the comments. I just want to speak a bit about the difference. I think this is the first time that the city of Calgary is implementing a software development in-house or whether we use consultants external and you know compared to others. And just that that we heard it just from admin, you know, the the check-in, uh, transparency, daylighting issues. Had we known that, you know, six, nine months ago something was wrong, maybe there could have been a different pivot. You saw the recommendation. We we stay with the one smaller community or we do this ourselves, and that was great, it took time. And that's what's the important thing. I I think it's real. If this was building a bridge or a road, this is we've got the in-house expertise. It's just a little check-in. It's making sure because we don't want to, the goal is a road can wait another year. Something came up, we'll just pave it next year, so be it. You know, deal with your bumpy roads. But a sense, this is so critical. And we've experienced that through this term, not having the right number. So anything we can do, just a check-in for Calgaryans, know that the number is gonna be there, it's gonna be accurate, it's gonna be compliant, as Councillor Chabot says. Uh that thing's critical. And and this just allows to make sure that as council we're gonna make sure that this happens and uh we're not gonna be deviated off. And heaven forbid something does go bump in the night. We as a council can pivot very quick with administration to make sure that we still implement whatever that is. Nobody knows what it is, but hopefully we can do that together. So with that. I'm closed. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 7021.265, "end": 7025.325, "text": "All right, uh Mr. Clerk, let's please engage the e vote on this amendment.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 7035.965, "end": 7044.325, "text": "Councillor Ward, your vote please? Councillor Shabot? Councillor Johnston? And Mayor Farkas?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 7044.965, "end": 7045.265, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 7045.585, "end": 7046.445, "text": "All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 7047.305, "end": 7069.345, "text": "Thank you. Please display the result. Motion is carried 10 to 5 with counselors ward, Johnston, Wyness, Tyres, and Jameson opposed. Gonna go to I believe Councillor Jameson to an amend to attempt an amendment on the motion as amended.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 7070.005, "end": 7125.865, "text": "Thank you. Yeah, this is completely different from Councillor Pantasopoulos's. This is all to do with the uh frequency of audit. Uh sorry, frequency of the census. Um this amendment is straightforward. Admin is recommending we do a civic census every two years or two per council term. My amendment changes this to one every five years or one per council term. Uh this would complement the timing of the federal census to do a civic census in between the federal ones. So essentially every two to three years you get a civic one. It's in between the federal ones. Uh everything else stays the same. We're still gonna do one in twenty twenty eight. This is I just feel that uh two per term is is too much. Open.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 7127.825, "end": 7139.025, "text": "All right. That's been moved by Councillor Jameson. Is there a seconder? Uh Councillor Chabot seconded that. It's on the table. Over to Councillor Ward on this amendment.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 7141.625, "end": 7149.765, "text": "I'm very sorry. I'm I'm a bit confused. Every five years. I'll just pass. Go uh go to the next in queue, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 7150.265, "end": 7159.985, "text": "All right. Actually, just to clarify, could maybe administration weigh in on how this amendment materially changes what was on the table previously?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 7164.005, "end": 7174.645, "text": "Mayor Farkas, this is the first we're seeing this, so we're just absorbing it. My understanding, Councillor Jameson, and is that this is one census every five years. Is that correct?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 7175.525, "end": 7183.225, "text": "Correct. So you guys are proposing every two years, which is two per council term. I want every five years or one per council term.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 7183.245, "end": 7228.205, "text": "Okay. We were directed to do two per council or every two years. So this would be less information. And what I would say is every two years was something that we supported because of the rate of Calgary's growth. Gives us more information twice in a business cycle to bring forward amendments for service changes that may be necessary. because of a growing population and we actually get to see at award level where those change or community level where those changes are happening to adjust service plans.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 7228.925, "end": 7282.985, "text": "I just for colleagues, I kind of went back to Councillor Jameson there just as a let's call it an expanded open, just to make sure that the point was clear. I'll briefly uh enter debate. Is there any financial trade offs to this? Because we know doing a census less frequently means that uh we have to hire fewer folks. Uh we have less of an organizational lift. But then I'm also aware of some potentially granting programs that are tied to per capita programming. So for example, if we know that we have X million people in the city, we have funding sources from other levels of government. And if we can update that number, we can get more money faster. Do we have a sense of what the business case may be on doing it every two years versus every five years? Because if we have relative if we have incomplete information, we may be leaving money on the table from the province and feds, especially for grants that scale up as Calgary grows?", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 7287.405, "end": 7365.045, "text": "I can take a quick crack at that. The as far as the cost of the census program itself, it's not a clean split in two due to the uh largely due to these startup costs of reinstating the census again. Um that'll take a significant component of what the initial cost would be. But then even on an ongoing basis, it it wouldn't be as simple as just doing it once will cost half as much as doing it twice, largely due to ongoing operational support and overhead that's needed to initiate the census, ramp it up, and then keep it running. Um and then, of course, there's a trade off between Ramping up a team every five years versus having a team in place that regularly conducts it and having institutional memory to be able to do it as well. So it's not as clean. Our initial estimates are that if we were to switch to one, it would cost um approximately nine million in the first round and then down to about four million in following periods, which isn't as clean as a as a halfway split. Um we don't with with regards to granting programs, we don't have a definitive answer just uh due to the way the grants are structured, but um There is a benefit to having a regular census cadence to ensure that we have up-to-date per capita figures to submit to our granting agencies.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 7365.825, "end": 7394.465, "text": "So j just to be crystal clear on that, to to do half the amount of censuses. Cens I? Censuses? Half the amount of censuses is not necessarily half the cost. We're looking at most of the cost is just by standing up a team. And there's some economies of scale. So for example, doing it more frequently is not a matter of doubling the cost. You're saying your first, it's like buy one, get one half off, roughly.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 7395.005, "end": 7420.645, "text": "In a manner of speaking, a big component of the cost, for example, the software development, we're amortizing over four censuses over an eight year period. So essentially, we're spending the same amount of money, we'd just be doing it over two census periods if we go down to one per five year period. Likewise, the hardware costs would last us four censuses as well. If we purchase the hardware today, we'd be able to run it over four census periods, where it would be the same cost, we'd just be dividing it over two census periods.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 7420.645, "end": 7436.285, "text": "So there's a lot of fixed costs no matter how many sense uh socies we we perskin off the rails. So there's a certain element of fixed cost no matter what, and and the people as a scalar is rel it's it's not as significant as you would think.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 7436.885, "end": 7437.545, "text": "That's correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 7438.625, "end": 7463.545, "text": "And then I think the the the other touch point is just the value of having good data in terms of our decisions, in terms of where rec center should be, how the city should grow, right? Uh even if it's not a pure one to one. Money in from the province and feds. There's value in terms of us knowing who Calgarians are, how they need to be served in growth decisions. Is that a a reason from a planning background we would be supporting this?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 7464.165, "end": 7464.625, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 7466.365, "end": 7490.205, "text": "So based on this, I'm I'm getting into a little bit of debate. I think more regular information is to our benefit. And I think given what we heard about there's a there's a sunk cost to investing in the f uh physical systems and hardware and so on. We might as well milk those investments and have more frequent updates to information. Uh that's where I'm at. Councillor uh Shabot on this amendment.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 7490.865, "end": 7517.425, "text": "Yeah, some couple of questions for administration. So the cost to actually run a census, you've analyzed how much you would spend on what. What's like you have to employ a lot of people to actually do this work. And so if I were to look at a breakdown of on where the costs are, what percentage of it would you say is human resource costs versus capital costs for infrastructure?", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 7519.085, "end": 7523.085, "text": "If you give me a moment, I'll see if I can pull that out.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 7529.705, "end": 7566.685, "text": "So I guess it it goes back to the whole diaper um analogy, it depends. Depends on whether it's spread out over four to four cycles or versus two cycles versus one cycle. Um but you know if you can at least give me some sort of some sense of of understanding of what the actual capital costs are projected to be v versus what the operational costs on each census is going to be. And then that way I can. I can extrapolate on my own as to how much it would cost on a per election cycle versus if we did it one versus four.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 7568.045, "end": 7587.505, "text": "That's a good way to look at of looking at it, Councillor. So our ongoing event cost for each census is approximately 4 million, and our startup capital costs would be about 9 million. So the more censuses we have, we're able to spread out that 9 million cost figure. And so that shrinks as a share of the overall program.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 7587.505, "end": 7592.985, "text": "But the the fixed human resource cost is going to be about four million in each election.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 7592.985, "end": 7593.765, "text": "Exactly. That's", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 7593.765, "end": 7606.245, "text": "Escalating as time goes on because of inflation, increased salaries, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. And does it matter? Uh is the software going to expire?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 7609.445, "end": 7634.025, "text": "we would require regular updates and continuous improvement, and we do anticipate that at a certain point it would need transformation. The current program is estimated on the basis of a lot of requirements that the province updated as of 2022. And so being in compliance with that required a whole new approach to it. So if something like that happens again in the future, we'd have to come back and reassess.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 7634.805, "end": 7679.605, "text": "This may seem like a really strange question, but the reason I asked whether or not the the software expires is is because in the past when we were looking at redistribution and the redistribution software specifically, um it seemed like it expired every four years. We had to get brand new software every time we did a reassessment on award boundaries. And so that's why I'm asking the question Is it something that can be updated, upgraded uh over time? Is there a shelf life for this software? Is it something that can be used in perpetuity? Or I again maybe I we we should ask our. Our folks in NIT specifically that question. Because somewhere sometimes software licenses expire.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_00", "start": 7681.365, "end": 7691.385, "text": "But this isn't licensed software, this is custom-built software, and to the point that was made, we will keep it up to date because we have that within our platform to be able to do.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 7691.865, "end": 7700.925, "text": "So the initial capital costs is where you're going to incur the greatest cost. Upgrading it over time is going to be incremental in in essence, right?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_00", "start": 7701.005, "end": 7701.725, "text": "Absolutely.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 7701.865, "end": 7705.465, "text": "So is there any reason why this software should ever expire?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_00", "start": 7708.065, "end": 7730.145, "text": "That's a hard question to answer right now with the pace of change of technology, but I think I I would suggest that our we keep our platforms very current. We would work very closely with the Census project team to make sure that we are always keeping the software as current as possible, not only in order to deliver on the outcomes, but from a security perspective.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 7730.505, "end": 7739.005, "text": "Well, we know technology changes annually, so arguably it'll be outdated by the time you actually get it out. But that's besides the point.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_00", "start": 7739.265, "end": 7744.805, "text": "No, our methodology will make sure that we're using the current technology right up to the point that we're releasing it to production.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 7744.805, "end": 7754.985, "text": "I'm more concerned about functionality versus being on the bleeding edge of everything. As long as it's functional, it's means a lot more to me than whether or not we're on the bleeding edge of technology.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_00", "start": 7755.225, "end": 7755.585, "text": "Agreed.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 7755.585, "end": 7774.365, "text": "Um, anyways, so yeah, for me, it's um that's I guess going into short debate is uh why I'm I'm supportive of this to some degree. But one quick question for administration. Do we know when the next um uh federal census is gonna be released?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 7776.905, "end": 7779.805, "text": "Uh we expect data to be released near the end of 2027.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 7781.405, "end": 7783.105, "text": "So this would be one year after.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 7783.645, "end": 7784.185, "text": "That's correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 7787.045, "end": 7789.145, "text": "If it's gonna save money, huh? Can't afford.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 7791.545, "end": 7808.465, "text": "I think uh Councillor Shabot, I'm sure you've reflected on this, but the number of hot dogs in a package is usually ten, and the number of hot dog buns is usually eight. And I think it's the same thing with the software licensing cadence in the calendar. So anyway, uh Councillor Atkinson, please.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 7811.405, "end": 7825.085, "text": "Um i I'm just wondering do we Get different data from civic censuses than we do from what we get from the federal government when they do their census.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 7827.885, "end": 7869.845, "text": "The civic census is prioritized based on the requirements of what the province of Alberta has essentially set out for us. So our question really looks at household sizes and who lives in the housing units that are in uh Calgary. Um the federal census has similar questions and collects similar data, but in much more depth and much more detail amongst other socioeconomic indicators. Um we're largely focusing on really the data we need for our service level planning. Um, whereas the federal government has different needs. There is a lot of overlap, that is correct. But we have more granularity and more control over how we divide up the geographies and how we analyze that data than we would through the federal census.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 7871.025, "end": 7891.425, "text": "Gotcha. So you yeah, this sort of der pairing it or um allowing our questions to be more focused. Like, can you give an example of something that we would be asking within our census that is helping us to make decisions that would not come from federal census data?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 7891.965, "end": 7918.605, "text": "Uh in the past, we have asked, for example, about the number of pets in each household to help our bylaw teams understand impacts, for example, recreation services and parks with regards to people's needs with their pets, for example. We've also had our transportation planning team ask specific questions about people's travel behaviors that may may line up, but also it offers the opportunity to ask additional questions beyond what the federal census would would have asked.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 7919.285, "end": 7989.805, "text": "Gotcha. Okay. Yeah, that's sort of I guess like that's the piece I worry about with going. I I totally recognize it's a good it's a good suggestion I think to sort of be making sure we're being critical, but I worry a little bit that the decision making that we need to be making at a community level, investments in um In transportation, sort of like city services, we get to be a lot more specific and our ability to sort of tailor the data and to get that data from everyone, not just you know, a small subset based on surveys on our spring and fall surveys. This is really something that extends across everyone. And if we're trying to be a more data driven organization and make especially challenges, I think about our choices about how we move around. I think that really detailed uh community uh specific data is important to that. So uh I appreciate where this is going, but I think I'm keeping it at the two-year level for more localized data is the right way to go.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 7992.745, "end": 7995.445, "text": "All right, uh Councillor Johnston on the amendment.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8000.225, "end": 8008.705, "text": "Okay, looking at uh every five years, um, how long has it how long will it be since the last census?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8011.685, "end": 8014.705, "text": "I believe the last census was twenty eighteen if my memory serves.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8015.325, "end": 8015.965, "text": "2021?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8016.725, "end": 8020.225, "text": "Sorry, the federal census is twenty twenty-one. The civic census was twenty eighteen.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8021.665, "end": 8022.365, "text": "So it'll be", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8022.585, "end": 8023.225, "text": "Twenty nineteen?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 8023.565, "end": 8024.125, "text": "2019.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8024.125, "end": 8024.745, "text": "Twenty nineteen.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8026.185, "end": 8084.985, "text": "almost ten years before we get data and we've survived. Right, with the data we've collected through other sources and and that. Um and my question is actually I did a couple CO inquiries back in December on this, and there was no real urgency at that time to fast track these to ensure this gets done. Um and I guess this is more debate than questions. I apologize, but I'm I'm okay with every five years considering we've gone this long without it. Um And who knows what's going to happen in five years? Like what if there's another delay? Um there's no guarantee that the pro are you guys ref um using any other jurisdiction to mirror for what you guys want to implement?", "segments_merged": 14 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8087.205, "end": 8097.105, "text": "We are we have spoken with some other jurisdictions across the province that are implementing uh their own civic censuses. There aren't many who are doing it in-house. Um", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8097.285, "end": 8102.145, "text": "That's what I mean. Like any in-house municipalities out there doing censuses.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8102.625, "end": 8118.625, "text": "Uh not that we know we don't have a lot of examples of municipalities our size that are doing it in-house. There are there are smaller communities that are. So we would be the scaling is a is a big challenge, but we that's what we're we're really gonna be setting a bar ourselves.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8120.185, "end": 8123.025, "text": "Would you think it would be easier to sub it out?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8124.305, "end": 8151.665, "text": "That was the discussion we had in the risk analysis we'd conducted leading up to the original uh council direction to reinstate it using a contractor led model. Um And we identified the risks of the fact that there we are in our own class with regards to the size of the community. And so there's there's challenges in scaling up even third-party solutions and not having a uh a contractor that can do the whole census delivery.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8152.365, "end": 8165.485, "text": "Right. We can basically section off our garbage collection of um Parks and stuff, why couldn't we have sectioned off parts of the city for the census?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8166.845, "end": 8183.345, "text": "It has to do with how the census is implemented and the requirements from the province. So we do have a very fixed timeline within which we have to do it. So it's three months between March and July of a given year that we're conducting a census. And so it would be a wholesale event across the city.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8183.625, "end": 8201.085, "text": "No, what I'm saying is many hands create less work or faster work. So I'm just curious why not set up a procurement so that you can accept smaller census uh agencies to tackle the south, the north, east, whatever. Like did you try that?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8201.585, "end": 8217.945, "text": "We we did explore that, and that was the findings from our RFI process that we'd conducted. Was that there are not a great deal of contractors on the market who do this work specifically, and so it would be challenging to find enough to really subdivide the city up into different components to deliver.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8218.545, "end": 8220.765, "text": "What contractor did it in 2019?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8221.485, "end": 8222.545, "text": "We did it in house.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8223.145, "end": 8229.325, "text": "We did it in twenty nineteen. Do we know what the last contractor was we used for we've never used contract?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8229.325, "end": 8231.165, "text": "I don't believe we've ever used contractors.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8233.485, "end": 8245.765, "text": "Uh so when we did it in house back in twenty nineteen, why couldn't we have done it in twenty twenty-five or twenty twenty six?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 8247.565, "end": 8262.185, "text": "Through mayor to councillor Johnson. So um I forget what year it was and if my colleagues can remind me about the SAVE program, but there was a pro program that looked at um reducing costs and the census program was cut at that time.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8263.045, "end": 8274.405, "text": "But then in twenty twenty four a direction to reinstate census starting twenty twenty seven, and so we're just going back to what we were doing before in-house.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 8276.605, "end": 8319.765, "text": "So I'll remind council of the full report, including the confidential attachment, which we won't discuss here. We discussed enclosed. So we have realized the lack of census data at the municipal level has been a detriment to the work that we do, the services we provide. We've been operating in a vacuum. And so this is why we're bringing back the census. And the team looked at different options to explore on how to deliver that. Originally we were aiming for something with 2027 with different contractors. That hasn't panned out, and that's why this report is before you here with a change in the approach.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8320.905, "end": 8354.625, "text": "Right. And so to that, I've made two separate requests to fast track this to get it either done this year or next year. And I think there was opposition from admin to do that. So I'm just curious the importance of getting a census and the data, but then when given potentially an opportunity from council to do it quicker, um I I don't know. I'm just getting conflicting kind of thoughts from admin on this. So I'm okay with every five years. So I'll just leave it there. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 8356.045, "end": 8358.445, "text": "Okay, I'm curious about the direction that you've given us.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8358.565, "end": 8366.065, "text": "I didn't give direction. I I I asked questions of admin through CO inquiry regarding the civic census.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8366.185, "end": 8368.065, "text": "You're unfortunately just at time.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8368.065, "end": 8368.285, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8368.285, "end": 8373.925, "text": "Councillor Johnson. I'll I'll just uh remind council as a body we don't direct work. Uh we seek information.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8373.925, "end": 8376.725, "text": "I never directed anything, so but thank you for the reminder.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8377.105, "end": 8378.565, "text": "Thank you very much. Uh Councillor Johnson.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 8378.565, "end": 8379.925, "text": "I never I never directed anything.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8379.925, "end": 8381.085, "text": "Go to Councillor Kelly, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 8382.725, "end": 8478.325, "text": "Uh thank you, Worship. Just uh by way of debate, I'm uh I'm not opposed to this. Like I actually I th I would love to explore the the um uh the frequency of the uh of the census. Um but like normally something this would come like through a notice of motion and come with like a uh a notice of motion checklist. So uh hearing that administration just heard about it today for the first time, I don't I I don't feel comfortable with the due diligence uh having been done in order to be able to vote in favor of this at this time. So uh I'll be a no on this, but um I encourage uh Councillor Jameson to work with administration to uh uh uh to explore the possibility of uh bringing it back with um some uh a little bit more detail in terms of to give me a little bit more confidence uh that this uh uh will be a uh a decision that uh will actually help us moving forward because certainly as uh as we've all heard previously and then even today, um the decision during 2020 with the SAVE program uh was uh was uh Upon reflection, the wrong one to make because we certainly need this data on a much more frequent basis than uh once every 10 years, and the federal census simply is not giving us enough detail in order to be able to uh uh be able to do our jobs appropriately. The cadence of that, though, I'm totally open to the debate along on the cadence, but I'd love to have administration have a little bit more time to sort of uh synthesize that before uh before we make a vote on it. So I'll be a no on this today, but uh open to the discussion in the future.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8479.645, "end": 8481.825, "text": "Okay. Uh Councillor Ewell on this amendment.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 8482.965, "end": 8504.105, "text": "Yeah, do are we worried about census fatigue uh among Calgarians? Uh if we're if we're increasing the frequency of censuses, do we is there data on this is too frequent um in other jurisdictions? Do we have any backgrounds on how frequent people do uh censuses in other municipalities?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8505.465, "end": 8543.525, "text": "We have not directly explored that, although the city has in the past conducted this census program every year, uh starting in 1958 up until 2019. And so part of our rationale for having it in 2028 is also to accommodate a sense of census fatigue from the federal census to the civic census to provide some time in between for residents to ramp up to the next one. And so we are cognizant of that by seeking a biannual cadence or two per business cycle to allow some time to pass between each period. But in the past, Calgary has conducted this annually.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 8543.925, "end": 8566.945, "text": "Yeah. So I'm just worried at a a cadence of Every two years on Civic and every five years being even and odd, there's going to be times like I'm just looking in 2031 immediately. We're gonna have a a federal and a a civic kind of lining up together. Would we do the same thing that we're doing now and pushing that civic one out a little bit?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8567.565, "end": 8582.885, "text": "That's correct. The provincial requirements don't uh don't per or the the province would not certify a civic census the same year that it lands on a federal census, so we wouldn't conduct a sen a civic census the same year that there would be a federal census. So there would be a gap between that time period.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 8582.885, "end": 8586.985, "text": "So it's not set in stone that it's every two years, it's it's that's the okay.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 8586.985, "end": 8587.565, "text": "That's correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 8587.665, "end": 8614.405, "text": "Um yeah, I'll I I I I think with that confidence that we won't be lining them up together, I won't be supporting this amendment. Being ward three, looking at 2021, Livingston and Carrington didn't exist, and they are now massive communities in my ward. And so I do think the frequency does need to ramp up a bit. So I won't be supporting this amendment.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8616.565, "end": 8619.945, "text": "Okay. Back to Councillor Jameson, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 8621.225, "end": 8713.585, "text": "Okay, let's see if we can sway some lines here. Okay, so I I do support doing a census, a civic census in 2028. Uh this amendment will then push the next one to 2033. Keep in mind there will be another federal one in 2031. So, to be clear, we're never more than two to three years without fresh population data with my amendment. What I don't support is to census every budget cycle for a cost of between 6.4 and 9 million each, on top of a federal census that already runs every five years. A census almost every year, in my opinion, is overkill and it's not physically responsible. My amendment keeps the census in 2028 as scheduled, but saves the taxpayers in the budget cycle millions of dollars going forward. The province relies entirely on the federal census. They don't do their own. With the federal census, we'd still be collecting this critical data every two to three years. That's complementary, it's not redundant. So we have to find ways to save money. I think that this is a small way that we can start doing that. I hope you can support it. Closed.", "segments_merged": 17 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8715.185, "end": 8718.665, "text": "All right. Let's engage the vote, please, on this amendment.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 8732.985, "end": 8742.125, "text": "Councillor Shabot, your vote, please? All the votes are in. Uh okay. Um be cast the vote.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8742.125, "end": 8743.745, "text": "Yeah, we'll have to recast the vote. Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 8759.105, "end": 8767.185, "text": "Councillor Ward? Councillor Shabot? Yeah, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8768.045, "end": 8798.725, "text": "All right. Please display the results. On that, the uh motion has been defeated with Councillor Schmidt, Kelly, Daliwall, Panasopoulos, Atkinson, Clark, Ewell. Wynus and myself opposed. Alright, we are now back on the main as amended. Any further debate, colleagues? Who moved this uh back yesterday? I think it was Councillor Ward to close. Alright. Do you want to say anything?", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 8800.825, "end": 8801.805, "text": "Look forward to the data.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8802.685, "end": 8805.765, "text": "Alright, uh, let's engage the evote, please. On this as amended.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 8819.625, "end": 8825.665, "text": "Councillor Johnston, please. Yeah, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8828.485, "end": 8844.565, "text": "All right, uh display the results, please. That motion is carried thirteenth to two with counselors Johnston and Jameson opposed. All right, uh I think we're on 7 30, and I believe it was Councillor Weines on um Alternate recommendation.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 8847.065, "end": 8887.525, "text": "Thanks. Clerks has the amendment. It's to after our conversation at Council Services, we realize that this ward community event fund is very important for our communities to fundraise for capital project infrastructure to host events. And even though we have taken this account from $10,000 per ward to $20,000, our community groups are struggling and need some extra support. I I'd like to move it up to 50,000 per ward and we can try it out and if we find that we're not utilizing it, we can drop it year a year from now. But I think the next step for each ward, given some have a lot of community associations, to is to increase it to 50,000 per ward.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8888.485, "end": 8890.285, "text": "Sir, was that 1-5 or 5-0?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 8890.325, "end": 8890.805, "text": "50.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8895.665, "end": 8896.385, "text": "Do we", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 8896.625, "end": 8900.445, "text": "It's currently at 20, just because I just had a question, so it's currently 20.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 8900.945, "end": 8915.085, "text": "all right? So let's get the original recommendation from the committee on the table. So uh who is our committee chair of that? Remind me. Councillor Shabot, would you mind moving the original uh recommendation from the committee?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 8918.845, "end": 9000.005, "text": "Yeah, no, I'm actually happy to move the recommendations. The uh the recommendations um that administration brought forward was to Make hole an amendment that was introduced last term. Last term we doubled the amount going into ward community event funds. It was only done on a temporary basis, and so this embeds it into the base, which makes it a permanent source of funds, which is double what the ward community event fund was previously. So we went from 10,000 per ward to 20,000 per ward, but making it as a permanent source of funds. I know at the time we did discuss making amendments to the ward community event fund to increase it beyond what was being proposed. But council at the time felt that doubling it was a good first step. And it was focused around the idea of that on a per capita basis, yeah, each member of council should have equal amount of funds to distribute amongst their communities. Whilst some communities, some wards have more communities, typically our average on population is is relatively similar, and hence the reason for the decision at the time. That's why I'm moving the recommendations that administr administration brought forward and trying to address any issues in my clothes and the subject to amendments. So we'll see what happens.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9000.245, "end": 9016.285, "text": "Okay, that's been moved by Councillor Shabot. Who's your vice chair? Uh all right, Councillor Ward, uh you mind seconding the recommendation? Okay. I'm gonna go back to you, Councillor Wines, for your amendment. And I believe it's just a number change on the uh incorporation of the increase.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 9016.465, "end": 9045.545, "text": "Yep. And Councillor Dollywall is my second on this one. So I've already done my open and I think it's important. I think Coming off of the census conversation, the the growth of the city has been uh quite large, and we are also dealing with inflation on hosting community events. And I've watched the the trend in my office of an increase in ask to host a community event, and I think it's important we address that for the volunteers that uh are working hard for our city.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9046.685, "end": 9051.545, "text": "Okay. That's been seconded by uh Councillor Dallywell. Over to you, uh Councillor Dallywell.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 9051.985, "end": 9107.445, "text": "Yeah, no, thank you, Mara. And I really appreciate bringing this amendment. Yes, the data tells us that sometimes we don't fully use our board event fund, and that's not because there's not eligible organizations. There's other reasons. Last year's data, because it was an election year, we got to be very careful how we give out money. But yes, this is a great fund. This actually helps the organizations that cannot get access to events and festivals, but they want to do great stuff in the community. These are small little organizations who do not have grant writing folks who are hired full-time. So thank you, Councillor Wanus. We discussed this last term, but it was a temporary fix. This will properly fix it. And again, uh the onus is on each Councillor to be prudent who they give this fund to. 50,000 doesn't mean we're gonna spend 50,000. It just gives us flexibility to support those organizations. With that, I'm happy to uh second this. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9109.505, "end": 9111.225, "text": "Okay. Uh Councillor Clark, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 9112.845, "end": 9153.225, "text": "Yeah, just for a bit of uh debate or support, I suppose. Um Ward 9, I've got 17 community associations and and uh and that doesn't include uh all of the community organizations that reach out. So if you think that's just over a thousand dollars-ish per organization, uh which really limits the opportunity to help support and reinvest in our communities the way that they'd like to be uh reinvested. And I think another thing about these Word budgets is it gives the the opportunity to have those conversations direct with our associations with those communities about how they want to build and invest in their own neighborhoods. So quite supportive of this concept and uh really appreciate you bringing it forward. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9154.665, "end": 9156.005, "text": "Uh Councillor Shabot on the amendment?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 9159.265, "end": 9321.645, "text": "Yeah, so there was um Special events fund that council used to administer that's now being handled by um I believe by Tourism Calgary for larger type events. And the the challenge with giving council more money is that you can expect that you're gonna get a whole bunch more organizations coming to you, not necessarily the ones even within your ward. You're gonna get citywide, you know, uh groups coming to you saying, Yeah, there's still money left in your ward community event fund. Do you think you can throw another an extra 10K my way? And uh so Whilst there is a I guess a more rigorous process for some of those larger events to access funding through uh Tourism Calgary, I don't think reallocating those funds or allocating additional funds to the ward community event to help some of those organizations access additional funds is is is the right thing to do. If we want to make this $30,000 per ward, I'd be more inclined to support that. This $50,000 is just going above and beyond. In fact, in the past, when it used to be administered by the Council Council's Office Coordinating Committee, anything over $25,000 would have to be decided by council as a whole. This essentially gives a member of council the ability to allocate. you know, a large amount of funds. I I can't remember, I think there was a limit on each one. Um, but we didn't actually adopt the limit, if unless I'm mistaken. We did adopt the 5,000. We did not. So see again, this would allow a member of council to actually allocate funds to one organization that exceeds what previously had to be approved by council as a whole, which is why I'm I'm not going to support this. I think this is too much. Um it and it I guess it it leaves the ability for a member of council to be supportive of a particular organization that they may have. Personal ties with. And it I just I I'd rather leave it as community focused as opposed to something that could potentially be utilized for citywide sort of opportunities. And for me, that funding should be distributed through uh Tourism Calgary for the special events fund, which, like I said, was relinquished by council to be uh dealt with. Uh they have a rigorous process on assessing who the recipients are going to be. I don't think this provides enough rigor to assess um the viability and and the rationale around uh funding distribution. So for me, this is enough.", "segments_merged": 30 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9323.205, "end": 9478.465, "text": "I'm just gonna insert myself into the queue. Uh I'm quite uh persuaded by Councillor Shabot's uh argument. I I do think some level of increase uh is justified. I I feel like uh sight unseen without myself being aware of some of the The background in terms of uh this program. Like when I was a city Councillor, I believe it was $5,000 per ward. And when I first thought it was maybe $1,500,000, $15,000, that made a lot of sense to me. But having such a big increase, especially if we understand that uh the commun Ward Community Event Fund has not been fully subscribed in the past, I think that this is a bit too much of a leap. Um I'm not gonna leave necessarily my my chair to do so, but you know, if any of you colleagues wanted to perhaps suggest Uh maybe the mayor's office be able to participate uh for the purpose of the Word Community Event Fund for some of the bigger ones, uh the more grassroot ones. I'm thinking of, I'm not gonna name specific names here, but there are ones that are far below the threshold of like the big fish that say Tourism Calgary would be entertaining a major proposal for. But there are some with a citywide application. And having served on CCCO before the the Council Services Committee before it was changed, we did feel like some of those more broader citywide, especially ethnic festivals kind of ended up not having a specific home. Uh ward it would have been ward five and ward three at the time were really oversubscribed in terms of the number of asks and just because it had some um ethnic component to it or a cultural association didn't mean that the same Councillor always had to be the one uh necessarily doing the lifting. So I'm open to persuasion on this. I think to to see any number of hundred and forty thousand and go to seven hundred thousand without necessarily my own understanding of uh what the level of asks were in the past. I don't know if I'm comfortable supporting that, but uh one option may be say a terms of reference adjustment to allow the mayor to be able to have like say ten or fifteen thousand dollars at uh at uh disposal to be able to support the city wide ones that don't have a very specific ward that they benefit. So another example is maybe a lot of ward seven, ward eight, I think, downtown, Princess Island Park, there's a lot of events that happen in that ward. But it's not uh fair to say that it's a specific ward benefit that they're serving because that's where all the meeting spaces and the gathering spaces are. So uh I think there could be a more targeted way to do that. I really appreciate the intent though, because I know how valuable this is to the various organizations, especially in the current uh corporate giving environment. So uh I'm a bit skeptical, but I'm open to hearing some of the other uh arguments and and debate from my colleagues. All right, Councillor Atkinson, please.", "segments_merged": 35 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 9479.965, "end": 9506.885, "text": "I just to clarify, because the motion is or the original resolution is to direct administration to incorporate an increase of 140,000. But that's being that 140,000 is being replaced by 700,000, but the increase is on top of a base. If I'm Got it right, but maybe I don't, so I'm not sure.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 9507.125, "end": 9517.025, "text": "Thank you for the question, Councillor Atkinson. Yes, you are correct actually. The way the motion is currently written, the total amount for each ward would end up being $60,000 each.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 9517.265, "end": 9555.405, "text": "Right. Yeah. So we actually want it to be 700,000 minus a hundred the hundred and forty uh that's originally in place. Yeah. Okay. Uh yeah. So I guess make it for 560 if we're trying to do 700,000, or we're going for 60,000 apiece. I guess I'll I'll I'll make an amendment to the amendment to make that 560,000 if uh we need to do that.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9555.405, "end": 9563.345, "text": "Mr. Clerk, are we able to amend the amendment as it is standing, or do we dispense with this amendment and attempt a different amendment?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 9563.545, "end": 9564.465, "text": "No, it may be amended.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9564.885, "end": 9581.625, "text": "Okay. Alright, so that's uh we're gonna go to amend this amendment. Councillor uh Atkinson is going to attempt to amend this amendment and is the am your amendment to the amendment uh strike the number 700,000 and replace with", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 9581.625, "end": 9613.905, "text": "560,000. So that the total in the end, because the original the original uh resolution that is proposed is to direct administration to incorporate an increase of a certain amount, so currently 140. Uh but if we increase the base amount by 700,000, we actually end up with 840,000 in the yeah. So we're just trying to make it so that the end result of the actual motion is 700,000, not 840,000.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9615.085, "end": 9627.865, "text": "Okay. Is there a seconder for this amendment to the amendment? Could maybe Councillor Wynus could ask you to weigh in is is this amendment to the amendment serving your purpose, your intent, or is it", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 9627.865, "end": 9656.505, "text": "No, when we had written it is to replace a total amount for the budget line. So I'm hearing like on right on this side, we're debating on making it to be. for a total of 30,000 per ward. So do we want 50,000 per ward or do we want 30? And that's where council's gonna have to get clarity because this side of the bar is debating on dropping the number to get an increase for our ward community of end fund. So that's what I'm trying to navigate right now.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 9656.645, "end": 9658.205, "text": "I guess I I", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9658.285, "end": 9676.285, "text": "Maybe if we could just go to administration right now to see how you interpret that final number of 560,000 and if you have better calculators than ours, what do you deem the the ultimate per ward amount to be? Based if five if 560,000 is accepted, how much will be available per ward?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 9676.785, "end": 9701.885, "text": "So the base operating budget is $140,000. In 2025, that was increased to $280,000 through the Council Innovation Fund. So what administration is originally proposing today was to add an additional $140,000 to get it back up to that $280,000. So If", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9701.885, "end": 9714.525, "text": "Could I just ask you uh just simply if the 560,000 increase is accepted here, and this amendment to the amendment is adopted and the amendment is adopted, what is the total amount available per ward?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 9714.985, "end": 9715.945, "text": "fifty thousand dollars.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9716.365, "end": 9717.525, "text": "50,000. 50?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_29", "start": 9717.585, "end": 9717.865, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9717.865, "end": 9729.005, "text": "Okay. Okay. All right. So Councillor Atkinson, Councillor WineS, to be clear, everybody involved, if this amendment to the amendment is adopted, the outcome is $50,000 per per ward.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 9729.445, "end": 9729.725, "text": "Correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9729.725, "end": 9737.225, "text": "Okay. All right. Anybody else on this amendment to the amendment? Uh Councillor McLean on the amendment to the amendment.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 9738.805, "end": 9812.865, "text": "Um I agree that w increasing reward budget is good for the community events are very important. This is still a lot of money. The 700,000 was way too much. And I don't know if you want to be going back and forth nickel and diming on this stuff. I I still feel this is too much. So I don't know how to approach this. A twenty thousand award. Twenty-five, 'cause we're at fifty? This is fifty this is fifty. I don't know. I guess I'll test the will of co the council we can debate more, but I would suggest thirty at a max. I mean, we're just we're really have to dial in and we're all doing our surveys on our budget and uh this is a pretty significant increase in the base budget. So uh on another note, I d I don't uh quite agree. I like this your your suggestion and your offer, the mayor's offer w you know Chiming in. I prefer that not to get uh this should be each board councillor deciding each on one of that. I don't want it to get political, but yeah, that's still way too much money. Um so I I I'm gonna suggest thirty thousand and I don't know how that works, but um debate amongst yourselves.", "segments_merged": 23 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9814.945, "end": 9835.865, "text": "Okay, before lunch, I want us to resolve at least this amendment to the amendment. Uh I will be supporting the amendment to the amendment to lower the amount because I I think the 700,000 is too big. 560 is probably too big too, but I'd like the smaller amount rather than the bigger amount when it comes to spending money. Here's uh Councillor Chabot on this amendment to this amendment.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 9837.205, "end": 9894.805, "text": "Uh yes. So I guess the the best way to get to the ultimate solution, which I think Several members of council seem to be aligned with in the concept of increasing amount of funding, but maybe not to this level. This is suggesting $50,000 per ward. What we did previously was go from $10,000 to $20,000. I think a more reasonable number as as Councillor McLean pointed out is probably $30,000 per ward, which would then make require this number to be $280. So essentially $280 plus $140 would give us $420, which would equate to $30,000 per ward. So sorry, a little bit of head math here. Anyways, but the only way to get there, actually, is by defeating this motion and having a new motion brought forward, a new amendment to change that to 280, because you can't amend. An amendment to an amendment.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9895.505, "end": 9897.705, "text": "No, but we can amend an amended amendment.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 9897.925, "end": 9902.745, "text": "It has to be defeated and then it has to be reintroduced as a as a new amendment to the amendment.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 9902.745, "end": 9905.865, "text": "Colleagues, we're gonna be back at uh 115 for nomination committee.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 12935.465, "end": 12942.185, "text": "All right, the chair has called you back to Calgary City Council. Mr. Clerk, please call the room.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 12947.065, "end": 12947.725, "text": "Councillor Kelly?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 12950.345, "end": 12954.465, "text": "Sorry, was that me? Yep, that's a roll call. I just couldn't hear uh present.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 12961.545, "end": 12964.425, "text": "My apologies. Uh Councillor McLean?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 12967.665, "end": 12968.245, "text": "Councillor McClain.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 12969.605, "end": 12971.145, "text": "Yes, I'm here. Sorry.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 12972.705, "end": 12997.685, "text": "Councillor Penzopoulos? Councillor Schmidt? Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot, Councillor Clerk, Councillor Dollywall, Councillor Jameson, Councillor Johnson,", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 12997.825, "end": 12998.065, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 12998.405, "end": 12999.185, "text": "Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 12999.965, "end": 13012.585, "text": "Here. All right. Councillor Atkinson's amendment to the amendment did not receive a seconder, so that's uh fizzled. What I'm gonna go is just recognize real quick Councillor Kelly on a referral motion.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 13013.985, "end": 13232.645, "text": "Uh thank you, worship. Yeah, after uh hearing the debate and what should the number be, uh um I I kind of this sausage making on the floor, I guess, is it feels like it's kind of gotten away a little bit. Should it be 50,000? Should it be 30,000? Should it be the 20,000 that the recommendation came forward? Should it be the 60,000 that the current motion uh says? Um I I feel like we need to just have a bit more of a conversation about it. And if it were only that, we probably could have that conversation here at council. I do feel, though, that there's a second conversation to be had here, which is the current administrative process for the council ward fund was established when the amount was $10,000 per office. Moving to a $50,000 amount, I feel like that may require a different administrative process or additional protocol. I want to recognize that around the horseshoe here, that $50,000 is more than most of council spent on our entire election campaigns. And this would be year over year. And so the amount of rigor that we know that we have around something like an election campaign where uh uh where we have uh uh reporting requirements, et cetera, I think that. Rather than us trying to do all of these things on the council on the council floor, I'm gonna bring forward this recommendation here, which is to refer it back to administration for them to come forward with a new uh uh a new recommendation on these two fronts. I did contemplate just simply sending it back to the committee, uh, but I think it would be good to have administration weigh in on this again. Uh my only concern with this particular um Amendment that's here that I'm or this motion to refer that I'm recommending here is just as it relates to uh budget timing and when the next council services committee is, like I'm aware that that might be a little bit on the tricky side. But I just think for something that's this important, we need to have the right rigor in place. We've had conversations today already about appropriate belts and braces around different dollar amounts for things. And uh for me, this is probably one of the most important ones because uh if ever there were to be something that we might get accused of doing something wrong, uh uh vote buying things like that, this is the place where it would happen. And so from that point of view, I think it is wise for us uh under uh to consider some changes to the process, not just the dollar amount as well, because once that dollar amount gets higher, there's more risk of that kind of thing happening. And like I said, the appropriate governance uh for managing a $10,000 fund, I think the previous way that we had it, where it was simply, you know, $500 to that group, that group, et cetera, that was fine and appropriate, but at a level of something like $50,000 or the $60,000 that's currently uh sort of accidentally in front of us right now, uh, I think we need a little bit more rigor to that. So that's why I'm gonna bring forward this uh motion to refer it, because I don't think that we as council should be um uh sort of having this debate in this kind of a way here today, where we're literally adding more money uh to our uh to our office budgets effectively uh to be able to go out to the community in a in uh in a way that feels a little too off the cuff. I I would rather have a little bit more discipline or rigor around uh the decision making on this. So while I was able to uh Uh support the original notice of motion that came forward from committee. Uh I'm not sure that we're now moving into territory with these amendments that I'm not uh terribly comfortable with. And so that's why I want to make this motion to refer. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 13232.645, "end": 13243.565, "text": "Point of procedure before you seek a second, before you seek a second or point of procedure. There was an amendment that was before us. Can you refer a motion when there's an amendment on the floor?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13243.745, "end": 13255.905, "text": "We'll uh seek some advice from Mr. Clerk here, but my understanding is that the referral can even can be placed even with an amendment motion unresolved on the floor. It takes primacy based on my reading, but if uh Mr. Clerk can confirm that.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 13256.225, "end": 13257.025, "text": "Yes, that's correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13257.565, "end": 13268.985, "text": "Okay. All right, is there a seconder for Councillor Kelly's referral? Okay. Looks like there is no seconder for uh the referral. So", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 13272.005, "end": 13278.925, "text": "So can I propose propose an alternate amendment? An amendment to this amendment? It's currently sitting at 700.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13278.925, "end": 13286.685, "text": "Just a moment here. I'm just gonna recap. We had the amendment with the number. Maybe we'll just get everything back on the screen. I recall the number was 700,000", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 13286.785, "end": 13287.125, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13287.325, "end": 13297.005, "text": "from uh Councillor Weinus. That amendment was uh moved and seconded. And now we are looking to you, Councillor Chabot, to an attempt amendment to this amendment.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 13297.345, "end": 13323.985, "text": "So the amendment to the amendment that I want to make is to change 700 to 280,000. That would in effect raise the total amount to 420, which would then allow each ward to have $30,000. So that's the amendment I'd like to propose. I think it's in light of what we've heard around the table that people are seeking additional funding beyond the $20,000 per ward. I think $30,000 meets that sort of reasonable compromise. So I'd like to propose that. If there's a second or if not,", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13324.445, "end": 13346.885, "text": "Okay, that's been seconded by Councillor McLean, and that is to delete the word 700,000 and replace with 280,000. That's a doubling of what the increase was. Okay. Any further discussion here as we'll allow uh our clerk colleagues to get caught up? Okay, uh Councillor McLean on this?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 13347.605, "end": 13366.305, "text": "Just as uh the second or I think this is a fair compromise talking with Councillor Wine. That's the reason why I think We need to do do this now so we can get it into budget. It's fair's down the middle, I think an increase, so I think let's move on. This is a fair compromise. Let's just support this and that's it.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 13367.845, "end": 13375.285, "text": "Uh clerks question uh in last term we were able to accept things like this as a friendly to the original. Are we still able to accept friendlies?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13375.745, "end": 13395.885, "text": "My understanding is the procedure bylaw doesn't allow for the term friendly. Uh uh a different uh you could withdraw yours and invite a different one, but unfortunately we just can't accept it without a vote, is my read of the procedure bylaw. Unless the clerks want to weigh in. Okay. All right, uh on this amendment to the amendment, uh Councillor Kelly.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 13396.405, "end": 13417.425, "text": "Yeah, just based off of the the last uh uh uh failed uh motion to refer, I wanted to jump and say uh I do think this is a fair compromise. I'm happy to get behind this. Uh this is a a dollar amount that I don't feel is too far outside of the realm of what we of the process that we had when we uh were at 10,000 and 20,000. So yeah, I'm happy to support uh Councillor Chabot's amendment here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13418.225, "end": 13423.425, "text": "All right, uh can we engage the e-vote on this amendment to the amendment? You good to close, Councillor Shibel?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 13424.725, "end": 13425.025, "text": "close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13425.205, "end": 13427.485, "text": "Okay. Let's engage the e-vote on this amendment to the amendment.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 13437.705, "end": 13445.285, "text": "Councillor Ewell, your vote, please? Councillor Johnson?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 13445.425, "end": 13445.725, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 13446.885, "end": 13447.545, "text": "Mayor Farkas?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13447.765, "end": 13448.065, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 13448.305, "end": 13449.025, "text": "All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13451.925, "end": 13468.325, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. Okay, that motion is carried 15 to 0. Uh the words now read 20 to 8280,000 for the amendment. Uh can I go to you to close on this amended amendment, Councillor Winness?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 13468.425, "end": 13480.445, "text": "Yep. This is called transparency. It's a ward community event fund and the number and com oh you got a comment before I close. I just see a", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 13480.665, "end": 13484.445, "text": "Sorry, point of procedure. Uh mayor, I was in there for RTS on the main.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13485.705, "end": 13489.985, "text": "Yeah. Yeah, well I'll go to you maybe after the amendment is closed on. So it's closed.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 13489.985, "end": 13490.985, "text": "Closing on the amendment still?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13491.125, "end": 13491.705, "text": "Yep. We're", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 13491.705, "end": 13492.005, "text": "Sorry.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13492.005, "end": 13493.005, "text": "still on the amendment.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 13493.005, "end": 13493.445, "text": "Yeah, go ahead.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 13494.665, "end": 13542.945, "text": "this is transparency and action when it comes to a ward community event fund. Even the number and increase needs to be debated in public. As much as a Councillor wanted to refer it back, I think you really need to take a look at why this exists and what kind of inflation our community groups have been under. I'm happy to at least see this grow by another 10,000 for our volunteers, for our community associations, so that some communities can even host a stampede party because we are not getting equitable support of volunteer led initiatives in our communities, and this is what this fund does. So please take a look at it before you try and kill this fund. And it's very important that this continues to be an act accessible for our ward residents.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13545.345, "end": 13549.485, "text": "Okay. That uh has been closed. Let's uh engage the vote.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 13562.805, "end": 13563.665, "text": "Uh Mayor Farkas?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13563.805, "end": 13564.145, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 13564.385, "end": 13565.365, "text": "Okay, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13566.805, "end": 13577.185, "text": "All right, please display the results. That motion is carried 15 to 0. On the amended main, uh Councillor ward, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 13578.685, "end": 13598.845, "text": "Yes, um I'm a bit confused here because during The Council Services Committee. We had the two Oh, see now it's not there. Okay. Earlier on the on the on the present Okay. This is all Mew Point. The second yeah, the second one was voted down at committee and it I saw that it was still listed. It's not now. We're good. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13599.865, "end": 13609.945, "text": "Okay. Anybody else on this? All right. Uh back to you to close on the motion that's been amended. Councillor.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 13609.945, "end": 13660.085, "text": "I'll be brief. Uh first of all, administration, thank you for bringing this. Um we needed to resolve this one way or another because uh previously there was only one time funding allocated to this to double the amount. And so I think uh going to thirty thousand, maybe m a little more than I I I would have recommended to start with, but it sounds like uh there's other members of council that are struggling to meet the needs of their of their uh community associations. I appreciate the fact that. Many counselors have multiple community associations they have to respond to. And $500 per is somewhat limiting. So happy to support this. And whilst I'm likely not going to spend the total amount myself, uh it will go back into the city's uh general revenue and and potentially could be utilized by other wards that need it more than my ward into the future. So closed.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13661.925, "end": 13665.065, "text": "All right, let's engage the vote on the uh this motion is amended.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 13675.165, "end": 13678.105, "text": "Councillor Clark? And Mayor Farkas?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13678.505, "end": 13678.865, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 13679.365, "end": 13680.025, "text": "The votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13680.805, "end": 13700.205, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. All right, the motion is carried unanimously 15 to 0. Moving on, I believe that we're on 9.3.1. Rascind Citywide Rezoning Report recommendations following the repeal.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 13713.505, "end": 13780.305, "text": "Thank you very much. Good afternoon, members of council. Peter Schravers with Local Area Planning. This is going to be a pretty short presentation. This report is to amend direct previous direction from council that was directing a series of reports on the implementation of rezoning for housing. Given that rezoning for housing has been repealed, we are just asking for removal of that direction. Next slide, please. So just a quick background here. April 8th, 2026 is when the amendments to the land use bylaw, which included the repeal of rezoning for housing, happened. Prior to that, in May 2024, was the series of approvals for rezoning for housing. Two of the recommendations that were part of that were different reports reporting on the implementation of rezoning for housing. And then again, given that the rezoning for housing initiative has been repealed, those reports are no longer required. And if you just go to the last slide there, our recommendation is pretty straightforward. Just removing the direction to provide those reports to Infrastructure Planning Committee and Community Development Committee. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13781.345, "end": 13786.685, "text": "All right. Uh Councillor Shabot's moving that. Councillor Kelly is seconding it. I'll go to you, Councillor Shabot.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 13787.445, "end": 13829.885, "text": "Yeah, I think I can make a very brief introduction. Now that we've repealed the motion, the reporting requirement has been pretty much negated. However, that doesn't mean that on a go forward basis, as we start implementing new policies, that we may not want to revisit this insofar as what deliverables have been achieved through new amended policies that this council is likely going to be bringing forward and supporting into the future. But for now, this was specifically directed around. We're on the blanket zoning, and so I think it's appropriate that we we uh we you know follow through with uh everything that was associated with that and create our own plan on a go forward basis. So moved.", "segments_merged": 16 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13831.485, "end": 13832.485, "text": "Councillor Kelly, at a way in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 13833.665, "end": 13842.525, "text": "Uh nothing much further to say. This is uh a pretty straightforward procedural amendment. So uh yeah, there's no need for the reporting uh on the thing that you no longer have.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13845.165, "end": 13846.405, "text": "All right, Councillor Atkinson.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 13848.065, "end": 13896.605, "text": "just a question like um a lot of what we were reporting on here uh does have value. We're still trying to have provide housing to Galgarians. I would hope that that is still the mentality here. And I just wonder whether the data that was being provided. Is still being captured, will still be reported? Like how do we st how do we know? Uh, while I recognize that this was originally brought in to understand when we brought in housing uh you know, RCG, is there something to be gained about learning what removing it and using this as a as a way to sort of juxtapose and and have an understanding of what this does to uh overall, sort of housing affordability, housing starts, et cetera?", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 13896.785, "end": 13942.865, "text": "Yeah, so we we do have some various ways that we report on that. So one of them is the Home is Here Strategy update that it comes to council, sorry, it comes to CDC every every year, came in May. So that reports on it's basically the same numbers. The quarterly reports were just obviously quarterly, and there was a little bit more detail to them, but you're still getting that update on housing starts, on on things like that. And then there's also the established areas growth and change strategy update. And then there's also several dashboards we have that are open to the public that report on very much the same thing. So what really what we're removing is that specific um issue of what was the effect of rezoning for housing. If we continue these reports, you're just gonna see a bunch of graphs with zeros on them. All that data still exists. You can still look at the effects overall with those various other reports.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 13942.925, "end": 13959.045, "text": "So is there any element of the reporting that we're doing on a quarterly basis that is not captured in that home is here? Uh annual report that we might want to to sort of beef up or make sure that we're including that if these are going away.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_33", "start": 13959.205, "end": 13990.065, "text": "There's not really it's it's mostly it's the quarterly element, it's quarterly instead of yearly. The other element is those quarterly reports we're reporting on kind of various stages of the approvals process. So development permit submission, building permit issue, and then occupancy. A lot of those other reports are building occupancy, but there are some that that do those other ones. And so we're not really losing much other than the very specific what is the effect of uh rezoning for housing, again, which would be zeros, and just a quarterly versus. But some of these reports and dashboards have some of that information, so we're not really losing much here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 13990.265, "end": 13991.525, "text": "That's great. Thank you very much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 13997.885, "end": 14005.745, "text": "Anybody else on this? Okay, seeing none. Councillor Shabot, please. All right, let's engage the vote, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 14021.325, "end": 14022.005, "text": "Mayor Farkas?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 14022.425, "end": 14022.725, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 14022.985, "end": 14023.745, "text": "All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 14024.905, "end": 14039.145, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. Okay. On that, the the motion is carried, 15 to 0. We'll move to 9.3.2, procedure by law, 42M2025 amendments. Question period.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 14044.405, "end": 14189.265, "text": "Thank you, Mayor, uh and members of council. My name is Jeremy Fraser. I'm the Deputy City Clerk for Council and Governance Services. I'm here to present uh a brief overview of changes to Procedure By Law 42 M 2025 with respect to question period. Next slide, please. Uh so the um pardon me. I believe it was at the May meeting of Council that Council gave direction through a notice of motion entitled Fair Timing and Randomization for Question Period Amendments to the Procedure By Law that adjustments be made to the procedures set out in the procedure bylaw for question period. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is that council amend the procedure bylaw 42M 2025 by giving three readings to proposed bylaw 20M 2026, which you'll see in attachment one. Next slide, please. With respect to the specific amendments that are identified, the way that the procedures set out in the proposed amendments to the procedure bylaw are set up is that the amendments establish that all members will compete equally for three available opportunities, each meeting to ask a question during question period. Beginning at the scheduled start time of the meeting as shown on the agenda and the council calendar and continuing until the chair calls for question period, members may request to speak. The validity of each request to speak will be determined by the timestamp in Microsoft Teams. Any submission before the scheduled start time of the council meeting will be invalid. The banging of the gavel by the chair calling of the meeting to order will have no bearing on the window of time during which request to speak during question period will be open, and the timing of request to speak within the window will not determine priority. If more than three members submit a request to speak within the window, the three slots will be assigned by transparent random draw conducted by the city clerk. After the draw, the chair will announce the results and determine the order in which the three questions are asked. All other aspects of rules respecting question period would remain unchanged. Next slide, please. So the recommendation is that council amend the procedure bylaw by giving three readings to proposed bylaw 20M 2026, and I'm happy to take any questions council may have.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 14192.765, "end": 14197.425, "text": "All right. Can I go to you, Councillor Johnston, to introduce this? I believe is your notice motion, right?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 14198.425, "end": 14227.425, "text": "Yeah, of course. Um yeah, it's just a simple change to the bylaw, just to make it more fair for all of us counselors, when we want to have a question to ask at the start of council meetings. Um, and I think it's just pretty straightforward, gives us all a fair shot at having a question asked if there's more than three, um, and it also incentivizes us to be here on time. Um And yeah, I think it's just a simple way of uh fixing a bylaw. I hope you can support it.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 14227.425, "end": 14233.765, "text": "It's moved by Councillor Johnston. Councillor Shabot, you want to move this procedure by law amendment? Or second it, rather? Nope.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 14233.765, "end": 14235.185, "text": "I want to I want to speak against", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 14235.185, "end": 14241.805, "text": "Anyone else want to second this? All right. Councillor Penizopoulos has seconded it. Councillor Yule, please, for debate.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 14242.625, "end": 14287.125, "text": "Yeah, question about just process. So sometimes we have two questions in the queue, and then those questions start, and then somebody still has a question and they can throw another question into the queue while while questions have started. If there are two questions in the queue and questions have started, and then two or three more come in the queue, do we have to stop and uh do a draw? So there couldn't even be a third thrown in while questions had started.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 14287.925, "end": 14298.265, "text": "Uh once questions have started, then the questions that are in the queue are in the queue. And the need for a draw is now at that point in the rearview mirror, if I could put it that way.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 14298.425, "end": 14304.125, "text": "Yeah. Okay. Okay. Uh Councillor Shabot on this, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 14306.425, "end": 14408.645, "text": "thanks, Councillor Ewell. You actually raised an interesting point that as it stands, if there's only one question in the queue and that question is being asked, two others can actually enter into the queue. Uh this wouldn't allow that. This would take away that opportunity. Once once you start down that path, then then it's only those two. And you know, I I guess the challenge for me is I of course I maybe it's because I've been here for too long. There was a time when we could actually turn our lights on, even before the council started to request to speak for a question period. So so as soon as council chambers would open, we could come in, we could press our button to turn our light on, and whoever happened to show up the earliest, earlier. Early bird gets the worm, so to speak, would be able to uh get their question asked in question period. And so there are many times when I came here early specifically for that reason. And when I wasn't able to, when there was three other lights on, I was like, darn it. Start drafting my motion uh or my administrative inquiry. For me, this is this is the challenge that I see with this. It's kind of like, you know, somebody who isn't able to hit the button quick enough. Wants still wants a chance to answer a question. And they don't want to have to type out an administrative inquiry. This is like, I don't know, for me, it's like I guess a way of being lazy and and not doing extra work if you don't get your way. So for me, this I just can't see supporting this. This creates additional work for administration. We want to try and shorten our meetings, not lengthening them. This is not going to shorten our meetings. It's going to lengthen them, having to go through a draw. More work. More work for administration. Nope, I'm not on side.", "segments_merged": 41 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 14411.385, "end": 14412.845, "text": "Okay. Uh Councillor Kelly, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 14414.225, "end": 14488.805, "text": "Yeah, I admit uh more uh more rules mean more hoops to jump through. That that's uh Kind of what we do here. Um and I'm not saying that negatively. Uh just a couple of I mean comments maybe. Uh Taking a look at the proposed bylaw itself, I'm not a huge fan of us using the word compete. All members shall compete equally for things. I don't feel like it's a competition to ask questions on behalf of our behalf of our constituents. I don't have an amendment for you here. I I looked at other words or whatnot, but I just wanted to acknowledge the fact that despite the fact that it says compete, uh, I want to uh share that with my colleagues that I don't feel that we're competing for question period questions. Um did have a question though, uh, under number seven uh in the proposed bylaw, which I guess is what, uh section 617. Uh it says here uh the last bit of it after the random draw, the chair shall announce the result and determine the order in which the three questions are asked. Uh just to be really clear on this, according to this, my reading is that the chair will determine what order the questions are. Is that what is intended?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 14489.445, "end": 14501.265, "text": "Um, I would just make two points. Yes, number one, I that would be my interpretation. And secondly, the wording that's contained in the proposed bylaw was in the notice of motion that council adopted in May.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 14503.405, "end": 14559.625, "text": "Uh just because I like uh you know I I guess I can't ask a question of the chair here, but I I would definitely say uh it feels to me like the order that they were in the in the chat or the order that they were drawn would be the appropriate order for the uh um uh for the questions to go in, uh rather than just simply leaving it up to the chair. Um I appreciate Councillor Yule's point earlier as well. Welcome to the reality of having rules. Like there will be tricky little bits in here like this. And so if this is the direction we want to go, I think that we're going to have some of those tricky little bits that are that are going to pop up. And obviously, while using it, we will uh we'll learn a little bit more and potentially want to come back and make some amendments to it at some point in the future. But for now, uh yeah, I can get behind uh uh the intention of this, and uh there's nothing egregious in the in the proposed bylaw. I'm happy to give it a go. Thank you, Your Worship.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 14559.925, "end": 14561.325, "text": "All right, uh Councillor McLean.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 14562.385, "end": 14599.685, "text": "Thanks, Mayor. I don't know how long we've been doing question period. I don't even need the answer. I'm just gonna think it's been a long time. Sometimes I find it's in my f few years here, it's kinda fun trying to get you in you win, you lose. Maybe it's a competition. I think we're trying to fix something that's not broken here. I love what Councillor Chabot said. We want to speed up our meetings, not make them go longer. But yeah, it's not broke. What are we trying to fix here? It's not a big deal. Put your name in. If you get your n question in, you get it in. I'm just not gonna support this, even though I understand the intent. I just think that we're wasting time. That's all.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 14603.505, "end": 14611.885, "text": "All right, uh any further debate? Okay. Seeing none, I'll go to you close, uh Councillor Johnson.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 14612.445, "end": 14794.325, "text": "Okay. Yeah. Um I think you guys might have lost the intent behind this. Um and that's I didn't want to have to make it about it, but um I'll I'll just go through a couple things here. Uh Councillor Kelly, um the chair ultimately decides how the agenda goes. So right now, even within the RTS, how it's uh numbered, he can change it all he wants. He's the chair. We can appeal or disagree with what he says, but leaving it up to chair is Automatically, what we do, anyways. So that in itself, he can determine whether it's who went in first. Um, again, that's just the chair's duty. Um, that should be simple. The second thing is um there's no additional resources, it's not gonna take any more time. I've already dealt with the administration and the clerk's office on how long this would take, and it's not gonna take any longer than it already does. There's a simple process of if we have more than three people in the queue, they just write a number on a piece of paper and pick three numbers out of it. That's as simple as that. Um, and so to reiterate why I brought this motion forward is that there is a competition for this, right? And it's unfair. And I the chair has all the authority in the world to always ask a question, and this was to fix that, and to make it fair for us as Councillor to have a say. Um, previous mayors never used it as an opportunity to ask questions because the chair and the mayor have the opportunity to ask questions at any time, any place, probably more than us combined. He has the ability to ask questions. This was our ability to make it fair, and so everybody has to put their RTS in from a set period from 9 30. Until when the question period starts. So that could be two minutes, that could be 30 minutes, depending on recognition, right? Everybody has the ability to put it in. If you think of a question after, of course, you can always do a CAO inquiry after. That's not an issue. You've always had the ability to do that. But this is our opportunity as counselors to ask direct questions like Councillor McLean did today. He asked a direct question from a constituent, right? that you could still do that at any point. This just gives us the ability to ask questions. Th uh how many times have we gone um over three? Not very often. So this is the odd chance that we go over three RTS is so again this makes it fair for everybody, right? It allows the chair to operate under the same rules as counselors to ask questions. So I saw a problem. This is my way of fixing it, and I think it's fair for everybody. So again, this it is a competition right now. This takes the competition out of it, right? There's no additional resources, and it's up to the chair to determine who gets to vote or who gets a question and when. So please support this.", "segments_merged": 14 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 14796.085, "end": 14797.665, "text": "All right, let's engage the e-vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 14806.905, "end": 14807.805, "text": "I'm Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 14809.365, "end": 14809.585, "text": "No.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 14810.205, "end": 14811.225, "text": "Okay, and all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 14812.065, "end": 14869.765, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 9 to 6 with uh Councillor Schmidt, Clark Yule, Chabot McLean, and myself opposed. Okay. We'll now move to the readings of the bylaw to amend the bylaw. Okay. First reading of bylaw. 20 M 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Shabot is opposed, and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 20 M 2026. Councillor Shabot is opposed and that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 20 M 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 20 M 2026. Councillor Shabot is opposed, and that is carried. Alright. Let's move to 9.4.1 Transit bylaw weapons provision.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 14895.965, "end": 14904.305, "text": "Afternoon, Council. My name is Craig Pastrick. I'm the team lead for Policy and Biology Development Community Strategies. Are you interested in the presentation? Or would you like to go straight to questions?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 14905.105, "end": 14906.565, "text": "Let's uh hear the presentation.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 14914.985, "end": 15091.845, "text": "With me today is Ashley Wedderman, Manager of Community Safety Strategies. And we're here today to recommend that transit bylaw 4M81 be amended to explicitly expand the existing prohibition of visible weapons on transit vehicles to include all transit property. The report also provides administration about municipal weapon regulation in cities across Canada and confirms that Calgary's approach is consistent with common practice. Next slide, please. Next slide again, please. Please. The visible weapons provision of the transit bylaw was introduced in October of 2024 as part of a package of changes that introduced a variety of new offenses, including the harassment of transit system users, non destination use of transit, and altering transit passes. That batch of changes also allowed bicycles on the C train at all times. Separately, the Public Behavior By Law's Visible Weapons Provision came into force on June 24, 2025. In September of 2025, Council directed administration to undertake additional research and report back with information about rules in other Canadian cities. This report fulfills that direction, and administration is not recommending any changes to the public behavior by law. Next slide, please. What administration is recommending is an amendment to the visible weapons provision of the Calgary Transit By Law. Since the end of 2024, it has been an offense under the Transit By Law to visibly display a weapon on transit vehicle. Weapons enforcement at stations has used the public behavior bylaw. Having these offenses in different bylaws has introduced avoidable operational complexity. What we're recommending today is an amendment to the transit bylaw that will simplify enforcement by prohibiting visible weapons on transit vehicles and on transit property in all in one provision of one bylaw. Next slide, please. You may have noticed that the recommended bylaw amendments change in what parts of the transit system the city bans the visible display of weapons as opposed to the possession of a weapon. A visible display of a weapon is a behavior which the city can regulate as part of its authority granted by the government of Alberta through the Municipal Government Act, including section 7B of the MGA, which allows the municipality to pass bylaws to regulate people, activities, and things in public places. If a province does not have an authority under the Canadian Constitution, it cannot delegate that authority to the city, and we therefore cannot legislate in that area. This is the case, for example, with criminal law, which is the exclusive domain of the federal government. This approach to regulating weapons while avoiding possession bans is consistent across Canadian cities and is reflected in the jurisdictional scan provided in attachment three. Next slide, please. Once again, uh here's the recommendation uh to amend the Cadre Transit bylaw for M81 by expanding the visible weapons prohibition to include both transit property and transit vehicles. And we thank you for your time and are available for questions.", "segments_merged": 17 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15094.105, "end": 15102.245, "text": "All right, uh anyone? Okay, hearing none. Uh Councillor Dollywell, are you interested in moving this?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 15104.605, "end": 15105.485, "text": "Thanks, Mayor. Moved.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15106.005, "end": 15121.265, "text": "Okay. Can I get a seconder? Councillor uh sorry, Deputy Mayor Towers? Okay, and seconded it. Any further debate or discussion, colleagues? Okay, seeing none, over to you to close, Councillor Dollywell.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 15121.585, "end": 15122.285, "text": "Thank you. Close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15124.285, "end": 15125.505, "text": "All right, let's engage the U vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 15136.525, "end": 15140.425, "text": "Councillor Clark. And Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15140.965, "end": 15141.305, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 15144.185, "end": 15145.025, "text": "Okay, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15146.125, "end": 15184.565, "text": "Okay, please display the results. Motion is carried 14 to 0. I'll move to the readings of the bylaw. First reading of bylaw 21M 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 21 M 2026. Anyone opposed. Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 21M 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 21 M 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right. Let's go to 9.4.2 Truck Route and Transportation of Dangerous Goods bylaw updates.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 15186.265, "end": 15223.365, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. Uh we have report CD 2026 0289, truck route and transportation of dangerous goods bylaw updates. I'd like to introduce Stephen Kay, our senior engineer uh with mobility operations and acting manager Pat Griesack as well to join him. Uh we do have a presentation if you're interested, or we can go to questions. Thank you, Mayor. We all one mother one other thing. Um we have two attachments, six and seven, uh, that were updated with uh both a legend and some line continuity that was raised at committee just for um making corrections to those two attachments and the clerks has that for you as well for distribution. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15226.785, "end": 15227.305, "text": "Take us away.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 15230.885, "end": 15444.845, "text": "Thank you. Good afternoon, uh members of council. My name is Stephen Kay from Mobility. Uh with me today is Pat Grizzak from Mobility as well. We're here to discuss truckroute and transportation of dangerous goods bylaw updates. The purpose of this presentation is to provide recommendations to update the truck route bylaw and the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw. Next slide, please. The truck route bylaw was last amended on 2020, March 16th. The transportation of dangerous goods bylaw was approved on 2004, February 23rd, and last amended on 2005, April 11th. Next slide, please. The recommendations today are that the Standing Policy Committee on Community Development recommend that Council give three readings to proposed bylaw 18M 2025 in attachment two to amend the truck route bylaw 60 M90 and give three readings to proposed bylaw 17M 2025 in attachment three to repeal and replace the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw 13M 2004. Next slide, please. These updates support safe, reliable, and efficient movement of goods across Calgary by focusing truck traffic on major corridors and minimizing impacts on local community roads. This helps businesses operate effectively while ensuring Calgarians continue to receive the products and services they rely on. The recommendations include harmonizing the mass based truck definition to the definition in provincial commercial vehicle safety requirements. These changes were brought forward from the police to help with enforcement activities and have been discussed at truck route committee meetings, the city hosts with industry. Support has been provided from the Alberta Motor Transport Association. As well as changes to the truck routes and dangerous goods routes needed as a result of the growth of Calgary and roadway improvements that have been built, such as the completion of the ring road. The transportation of dangerous goods bylaw requires provincial ministerial approval prior to coming into force. Consultation with Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors has indicated that they will recommend ministerial approval for the proposed bylaw in attachment three once council has given it three readings. The two bylaws have 2025 bylaw numbers rather than 2026 because we assigned numbers to them last year prior to sending the Transportation of Dangerous Goods bylaw to the province for approval. And those are the numbers we are still using for the sake of consistency in communicating with the province. Next slide, please. Goods movement is an important component of Calgary's economy. As a hub for transportation and logistics that supports the two major rail lines, the airport and roadways to move goods into, out of, and through the city, it contributes over $10 billion to the Calgary region. Calgary follows regulations and policies to support and regulate the movement of goods. Regulations are mandated by the federal and provincial governments, as well as the traffic bylaw, truck route bylaw, and the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw. The bylaws allow the city to designate where the movement of goods is to take place through the roadway network. A safe, efficient, and connective roadway network to move goods is critical to the success of Calgary's role as a logistics hub. The city endeavors to provide a network of roadways that provides carriers with an easily followed and efficient network of roadways that are supportive of business. Next slide, please. Once again, the recommendations are that the Standing Policy Committee on Community Development recommend that Council give three readings to proposed bylaw 18M 2025 in attachment two to amend the truck route bylaw 60 M90 and give three readings to proposed bylaw 17M 2025 in attachment three to repeal and replace the Transportation of Dangerous Goods bylaw 13M 2004. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 21 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15447.125, "end": 15451.285, "text": "Alright, uh that's getting moved by Councillor Yule. Would you like to speak to it?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 15451.565, "end": 15480.285, "text": "Yeah, happy to move this. Um being the supply chain and logistics guy on council, um, supply chain and logistics are about managing expectations. Um, and I think that goes both ways. This allows uh uh carriers to know exactly where they're supposed to go. This is really helping those good players in the industry uh plan their routes properly. Uh, and the fact that we have the AMTA support uh letter as well bodes well. So uh happy to support this.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15481.825, "end": 15494.905, "text": "Do we have a seconder? Second by Councillor Dallywell. Anybody else want to weigh in? Going once, going twice. Uh Deputy Mayor Tyres, please.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 15495.845, "end": 15537.605, "text": "Uh yeah, in committee um I mentioned that I didn't support the truck route side of this because I wasn't able to amend uh the route that went through 112th Avenue in Country Hills, which is a major uh intersection in my ward that's dealing with constant gravel truck, um traffic through the community is dangerous for drivers, pedestrians, causes serious damage to vehicles and infrastructure. Um as such, I would like to divide the vote um one in two, so the truck route and the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw separately so that I can vote against the truck route bylaw. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15538.725, "end": 15540.165, "text": "All right, over to you to close, Councillor Yule.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 15542.305, "end": 15566.585, "text": "Yeah, and just a reminder from committee that this will also be on us as a council to make sure that we are upgrading our industrial routes. Um, Country Hills Boulevard widening project has been a project unfunded for a while. Um, if we want to make sure that we have those proper routes through our industrial areas, we need to we need to make the spend. So closed.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15567.965, "end": 15579.765, "text": "All right. Uh we will have two different votes. Uh Mr. Clerk, let's give uh let's engage the e vote on the first of three readings of proposed bylaw 18M 2026 to amend the truck route bylaw.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 15609.345, "end": 15623.945, "text": "Councillor Jameson. And Councillor Atkinson. Okay. Councillor Kelly. Johnson's absent. And Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15625.205, "end": 15625.545, "text": "Yes?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 15626.125, "end": 15627.025, "text": "All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15633.125, "end": 15663.425, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. That motion has carried 12 to 2 with counselors Jameson and tires opposed. I will move now to the readings. Or rather, do we want to figure out the vote for the second? Okay, sorry. Well, let's engage the e vote on the bylaw 17M 2025, the repeal and replace of the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw. I'll engage the e vote on that.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 15692.605, "end": 15693.945, "text": "Okay, Councillor Clark.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15694.505, "end": 15694.905, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 15695.645, "end": 15699.365, "text": "Councillor Atkinson. Okay, and uh Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15700.045, "end": 15700.385, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 15700.805, "end": 15703.785, "text": "Okay, and Councillor Johnson's absent. So all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15704.485, "end": 15794.945, "text": "Thanks. Please display the results. That motion is carried 14 to 0. So I'll move to the uh readings of the two bylaws. Starting with bylaw 18M 2025, the the truck route bylaw. First reading of bylaw 18M 2025. Anyone opposed? Councillor Tyres is opposed, Councillor Jameson is opposed, and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 18M 2025, Councillor Tyres is opposed, and Councillor Jameson is opposed, and that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 18M 2025. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 18M 2025, Counselors Tyres and Jameson are opposed, and that is carried. Alright, moving to the other one. First reading of bylaw 17M 2025. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 17M 2025. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 17 M 2025. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 17M 2025. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. We'll move now to notice of motion 9.4.3. Notice of motion annual in camera report. Uh perhaps Councillor Johnston, if you don't Okay. Uh maybe Deputy Mayor Tyres, if you don't mind uh taking the chair, I'll introduce the item.", "segments_merged": 23 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_32", "start": 15803.285, "end": 15804.445, "text": "Where did Landic go?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15806.905, "end": 15868.965, "text": "Okay. Colleagues, you'll have had the opportunity to review notice of motion. Not gonna get into too much of the the technical merits here. Appreciate your consideration. This is really about uh helping to compare and tally uh the uh the items as well as the the topics of certain issues as they are discussed in our closed session. Uh I think a big part of this is also just public education to to uh lay out that there are always certain matters that that make sense to be discussed uh in closed session. Uh if it's personally identifiable information, say land transactions, uh labor negotiations. Uh this is really about uh helping compare ourselves to to previous councils with an aim to keep our business as tight as possible, but with the recognition that there is a legal reason for for council to be doing so. So hope to earn your consideration and uh on the fly uh maybe desperately seek a seconder to put this on the table. Councillor Clark has seconded that and happy to answer any questions you may have uh in debate.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 15869.685, "end": 15874.405, "text": "Point of procedure. I believe the chair has to be the one to recognize the seconder.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15874.405, "end": 15875.065, "text": "Oh, whoops.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 15877.545, "end": 15877.725, "text": "Oh", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 15877.725, "end": 15879.225, "text": "Yep, that's up.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 15879.225, "end": 15899.425, "text": "the secondary council clerk. Thank you. And um I suppose uh oh I don't see the cue here, but uh open it up for debate. Any uh sorry I um Councillor Shabot, please go ahead.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 15899.765, "end": 15941.985, "text": "Yeah, I'm uh I appreciate the um the intent here. I guess from my perspective I have to consider how administration um would interpret this direction and what we can expect to see as reporting back. I appreciate the mover's intent, but devil's into details and I want to know what administration's take is on this and what we could expect to see as a report back if this gets approved by council. Somebody? anybody so it all jump up at once? It's just going to be a summary, just uh headings. Uh", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 15943.325, "end": 15998.145, "text": "Deputy Mayor Tyres, I'm happy to speak to this a little bit just from the city clerk's perspective. There is obviously in every set of minutes a record of all of the decisions of council and or each respective council committee with respect to their decisions on motions to move into closed meeting or otherwise referred to as in-camera sessions. But there isn't one consolidated source of that information. So what I would see this being is uh, and I don't want to speak on behalf of the chief administrative officer because this is uh speaking to the chief administrative officer's uh quarterly report, but the data for uh this kind of a summary report could be derived from the publicly available records of council and council committees in their minutes, and of course, those are all publicly available uh on cowberry.ca.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 15998.365, "end": 16012.605, "text": "so I could expect to see something similar to notices of motion, notice of motion with the heading, the title, and what the what the resolution was of in the horizon report. No in camera reference or anything like that.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 16013.985, "end": 16039.325, "text": "Um Councillor should through the chair, the the the motion on screen as as contained in the notice of motion directs the specific content um of the summary to include um Close sessions from the previous calendar year and for each session the date, the meeting body, the legal reason given for closing the meeting and the title. And I think that's the scope of direction that that's provided by the notice of motion.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 16039.525, "end": 16046.605, "text": "Okay, so it's clear to administration what you'd be reporting about. All right. All right, that's all I need to know. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 16047.045, "end": 16047.885, "text": "Councillor Wynus?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 16049.125, "end": 16062.585, "text": "Thanks Thanks um just for confirmation this is already publicly available correct I I just want to make sure that we all know what's there.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 16064.065, "end": 16147.445, "text": "Yes, the the minutes for each meeting have to record. The municipal government has the municipal government act has specific requirements and basically they are that council and council committee meet in public unless there's a reason for moving into closed session that's related to one of the grounds set out in I think it's the Access to Information Act. And so every time council or council committee moves into closed meeting, it takes a motion and it identifies those legal reasons to move into closed session. And those motions are, of course, always recorded in the minutes of a council meeting or the council committee meeting, and those are made publicly available. They're in the corporate record as part of the minutes, and there's a requirement that those motions be kept in the minutes. And that's all available on Calgary.ca. But again, in a particular meeting, there might be one, two, maybe a small handful of four or five, depending on the context of the meeting, of motions to move into closed meeting. And those will be interspersed with all the other decisions that council makes or council committee makes in the course of its deliberations. So what I would see this direction doing is to create a consolidated distilled summary of all of those motions taken by council or respective council committees and putting them in one place.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 16147.985, "end": 16244.725, "text": "And and so that's where I kind of have a little challenge with this. When I look at last council, if we're creating a stat sheet to be who can be in camera the least, we were spending a day in camera to deal with the green line. So it's already publicly available, and I have concerns about this report. Further scorecard of councils leading us to rush our decision making. We're already I'm already seeing this council do that. I'm seeing speed wobbles of just get in camera, shut up, and get back out here. That is not good governance, and that is very concerning, especially when you start having uh this annual report card of oh, who's the council that was most transparent, most in public? Well, how much work was actually left undone? Or even with this council, we didn't want to hang out in camera. Doing the work, and now we've all just gone off and done one-on-ones with administration, which then is going to take us back to have to go in camera after administration has been even less transparent on tracking how much time we're spending with them confidentially discussing issues. So I don't think we really need a scorecard. I think you need to give councils uh time to learn the job in the first year, figure out how we're going to utilize in camera, and if you have that clock running, we will be making poorer decisions. For the city. So and with AI, most people can run it through our website and create their own reporting off of AI platforms out there. So I won't be supporting this today because I definitely have concerns how council will be operating when they know the clock is running. And we have to make some very important decisions when we do go in camera.", "segments_merged": 31 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 16247.345, "end": 16281.685, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Wynus. I'll just throw myself into the queue here. I think any way moving forward towards more transparency is a good thing. Navigating the website is sometimes uh difficult to find uh the information you're looking for. It'd be great if you just clicked on in-camera meetings. You know, you can see exactly what's there. And in the name of transparency, I think this is something that we should do. And if anybody else isn't in the queue, I'll uh send it over to Mayor Farkas to close. So sorry. Uh Councillor Kelly, please go ahead.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 16281.845, "end": 16312.945, "text": "Jumped into the last second. If the mayor wouldn't mind and uh just as close, sort of addressing a little bit of like what additional value does this get. I think we heard in the debate, right, that it's kind of publicly available uh data already. And I certainly have uh uh opined previously that I don't think anyone is really reading our quarterly report. So I'm not I'm not exactly sure uh um what benefit it provides us to uh to uh to put it in there. But um yeah, I'll just sort of throw it out there as maybe a little bit of uh if the mayor wouldn't mind on his close. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 16313.865, "end": 16315.685, "text": "Thank you. And uh Councillor Ward.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 16316.365, "end": 16330.465, "text": "Yes, just touching on what Councillor Weiness said, she's dead on. You can pull this very quickly. I've already done it. 28 hours, 56 minutes. That excludes the strategic sessions. 12 hours 23 minutes in council committees. So that was hard.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 16338.825, "end": 16341.305, "text": "Um over to Mayor Farkas to close, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 16341.505, "end": 16390.285, "text": "Yeah, thank thanks colleagues uh for your consideration. And this is largely uh brought to me because uh the the the co-signer of the notice of motion, Councillor Johnston had had uh identified that having all of this in one central area makes it a little bit easier for those who may not necessarily have the the skills or the expertise to uh or the sharp data mind that uh Councillor Ward does to pull everything together in one place. Um it's it's agnostic as far as the time. So uh again, it's about topic by topic. This isn't actually running a tally or stopwatch or anything, it's just simply listing. of the items, which I think uh uh having it in one central place makes sense to folks. But you know, vote as you will on this. Uh I appreciate the opportunity as mayor to be able to collaborate with any member of council who brings to me an idea. So happy to uh ask for your support on this.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 16393.425, "end": 16399.965, "text": "Okay, please engage the e vote. And I guess I will be voting verbally because my laptop's over there.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 16411.125, "end": 16418.725, "text": "Okay. Uh and Mayor Farkas, your vote? Yes.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 16418.825, "end": 16419.685, "text": "Uh yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 16420.605, "end": 16423.205, "text": "Councillor Tyres. Or Deputy Mayor Tyres, my apologies.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 16423.205, "end": 16423.625, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 16423.705, "end": 16426.765, "text": "Okay, and uh Councillor Johnson is absent, so all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 16445.985, "end": 16462.325, "text": "Okay, and that's carried eight to six with uh counselors Wynus Clark, Atkinson, Dollywall, Kelly, and Ward opposed with Councillor Johnson absent.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 16478.045, "end": 16495.765, "text": "Alright uh what's next? I think our NOR 9.4.3 is what we just included so 9.4.4 Notice of motion transform from the Council Innovation Fund to the Council Community Fund. I'm gonna go to you, Councillor Ward.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 16499.385, "end": 16552.185, "text": "Yes, um, so this is basically um a procedural cleanup thing. Uh essentially we have two, we actually have three applications coming forward to council from the council community fund. I know that uh two of them are mine, one of them is in Ward 7. These communities have put in an extraordinary amount of work. It's actually very impressive the amount of work that they put in. The issue is that our council community fund has almost run dry. Um, so this is simply to uh transfer them from the innovation fund to the council community fund. There is no pending asks in the council innovation fund, whereas there are three outstanding in the community fund. So it is basically just moving money so that we can fulfill the commitments to these council community fund applications. Um and Yes, come budget time we can uh refill these funds accordingly to our desire.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 16555.045, "end": 16562.545, "text": "Alright, I think uh Councillor Atkinson called Dibbs for for seconder. I think we're in the queue here for Councillor Dallywell, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 16563.625, "end": 16571.005, "text": "Actually, Councillor Ward answered my question that we will get an opportunity to replenish both of these at the at the budget. Thanks, Mayor. I'm I'm out.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 16571.385, "end": 16572.985, "text": "Alright, uh Councillor Brennasopoulos.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 16574.285, "end": 16632.985, "text": "Yeah, a couple that was answered too. Emil just asked, uh maybe for admin, the last time the Council Innovation Fund was utilized. Any idea? I'm gonna guess a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Okay, no, that's that's uh it obviously was I know in Word 6 uh they used it before my time, but um obviously something that's not there. Um so the intent is not to close it, and maybe that's Councillor Ward, you just said it just to confirm it. It's not intended to close it down and opportunities at at uh budget. See the logic. The fact my concern was uh getting rid of the fund because there was some opportunities. You know, you just even look at the definition. Um supports larger experimental or pilot initiatives that could be expanded across Calgary or fundamentally changed city practices. And I think you know, our CAs are the tip of the spear, they have some innovative ideas. So the fact that both are going to stick around, I can put my head uh get behind it. So that's something important for me, and and we'll look at budget to uh potentially replenish both. Thank you. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 16636.225, "end": 16637.785, "text": "All right, uh back to you, Councillor Ward.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 16638.465, "end": 16664.645, "text": "Yes, um so I d I don't have dates just to answer Councillor Pentosopoulos. The last usage of the fund it looks like was by Councillor DeMong. So um it has been a while. Uh this is not the first time that the Council Innovation Fund has been transferred to the community fund either. This is there is precedence for this, so I would ask for your support just so we uh can get those community initiatives funded. Thank you. Closed.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 16666.645, "end": 16668.765, "text": "All right, uh let's engage the U vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 16678.545, "end": 16681.425, "text": "Okay, Councillor Jameson and Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 16682.025, "end": 16682.325, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 16682.465, "end": 16683.465, "text": "Okay, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 16684.245, "end": 16701.285, "text": "Thanks. Please display the results. Motion is carried 15 to 0. We'll move to 9.4.5. Notice of motion improving community traffic safety. Over to you, Councillor Schmidt.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 16704.025, "end": 16852.065, "text": "Yes, thank you. Uh what we've seen since we've taken our seats at council and in the last couple of years is Concerning rise in traffic incidents around the city, whether that be fatalities with drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, long term injuries, near misses, uh, and chaos on our roads. There's a lot of reasons for this, and we need to address all of those reasons in meaningful ways. Some of them we can't do on our own, but this is something that we can do, and we can do it right away. So the purpose of this is to take the $6 million from our current surplus, which originally in working with the mobility team, we intended to tie to the revenue surplus from the enforcement. Uh revenue with Calgary Parking Authority. That ended up being too complex. The estimates this year would be put that around $5.8 million. So to simplify it, we simply tied it to the surplus, but the amount is tied to that original amount. And what this seeks to do is to find ways to use that extra funding and very responsive funding, which is why I wanted to take it from the surplus, because we're addressing an issue that continues to get worse that's affecting people in all of our wards, whether they be traveling in their own wards or throughout the city, as we know there's certain hotspots. And to find a more reactive way for us to be able to fund improvements, whether that be through education, uh the community based initiatives that have been listed here, and other actions related to the Calgary Safer Mobility Plan. Mm-hmm is that uh with the report back in Q3 2027 that um the mobility team We'll be able to come up with a framework for something that we can use to benefit our wards directly. And one thing that I'm going to check with administration and Director McLeod is if I made a mistake there. If the intention was Q3 2026 or Q32027.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 16852.705, "end": 16868.465, "text": "Uh Mayor, uh Councillor Schmidt, I think the intent was if uh funds are available this year that we activate right away to respond to the safety needs, uh but to come back in Q3 of 27 uh with an update on how effective those investment dollars were. So that I think that was the intent. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 16868.505, "end": 16998.605, "text": "Right, yes. So then On that point, this will come back in September 2026. That's where my confusion was, sorry. Uh, with a framework for this program that we can see, and we that will give council time to communicate with mobility about how we might like to see this function. My thought was around the rapid flashing beacon program that we currently have, where we received a small pool of funding with data from mobility, and we were able to put up rapid flashing beacons in key locations in our own wards. What this seeks to do would be to for to test this out is to expand that funding on an amount determined through mobility's work on the program to not only include crosswalk improvements but other types of uh traffic calming infrastructure that's readily available, primarily temporary traffic calming infrastructure, and then also to give mobility that extra room to improve different initiatives around education or other strategies that are within the safer mobility plan. The original scope of this was much larger when uh some issues involving enforcement and using our currently deactivated traffic cameras to send warnings. That was found to be too complex, so we simplified this to have this as it is now. Um I'm happy to address any concerns coming from council uh in debate in my close. And um the fact that Director McLeod is here, uh, who deserves a lot of credit for uh coming up with this idea as well. I'm sure he'll be able to address anything that might arise if there's any sort of uh holes or questions that you may have when it comes to this notice of motion. But for me I think that ultimately every traffic incident is preventable and the money that we spend on preventable injury and death is money well spent and that we need to do this now because the numbers are not slowing down.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 17002.105, "end": 17008.165, "text": "All right. I believe Councillor Dollywell called Dibbs on seconding. Over to you, Councillor Kelly, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 17011.105, "end": 17114.945, "text": "Yeah, Councillor Delhi will get in a second before before me there. That's uh it's uh totally fair. I think I think that um the number one thing that we're hearing in our office in Ward uh Ward 4 is around pedestrian safety, pedestrian uh uh uh veh vehicular uh incidents and potential for those incidents. Uh I think the last one of these that we had sort of come forward similarly was uh uh Councillor Johnston brought forward a sidewalk initiative. And I think I was one of the few that voted against it because I said uh next budget, like let's do it in the let's do it in the next budget. But um he definitely uh in our conversation definitely convinced me that uh I I should have voted the other way around uh on that particular one. And so that's what I'm gonna do here. This is a huge one we uh for our office. We've identified uh um uh areas where we can make some improvements, and this particular notice motion brings forward specific solutions uh and uh identifies the source for those funds in an area that previously was uh unbudgetable uh because they are uh uh overage funds. Um we're gonna have to pay for this one way or the other. And uh, if we're not going to uh improve our roads, then what are we going to do? Uh yeah, I'm really happy to support this particular notice of motion. Uh I think we need to be doing more of these things. And as we've heard from uh uh some of our our our uh tra mobility safety update from a couple of meetings ago, um we have to do something, and this is um a very good solution that uh will start moving us in that direction. So, like I said, happy to support this here today. Thank you, Rush.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 17117.405, "end": 17121.665, "text": "Alright. Next we got Councillor Clark.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 17122.525, "end": 17131.585, "text": "Thank you. Yeah, um a question just for Mr. McLeod. Um can you just in plain language describe what this is likely to achieve for us?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 17132.805, "end": 17191.045, "text": "Sure, uh Mayor, Councillor Clark. One of the uh opportunities that we have is to increase our investment to see on-street um countermeasures, and there there's been increased funding uh from council. But if we were to look at some of the trends happening at Edmonton and Calgary through the cessation of the automated traffic enforcement, both cities have seen a significant increase in uh severe incidents and fatalities, and both cities are now looking at greater investment. Edmonton has approved $150 million in their four-year plan. This helps make use of enforcement revenue and reallocate it to safety measures on streets. So I think it's an innovative way to use uh net surplus or net revenues and uh put it onto the street right away and see these investments uh result in lower incidents. When it countermeasures in place, it can result in uh say a left turn advance arrow can see up to a 90% reduction in incident reduction, and those uh there's cost to implement some of these things. That's one example.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 17191.365, "end": 17215.905, "text": "Yeah, wonderful. Thank you. I remember during the conversation around that mobility plan presentation. Um, how do we will this uh move some of these implementations forward maybe a bit faster? Like can you speak to that? Because we're finding in a number of ways that these things are getting caught in in the data analysis side. So we deliver more funds to deliver more results. Will that happen efficiently?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 17217.205, "end": 17255.165, "text": "Certainly there are opportunities for us to implement in a in a more speedy way when it comes to having the investment dollars available. Some countermeasures do require us to evaluate to have them appropriately placed. And so that is what uh results in some of these delays is that we do need to analyze and put them in the highest risk locations first and then look at our system accordingly. So to answer the question, in short, yes, uh there'll be uh greater countermeasures implemented more quickly, but we still need the opportunity to review the system and make adjustments when we're seeing um. Trends that are not favorable when it comes to a safety history.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 17255.865, "end": 17271.845, "text": "And you you do such a wonderful job of explaining things. That's why I love asking you questions. But again, just in sort of a simple format, um, this is approved today. Can you can you just maybe um illuminate what that might look like for the average Calgarian over the course of the next for the rest of this year? Like will we see implementation? What can we expect to see?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 17272.365, "end": 17317.985, "text": "What we'd see at least in the late part of the uh fall, uh additional uh road marking, other countermeasures such as curb extensions, uh device improvements, such as uh leading pedestrian interval acceleration from an implementation that gives uh the pedestrian the advanced phase before. The signal goes to green. So it'd be implementation measures like that. More of them in the wintertime that are aren't weather dependent, so less road marking obviously, but other geometric changes and traffic control, operational changes, things that we can do in the wintertime. So it would allow us to work from right at the beginning of September right through to the end of the year. And then continue on with our current safety program as well. So it's a a welcome addition.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 17318.265, "end": 17342.325, "text": "Wonderful. Thank you. I'll just slide into a bit of debate here and confirm that uh uh what Councillor Kelly has said. I remember this as being a quite a passionate conversation. And I mean, yeah, it's it's the thing I've heard the most across Ward 9 as well. Um, and I will absolutely be glad to support uh further investment in in a safer transportation and mobility model for this uh for for the city thank you", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 17344.005, "end": 17345.245, "text": "All right, Councillor Chabot, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 17347.685, "end": 17379.045, "text": "Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Um in a previous report there was some reference to how um Number of incidences have have increased significantly in Alberta, Calgary Edmonton specifically, and now other places that they had actually gone down. But we've also seen a huge uh in migration of new immigrants into our city. As has uh new drivers from other parts of the world maybe um uh affected some of those results? Have we analyzed it from that perspective?", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 17379.745, "end": 17433.105, "text": "Yes, Mayor. Council Chabot, one of the items that we review is our safer mobility plan annually, and we look at a number of contributing factors that are associated with this increase in severity of collision. We have 46,000 new licensed drivers in Alberta this year, and we'll be coming back to council in September with an accelerated plan and some more detail. I think some of the counselors had asked for more detail on the data and some of the contributing factors, which we will bring back in uh September, and we can have that dialogue then. We're not prepared uh today to talk to the details of some of the contributing factors, but definitely we've seen um less compliance when it comes to speed. We've seen uh increased distraction, and we've seen an influx of new drivers all in from a registration perspective. And so those are some contributing factors, but we'll be back in September to talk in more detail.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 17434.045, "end": 17454.585, "text": "Yeah, I think communications plan is a is a good one. It was something I was mentioned before you sit down in regards to rectangular rapid flash beacons. And I know that there was an enhanced program to allow counselors to actually select two additional locations in each of their ward, but that's outside of your existing budgeted amount for rectangular rapid flash beacons, right?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 17454.945, "end": 17485.205, "text": "Yes, Mayor, Councillor Chabot. Thankfully, uh at the last budget, this council approved an additional two million dollars to uh fund uh increased uh installation of rapid flashing beacons beyond our warranted program. We install all of our warranted uh rapid flash beacons. This allowed us to put additional locations that are suitable. So we provided locations that that were suitable and allowed the counselors uh to provide feedback on which of those locations they preferred because they were all above the warrant. Um, and so that was the opportunity where that two million", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 17485.205, "end": 17494.545, "text": "All warranted locations are are then uh uh delivered, uh i.e. r RRFBs are delivered in those locations.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 17494.765, "end": 17497.705, "text": "Uh yes, historically they've always been funded, thankfully, yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 17497.845, "end": 17540.985, "text": "Okay. Yeah, I know it's just that it was sort of implied that. That you know we need to expand on that program. I think the intent here is is certain members of council would like to see more applied directly at their direction. And and I think that's something that we'll have to consider at budget time because there's we always will get requests from our our community folks saying, well, I I need more here, I need more there. But again, you have to you have to weigh that with budgetary implications and where it makes the most sense. It's kind of like it's kind of like those signs that you have at schools. You know, in the center medians, you know, those if you have too many of them, pretty soon people start ignoring them and don't want to have them unnecessarily applied in places where they're not warranted.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 17541.665, "end": 17556.625, "text": "Yes, Councillor Chabot, that is a good point. That's why we have that evaluation process to make sure they're applied in a suitable location. And uh the additional funding just allows us to provide an expanded program that we currently don't uh provide with the funding that we have. So that's what it allows.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 17556.785, "end": 17583.645, "text": "So what I was challenged with in this notice of motion is uh the cost benefit and outcomes of redirecting the equivalent of net parking enforcement revenue to the expansion of program in the Calgary Safe and Mobility Plant. I what what does that mean? Because typically some of the parking. revenue in BIAs is then applied in some of those business improvement areas. I just don't know what this is supposed to mean and what this is going to do.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 17583.725, "end": 17623.865, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Chabot. It's a good clarifying question. I do have Chris Blaschuk joining me as well, manager of Calgary Parking, but that program will not change as part of the Calgary or sorry as part of the parking policy that was approved by council. That's unchanged with this. This is the net uh parking revenue from enforcement was calculated, but that's not where it's being directly used from. It's being used from general revenue, so a general general account. It's just that was the amount that was uh deemed budgeted this year for net surplus revenues. So the current policies are not being changed. Uh Les Tucker looks like he wants to talk. Thanks. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 17625.585, "end": 17678.465, "text": "Just to just add in, when this conversation uh started, it was more tied to those specific net revenues. And um, from a flexibility perspective and and to manage changes in volatility, um, I would rather prefer it to be looked at holistically. So that math uh that was mentioned earlier was to give an indication of sort of size or magnitude, but the actual uh flow of transactions uh will be that that six million will be taken from uh the positive uh variance that we're looking at for the entity as a whole, for the city as a whole. So when we report back on the quarters, we report on what is the positive variance year to date and what we're forecasting, and this would be uh utilization of a portion of that in this current year. Up to that maximum of six million.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 17679.305, "end": 17690.085, "text": "Okay. So Mr. Blaschik, maybe you can elaborate on the net parking aspect of this. How how do you determine what's net parking enforcement revenue?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 17690.805, "end": 17752.025, "text": "Yeah, thank you for the question, Council Chabot, Chris Blastrich, Manager, Calgary Parking. Uh, Mr. Tucker, Mr. McLeod have explained most of the basics. What's being proposed here, the $6 million for 2026 is from corporate variants. But what we would explore as part of the report back September 2026 is if subsequent to that we were to fund this through uh parking enforcement revenue, um what that would look like. And I think what's important for council to keep in mind currently um for parking enforcement revenue, 100% of net revenue from enforcement is returned to the city and put into the general revenue program. So there's two components there's the budgeted amount, what we expected we were gonna obtain from enforcement activities, and then there's a surplus amount if that amount's higher than the budget. We'd look at both those amounts and indicate um if those were funding sources, instead of uh just having it go into the general revenue program, it could be specifically directed to this.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 17752.185, "end": 17761.125, "text": "Sorry, one when I see something that says net to me that that means that the the cost to actually do the enforcement is taken out of the total revenue.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 17761.125, "end": 17806.265, "text": "Yeah, so when parking returns the net enforcement, all the costs to conduct enforcement have already been removed. So it's that remainder amount. And then of the remainder amount, there's an amount that was expected that's uh determined through the budget process. And then so you know if we felt We're going to return 5 million net revenue from enforcement in 2027, and it turned out we received six million in net revenue, there'd be a one million positive variance. So we'll look at both through this uh direction. Yeah, if we dedicated that five million, what would be the impact corporately? Uh, because the corporation was expecting that to offset general revenue, and then if we only um made available any surplus beyond those budget amounts, would there'd be two amounts we'd report on and just what that would mean for funding this initiative.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 17806.605, "end": 17811.805, "text": "Okay, that helps understand. Help me understand this. All right, thanks. That's uh all the questions I have.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 17812.365, "end": 17813.585, "text": "All right, Councillor Johnson, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 17819.705, "end": 17821.685, "text": "Sorry, my uh question was answered. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 17823.005, "end": 17824.225, "text": "Councillor Schmidt to close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 17825.245, "end": 18028.745, "text": "Yes, w one final point of clarification. I shouldn't have brought it up. The net uh surplus from parking enforcement revenue was the original inspiration, but it's not what is listed here anymore as what the funds are being taken directly from. And that was at the suggestion of um uh CFO Tucker and and finance to simplify things. So that that was just simply an explanation as to how we got to this point, but that is not the mechanism through which this is operating anymore. So uh to move to debate and close. For me, when I think about traffic safety, which is something that we hear about in Ward 8 on a weekly basis to the point where we have a standing monthly meeting with mobility to discuss the issues that are arising in one of the busiest wards, which includes downtown, some major roadways, and and I know other wards have this issue too, is that every incident that is possible to prevent, we should try to prevent it. And through the countermeasures and other initiatives that could be funded with this additional $6 million, my mind goes to individuals affected by these incidents. So you have young kids crossing the road or traveling to school or to the park. And even a near miss is something that can affect them for much of their life and cause distress for them and their families. An injury that results from some type of collision or incident is even if it's not lifelong, you can carry that with you, especially if it happens at a young age. When we see as is what happened last summer on 26th Avenue in Ward 8, a cyclist die in a bike lane traveling there. When we see pedestrians die and mark crosswalks, those are the things that we need to respond to immediately because there's individual families and friends and neighbors that are affected by this when somebody loses their life or has lifelong injuries from something that it makes the news, but a lot of things don't make the news. And we often talk about risks around crime and violence, but one of the most dangerous things we can do right now is travel through the city with the rate of injuries and death. And mobility in the city generally is doing a lot of hard work to do this uh and and to prevent these things from happening. And and like I said in my open, we can't. Do everything in this single motion. There's so many other issues that are affecting this right now, but we need to start somewhere and we need to start making progress now. And this is a way for us to ramp this up quickly and to start doing the work so that we can start to see those numbers go down to reach the goals of the safer mobility plan, which wanted to see a 25% reduction in these incidents. And so far in the first two years, all we're seeing is a rise. So to me, there's not a limit to the amount of money we should spend to prevent these things from happening and this is one way for us to start getting there. So I would hope for all of your support today in making Calgarians safer and especially I think of children when they want to move around the city freely and safely. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 18030.565, "end": 18032.105, "text": "All right, let's engage the vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 18047.305, "end": 18048.105, "text": "Councillor Clark?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 18048.365, "end": 18048.965, "text": "with pleasure", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 18049.805, "end": 18054.765, "text": "Councillor Johnston and Mayor Farkas?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 18054.925, "end": 18055.225, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 18055.505, "end": 18056.305, "text": "Okay, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 18056.665, "end": 18075.745, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 15 to 0. Uh, if there's no objection, colleagues, let's uh finish the notices of motion before going on our afternoon break. Okay, hearing no objection. Over to you, Councillor Dallowell.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 18076.465, "end": 18125.725, "text": "Thank you, Mayor. I'll keep it brief. Very straightforward notice of motion just asking administration to update and the mandate and bylaw of multi-sport fieldhouse committee. And the reason is we just want to have a strategic alignment of information and updates uh related to multi-sport fieldhouse project and other strategic sport infrastructure opportunities with our external partners, funding partners, and other orders of government. There's so much happening. Working in silos is not helpful. So we are one city, one voice, and this will allow us to have those discussions as a one city when we are going to our funding partners like provincial government and federal government. And provincial government is also of the opinion that that should be the approach. So I love Y Sport. Let's approve it. Let's move it to the next move it to the bylaw changes. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 18126.945, "end": 18131.765, "text": "All right, can I get a seconder? Second by Councillor Atkinson. Over to you, Councillor Weines, to speak.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 18132.545, "end": 18164.645, "text": "Thanks. So the this Multisport Fieldhouse is sort of stalled too and and other support, but I'm curious, are we gonna fund all of our big multi-sports through this? Is it are we how how broad are we making this committee? Um it hasn't been effective. Um I've heard since Braun Kanye days, so uh I don't know how adding a scope will improve the problems. So does admin have any answers on this notice of motion?", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_36", "start": 18173.805, "end": 18184.405, "text": "Councillor Wynus, I will look to Councillor Dollywall to uh comment further in his close. Uh but my understanding is the focus remains uh primarily on the field hubs.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 18186.985, "end": 18191.605, "text": "Okay, um I'll let others ask questions.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 18195.485, "end": 18197.945, "text": "All right, uh maybe back to you, Councillor Dallarywell, to close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 18198.325, "end": 18233.125, "text": "Yeah, no, that's a very fair comment. We are not changing the scope. We're not going to start funding any other projects. Well, multi-sport field house is number one priority. It remains number one priority. And all this does is it's bringing other projects that are happening in the city. For example, McMahon Stadium, Olympic Oval, Wind Sport. Just bring them to the table to have that conversation. So we are one, again, one city, one voice. We're not funding anyone. This is just a discussion panel that we are expanding the scope. It's not the project scope, it's discussion scope that we are talking about here. With that, I'm closed. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 18234.505, "end": 18236.725, "text": "Okay, let's engage the evote, please, Mr. Clerk.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 18245.765, "end": 18252.245, "text": "Councillor Jameson, your vote, please. Councillor Clark? Okay, and Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 18253.105, "end": 18253.405, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 18253.645, "end": 18254.465, "text": "And all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 18254.985, "end": 18272.945, "text": "Thanks. Please display the results. All right. Motion is carried 13 to 2 with Councillor Shabot and Wynus opposed. Uh uh We are gonna go on to our break. We'll see you at uh 347.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 20260.045, "end": 20264.425, "text": "All right. Welcome back. Let's roll. Call the roll, please. Mr. Clark.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20264.645, "end": 20270.325, "text": "Okay, Councillor Schmidt. Okay. Councillor Tyres. Okay, Councillor Ward,", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 20270.505, "end": 20270.825, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20271.545, "end": 20274.165, "text": "Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell,", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20274.305, "end": 20274.565, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20274.825, "end": 20277.545, "text": "Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot,", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 20278.265, "end": 20278.605, "text": "President.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20279.185, "end": 20285.925, "text": "Councillor Clark, Councillor Deleywall is absent. Uh Councillor Jameson,", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20286.305, "end": 20286.745, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20287.285, "end": 20288.125, "text": "Councillor Johnson,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20288.365, "end": 20288.565, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20289.245, "end": 20290.005, "text": "Councillor Kelly,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20290.425, "end": 20290.845, "text": "Idea.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20291.365, "end": 20292.185, "text": "Councillor McLean,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20292.425, "end": 20292.685, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20293.045, "end": 20297.425, "text": "Councillor Pentasopoulos, and Mayor Farkas. Okay.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 20302.185, "end": 20319.885, "text": "I think we are now on uh bylaw and tabulations. 10.1.1 nose creek sanitary trunk. Capital borrowing bylaw. Can I get a mover and seconder for the main motion? Councillor Yule to move", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 20321.305, "end": 20326.645, "text": "Happy to move, uh happy to keep sanitary waste out of the nose creek.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 20327.725, "end": 20342.365, "text": "it. All right. Is there a seconder for that? Okay, seconded by Councillor Chabot. All right, uh, that's to give second and third readings to proposed bylaw 8B 2026. Think you're closed. Let's engage the e-book.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20357.525, "end": 20362.545, "text": "Okay, Councillor Atkinson. Okay, and Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 20363.005, "end": 20363.305, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20363.985, "end": 20367.745, "text": "I believe Councillor Deliwell is absent. Okay, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 20368.745, "end": 20412.205, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried. 14 to 0. Alright, second reading of bylaw 8B 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Third reading of bylaw 8B 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none. That is carried. Alright, I think we're on urgent business. I was not present for the public hearing for this notice of motion. So I'm gonna vacate the chair and ask uh Deputy Mayor Tyres to come on up. I think it's super quick.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 20413.285, "end": 20460.305, "text": "Okay. Good stuff. Okay, um, I believe this business carried forward from our recent public hearing, uh, wherein the unanimous consent for third reading of the bylaw. 17 P2026 C20260670 did not actually pass. I believe there was not unanimous consent. It's now being brought forward for urgent business from Councillor Clark. I believe would you like to open? Sorry, what", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 20460.305, "end": 20461.645, "text": "i will move it yeah", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 20461.945, "end": 20470.285, "text": "Okay. Thank you. And um Is there any debate on this? Or any second? Sorry.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 20471.185, "end": 20471.485, "text": "you'll", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 20471.485, "end": 20472.105, "text": "Councillor Yule?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 20472.145, "end": 20472.685, "text": "I'll second", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 20472.745, "end": 20477.045, "text": "You're gonna second it? Okay. And clerks, is there any debate on this? I'm sorry, this is new.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 20478.145, "end": 20479.185, "text": "no debate at third reading", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 20480.145, "end": 20482.765, "text": "Okay, excellent. Um", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 20482.765, "end": 20494.145, "text": "S sorry if I can just jump in there on that question. This isn't actually third reading. This is just a motion to propose that council give third reading. So there can be debate on this motion.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 20494.205, "end": 20494.625, "text": "okay", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 20496.265, "end": 20523.445, "text": "Okay. So I will now read. No, give me a second. Okay, so we have first, we have second, now we've open for debate. And I do not have access to our channels. Okay. Councillor Johnson, please.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 20523.905, "end": 20532.285, "text": "Sorry, just uh through the chair to the clerk. Um what would happen if we've voted no to this? Just out of curiosity.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20533.885, "end": 20548.105, "text": "Okay, so this this um would come forward to the July 21st uh public hearing meeting. Yeah. It flows naturally under the procedure bylaw if the third reading isn't provided. So the Councillor's motion is to put it to this meeting. That's the intent.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 20548.185, "end": 20552.065, "text": "Okay. And it just takes one vote again on the third reading to push it through?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20553.445, "end": 20555.925, "text": "Uh so the the motion", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 20555.925, "end": 20556.865, "text": "And vote against, sorry.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20558.605, "end": 20563.905, "text": "uh so the mo the the Councillor's motion would have to pass, and then it would be the the third reading at that time.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 20563.905, "end": 20567.465, "text": "So sorry, the reading itself, if there was one vote against the third reading, it would", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20567.465, "end": 20569.045, "text": "Why she just one one vote you mean?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 20570.685, "end": 20574.845, "text": "I'll just leave it there. Yes. I that's okay. I was just curious. That's sorry. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 20577.665, "end": 20578.725, "text": "Councillor Shabot, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 20580.325, "end": 20641.245, "text": "Yeah, in case there's some requirement for clarity around this, the reason I voted against authorization for third reading is because it was a standalone policy amendment for for a single land use to allow an RCG to move forward. But because what we passed at a RCG when the blanket zoning was repealed, um That application had already been submitted, so they were allowed to move forward. But they couldn't because the the policy, the area structure plan, I believe it was, uh, did not allow that type of development in that area. But I said it should be done more comprehensively as a holistic thing, which is currently underway. It just wasn't completed. I was trying to make a point more than anything. I wasn't actually against this development because it it was actually in a in a good location in close proximity to amenities, so it would have been supported through policy likely. Just that the policy wasn't in place and I didn't like the idea of doing it as a one-off. Hence the reason I voted against authorization. More out of principle than anything.", "segments_merged": 22 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 20644.085, "end": 20647.045, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Shabot, and to Councillor Clark to close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 20650.245, "end": 20668.705, "text": "yeah um this was you know what the outcome was the outcome of that particular meeting I followed up with the Councillor that um withheld third reading had the conversation I've I've I've presented this to all the council colleagues. Uh there's nothing left to do but vote. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 20670.325, "end": 20674.285, "text": "Thank you. And please engage the e-vote.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20692.005, "end": 20695.685, "text": "Uh I can see Council Delaware is absent.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 20695.765, "end": 20696.305, "text": "I mean yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20696.805, "end": 20703.205, "text": "Oh, is here I'm sorry, you're online, okay. Okay. And uh Deputy Mayor Tyres?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 20704.105, "end": 20704.485, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20704.825, "end": 20708.685, "text": "Okay, and Mayor Farkas is marked as absent. Okay, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 20709.525, "end": 20758.925, "text": "Thank you, Clerk. Please display the results. Oh, sorry. Give me a second here. Just Shabot. Carried 13 to 1 with Councillor Shabot opposed. And Mayor Farkas absent. Okay, so now I read. The bylaw. Third reading of bylaw 17 P2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Shibeau is opposed? That is carried. I believe that is the completion of the saga of that last public hearing. Thank you so much.", "segments_merged": 14 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 20779.065, "end": 20813.525, "text": "All right, uh Mr. Clerk, I believe at this point am I seeking a mover and seconder to go into close session? All right, I'm seeking a mover and seconder. All right, move by Councillor Atkinson, second by Councillor Shabot. We'll wait a moment to get that up on the screen. Okay, we have the three topics that are up there on the screen now. Any discussion or debate on this, colleagues? Okay, seeing none, let's engage the evote, please.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20828.785, "end": 20831.445, "text": "Okay, all the votes are Mayor Mayor Farkas, my apologies.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 20831.885, "end": 20832.405, "text": "Uh yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 20832.685, "end": 20833.865, "text": "Okay, and all the votes are in now.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 20834.285, "end": 20844.445, "text": "Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 14 to 1 with Councillor Johnson opposed. We'll head over to the boardroom.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_12", "start": 23691.645, "end": 23697.105, "text": "The regular meeting of council will be resuming in public meeting shortly. Please make your way back to council chamber. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 23999.645, "end": 24001.665, "text": "Welcome back, uh, Mr. Clerk. Please call the roll.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 24002.225, "end": 24010.685, "text": "Okay, uh Councillor Wyness. Okay, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot,", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 24011.585, "end": 24011.885, "text": "President.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 24012.685, "end": 24024.685, "text": "Councillor Clark, Councillor Dollywall is excellent. Online, thank you. Councillor Jameson. Councillor Johnson.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 24025.005, "end": 24025.245, "text": "Here", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 24026.165, "end": 24026.885, "text": "Councillor Kelly.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 24027.945, "end": 24028.405, "text": "we go.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 24028.905, "end": 24042.425, "text": "Okay. Councillor McLean. Absent. Councillor Pantasopoulos. Councillor Schmidt? Councillor Tyres. Councillor Ward. And Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24043.425, "end": 24043.725, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 24044.885, "end": 24046.805, "text": "Oh, and sorry, Councillor Jameson. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24048.465, "end": 24110.285, "text": "All right. Uh I need a motion to rise and report. Colleagues. Moved by Councillor Kelly, seconded by Councillor Penazopoulos. We'll get that uh spun up on the screen there. The hamsters are working. They're spinning. All right. Uh on that are we agreed? All in favor? Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion's carried. All right, uh let's deal with the I believe it's first the confidential notice of motion. All right, that is up on the screen. Uh believe that's moved by Councillor Atkinson. Seconded by Councillor Schmidt. Okay. Any discussion or debate on this, colleagues? Yeah, Councillor Shabot.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 24112.645, "end": 24169.205, "text": "Yeah, I I although I'm not allowed to discuss what happened in camera, um I would like to at least be on the record of saying that I'm not happy about about the way this was rolled out in regards to the transparency around it. How it was introduced. For me, this is kind of a backwards process that was utilized for this particular application. Now, having said that, I will support it, but it's kind of a shot across the bow to say, please don't bring them like this again. Make sure that you follow a more I guess transparent process so that we can come along the journey in a in a way. I I don't know it's a more structured and coordinated fashion so that it doesn't look like it's reactive just saying that. But I will support the recommendation that's here today.", "segments_merged": 28 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24170.765, "end": 24172.705, "text": "Thank you. Uh Councillor Johnson, please, on this.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 24173.085, "end": 24178.665, "text": "Am I allowed to ask if uh money was discussed in camera regarding this notice of motion?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24179.145, "end": 24183.045, "text": "Uh the in the entirety of the closed session is uh confidential.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 24183.045, "end": 24189.625, "text": "But what could we talk about uh in here about what was talked about back there?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24189.865, "end": 24190.105, "text": "Uh", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 24190.105, "end": 24191.325, "text": "Just what's on the screen?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24191.365, "end": 24194.045, "text": "the the title, the description of the matter.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 24194.885, "end": 24205.045, "text": "Is that title EC two zero two six zero five six four? Is that People just have to trust us, what that is.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24206.605, "end": 24228.665, "text": "There is a maybe a that's a question perhaps for the city clerk's office, but I believe that a a complete paper trail and record keeping process is adhered to, and I believe that the notice of motion is only confidential to the extent that it's required to uh undertake the the direction they're in and the confidentiality is lifted.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 24230.505, "end": 24240.685, "text": "And s and so we're at the mercy of the outcome of what we spoke about before the public will ever know what was said in camera.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24245.425, "end": 24249.345, "text": "That's probably not a question for me, but if you're asking me the question, the", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 24249.865, "end": 24253.385, "text": "Well I'm asking through the chair I guess to anybody that can answer it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24254.865, "end": 24256.105, "text": "maybe legal would like to weigh in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_35", "start": 24258.905, "end": 24276.025, "text": "So I'm just gonna direct you to uh number two on the um notice of motion there. So it is clear that the um notice of motion would be kept confidential until 2036, June 9th. So that would include the contents of that notice of motion. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 24277.265, "end": 24326.185, "text": "Um I would just speak to Councillor Atkinson. I think What was discussed could be discussed in open and I think it would pass. I think people could get behind what we spoke about here, but the way this is worded, I think this is a very slippery slope. I think we're already falling down this slippery slope. And I I'm I'm asking you if if you vote no to this and bring it back in the open, I think you would have better reception. Um because this makes me feel really dirty. Um I don't like this. And I I think being more transparent is better for the public right now, and this doesn't feel right to me. Um and if you do decide to bring it back, if this fails and you do decide to bring it back, I think. That would be the right way to go. So okay, I'll leave it there.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24327.445, "end": 24328.525, "text": "All right, Councillor Wynis, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 24329.685, "end": 24366.385, "text": "Thanks. I think when this goes public, and perhaps if there is a time where we complete what is this, we may be able to disclose earlier and Calgarians will um understand and see why we had to do it this way because when they will when they eventually do get to see this, they understand why we are in camera when when it comes to this topic. Um I I like Councillor Chabrault, uh, do not like this process, um, and I think it could have been handled. Better. Um, but uh you can see how I vote when I vote. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 13 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24369.285, "end": 24371.265, "text": "All right, back to Councillor Atkinson to close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 24372.705, "end": 24404.085, "text": "I totally understand the concerns around this. Happy to sort of learn if there are better ways. With this being uh Uh a purchase between outside entities and a requirement to sort of make sure that we have to make sure that that that is is protected and that it um sort of goes through. But I think I just want to sort of lean back into what we're doing here. We're leveraging dollars made for housing and set aside by council for fund uh housing.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24404.085, "end": 24407.545, "text": "Yeah, you can't get into the detail of the the action.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_27", "start": 24407.545, "end": 24435.505, "text": "Oh no, I'm just going into leveraging funding. That's exactly I'm just leveraging funding for affordable nonprofit homes. That's what we're doing, right? So um, but I I'm happy to learn if there are better ways and processes to uh to to do that. Uh this this is the one that Yeah, I pursued and uh happy to pursue a better one if uh if you've got other suggestions, happy to take those learnings from other folks. So yeah, closed.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24439.905, "end": 24441.645, "text": "All right, uh let's engage the e-vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 24458.045, "end": 24462.065, "text": "Councillor Yuli Vote, please. Councillor Atkinson.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24463.445, "end": 24463.885, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 24464.185, "end": 24472.225, "text": "Okay. Councillor Chabot? And Mayor Farkas.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24472.805, "end": 24473.105, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 24473.505, "end": 24474.465, "text": "Okay, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24490.485, "end": 24513.625, "text": "All right, that motion is carried. 1124. Oh whoops. With uh counselors Johnston, Jameson, tires, and McLean opposed. All right, uh the last one, I believe it's all a public recommendation. I'll go to Councillor Dallywell to introduce it.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 24515.745, "end": 24516.485, "text": "I just move it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24517.225, "end": 24527.325, "text": "Okay, we'll get that up on the screen and maybe. Uh City Manager Duckworth, if you don't mind just introducing the item.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 24528.905, "end": 24597.165, "text": "Sure, Mr. Farkas, we'll just wait for that to come up on the screen. Maybe as we're waiting, I might as well speak to it. So it's going to be coming up on the screen in 2024. The City of Calgary hosted the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' largest conference. We had over 300, 3,300 delegates, elected officials and administration from across the country. We have been asked to submit another intent to hold another conference because the time it was held in Calgary before that was in 2007. So 2007 to 2024, a considerable amount of time. They would like us to host again. So I believe what is before you is seeking uh council's approval to submit a letter of intent that we would actually. host potentially host the conference again in twenty thirty two. This is again just the letter intent. There's lots of work that would have to be done between now and then um but this is just signaling to them which is a requirement that uh we are interested.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24599.845, "end": 24608.265, "text": "All right, that's been moved by Councillor Dallywall, seconded by Councillor Clark. Uh Councillor Shabot on this, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 24609.525, "end": 24624.265, "text": "Yeah, sorry um and see what Juck Ducker um so last time was 2024 and before that was 2007. Was it that long ago? Wow, time flies. I remember so was I.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 24624.265, "end": 24626.925, "text": "Worked in Camloops at the time and I came here to that conference.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 24627.065, "end": 24651.305, "text": "I was here for both. Um anyways, um So through this process, how is this? So I I get that our representative for FCM is moving this item and who's all going to be involved in this uh the uh the submission to to host um insofar as you know our partners.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_30", "start": 24652.245, "end": 24671.485, "text": "So that is a work in progress. I know for 2024 we work closely with um Tourism Calgary. Those were the main folks that we work closely with on our bid submission and the hosting requirements, but uh there will likely be other partners as well that won't be involved for the submission of this bid.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 24671.785, "end": 24751.605, "text": "And and I would hope that we would be engaging our provincial counterparts as well, our MLAs in in our Or potential application because typically at Federation of Canadian Municipalities conferences there are opportunities to uh actually meet with uh with ministers at all at levels of government and they typically participate in some of the activities. They even would typically have um uh like uh host receptions as well. So they uh leverage uh that opportunity uh with not just uh provincial um municipal elected officials but also. Some of their current counterparts across the country. So they stand to benefit from this as well. So I'm hoping that the province would be uh at least considered as a partner in in this application and hopefully help to contribute to to funding the the thing because it's obviously not going to be free. It's not net positive to the corporation as of as it were, maybe long term from future investments, but uh I would say we should maximize on that opportunity with the uh not only tourism but Calgary Economic Development, Tourism Alberta, the provincial government, and whatever other partners we can think of to bring to the table. So happy to support it though. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 31 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24757.245, "end": 24829.225, "text": "All right. Uh I don't see any other debate, but I I think that's wise of you, Councillor Shabot, to to go there. I I was actually quite surprised up at Anbinton for FCM to not really see much at all uh provincial participation. I know Minister Williams was there and and spoke, but I couldn't even tell you that I saw any other cabinet minister or really any other MLA. Uh provincially at Edmonton. And that would have been really good opportunity for us to be able to just honestly welcome the rest of the country. Like this moment in time where we are now as a country and as a province. It it felt like as great a party that uh Mayor Nack and everybody else uh put on generally, it it felt like it was a missed opportunity for us to be able to really put our best foot forward and advocate to the rest of the country what our needs are and and so on. So I think it makes sense for us to pursue this eyes wide open from a Financial ROI standpoint, but the bigger benefit is gonna be, you know, hosting the feds, hosting uh the rest of the province here, making the case for investment here, Calgary in Alberta. So if we're gonna do this, let's make it worth our while and uh strongly urge any uh bid exploration to to include that in it. So could I go to you, Councillor Dallywell, to close?", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_34", "start": 24830.645, "end": 24860.445, "text": "Thank you, Mary. Yes, definitely. Um actually this um AGM happened I don't know how many of you guys many of you guys uh probably remember it happened in June 2024 when we had our first water break and still when I was in Binton people raved about how good of a show this city put on. So thank you, CAO Duckworth, for um uh um your debate or your uh advocacy. So with that I'm close. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24867.445, "end": 24929.865, "text": "All right, let's engage the evote. It looks like there's issues. Could we just do a simple roll call? Okay, we'll do a voice vote. Okay, maybe all in favor, colleagues? Any opposed? Uh counselors uh Johnson are opposed. Councillor Ward is opposed. Any or sorry. Oh, whoops. Okay. Uh all in favor? Okay. I see a lot of hands. Great. Uh anyone opposed? Okay, I see no hands. So nobody is opposed, and that motion is carried. Okay, let's move on. I believe that we're on our last section administrative inquiries. Uh maybe let's just briefly display them on the screen here. Uh Mr. Clerk, yeah.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 24930.645, "end": 24935.685, "text": "Sorry, Mr. Mayor. Just the um motion to um confirm the chair.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24937.125, "end": 24940.705, "text": "Oh my gosh, I'm I'll go to Councillor Ward for that. Okay.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 24942.685, "end": 24944.505, "text": "Yes, sorry, we forgot about this.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24944.505, "end": 24947.085, "text": "I know.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_28", "start": 24948.525, "end": 24957.645, "text": "Uh yes, so this is just to uh appoint our chair for our water utility oversight board. Um That that is my open, that is all.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 24957.925, "end": 24989.785, "text": "Okay. It's moved by Councillor Ward, seconded by Councillor Panasopoulos. I'll I'll just repeat what was uh said before by others. Just great leadership you've shown, uh Councillor Ward. Thank you for stepping up on that. Thanks for keeping the the bus moving on time. Uh really appreciated the the rigor that you approach this in. And I feel like this is probably one of the best subcommittees I've ever had the privilege to serve on. So big part to to you your leadership, Councillor Ward, and and thank you, Councillor Penizopoulos. Public member Kiefer as well for supporting that. Alright, uh on this motion, Councillor Wynus.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 24992.325, "end": 25016.125, "text": "Um well I I support the work you're doing, and um I I'm gonna do a protest vote on this one because I I feel like I'm watching a hostile takeover of a monopoly in our water utility, and I I can't in conscience vote yes. Uh I know there's been past decisions by council, but at this point this is no offense to the named candidate. It's just Th this is a protest vote.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 25019.965, "end": 25020.785, "text": "All right, Councillor Shabot.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 25023.645, "end": 25029.625, "text": "If we have any idea on timelines when we will be able to make this uh appointment uh public.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 25031.065, "end": 25032.705, "text": "I think likely later in July.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 25033.425, "end": 25034.225, "text": "Okay. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 25036.565, "end": 25088.385, "text": "Okay, anybody else? Councillor Ward to close? Uh closed. All right, I think the hamsters are still uh on break, so I'm gonna call a voice vote on this. Uh that's up on the screen. All in favor? Any opposed? Councillor Wynus is opposed. And that uh motion is carried. Okay, we'll move now to the administrative inquiries. And if it works for you, colleagues, we'll just uh briefly display each on the screen and uh forego verbalizing. First one up there is uh one by me I started question period with. I can email that as well if it's of interest. It's about the uh conducting the referendum and our advocacy or legal constraints therein. And then uh maybe we can move to the next one.", "segments_merged": 18 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 25090.845, "end": 25092.985, "text": "So Sorry, can I ask a question on that first one?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 25093.785, "end": 25102.205, "text": "Uh I do not believe that a Minister of Inquiries are open for debate. A procedure bylaw just shows uh calls for us to display it on the screen. There's no debate or discussion.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 25103.145, "end": 25104.425, "text": "Point of order then?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 25104.545, "end": 25106.185, "text": "Okay, point of order, Councillor Johnston.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 25107.305, "end": 25109.885, "text": "All of these questions came from your question period, right?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 25111.785, "end": 25112.825, "text": "Sorry, could you repeat that?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 25113.145, "end": 25115.645, "text": "All of these questions came from your question period, right?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 25116.125, "end": 25128.205, "text": "Uh this is a written version of my submission uh expanding on what I said verbally earlier, so that I can get the response from legal in writing or uh at further length uh when they have the opportunity.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 25128.285, "end": 25131.645, "text": "But question period is usually designed for a single question.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 25133.265, "end": 25133.525, "text": "Okay.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 25134.225, "end": 25134.665, "text": "That's correct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 25135.285, "end": 25146.885, "text": "Uh typically the the question was really twofold. It was around the legal authority and the other constraints. So it there's more technical merits to that, so I've opted to uh send in a written version.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 25146.885, "end": 25149.665, "text": "We'd be given the same benefit of the doubt for our question period.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 25151.425, "end": 25173.165, "text": "Uh well it depends on the question. I'm um I'll make the determination at that time. And if if you I'll make the ruling as chair, and if you feel that the ruling of the chair is not appropriate, you have the opportunity to challenge it. But I'll use my best judgment. I've allowed significant flexibility, including to to you, Councillor Johnston, even to extend a fourth question. So happy to make sure that we have the opportunity for fair discussion.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_31", "start": 25173.425, "end": 25178.565, "text": "Well your judgment's been very all over the place. And so more consistency would be better. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 25178.565, "end": 25190.065, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Johnston. You're happy to challenge any determination. Otherwise, could we move to the second uh and then get to the point? Okay, let it we're gonna move along maybe to the second administrative inquiry.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 25193.445, "end": 25201.745, "text": "Mr. Mayor, we uh would only typically show the newly introduced um administrative inquiries, so the two just appear uh on the agenda.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 25201.845, "end": 25217.505, "text": "Okay, they're already submitted the agenda, so we don't need to display them. Uh can I get a motion to adjourn? Move Oh my gosh, so many hands. Uh okay, move by Councillor Schmidt, seconded by Councillor Kelly. All in favor? Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion is scared. Good day's work.", "segments_merged": 4 } ], "full_text": "Welcome to Calgary City Council. Uh Mr. Clerk, please call the role. Uh thank you Mr. Mayor, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot, President. Councillor Clark, Councillor Dollywall, Councillor Jameson, Present. Councillor Johnson, Here. Councillor Kelly, Present. Councillor McLean, Here. Councillor Panthezopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Here. Councillor Tyres, Here, Councillor Ward, Your Councillor Wyness, Mayor Farkas. Here. Oki, Umbawastesh, Danitada, Tanche. Indigenous peoples have their own names for this area that have been in use long before settlers named this place Calgary. In the Blackfoot language, it's called Mokinstis. The Eskenokota Wastabi First Nations referred to this place as Wachispa Oyude, and the people of the Sutina Nation call it Guts. The Metis call the Calgary area Otasquini. We appreciate and acknowledge they were gathered on the ancestral and traditional territory of the Blackfoot Nations of the Sikhsika, Pikani, and Kainai First Nations, the Ithka Nakota Wustabi First Nations, comprised of the Chinniki, Berespa, and Goodstoney First Nations, and the Satina First Nation. The city of Calgary is also homeland to the historic Northwest Metis and to the Atomiswa Metis Government, Metis Nation Battle River Territory, Nosil Metis District 5, and Elbo Metis District 6. We acknowledge and give gratitude to the Many First Nations, Metis. and Inuit, who live here and call Calgary home. Deputy Mayor Tyres, would you mind taking the chair? I just have a uh brief acknowledgement down at the podium. Thank you, colleagues. Today it is my pleasure to share that the City of Calgary has been selected as a Call to Recycle 2025 Leaders in Sustainability Award recipient. This national award highlights organizations across the country that are demonstrating real leadership in environmental stewardship through the safe and responsible recycling of batteries. As more of our everyday items rely on batteries, safe handling and disposal is increasingly important. Proper battery recycling helps reduce fire risk, protects collection workers, and keeps hazardous materials out of our waste system. Our city is proud to be part of this effort through our participation in the Recycle Your Batteries Canada program. This program helps ensure that household batteries are collected safely and kept out of our landfills. For Calgary, this award reflects the strength of that program and the collective efforts behind it to meet our shared commitment to making recycling programs accessible and easy to use, managing household hazardous waste safely and responsibly, and leading in responsible waste diversion. But this recognition belongs to more than just the organization. It belongs to our entire community. To our residents, thank you for taking the extra steps to recycle your batteries properly. To our partners and frontline staff, thank you for making these programs work safely and effectively every day. Together, those individual actions add up. On behalf of City Council and the City of Calgary, I would like to thank Call to Recycle Canada for this honor. I'll now turn it over to Sharon Howland, Leader of Program Management with Waste and Recycling Services, to share a few additional remarks. Thank you for being here. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mayor Farkas. On behalf of Waste and Recycling Services, I'd like to thank Cultura Recycle for the recognition. We are honored to receive this award and are proud of what Calgaryans, our partners, and city staff have accomplished together. This award reflects more than a successful recycling program. It reflects a community commitment to safely managing items that can pose real risks when disposed of improperly. Batteries that end up in garbage or recycling trucks can cause fires at processing facilities, in the trucks, and at landfills. Recycling them properly helps protect workers, facilities, and our community. In 2025, Calgarians recycled more than 92,000 kilograms of batteries, including 25,000 kilograms collected through our city ecocenters and HHW depots. This result demonstrates Calgarians' willingness to take the extra steps when convenient options are made available. Accessibility has been a key part of this success. By the end of 2025, Calder Recyc successfully worked with partners like the City of Calgary and Calgary Co-op to establish 157 battery drop-off locations, nearly doubling the number available just eight months prior. And now this number is nearing 200. That rapid expansion has made it easier than ever for residents to recycle batteries close to home, making it safe and convenient. I'd also like to thank our partners at Call to Recycle, Alberta Recycling Management Authority, and participating retailers, and our waste and recycling services staff who support the collection of batteries every day. And most importantly, thank you to Calgarians for participating. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Sharon, and to your entire team for being here today to share this accomplishment with us. Congratulations on this well-deserved award and and thank you again to Calgarians for your continued commitment to building a cleaner, safer city for everyone. I'd like to welcome forward the team to come forward for a group photograph. Did you want to hold this? You can hold it. Almost broke it. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks again. Thank you. Thank you for that. Michael, would you mind letting me guys could go on with us? And uh Mayor, I was just given a little note here from a birdie that there's another recognition, which was your birthday yesterday. Fourtieth? Fourtieth birthday. Well happy birthday, Mayor. Thanks. From all accounts. Thank you, Deputy Marin. Thanks for the uh amazing card and balloons that were left in the office. And if I could ask for one thing for my birthday. How about we're all out of here by six o'clock? You guys good? Well, we'll we'll see if miracles happen. So I think we're in uh question period with uh Councillor Chabot to start us off. Nope. Oh uh Mike Councillor Atkinson, sorry. Great. Um, yeah, so there's uh there's been some changes uh over the past week in terms of the uh what's happening with the finalized rules regarding the Stampede Music Tents and the Cowboys Music Festival. So I was just wondering if we can get some clarification about what residents can expect around noise, uh, and how should people get in touch if they have concerns around the volume, public disorder, or the accommodations made for the loss of the skate park. Councillor Atkinson, I'm so happy that you asked. What I thought I would do is start by describing some more about the changes and then the so what, what we are anticipating these changes will result in, and finally what Calgarians can do if they have concerns. So, in terms of what's changing, first of all, we are looking forward to a less impactful, more positive Stampede Festival, hopefully with a little bit more sleep for anyone who wants it. We believe that the changes that we've made around nighttime noise are going to strike a good balance, preserving the quality of life for new nearby residents at the same time as we are enjoying all the festivities of Stampede and the Stampede season. So, in terms of specific changes, last year live music went until 1 30 every night of the Stampede. This year, all concerts will end at midnight. The bass levels, which I know were a particular concern for a lot of residents, have been reduced from last year's levels as well. After the concerts end on weekends, music at reduced decibel levels can be played until 1 30 with a cool down period following from 1 30 to 2 a.m. And that's going to allow for safe and orderly exit of remaining patrons. On weeknights, The cool down period starts immediately after the concerts end. And that so that will be starting at midnight and running until 1 a.m. In terms of why we're doing this, we are looking for a more gradual exit from the event and reduced concerns, of course, about the potential of overcrowding on sidewalks, traffic congestion, pressure in our transit system, as well as the disruption for people who live nearby. All in all, we're anticipating that this is going to reduce the social disorder that we know was one of the challenges last year. In terms of what people can do, I want to assure you that peace officers will be monitoring noise levels and will ensure that events are complying with permit conditions. But if residents have noise concerns, we need to hear about it through 311. And they can call 311, they can use it online, they can use the app, but uh tracking the complaints that way allows us to make sure that we're responding to real time concerns and also collecting information that will inform what kinds of adjustments we may need to make for next year. If people are communicating with 311, uh it would be useful to communicate the source of the noise. Details of how the noise is impacting the caller and contact information, including the address, so that we can follow up if required and do that kind of mapping that we saw last week that we know is important. Finally, 311 is a great general information resource. If there's something that's making people feel actively unsafe, 911 remains the best resource. There's also a non-emergency police line that's 403-266-1234 if people just want to register something with the police. So lots of resources. The final thing I'll say is that we're looking forward to an enhanced activation of skate park facilities at Pixel Park to accommodate what we're going to be missing at the Stampede or at the Cowboys Park. That enhanced skate park or resource at Pixel Park will be from June 20th until July 21st. So that means we're already happening there. Thanks a lot. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. I am next in the queue. This is a bit more of a a detailed question, and I just wanted a a high level answer to it based on what you can provide at this point, and I'll provide it. In uh exact text as part of an administrative inquiry at the end of the meeting, so so bear with me. On October 19th, 2026, the province of Alberta is conducting a referendum involving 10 questions, including a question about whether Alberta should remain a province within Canada. Given the results of this referendum will have significant impacts on the economic well being and fiscal sustainability of the city of Calgary, as well as direct impacts for Calgarians, I have the following questions for administration. One. Does City Council have the legal authority to deploy City of Calgary resources and relevant civic partners, including Calgary Economic Development, to firstly conduct research on the historical precedents and municipal impacts of separation referenda in comparable jurisdictions? Secondly, report on the current and projected economic and fiscal impacts of the October 19, 2026 referendum on Calgary. And two, does the City of Calgary have the legal authority to engage in official public advocacy in favor of Alberta remaining a province within Canada? If such authority exists, what are the mechanisms and budgets available to the city of Calgary and our members of City Council to conduct this advocacy? Thanks for those questions. So I'll start with the first part about City Council having the legal authority to deploy city resources and your two parts on the research and reporting on that. So council could request that a third party, such as Calgary Economic Development, complete an analysis. The city could also conduct their own research into the impacts of the referendum questions. One of the municipal purposes under section three of the municipal government act is to develop viable communities. So researching how the referendum may impact the city would seem to come under this purpose. The issue will be whether the city can report on and make public those conclusions that are reached. This is a little bit more of a more difficult. Question to answer. Under the Elections, Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act, the city cannot be a third party advertiser and therefore cannot engage in third party advertising. So third party advertising is defined as advertising a message that promotes or opposes a question in a referendum. So while good faith economic analysis does not in itself promote or oppose an outcome, it may do so implicitly, and it's not clear from the legislation as to whether this would contravene those rules on advertising. There are some exceptions that the city may be able to leverage, so this is something that we could look into further. In terms of your second part of your question, in terms of legal authority to engage in official public advocacy, I'm going to give a very lawyerly answer and say it depends. So if it were a council resolution that expresses support or opposition to a referendum question without anything more, I would argue that this would be permissible within the referendum advertising rules. It is an exercise of the city's natural person power and furtherance of a municipal, valid municipal purpose. However, again, the legislation says that no third party shall incur referendum advertising expenses in a total amount of $1,000 or more if the third party is not eligible to be registered as a third party advertiser. And as I mentioned previously, the city is not eligible to be registered as a third party advertiser. So expending city resources to promote or oppose a referendum question in excess of $1,000 would contravene the rules. Thank you. Did I get it all? And I'll I'll provide that through the administrative inquiry for a little bit more uh belts and braces around it, but I just want to clarify uh again, simply stating an opinion, being involved in the public discourse and and debate is certainly permissible by members of council. It's purely the spending of money that contravenes the advertising restrictions. That's correct. Members of council are free to engage in their own related activities as an individual, as long as they're in compliance with that legislation. Thank you very much. All right. Over to Councillor McLean for last question. Question B. Thank you, Mayor. My question is probably best suited for Director McLeod regarding parking tickets on street sweeping days. I always hear every year from many residents frustrated about receiving tickets after the street sweeper has already gone by. I understand there's like 39,000 tickets have already been issued this year, up 5,000 from last year. Now I understand why the restrictions remain until effect until 4 p.m. in case those crews need a second pass. But the question is the residents are saying why is enforcement focused on ticketing after sweeping has occurred rather than ensuring vehicles are moved before the sweepers arrived. This is especially difficult when sweeping overlaps with garbage pickups, leaving residents with few practical parking solutions. So can the administration maybe help me explain if there's maybe a more common sense approach that could target actual obstruction of street sweeping instead of penalizing residents after the work appears to already have been done? Yes, thank you, Mayor. Councillor McLean, our street sweeping program uh starts in April, uh goes to the end of June. We are on time, 100% complete. Uh with respect to vehicles, we have a number of measures that citizens can employ to be warned of the of the pending street sweeping, the schedule. We keep it fixed all year long. If we get a a snow day or something, we move uh that to the end of the cycle so everybody gets the same day that's scheduled at the beginning of the year. There's a number of ways to get notice as far as when sweeping occurs. With respect to enforcement, our enforcement team precedes our sweeping operation and there's a cessation to that enforcement once a crews are fully complete, although it's not obvious. And so we have a parking restriction that goes from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily when it's street sweeping. And so those are the restricted time periods to avoid and to park elsewhere for that one day. In Bridlewood, in the area that you're in, that street sweeping end uh was completed around 11, and so did the enforcement. So there was no further enforcement for the remainder of the day, and so that is the process that we do take. If citizens feel that they received a ticket in air, they can apply for an appeal and our team would review that. But we do try to be as sensitive as possible. Once the streets uh completed, um, we don't conduct any additional enforcement because we don't require the street to be kept clear, but it is restricted for the entire day. Thank you for that. You know exactly the residents at risk in Bridlewood that are asking me to ask the question. So thank you for that answer. Thank you. Uh can I get a mover for the confirmation of agenda? Moved by Councillor Chabot, seconded by um Councillor Dallywall. It's uh on the table now on the agenda, Councillor Ward. yes, uh we would just like to add a matter of ur uh urgent business, a verbal update from the Water Utility Oversight Board Chair Selection Committee, please. And uh I believe clerks have that ready. Okay. That's ready to go and uh colleagues well were on this. You'll note later on we're gonna have a procedural motion to uh recess for lunch to the call of the chair. The intention here is to have a meeting of the nominations committee to begin at uh 1 15. Uh and then once nominations committee is concluded, then council uh will resume to to consider the recommendation from that committee. So that's been moved by councillor ward, seconded by Councillor Penazopoulos. That's on the table. Any uh discussion on the adding of this business? Okay, seeing none, uh Mr. Clerk, let's engage the e vote, please. Councillor Clark, your vote please, and Mayor Farkas? Yes. All right, please display the results. And that motion is carried 15 to 0. Can I go to Councillor Clark, please? Yes, thank you chair. Um also uh an item of uh urgent business. I've got a uh uh notice of motion here to bring forward the third and final reading of uh proposed bylaw from our public hearing to conclude that business. Okay. Do we have a seconder for that? Seconded by Councillor Atkinson. Mr. Clerk, I was not present for the public hearing, but I'm still good to add it as business. Is that right? That's correct. Yeah. All right, uh, any further discussion on this? Okay. Seeing none, let's engage the e vote on that. Uh, please, Mr. Clerk. Councillor Jameson, your vote, please? Councillor Tyres? Okay, all the votes are in, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Please display the results. All right, that motion is carried. 15 to 0. And we have some process motions on distributions, but we're still on the agenda, so I'll go to the process motions after. Anyone else specifically on the agenda as amended? Mr. Clerk? Sorry, sir. Okay. Seeing none, I'll call the question on that. Let's engage the evote on the confirmation of the agenda as amended. All the votes are in, sir? Thank you. Please display the results. That motion is carried unanimously. I hope. Before I'm assuming. Yep. Sorry, I should not call the results before we know. That is carried, 15 to 0. On process, uh Councillor Ward, do you mind moving the uh procedural motion to modify the lunch recess to the end of the call of the chair to allow for nominations committee? You're good with that one, uh, Councillor Ward, to allow the the lunch break to to start after nominations? Yes. Yes. All right. Second by uh Councillor Panasopoulos. And again, this is to allow the lunch recess to end at the call of the chair. The intent still is to have a full one hour, 15 minute lunch break, but we'll just come back as a nominations committee first. Uh deal with that item and then we'll proceed on to uh the council meeting after that. Alright, uh let's engage the e-vote on that modification, please. All the votes are in. Thank you, please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 15 to 0. We have a few process ones. Uh Councillor Schmidt, please. Uh yes, just on item nine point four point five, the improving community traffic safety have a letter of support which was circulated around 9 a.m. to be added to the corporate record from Alberta Motor Association, which the clerks have in their possession now. Okay. Uh seconded by Councillor Atkinson. Let's uh engage the e vote on that one. Councillor Deliwell? All the votes are in. Thank you, please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 15 to 0. Uh was I right, Councillor Dalwell? I think you had a distribution, was that right? Okay. Sorry Mayor, uh clerks have it. Thank you for doing this on such a short notice. This is just a letter of support uh we're gonna add to nine point four point six, which is notice of motion for multi sport fuelhouse committee update mandate. Okay. All right. That's been seconded by uh Councillor Atkinson. That's on the table. Let's uh engage the vote on that. Councillor Johnson, please. All the votes are in. Thanks. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 15 to 0. Mr. Clerk, I think that's it for process motions. Okay. All right, uh Councillor Shabot on the minutes. Yeah, no, happy to move uh all four sets. Um I did not see any errors or omissions and again uh kudos to administration because there was a couple of pretty hefty Yeah. sets of minutes there, and so good job. Uh like I say, I I struggle to find any errors. So if somebody caught something that I missed, uh please come forward. But uh outside of that, uh I think uh kudos goes to clerks on doing a great job on creating these minutes. So happy to move them, all four sets. I I second that. I don't formally second that. I proverbally second that. But big shout out to the the clerk's team for the accuracy as well. If you can get it by Councillor Shabot, I think you could get it by anybody. So Uh that's been seconded by uh Councillor McLean. Let's engage the vote on the minutes of 2026, May 12th, May 21st, May 26th, and uh June 16th of 2026. Councillor Schmidt, your vote, please. Okay, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. All right, that motion is carried 15 to 0. Before I go to item 7, consent agenda, which does include that civic census implementation item. Was there Any Councillor who wanted to say anything to that? Wait, just before I go to the item of business. No, we're good? Okay. Oh, Councillor Shabot? Yep. I'm just curious about 7.19, the appointment of the uh two members to the license um uh community license community standards appeal board, whether or not that needs to be polled and voted on separately. There is an in camera portion with all the other uh nominees, potential nominees, but I I mean I'm okay with the recommendations, and there are some good recommend recommendations as alternates. But I thought if there was an interest in having further discussion on that, maybe we should pull it. Out outside of that. I I don't know. Do we need to pull it separately to vote on it? No, my my understood well first, just a process. Do you mind moving the consent to agenda omnibus? Sure. Okay. That's been moved by Councillor Shabeau, seconded by Councillor Atkinson. So that's on the table. On um 719, uh we had a pretty robust uh conversation at the nominations committee. It's probably not necessary for me, but I was privy to the conversation. But If are you looking to pull it? No, I was more. I wasn't there, so I was kind of interested to see if there was any debate at all about any of the nominees or the recommendations versus as well as the alternates, because I looked them all over and I I thought they were good decisions. Yeah, we had a certainly a robust uh number of candidates, and I I don't think there was much uh contention or discussion uh at nominations committee. Okay. That's all I want to know. Thanks. All right, on uh the consent agenda we're gonna start pulling some items. Uh Councillor Penazopoulos, please. Thank you so much. I'd like to pull 7.13 just to make uh an additional recommendation. Thank you. All right, 7.13 has been pulled. Civic census implementation. Uh Councillor Wines, please. Uh 7.30 please to provide an alternate recommendation. Councillor Schmidt, please. Uh yes, two items 7.1.2, the open drug use enforcement on behalf of the uh of administration who have a report to add to that. Uh Update and deferral. Okay. And then the other one, sorry, I'm just finding my number. 7.12 as I have an amendment that has been circulated and the clerks have in their possession as well. That's an amendment, uh, Councillor. Yep. All right, so We have 7.1.2 deferral request for open drug use enforcement. That's to add a report. We have 7.12 notice of motion to accelerate housing development. That's an amendment. 713, that's civic census implementation for an amendment. And 730, which is funding recommendations for the Ward Community Event Fund, alternate recommendation. Those four have been pulled. Anybody else? Okay, seeing none, any Mr. Clerk, please go ahead. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to note too um administration does have a revised attachment one with respect to item 7.5, 2 billion trees agreement program update. So Let's pull that one too to allow for the revised attachment. Okay, so we're at 7.1.2, 7.5, 7.12, 7.13, and 7.30. Anyone else? Okay. Seeing none, uh, let's engage the vote on the omnibus motion. Councillor Jameson, your vote, please. Councillor Johnson. Okay, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. That motion is carried, 15 to 0. All right, uh, we're on items from officers of council and the consent agenda items selected for debate, starting with uh 7.1.2. Take us away as well. Thank you, Your Worship. I just wanted to explain that the deferral report that is in the system needs to be updated. Clerks has an updated version. What happened was that the approval that had been referenced in the deferral report about expansion of drug handling and transporting authorities for City of Calgary peace officers was subsequently rescinded. So The circumstances have shifted and we have updated that in the deferral report. Alright, uh could I go to you, Councillor uh Schmidt, to move it with the added report? So moved. Okay. Uh Councillor Atkinson to second. Any further discussion or debate on this? Uh Councillor Weinus, please. Thanks. So with the province rescinding what processes changes are we making? Councillor Wynus, the approval had just been received at the beginning of this month. So the whole approval and then rescindment happened in the course of 18 or 19 days. So we were just working on what our processes could be, hoping to enhance the efficiency of the process by giving peace officers that authority. The rescindment means that we're just no further ahead than we were last month. Will our policies align with the police commission's policies on zero tolerance? Our existing policies will remain in place, and so now we have to make sure that we have all those alignments cross checked, and that's the reason for the deferral report in the first place. Okay, great, thank you. I'll just jump in and I've I'll say really good opportunities to engage with Minister Amory on this topic. Uh obviously won't put words in his mouth, but he really re reiterated the the success story the community court has posed. Uh they've indicated a lot of really strong uh moral support and potentially forthcoming fiscal support uh for the sponsorship uh for this partnership. It's checking all the boxes, it's working to serve our most vulnerable Calgarians, it's releasing reducing the burden on the overall system, otherwise. So uh I'll have a more formal update hopefully soon on that. But uh really good, uh, really optimistic, super positive first meeting with Minister Amory. And I just want to uh personally recognize and applaud his leadership. He's extremely engaged on this file. Uh incredibly well briefed, and I would say of the interactions I've had with any minister at any level of government on specific topics, he came the most certainly the most prepared and engaged. So uh hope to be able to have uh more good news for that. And it's also uh a demonstration of when us as a council we show leadership. It can uh encourage and motivate our other partners to be able to come to the table as well. So thank you, council, for uh supporting this uh through the the previous budget. We're now at an opportunity to really be able to scale this investment and reduce overall costs of the system, but also uh drive home public safety, which is what many Calgaryans should are telling us needs to be the top priority right now. Over to you uh to close, Councillor Schmidt. Closed. All right, uh let's engage the e votes on that. Councillor Shabot, your vote? Councillor Johnson? All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. All right, that motion is carried. 15 to 0. We'll go to 7.5, please. Thank you, Mayor. Um there's report IP 2026 0356. An error was uh discovered, I believe, by one of the members of council. Thank you for that on the uh number of trees planned per community, and that error then transferred into attachment two. So both attachment one and attachment two have an amendment, and I believe clerks has a copy of the updated uh attachments. Thank you. Over to Councillor Kelly to move it. Uh thank you for the updated attachment. We really appreciate it. Um yeah, happy to move this item. Thank you, Mayor. I'm gonna say second by Councillor Ewell. Do you like trees? Councillor Ewell. Any further discussion, debate on this, colleagues? Alright, uh let's engage the evote, please. Councillor Jameson, your vote, please. Mayor Farkas? Thank you. Um please display Yes. Thank you. And all the votes are in. Do you guys ever have it where it says like vote in progress and you click it and then it closes before you you guys can click it? No? Just me? Okay. Alright, that motion is carried 15 to 0. Uh we'll move on to 7.12. Uh good morning, members of council. My name is Eddie Lee, Director of Assessment Tax and City Assessor. Before you today is a response and notice motion to EC 2025-0117 to accelerate housing development. Would council like a presentation? I think given that we're gonna go into some meaty amendments and changes, I think it would be valuable to have a refresher. Yeah. Sure. Next slide, please. So administration is recommending not to proceed with the creation of the proposed programs. Our first recommendation is that council should not proceed with a vacant property tax program or for a vacant land subclass or a derelict subclass. Our second recommendation is not to proceed with a purpose built rental tax exemption program. And finally, we recommend council receive the report for the corporate record. Next slide, please. So this report responds to the council's January 2025 notice of motion titled Accelerating Housing Development Bill 20 and Residential Subclasses. This notice of motion directs administration to report back to Council in Q2 2026 with a scoping report to evaluate a vacant property tax program, including a vacant land subclass and a derelict subclass, and a purpose built rental tax exemption program for existing market ready, city identified, transit oriented development sites. As part of the deliverables, this report includes three scoping reports and the cost, resource, and timeline implications of the proposed programs. Next slide, please. The 2024 housing context that prompted this NOS motion has since shifted. In 2023, the city's housing needs assessment found that one in five households could not afford their housing. This led council to approve the cities of Calgary's housing strategy to increase the supply, choice, and affordability of housing. In combination with the actions in the strategy, market changes, and collaborative cross governmental efforts, 23,000 market homes and 1,800 non market homes received development permits in 2025, and Calgary went to lead the country in housing starts. Although the city and the market continue to support the development of new housing and other market factors, city growth and housing demand still create a need to increase the housing supply, which in turn would improve affordability. This report analyzes whether supply side tax programs such as the subclasses and incentives can accelerate development of housing. Next slide, please. So, attachment two evaluates an assessment subclass program for residential vacant land properties, applying a higher tax rate to incentivize owners of vacant land properties to begin development and building activities, increased supply of housing in Calgary. To meet the objectives, the criteria for subclass eligible vacant land is set as taxable residential property vacant of a permanent dwelling for five or more consecutive years after being fully serviced and subdivided and designated as construction ready. The subclass is expected to cost roughly $930,000 in one-time cost for technology implementation and $95,000 in ongoing annual costs for administration of the program, data maintenance, program processing. Administration would request an additional FTE for this work if directed by council. A subclass would not generate additional tax revenue but would redistribute it. Overall, administration found that the majority of the 15,000 vacant land parcels in Calgary, less than 3% would meet the criteria of developable residential vacant land. Of the 3%, roughly 62% were already. Undergoing market-driven development activities. This results in less than 1% of vacant land or 183 properties eligible for the proposed subclass. The analysis also found that no evidence of persistent land speculation occurring on these vacant lands. Therefore, a vacant land subclass would not be an effective tool to accelerate housing development. Next slide, please. Attachment 3 evaluates a derelict residential property program that is intended to encourage owners to return derelict properties to functional residential use as well as to reduce safety and nuisance impacts associated with these properties. Consistent with these objectives, the proposed definition of derelict residential property applied in this analysis, targets residential property showing serious signs of dilapidation or significant disrepair such that it is functional, unusable for its intended residential living purpose, andor its physical condition poses a material safety risk. Using this definition, administration identified potential derelict properties using data from the Coordinated Safety Response Team, Calgary Fire Department, and publicly available information from Alberta Health Services. This analysis found that derelict residential properties in Calgary are limited in number, and that many identified cases are being addressed through existing enforcement tools and market activity. Overall, while derelict's residential subclass would directionally align with objectives of increasing carrying costs to promote repair, redevelopment, or demolition, the added benefit of the subclass is not sufficiently demonstrated relative to the significant administration costs, program complexities, and equity risks that a subclass would introduce. Administration does not consider a dedicated derelict subclass an appropriate tool to accelerate housing development. Next slide, please. And finally, in attachment four evaluates a proposed purpose-built rental tax exemption program, which would create a tax incentive for development of rental apartments near city-identified, market-ready, transit-oriented development areas. Our analysis indicated's low and medium rise purpose-built rentals are being developed in Calgary at record rates, and land suitable for multi residential development near primary transit network is often already slated for development. The city is also taking numerous actions to support transit oriented development, such as public realm improvements near transit station areas, and supporting the Calgary Municipal Land Corporation exploring transit oriented communities. The direct costs to implement a tax incentive program are relatively low. However, it is unclear whether a broad tax incentive would meaningfully result in more development than that that is already occurring. Tax exemptions are redistributive in nature, meaning other taxpayers would pay more to offset the taxes not being paid by the exempt incentivized property. To avoid potentially unnecessary government intervention and complication of the tax system, as well as to avoid those increased costs to other taxpayers, administration is recommending not to proceed with this program at this time. Next slide, please. In summary, the housing landscape has changed since the notice of motion is approved. Calgary has seen record housing starts in development. Given the increased housing starts and long-term strategies already in place, there is limited evidence that tax policy, including subclasses and incentives, would meaningfully accelerate housing development in today's housing context. And as such, we are recommending that council should not proceed with the proposed subclass for vacant land, derelict properties, or the purpose built rental tax exemption, and receive this uh report for the corporate record. Thank you. And I'm open to uh any questions members of council might have. Thank you. I think uh m Mr. Clerk, when there's the intent of a Councillor to put forward a like a materially different amendment, uh do you think just best practice for me is to seek a mover for what the committee recommendations were and then allow that Councillor the chance to amend the recommendation or should I go to the Councillor first with their alternate recommendation? Will we proceed with the main motion and then deal with the amendments? Yep. Is there somebody here who can move and second the main motion from committee? Okay, Councillor Chabot will move it and second by Councillor Clark. And over you, Councillor Schibel. And then uh I'll come back to you at some point, Councillor Schmidt. Thanks. No, I appreciate the the report. Um I know Edmonton has implemented a derelict um tax. Um I guess subclass, if you will. I I'm not sure how they're applying it. Um, my question is strictly in relation to a supplementary tax, whether or not something can be applied to derelict properties in addition to the regular property tax, kind of like a local improvement, because of enhanced requirements from a safety and security um obligation for the city of Calgary to. to monitor those sites to ensure that that they remain safe and and uh and uh I d I don't know I I guess we can make a sketch case as to additional work that's that's required by the city to ensure that uh the sites remain at least safe and uh uh for for the community and I I don't know so that there's no off site kind of things that occur on site. So the Municipal Government Act does not allow us to apply a surtax, but it does allow us to have a derelict subclass. So that is exactly the same thing what uh the city of Edmonton has, and we've used the uh very similar definition that the city of uh Edmonton has. So with the subclasses, it is redistributive in in nature, so there is no additional tax that uh you get. Council could add in a budget line item to uh, you know, but it would be an increase in tax over overall. There's no tools in the MGA that would allow us to charge uh a supplementary fee on those properties for that enhanced security and and safety oversight. There are uh existing tools right now. You know, if uh we required um us to uh demolish a property, we can uh take that cost and the administration cost of administering that demolition and put it uh uh tax roll it or uh any you know fine similar to you know if you're you've got weeds and you don't pay that uh fine, you can uh add into tax roll at the end of the day. So if the property is derelict then we have to do um like yard maintenance is an example because the weeds are too tall, that would get added to the tax roll. At what point would it trigger the um I guess the need for demolition? Uh good morning. Thank you for the question. So when we look at a rundown derelict property, we and through our program, and we have a lot of partners that we collaborate with, we look at the totality of the issues and the severity of the offense, and we have to make a determination that's proportionate to that severity of the offense. So I use this example often. I mean, we can have a property that has a hundred bylaw complaints and never get to a point where we can justify moving forward with an order to demolish that that building. But you add in the fact that that building is also unfit for human habitation, that there's structural issues with the building itself, that there's fire hazards, that it's continually being broken into, then it becomes easy that uh to determine that this isn't a problem that can be solved with you know a couple cans of paint and uh minor fix ups. It's a building that needs to go. So that's how we make those determinations uh as to whether to demolish or require an owner to do remediation of the property. Well, Chief Placidus, the the reason I'm I'm asking these questions is because uh in in my past I've seen a lot of properties, even homes that have burnt, and then they get at least demolished, but not completely. Taken out, and there's still a basement. And those remain static in those conditions for for years. And and I guess I I'm just I'm frustrated by the inability for us to take action sooner. And I'm just wondering if there's a mechanism that we can actually move forward more more more efficiently on remediating those properties. And do you do you think you have the tools to be able to do that? Uh well I I suppose it depends on the exact circumstances. Um, you know, there is other provisions in the MGA that deal with open excavations, so that can be addressed through section five forty six of uh of the MGA. Uh I'd have to look at uh I'm happy to take this offline and and if you have uh concerns review them and and uh It's been remediated, but it it stood for years. And so it was an open basement. It was fenced off, but people were dumping stuff on the site because they were using it as a dumping ground. Anyways, it just stayed that way for so many years. and it might be you know which agency is leading that response, and there might be different authorities within the fire code versus versus the MGA. So Uh, these are sites that can be reevaluated to see if we can do anything further. I do have some other properties we'll have to discuss offline. Uh thanks. So those are all the questions. Um no, I appreciate the report um as uh moving it uh from uh uh the discussions around this and and the that it's not actually gonna generate additional funds. So it's kind of pointless to move into uh Something that's just going to be redistributed amongst all the rest of the ratepayers. So why I appreciate uh Mr. Lee's uh summation of of the report and and the cost associated with actually going to one of these different subclasses and a rationale around why the recommendation is not to move forward with the new subclass. So that's my open and see if I can address any issues in my close. Alright, at this time I'll go to you, Councillor Schmidt. Yes, I have an amendment which the clerks have in their possession that is addressing recomm uh recommendation two to be deleted in its entirety. Um and this only addresses the purpose-built rental tax exemption program. And so the motivation for going down this route was this seemed like the highest benefit, lowest risk of the three different programs that were listed in here. Given council's indication throughout the last six months that we want to prioritize transit-oriented development nodes and corridors, that type of development, that this allows us to proceed with this incentive that would only affect tax abatement during construction period. So what it does is it uh gets us moving on the transit-oriented development incentive with further work done by uh Director Lee and his team and other teams, uh the downtown the downtown team uh became part of this as well to give some recommendations, uh, and then a further scoping report for other opportunities in the greater downtown, which can help us accelerate uh this type of higher rise development, which has become somewhat restrictive given costs and risks, uh, where we're seeing the favoring of six-story and lower buildings, and we should really be seeing the maximization of the opportunities around transit-oriented development. And my mind goes to sites like Westbrook Sea Train Station, which is moving forward at a higher pace now. We have the green line coming online that has a lot of TOD that could be looked at and other sites around the city as well. So uh I will say it's not the perfect thing that we should be doing, but it is something that we can be doing that can help support what we've indicated are the priorities of this council. Uh and in speaking with Mr. with Director Lee, uh initially the report backday was Q2 2027. I was concerned about the resources of him and his team. I did not want this to unnecessarily burden them or require extra staffing. So by moving it back to Q3 2027, uh Director Lee indicated uh that this would give them time to work within their current resources. It wouldn't take away from other projects. If I'm incorrect about any of that, he can correct me here now. Uh and so this uh it could still come back in Q2, but otherwise, the uh aside from the $130,000 uh for the initial base operating funding, this does not require any other resources and would not take away from any other important projects. So I'd hope uh I can get your support for this small change so that we can have this as a tool in our toolkit moving forward. All right, is there a seconder for this? Second by Councillor Atkinson. Gonna maintain a different speaking cue now for the amendment. Uh Councillor Panasophilos, please. Uh was Councillor Jameson and Johnson want to speak to it or is that to the main item? Uh Councillor Jameson on the amendment? Is this is now the time to ask administration questions? Or is this debate? I think it's all one d largely one debate. If if you want to get into it now, I'll come back to you, Councillor Panasophilos. Yeah. Yeah, go for it. Yep. Thanks so much. Um maybe just because this the the the big amendment is the change to downtown, maybe just sort of speak about the potential, the dollars, you know, a typical parking lot that exists, and I know there's no such thing as a typical, but uh, you know, what would that look like? Um During construction, the dollars, the quantum, deferring um you know property taxes or just just for a quantum perspective, if you could. Yeah, so uh part of this work would be to uh take a look at those numbers. So we have uh in this report, we did not look at the downtown portion of it. So this work would have us do it. We did look at what it would uh look like if it was in a TOD site. So if you're uh familiar with the Bloom Towers in Dalhousie uh as an example, um if we applied a uh property tax exemption program and that uh exempted the uh incremental taxes while it was during the construction phase, uh that developer would have received roughly 750,000 uh off their taxes. And because property taxes are redistributive in nature, um your typical household would have paid uh $1.60 over the uh more uh for that construction period. So a very negligible piece. So you would expect a downtown development to probably be a higher value uh than than that in general, but that would just give you a sort of a uh ballpark picture. I appreciate that. What's sort of the quantum for for downtown, you know, vacant lots, really small buildings that could be knocked. You did a great job of identifying on the derelict and everything, if any sense, and and maybe just even a ballpark would be great, including the belt line or the greater downtown area. Yeah, perhaps I'll uh look to my uh colleagues in uh downtown strategy, uh Patrick Mann. Uh good morning. Council. Thanks, Eddie. Uh can you repeat that question, please? Uh just around uh quantum of properties that could potentially uh vacant lots, old buildings that might be be able to knock down. I think as part of the work we would we would dig into that deeper. I wouldn't want to give I I don't have that at my fingertips right now, but I think if we were um supported here, we would go away and we would dig into that and come back with to to tell that to council. Okay, so the the information's not there. And then um I guess you sort of addressed it, the potential. It's a pretty material impact from a property tax perspective, from a parking lot up to a 20 story cement building fair assessment, like like that value goes or is most of that value captured in line. What I'm trying to get at is that incentive, and if you give $100, what's the potential sort of payback uh we we would generally experience on that? If you had that example in Dalhousie, what would be sort of that metrics? Yeah, so in terms of the um full property tax value in the uh Dalhousie example, so uh as a vacant lot it would be the the tax generation of that for on municipal property tax side would be roughly about uh twenty thousand dollars and then fully built um six hundred twenty thousand. Great. Maybe I'll just y you know, go into a little bit of debate. Yeah, I I that was something that stuck out with me is the the excluding of the downtown, and and I understand that was the notion motion went through there um where I voted against this generally because I hate too strong a word, but really don't like that, you know, using that as an incentive. But I do appreciate Councillor Schmidt going out and saying, hey, let's look at it. Let's see if downtown and that scoping report was amazing you put together, it gave the details. So while I I'll uh looking forward to coming back on Q327 with with the data, I think I really appreciate that instead of just a no saying, hey, is there something we can do here? A 600,000 incremental for an investment, that starts becoming pretty darn material, particularly all we're giving up is money we just never had during a construction period downtown, particularly that you're not just doing your six. So I think I can get my head around this and then looking really forward to that scoping report and uh because the potential there is pretty material and we can make a decision whether it makes sense to proceed at that time. Thank you so much, Mayor. Thank you. I'll go back to you, Councillor Jameson, after the amendment's done. Is that okay? Or did you want to jump in now and Okay, go for it. Thank you, Chair. I think I think actually uh Councillor uh cl um Shabot uh mentioned um what I was thinking uh because uh s essentially um you got you guys are you guys are asking to walk away from this because In his words, it's it's essentially pointless now, um, g given the the matrix that we have. And so to kind of reconcile this, um we have uh CMHC's spring twenty twenty six housing report says that you know we're already the fourth consecutive record for housing starts in in Canada and um year over year. So I guess even to support this amendment, uh what evidence exists that the tax exemption would generate any rental units that wouldn't already be built? That's what I'm looking for. So we've only completed the analysis on the transit-oriented development sites. So in our analysis, in our opinion, we believe that for the TOD sites, the market uh ready TOD sites that we looked at, then incentive is not required because we are seeing still significant uh development, you know, evidenced by you know two towers being built by Chinook Center, uh, three properties uh built built by Heritage and so on and so forth. We haven't done that exact same analysis on the downtown uh uh portion yet. We do understand that uh you know some uh market dynamics uh have changed. You we have seen um you know uh softening of uh As an example, condo values and in other properties, and overall, we're not in a pace where residential values are accelerating at double digits. They have moderated uh quite a bit. But uh in in short, Councillor Jameson, we haven't uh done that work on the downtown uh portion yet to determine if an incentive uh it is necessary. And and if it were to go through um overview, what would it look like uh for the average uh household uh in terms of so if if the tax exemption got put in, um how would it affect every other residential tax pair? So it would depend on how much uptake there would be. So going back to that uh the bloom development uh example in Dell Housing, so if we had applied an incentive for that one uh uh property, um each uh uh your average typical home would have paid $1.60 uh more in taxes over that three year construction period for that project. Okay. So we're okay. So it looks like we're at record levels right now. Your engagement with uh industry uh confirmed uh property taxes uh are not the deciding factor uh in in in in where you're going with that. Um I I'm not yeah so I I don't think this is fair to every other taxpayer, and uh so I will not be supporting this amendment, but I will be supporting it if it goes uh back to the original. Um admin's admin original recommendation uh to abandon this. Thank you. Alright, Councillor Johnston on the amendment. Yeah, quick question. Um the office conversion was a way of um basically bringing tax base back to downtown. Wouldn't this do the opposite So it it wouldn't so it it really depends. So if a construction project, say on a vacant parking lot uh downtown, If the market conditions are not ripe for it and nothing is gonna get built, then uh it's sort of a lost opportunity. However, if we are uh they if the this incentive put forward and then there's uptake on it, and then they develop that vacant parking lot to, I don't know, 20-story tower, twin towers, or something like that, then there is uh uh additional development, more housing, um, more property taxes for the city to collect upon. with with this amendment you're saying? Um if we conduct that analysis and the analysis finds that an incentive would help and it is required uh for the downtown. But we haven't done that analysis yet. No no preliminary analysis, thoughts on it? No, we haven't done in the downtown. In the TOD sites, we we find that currently it's likely that incentive is not uh necessary at this point in time. But we haven't done that in the downtown. Okay, just to help me figure this out, so this isn't counteracting what we did with office conversions. No. So the downtown conversion project would be different. Um and this uh program would not you know stack on top because we are looking at vacant sites, brand new development from vacant land to uh something built, versus the uh the downtown incentive program is looking at removing um uh vacant office space that is not being fully utilized, converting into other uses like hotels, housing, university spaces. Right, but the office conversions were to take a vacant office that was not generating a lot of taxes to start generating more taxes. And then this would be even vacant properties generate a little bit of tax? Yes, vacant properties do generate a little bit of tax, but obviously a 20-story uh rental building would generate significantly more than a vacant lot. Okay. Thank you. Alright, uh Councillor Wynus on the amendment. Thanks. Uh is this amendment going to differentiate between below market, affordable, or for profit building? Um, when we were looking at it for the uh TOD, we were s uh strictly looking at uh incentivizing all uh uh uh purpose built rentals. We did not um have a caveat to say it would be only non market. Okay. With that answer, I think this is sorry, it's not about housing affordable people. Calgarian families are struggling. The tax increase we are discussing is going to be a burden on Calgarian families. To pretend that council has been talking about this kind of incentive that only incentivize for profit condo department developments, I think we just have to look to BC and the 1.3 billion failure of the Kearney government on bailing out banks and developers. This is not the kind of incentives that Calgaryans are looking for. Um to ask Calgaryans to pay a dollar sixty more for for-profit housing is ridiculous, and I will not support it. Thank you. On the amendment, Councillor Shabot. So, Mr. Lee, um insofar as the tax that a property has to pay, it's whilst it's in construction, what rate would they be paying? So it would be paying the uh residential rate. So throughout the construction period, so we um we do annual reassessments each year and we base upon the condition of what's built there as of December 31st. So if it's a three year project, it would be incrementally uh higher. So uh as an example, going back to the um the the Bloom building, so as a vacant lot, it would have been roughly about 20,000, and then one year later it was about 56,000, one year later 181. Uh and then another year 571,000, and then fully built 620,000. So it's predictable insofar as if someone wanted to build a facility that they could build that into their pro forma, it would be wouldn't be difficult for them to connect the dots on what their projected uh incremental increase in taxes are versus their projected timeline for completion, right? I do not think it would be uh that that difficult to do. Yeah. Anyways. Um, I'm not going to support this amendment, and and the primary reason is that we invest billions of dollars into our public transit system. Uh and through that process, we actually increase the value of those properties directly adjacent to those transit uh to those transit nodes and corridors. So for me, we've already provided a huge incentive to all of those individual. For-profit property owners to actually redevelop their sites and it's supported through transit. It's their property values have increased dramatically at the expense of taxpayers to actually build the infrastructure in the first place. Further incentivizing them to me is I I don't I can't rationalize it. If it's a not for profit and they're looking for some sort of tax relief during construction, we can address that on a one off basis. I think this is too much of a blanket approach to try and incentivize something that's not really needed right now, at least that's what I've heard. So I'm not sure what we're trying to do here, what problem we're trying to solve. It's there's a it's a problem that doesn't exist. I mean we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, maybe in a downtown, but there's plenty of other opportunities. For me, this is a definite no. Thanks. All right, uh Councillor Kelly, please. Thank you, worship. Um this has been a great debate so far. I really appreciate it because I'm kind of on the fence on this one for sure in terms of where it goes. Definitely appreciate the original recommendation uh um to not uh move forward the vacant land subclass and the derelict class. Uh but I meant when you came to committee and and we were taking a look at this, I was like, Wow, this feels a little wholesale that we're just like wiping it off the board and in in entirely. Um You know, I I'm happy to continue having this debate by getting this report and having you do the extra work that's uh that's here. Um by your own omission, you focused on TOD, whereas this takes a look at a little bit more. So uh I think I'm while I'm n still on the fence in terms of whether or not I I I think that this will actually have the positive uh outcome that uh We'd all love it to have. Um yeah, I I think that the uh the the cost being outlined here is uh is is worth us uh hearing back in in terms of uh where it may go. So I'm I'm happy to support the amendment here and then have the debate uh when we actually have uh actual answers in front of us. So thank you for uh bringing this forward, Councillor Schmidt. All right, uh Councillor Atkinson on the amendment. Um how much redevelopment would this have to directly incentivize to make up for that dollar sixty uh to Calgarians? Like. Yeah, so it's uh every development, so cr because it's redistributive. So when you're exempting something, there's less uh properties paying or less portion of a property uh paying taxes. So so in that short term. There will be for every each project during the construction phase, Calgaryans will pay slightly more. But there's an argument. If that development was not going to uh uh uh proceed, but sorry, after afterwards, after the construction phase, you get more taxes out of it. Um so incentive is only good if it um allows for something that was not gonna occur naturally in the marketplace, right? So you get that big uplift um uh as a result of the incentive. But if it's already gonna be happening anyways, there's there's no benefit. Yeah. So but so four ones that maybe would be turned on by the incentive. So if you're gonna be doing this analysis, like what level of development would you need to see turned on for this to actually be of a benefit to Calgarians in terms of making it's sure a dollar sixty for the next three years, but if it turns on this level of development, then that actually is better. It's making Calgarians better off on and more affordable, providing more housing in the long run. Like, what's that level that we would actually have to see that are directly incentivized from something like this? So I would probably say like any level of development. So like if it's a vacant lot and you have uh you build a 20 story uh tower on it, any anything is better. Um so going back to that bloom example, so uh as a vacant lot is roughly $20,000 in taxes, as fully built is uh roughly $620, so you're getting a gain of $600,000 for that project. Right. Um and then just to dig in on Councillor Chabot's earlier question, I I understand that it's a redistribution around the vacant tax side of things, um, but it is also Where we're talking here about an incentive, it's a disincentive to keep derelict properties or a disincentive to keep vacant land that potentially then pushes things. So while it doesn't generate more further tax revenues, these properties are costing us more. And potentially if it leads to further redevelopment, it's lowering the city's costs while also hopefully disincentivizing people continuing to sit on those properties. Is that the right read on Um that? So for vacant land in in general, we're finding it it isn't costing us more because you know obviously if there's a dweller in there, then it would cost us uh uh more in terms of city services. On the derelict side, uh absolutely derelict properties, you know, yeah, they have more fire calls, more uh uh bylaw calls, those that sort of things, they definitely uh cost us more in terms of city services. Were you looking at vacant land in the downtown or was downtown completely excluded on both sides? Uh for the vacant land subclass, we were looking at um vacant land across the entire city, so both green fields and uh brown fields Okay. Okay, thank you. Yeah. there. Kell, I will jump in. Uh I'm open to persuasion on this item. I I really get both sides. Uh I don't think I'm revealing too much by saying I I think we're we're looking at potentially a CRL model uh in the future to be able to to fund some of the uh transit-oriented communities, the upfront infrastructure that we required. I think that that has a significant uh cannibalization of some of the uplift. And if we are proceeding, if if we're exploring proceeding around that lines, it doesn't make sense to provide uh even further purpose built exemptions. It seems like this is a really blunt instrument that's not that's really agnostic in terms of need. Uh to Councillor Chabot's point, I think it makes a lot of sense to hear the nonprofits out in terms of, you know, if this is actually a charitable organization that uh is serving a charitable purpose, there might be some other ways to be able to work with them, say during construction or other tax cancellations. But I'm not compelled by the evidence that's been available to us that it's really municipal property taxes that are holding back these longer term uh investments, especially for purpose built rental, what I understand in sort of the pro forma and the businesses. Maybe just I know this is kind of an impossible question, maybe to ask administration, but do you have a sense of what could potentially be holding back some of these major projects? Are we hearing a lot about municipal property taxes? And I don't ever like you to speculate, but if you can speculate how much of their overall perform and their cost is municipal taxes versus their carrying cost, cost of construction, and so on. So in in terms of the engagement that we we did, you know, uncertainty in terms of development is is always a thing. And obviously the larger the project, the higher the carrying cost, the larger the amount of uncertainty there is. Some of these lands are potentially zoned not uh residential to begin with, so there are larger carrying costs in terms of property taxes uh uh uh that way. Um but we did hear like in terms of uh property tax, it wasn't the the the the the their biggest uh uh concern, definitely was a concern. Um, and you would have seen that in it within uh attachment six, one of the uh uh letters from one of the groups that we uh uh engaged. And to add to that, I mean if if this direction passed through in the downtown piece, um we would we would break that out and really dig into that. Um but Through our conversations with downtown developers doing high-rise concrete, it's all the things you said. I don't know what proportion on the municipal tax, but basically they're saying those projects right now are really tough to move forward on. And that's across the board from all the developers that are in that market are saying to us. Okay. Uh colleagues, I guess based on that, I'm I'm open to Asking for a scoping report with some of that more detailed information. I'm I'm quite skeptical that this is the road that we should go down, but I think it behooves us as a governance body to at least have that information on hand, even if it uh confirms what our biases may be or or may not. And I'm okay with the information uh and I'll be supporting this. Uh I think nobody else in the queue. Can I go to you, Councillor Schmidt, to close? Uh yes, thank you. And I I appreciate all the comments of my colleagues uh and understand where they're coming from with this. Um I think specifically uh two sub-C Where we will be able to get that scoping, we'll be able to give time for the experts in administration to look at sites and areas that could be appropriate for this. It at least gives us something to work with before making that final decision on those bylaws because we could ultimately always have those bylaws before us and not support them if this is not needed. But of course, this area of the market and of city building is unpredictable. So by having this tool in our toolkit moving forward and being able to look at how things are changing throughout next year, we're not committing to doing this now. We are committing to seeing how much of a benefit this could be. Because building on these sites, of course, we leverage existing infrastructure, we get tax uplift, we get more people around transit-oriented development. And of course, the greater downtown could be, I think, logically all considered transit-oriented development. And with what all the other things we're trying to do with the revitalization of downtown, we saw, even though it's a unique uh situation, that Westbrook Sea Train station area sitting vacant for so long. Perhaps something like this may have helped get that built sooner. And with that new plan making its way to council, uh something like this could help us accelerate those things because there's there's the aspect to this as well, where we have transit stations uh around the city that are underused, that have safety issues. Uh, people bring safety. And if this is a tool that we want to use to help uh get those built up faster and get changes around there that helps manage the other issues while getting a tax uplift and and relatively low risk with abatement only during construction period, uh then I think it's something that is worth us looking at. And in the greater downtown where we do have a lot of parking lots and other areas that are being underutilized, if we can get that uplift sooner, then that's I think ultimately becomes a benefit, even if there is a small cost uh in the early stages of doing that. So I I think there are some benefits here that are worth exploring, relatively low risk, and again, we're not committing to anything at this time. Uh so I I thank Director Lee and and the downtown team for taking a hard look at this and coming up with something that I think is workable and at least that we can say that we explored and that we did without uh leaving this out to dry too early. So I hope I can get your support today. All right, let's engage the e vote on that. Councillor Ward, your vote, please. Councillor Johnston? No. Mayor Farkas? Yes. All the votes are in. Thanks. Uh please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 8 to 7 with counselors Ward, Johnston, Jameson, Tyre, Shibo, Weines, and McLean opposed. All right, so we are back on the main. Anyone want to speak on the main as amended? Councillor Atkinson? Uh yeah, I'm gonna be just calling for division one, two, and three. Um I actually, as much as uh I think that this is an interesting thing, and I'd like to sort of see the report on the incentive program uh and and whether that can level things out a bit. I think that's actually a thing. We're hearing about a softening market, and I think we need to be a little more careful about how we're incentivizing rentals to smooth out the rates. Uh, and these projects take a long time to turn on. So I'm interested to sort of see the report. I'm actually more interested in looking at vacant and derelict lands. Uh, while I recognize vacant lands don't necessarily cause as much cause for concern. They do cause a lot of concern in the downtown. That's where we actually see a lot of um, it's it's those spots. Uh, and we need to be incentivizing housing, period. And I think uh derelict subclass trying to make sure that those are are taken away, that they're not costing the city as much, that we're not putting that onto taxpayers. Uh so I will be asking for division. Uh I will be voting against number one uh for that reason. Okay, thanks. Maybe just for clarity administration, uh if we vote down one A, B, and 1A and B, does that mean you proceed with a vacant subclass and derail subclass because we're voting not to proceed? Or against not proceeding? No, we would not be proceeding. You we would need uh additional direction to uh proceed to do either vacant land or subc uh the derelict subclass or both. Okay, I just want to make that uh clear, Councillor Atkinson and everybody else. If you vote against one A and one B, it does not mean that those things proceed. You're just voting against not proceeding with that. Okay. Uh anybody else on this? Okay, seeing none, uh gonna go back to you, Councillor Shabot to close on a very different motion than you moved. Well, it's kind of like weird closing on something that I actually don't support. Um but I'll I'll do my best. Um so I I appreciate the intent of the um direction that the council gave to administration to bring back this report. To look at alternate ways of incentivizing redevelopment, especially of vacant sites andor derelict sites. But as we heard, the net benefit is not going to be achieved. It's going to actually just redistribute the costs amongst other taxpayers. And when we're looking at creating affordability for Calgarians, this does not do that. This does the opposite. Recommendation number two, which just got passed as an amendment, it uh it talks about a small nominal amount there in base operating funding, but You have to remember that whenever we give administration direction to do work, it's not free. There is a cost. And that will be part of the budget deliberation. So whilst this all looks like it's nothing, there is a cost to it. And it's also going to take resources away from other tasks that administration has already got on their work plan. So not to say that maybe the information might not be valuable to have. I think we already got most of the information that we needed through the questions that were asked here by administration as to whether or not this was an impediment to um redevelopment in a downtown core. And we heard that it's phenomenal. And and if they want to reduce their taxes, they could just change their land use from non residential to residential. That will lower their taxes significantly. Anyways, having said that, um I'm uh I'm supportive of at least the majority of this and uh and it being as it's been asked to be called separately, I I don't have to make that request myself and uh on that basis I I still stand by what I said previously and we'll vote accordingly. So close. Okay. Mr. Clerk, let's uh vote on one, two, and three separately, and we can engage the e vote on one. And this is to not proceed with a vacant property tax program, but I should tell you, colleagues, if you vote. Against not proceeding, that does not mean that it will proceed. So do as you will. Let's engage with your vote. Councillor Jameson? Councillor Shabot? Mayor Farkas? Yes. All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. And that motion is carried 13 to 2 with counselors Daliwan Atkinson opposed. Let's now vote on uh bullet two, please. And Mayor Farkas? Yes. All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried eight to seven with counselors Ward, Johnston, Jameson, Tyres, Shabeau, Wyness, and McLean opposed. And then let's vote on three, just receiving the report from information. Councillor Jameson, your vote, please? Okay, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please uh display the results. All right. That motion has carried 15 to 0. Let's move on to 7.13, Civic Census Implementation. Good morning, members of council. My name is Dale Culkins. I'm the acting manager of growth and change strategy within city and regional planning. I'm joined by Yousuf Shaw, Census Program Coordinator. I believe we had a very excellent uh discussion about this at committee, but would Council appreciate a presentation on our item? Yeah, let's go for it. Okay. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mayor and members of Council. Uh my name is Yusuf Shah. I'm the Census Program Coordinator here to review our presentation to Council, uh to Executive Committee on June 9, 2026, pertaining to an update on the implementation of the civic census, seeking direction to adjust the census delivery model from contractor led to city led and to adjust the timeline for delivery from 2027 to 2028. Next slide, please. So the recommendation before you to council amends previous council direction that was approved in October 2024. Next slide, please. This is recommendation of council for previous council was a wording regarding the civic census timing to reinstate the biannual census in 2027. Next slide, please. This slide provides the previous or this slide as presented to executive committee provides an overview of how the administration arrived at the recommendation presented through an RFI process and further due diligence. In the following slide, please. And here's the recommendation the options investigation that staff conducted, administrative conduction through the RFI process, which identified a number of risks to the 2027 delivery as originally approved. Next slide, please. And following some due diligence work undertaken by the census team, uh, to date identified both strengths and weaknesses of proceeding with a 2027 census outsourced to a contractor, as opposed to both strengths and weaknesses of a 2028 census led by the city. Next slide, please. Each option has its own risks summarized for both the 2027 contractor led and a 2028 city led process. Next slide, please. Then we return to the original recommend or to the recommendation presented to Executive Committee requesting an amendment to council's decision to deliver the civic census in 2027, amending it to deliver in 2028. And that's the summary of the presentation presented to executive committee. Thank you for your your time today, and my team are here to answer any questions you may have. Okay. I believe that we have this recommendation from committee, so I'm gonna seek a mover for the committee recommendation. Uh Councillor Ward has moved that. Uh Councillor Schmidt has seconded it. Councillor Ward, did you want to open on that? Um yeah, sure. I I think it makes sense to defer this to twenty twenty eight given the circumstances of what we heard. Um I'll be interested to see. How we design uh an eventual census and if there is overlap with data from the twenty twenty-six federal census. Um so I I'm hoping that council would be part of a discussion to determine what sort of questions we're asking in a civic census. But uh yeah, happy to move. I think this is the right move. Okay. Uh over to Councillor Panizopoulos. Propose an amendment to the uh recommendations. If you could pull that up. So I think you know, picking up from Councillor Ward, um How important this census is. I think it's the one question that we as a council, uh as a Calgarians, have no idea. How many people live in our city, how many people live in our ward, and that's why doing this census is so critical. I fully supported going from 27 to 28, let's get it right, instead of trying to rush it. But what we're proposing does have some new risks, and even administration said the implementation and financial risks, the biggest change being that we're creating software ourselves. I totally support that. I totally understand that. There's nothing off the shelf. There's something we need to have, and as we go forward to our two millionth Calgarian and we have regular census, we need to have this information. But I think what this is, is brings a bit of belts and suspenders. Uh we did experience our our other colleagues from other levels of government tried to do uh uh programs and cost escalated 100x, 200x. And I think it goes back to having off ramps, having to understand. Came to surprise as me that we needed to postpone the census to 20, excuse me, to 28 from 27. And you know, it would have been great to have some sort of uh check-ins as we sort of go through there. I think that's the important part of this is just really understand administration will lead with it. I think they're excited about it. They have a what appears to be a good plan. And I think what's important, often the question comes, are you going to do this anyway? It codifies it. It makes sure that there's a timeline. Again, we don't want to have a surprise, something comes up. We have, and then there's off-ramps. If the costs start escalating 10x, 20x, 30x, well then we have to check in. Nobody wants to come, worst case, come to 28 and say, oops, we now we have to do it 29-30. It creates a whole conversation. Now we're back in the federal census and whatnot. I think everybody, hopefully on this council, wants to get that information. It's so critical. Um when we talk to any order of government, what's your population? 1.4 to 1.8 is the number that we throw out, and we have to have something a little tighter. And I think a city that's growing at 100,000 people a year, uh, maybe it'll slow down to 25 or 50,000. That's still the city of Medicine Hat moving to the city of Calgary each and every single year. So we need this. So for this support, uh, it adds a little more clarity. I think the administration is working on this and gives them some opportunities to check back into executive committee and ultimately through council. Hopefully, you'll support and we can get this uh census going. Thank you. Alright, uh moved by Councillor Panasopoulos. Uh can I get a seconder? Second by Councillor Kelly. Uh anyone specifically on Councillor Penazopoulos? Yeah. Go for it. Thank you, worship. Uh yeah, I'm thank you, Councillor Penosopoulos, for bringing this forward. I I I I share your disappointment. I think most members of disappointment that we're not able to proceed as uh uh as originally planned, and certainly as uh uh uh relatively new council members. Um we'd like to keep getting updates to make sure that it do we don't I love your I love your description of off-ramps gateways throughout this project. While I don't really have much interest in micromanaging anything that uh that administration's doing, the census is critically important to us, and I I personally think that uh it would have been good for us to hear about the uh the census not being able to go forward in 27 and a decision to be made earlier than what it is that we did. So I I appreciate this uh this amendment from Councillor Panasopoulos to uh just get us a couple of check-in points along the way to make sure that we're uh we're getting the job done, and if we need to make any uh alternate decisions along that way, that we as council are uh are are able to facilitate that uh uh for administration. So, yeah, uh gonna be supporting this amendment because I think it just adds to the uh uh the original intent of the original um motion. Thank you, Worship. All right, uh Councillor Shabot on this amendment by Councillor Panasopoulos. No, I'm just curious. In November of this year, you the report says that you're gonna bring forward a recommendation on budget requirements to to do this work. Um just trying to rationalize. How this improves that. If you're gonna have an idea on how much it's gonna cost in in November, why why do we need all this additional reporting? The reporting request uh for this is more to do with the overall design of the census program. We will include costing information. So, in the event that our estimates have to would need to change based on the design process, we'll be able to present that to you in advance of budget discussions. And maybe just Councillor Chabot, I think ultimately, I think you can have confidence in us that we're on top of all these items, including the budgeting requirements. What we see from Councillor Pannozopoulos here is really just a little bit more of so you're more in the loop on the work, which we're supportive of. So if it has to do with money, it's obviously gonna come back to council. Uh if you haven't budgeted enough money, you'll come back with a request for additional funds, and it can happen at any course, any time during the course of the year. I and just I'm trying to understand why this, like, is this necessary? Is this going to add value to what it is that you're doing? Or is it strictly to better inform counsel on what you're doing as opposed to how you're doing it? Because we don't we govern, we don't manage how you do it. Shouldn't shouldn't have the oversight of counsel. Rather, what you do should be what council is directing. And and I'm trying to rationalize the difference between the two. Councillor Chabot, thank you. Uh through the chair, I think what I would offer to your question is this is a matter of importance to Calgarians in Council, and this gives us an opportunity to be really transparent about the progress of the work and daylight really early if there's any issues or concerns. So you see value in this in so far as bringing the public along in so far as what it is that we're doing? Yeah, bringing the public and council along and being open to any questions that council may have as the census program develops and unfolds. We see this as briefings, probably, to council. And so not a lot of extra work from what we'd already already be doing on our program management. So so having been involved in municipal census in my s in the past myself as well as my wife, having actually worked them, um I know that our compliance requirements are very tight compared to federal and provincial. Um there's no intent on changing that that requirement through this process? No. Keep maintaining our high level of compliance. Yes, sir. All right. I have no further questions. Thanks. Councillor Councillor Wynus on this amendment? Go ahead. Shabot is kind of getting there, and I'm I'm just kind of curious, is this like a distraction from other work? Because we know we have to complete the federal census before we have the timeline that you're presenting. Um and council has a lot of different priorities coming out administration. Uh I'm just curious, yes, you can do it, but How many other priorities can you actually take on from council if this is a reporting structure we're creating? Thank you for the question, Councillor. It's fair, and as Councillor Chabot mentioned in his debate for the previous item, everything we're directed to do takes time and takes money. Briefings are relatively straightforward for us to be able to do, and I think we have confidence to be able to absorb that within the existing program without having to drop any balls on anything else. And I think it's ultimately up to you as members of council about whether you want this coming on your plate. Okay, so I won't support this. Thank you. All right. Uh back to Councillor Panasopoulos to close, I guess. Yeah, thanks for the comments. I just want to speak a bit about the difference. I think this is the first time that the city of Calgary is implementing a software development in-house or whether we use consultants external and you know compared to others. And just that that we heard it just from admin, you know, the the check-in, uh, transparency, daylighting issues. Had we known that, you know, six, nine months ago something was wrong, maybe there could have been a different pivot. You saw the recommendation. We we stay with the one smaller community or we do this ourselves, and that was great, it took time. And that's what's the important thing. I I think it's real. If this was building a bridge or a road, this is we've got the in-house expertise. It's just a little check-in. It's making sure because we don't want to, the goal is a road can wait another year. Something came up, we'll just pave it next year, so be it. You know, deal with your bumpy roads. But a sense, this is so critical. And we've experienced that through this term, not having the right number. So anything we can do, just a check-in for Calgaryans, know that the number is gonna be there, it's gonna be accurate, it's gonna be compliant, as Councillor Chabot says. Uh that thing's critical. And and this just allows to make sure that as council we're gonna make sure that this happens and uh we're not gonna be deviated off. And heaven forbid something does go bump in the night. We as a council can pivot very quick with administration to make sure that we still implement whatever that is. Nobody knows what it is, but hopefully we can do that together. So with that. I'm closed. Thank you. All right, uh Mr. Clerk, let's please engage the e vote on this amendment. Councillor Ward, your vote please? Councillor Shabot? Councillor Johnston? And Mayor Farkas? Yes. All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the result. Motion is carried 10 to 5 with counselors ward, Johnston, Wyness, Tyres, and Jameson opposed. Gonna go to I believe Councillor Jameson to an amend to attempt an amendment on the motion as amended. Thank you. Yeah, this is completely different from Councillor Pantasopoulos's. This is all to do with the uh frequency of audit. Uh sorry, frequency of the census. Um this amendment is straightforward. Admin is recommending we do a civic census every two years or two per council term. My amendment changes this to one every five years or one per council term. Uh this would complement the timing of the federal census to do a civic census in between the federal ones. So essentially every two to three years you get a civic one. It's in between the federal ones. Uh everything else stays the same. We're still gonna do one in twenty twenty eight. This is I just feel that uh two per term is is too much. Open. All right. That's been moved by Councillor Jameson. Is there a seconder? Uh Councillor Chabot seconded that. It's on the table. Over to Councillor Ward on this amendment. I'm very sorry. I'm I'm a bit confused. Every five years. I'll just pass. Go uh go to the next in queue, please. All right. Actually, just to clarify, could maybe administration weigh in on how this amendment materially changes what was on the table previously? Mayor Farkas, this is the first we're seeing this, so we're just absorbing it. My understanding, Councillor Jameson, and is that this is one census every five years. Is that correct? Correct. So you guys are proposing every two years, which is two per council term. I want every five years or one per council term. Okay. We were directed to do two per council or every two years. So this would be less information. And what I would say is every two years was something that we supported because of the rate of Calgary's growth. Gives us more information twice in a business cycle to bring forward amendments for service changes that may be necessary. because of a growing population and we actually get to see at award level where those change or community level where those changes are happening to adjust service plans. I just for colleagues, I kind of went back to Councillor Jameson there just as a let's call it an expanded open, just to make sure that the point was clear. I'll briefly uh enter debate. Is there any financial trade offs to this? Because we know doing a census less frequently means that uh we have to hire fewer folks. Uh we have less of an organizational lift. But then I'm also aware of some potentially granting programs that are tied to per capita programming. So for example, if we know that we have X million people in the city, we have funding sources from other levels of government. And if we can update that number, we can get more money faster. Do we have a sense of what the business case may be on doing it every two years versus every five years? Because if we have relative if we have incomplete information, we may be leaving money on the table from the province and feds, especially for grants that scale up as Calgary grows? I can take a quick crack at that. The as far as the cost of the census program itself, it's not a clean split in two due to the uh largely due to these startup costs of reinstating the census again. Um that'll take a significant component of what the initial cost would be. But then even on an ongoing basis, it it wouldn't be as simple as just doing it once will cost half as much as doing it twice, largely due to ongoing operational support and overhead that's needed to initiate the census, ramp it up, and then keep it running. Um and then, of course, there's a trade off between Ramping up a team every five years versus having a team in place that regularly conducts it and having institutional memory to be able to do it as well. So it's not as clean. Our initial estimates are that if we were to switch to one, it would cost um approximately nine million in the first round and then down to about four million in following periods, which isn't as clean as a as a halfway split. Um we don't with with regards to granting programs, we don't have a definitive answer just uh due to the way the grants are structured, but um There is a benefit to having a regular census cadence to ensure that we have up-to-date per capita figures to submit to our granting agencies. So j just to be crystal clear on that, to to do half the amount of censuses. Cens I? Censuses? Half the amount of censuses is not necessarily half the cost. We're looking at most of the cost is just by standing up a team. And there's some economies of scale. So for example, doing it more frequently is not a matter of doubling the cost. You're saying your first, it's like buy one, get one half off, roughly. In a manner of speaking, a big component of the cost, for example, the software development, we're amortizing over four censuses over an eight year period. So essentially, we're spending the same amount of money, we'd just be doing it over two census periods if we go down to one per five year period. Likewise, the hardware costs would last us four censuses as well. If we purchase the hardware today, we'd be able to run it over four census periods, where it would be the same cost, we'd just be dividing it over two census periods. So there's a lot of fixed costs no matter how many sense uh socies we we perskin off the rails. So there's a certain element of fixed cost no matter what, and and the people as a scalar is rel it's it's not as significant as you would think. That's correct. And then I think the the the other touch point is just the value of having good data in terms of our decisions, in terms of where rec center should be, how the city should grow, right? Uh even if it's not a pure one to one. Money in from the province and feds. There's value in terms of us knowing who Calgarians are, how they need to be served in growth decisions. Is that a a reason from a planning background we would be supporting this? Yes. So based on this, I'm I'm getting into a little bit of debate. I think more regular information is to our benefit. And I think given what we heard about there's a there's a sunk cost to investing in the f uh physical systems and hardware and so on. We might as well milk those investments and have more frequent updates to information. Uh that's where I'm at. Councillor uh Shabot on this amendment. Yeah, some couple of questions for administration. So the cost to actually run a census, you've analyzed how much you would spend on what. What's like you have to employ a lot of people to actually do this work. And so if I were to look at a breakdown of on where the costs are, what percentage of it would you say is human resource costs versus capital costs for infrastructure? If you give me a moment, I'll see if I can pull that out. So I guess it it goes back to the whole diaper um analogy, it depends. Depends on whether it's spread out over four to four cycles or versus two cycles versus one cycle. Um but you know if you can at least give me some sort of some sense of of understanding of what the actual capital costs are projected to be v versus what the operational costs on each census is going to be. And then that way I can. I can extrapolate on my own as to how much it would cost on a per election cycle versus if we did it one versus four. That's a good way to look at of looking at it, Councillor. So our ongoing event cost for each census is approximately 4 million, and our startup capital costs would be about 9 million. So the more censuses we have, we're able to spread out that 9 million cost figure. And so that shrinks as a share of the overall program. But the the fixed human resource cost is going to be about four million in each election. Exactly. That's Escalating as time goes on because of inflation, increased salaries, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. And does it matter? Uh is the software going to expire? we would require regular updates and continuous improvement, and we do anticipate that at a certain point it would need transformation. The current program is estimated on the basis of a lot of requirements that the province updated as of 2022. And so being in compliance with that required a whole new approach to it. So if something like that happens again in the future, we'd have to come back and reassess. This may seem like a really strange question, but the reason I asked whether or not the the software expires is is because in the past when we were looking at redistribution and the redistribution software specifically, um it seemed like it expired every four years. We had to get brand new software every time we did a reassessment on award boundaries. And so that's why I'm asking the question Is it something that can be updated, upgraded uh over time? Is there a shelf life for this software? Is it something that can be used in perpetuity? Or I again maybe I we we should ask our. Our folks in NIT specifically that question. Because somewhere sometimes software licenses expire. But this isn't licensed software, this is custom-built software, and to the point that was made, we will keep it up to date because we have that within our platform to be able to do. So the initial capital costs is where you're going to incur the greatest cost. Upgrading it over time is going to be incremental in in essence, right? Absolutely. So is there any reason why this software should ever expire? That's a hard question to answer right now with the pace of change of technology, but I think I I would suggest that our we keep our platforms very current. We would work very closely with the Census project team to make sure that we are always keeping the software as current as possible, not only in order to deliver on the outcomes, but from a security perspective. Well, we know technology changes annually, so arguably it'll be outdated by the time you actually get it out. But that's besides the point. No, our methodology will make sure that we're using the current technology right up to the point that we're releasing it to production. I'm more concerned about functionality versus being on the bleeding edge of everything. As long as it's functional, it's means a lot more to me than whether or not we're on the bleeding edge of technology. Agreed. Um, anyways, so yeah, for me, it's um that's I guess going into short debate is uh why I'm I'm supportive of this to some degree. But one quick question for administration. Do we know when the next um uh federal census is gonna be released? Uh we expect data to be released near the end of 2027. So this would be one year after. That's correct. If it's gonna save money, huh? Can't afford. I think uh Councillor Shabot, I'm sure you've reflected on this, but the number of hot dogs in a package is usually ten, and the number of hot dog buns is usually eight. And I think it's the same thing with the software licensing cadence in the calendar. So anyway, uh Councillor Atkinson, please. Um i I'm just wondering do we Get different data from civic censuses than we do from what we get from the federal government when they do their census. The civic census is prioritized based on the requirements of what the province of Alberta has essentially set out for us. So our question really looks at household sizes and who lives in the housing units that are in uh Calgary. Um the federal census has similar questions and collects similar data, but in much more depth and much more detail amongst other socioeconomic indicators. Um we're largely focusing on really the data we need for our service level planning. Um, whereas the federal government has different needs. There is a lot of overlap, that is correct. But we have more granularity and more control over how we divide up the geographies and how we analyze that data than we would through the federal census. Gotcha. So you yeah, this sort of der pairing it or um allowing our questions to be more focused. Like, can you give an example of something that we would be asking within our census that is helping us to make decisions that would not come from federal census data? Uh in the past, we have asked, for example, about the number of pets in each household to help our bylaw teams understand impacts, for example, recreation services and parks with regards to people's needs with their pets, for example. We've also had our transportation planning team ask specific questions about people's travel behaviors that may may line up, but also it offers the opportunity to ask additional questions beyond what the federal census would would have asked. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah, that's sort of I guess like that's the piece I worry about with going. I I totally recognize it's a good it's a good suggestion I think to sort of be making sure we're being critical, but I worry a little bit that the decision making that we need to be making at a community level, investments in um In transportation, sort of like city services, we get to be a lot more specific and our ability to sort of tailor the data and to get that data from everyone, not just you know, a small subset based on surveys on our spring and fall surveys. This is really something that extends across everyone. And if we're trying to be a more data driven organization and make especially challenges, I think about our choices about how we move around. I think that really detailed uh community uh specific data is important to that. So uh I appreciate where this is going, but I think I'm keeping it at the two-year level for more localized data is the right way to go. All right, uh Councillor Johnston on the amendment. Okay, looking at uh every five years, um, how long has it how long will it be since the last census? I believe the last census was twenty eighteen if my memory serves. 2021? Sorry, the federal census is twenty twenty-one. The civic census was twenty eighteen. So it'll be Twenty nineteen? 2019. Twenty nineteen. almost ten years before we get data and we've survived. Right, with the data we've collected through other sources and and that. Um and my question is actually I did a couple CO inquiries back in December on this, and there was no real urgency at that time to fast track these to ensure this gets done. Um and I guess this is more debate than questions. I apologize, but I'm I'm okay with every five years considering we've gone this long without it. Um And who knows what's going to happen in five years? Like what if there's another delay? Um there's no guarantee that the pro are you guys ref um using any other jurisdiction to mirror for what you guys want to implement? We are we have spoken with some other jurisdictions across the province that are implementing uh their own civic censuses. There aren't many who are doing it in-house. Um That's what I mean. Like any in-house municipalities out there doing censuses. Uh not that we know we don't have a lot of examples of municipalities our size that are doing it in-house. There are there are smaller communities that are. So we would be the scaling is a is a big challenge, but we that's what we're we're really gonna be setting a bar ourselves. Would you think it would be easier to sub it out? That was the discussion we had in the risk analysis we'd conducted leading up to the original uh council direction to reinstate it using a contractor led model. Um And we identified the risks of the fact that there we are in our own class with regards to the size of the community. And so there's there's challenges in scaling up even third-party solutions and not having a uh a contractor that can do the whole census delivery. Right. We can basically section off our garbage collection of um Parks and stuff, why couldn't we have sectioned off parts of the city for the census? It has to do with how the census is implemented and the requirements from the province. So we do have a very fixed timeline within which we have to do it. So it's three months between March and July of a given year that we're conducting a census. And so it would be a wholesale event across the city. No, what I'm saying is many hands create less work or faster work. So I'm just curious why not set up a procurement so that you can accept smaller census uh agencies to tackle the south, the north, east, whatever. Like did you try that? We we did explore that, and that was the findings from our RFI process that we'd conducted. Was that there are not a great deal of contractors on the market who do this work specifically, and so it would be challenging to find enough to really subdivide the city up into different components to deliver. What contractor did it in 2019? We did it in house. We did it in twenty nineteen. Do we know what the last contractor was we used for we've never used contract? I don't believe we've ever used contractors. Uh so when we did it in house back in twenty nineteen, why couldn't we have done it in twenty twenty-five or twenty twenty six? Through mayor to councillor Johnson. So um I forget what year it was and if my colleagues can remind me about the SAVE program, but there was a pro program that looked at um reducing costs and the census program was cut at that time. But then in twenty twenty four a direction to reinstate census starting twenty twenty seven, and so we're just going back to what we were doing before in-house. So I'll remind council of the full report, including the confidential attachment, which we won't discuss here. We discussed enclosed. So we have realized the lack of census data at the municipal level has been a detriment to the work that we do, the services we provide. We've been operating in a vacuum. And so this is why we're bringing back the census. And the team looked at different options to explore on how to deliver that. Originally we were aiming for something with 2027 with different contractors. That hasn't panned out, and that's why this report is before you here with a change in the approach. Right. And so to that, I've made two separate requests to fast track this to get it either done this year or next year. And I think there was opposition from admin to do that. So I'm just curious the importance of getting a census and the data, but then when given potentially an opportunity from council to do it quicker, um I I don't know. I'm just getting conflicting kind of thoughts from admin on this. So I'm okay with every five years. So I'll just leave it there. Yeah. Okay, I'm curious about the direction that you've given us. I didn't give direction. I I I asked questions of admin through CO inquiry regarding the civic census. You're unfortunately just at time. Yeah. Councillor Johnson. I'll I'll just uh remind council as a body we don't direct work. Uh we seek information. I never directed anything, so but thank you for the reminder. Thank you very much. Uh Councillor Johnson. I never I never directed anything. Go to Councillor Kelly, please. Uh thank you, Worship. Just uh by way of debate, I'm uh I'm not opposed to this. Like I actually I th I would love to explore the the um uh the frequency of the uh of the census. Um but like normally something this would come like through a notice of motion and come with like a uh a notice of motion checklist. So uh hearing that administration just heard about it today for the first time, I don't I I don't feel comfortable with the due diligence uh having been done in order to be able to vote in favor of this at this time. So uh I'll be a no on this, but um I encourage uh Councillor Jameson to work with administration to uh uh uh to explore the possibility of uh bringing it back with um some uh a little bit more detail in terms of to give me a little bit more confidence uh that this uh uh will be a uh a decision that uh will actually help us moving forward because certainly as uh as we've all heard previously and then even today, um the decision during 2020 with the SAVE program uh was uh was uh Upon reflection, the wrong one to make because we certainly need this data on a much more frequent basis than uh once every 10 years, and the federal census simply is not giving us enough detail in order to be able to uh uh be able to do our jobs appropriately. The cadence of that, though, I'm totally open to the debate along on the cadence, but I'd love to have administration have a little bit more time to sort of uh synthesize that before uh before we make a vote on it. So I'll be a no on this today, but uh open to the discussion in the future. Okay. Uh Councillor Ewell on this amendment. Yeah, do are we worried about census fatigue uh among Calgarians? Uh if we're if we're increasing the frequency of censuses, do we is there data on this is too frequent um in other jurisdictions? Do we have any backgrounds on how frequent people do uh censuses in other municipalities? We have not directly explored that, although the city has in the past conducted this census program every year, uh starting in 1958 up until 2019. And so part of our rationale for having it in 2028 is also to accommodate a sense of census fatigue from the federal census to the civic census to provide some time in between for residents to ramp up to the next one. And so we are cognizant of that by seeking a biannual cadence or two per business cycle to allow some time to pass between each period. But in the past, Calgary has conducted this annually. Yeah. So I'm just worried at a a cadence of Every two years on Civic and every five years being even and odd, there's going to be times like I'm just looking in 2031 immediately. We're gonna have a a federal and a a civic kind of lining up together. Would we do the same thing that we're doing now and pushing that civic one out a little bit? That's correct. The provincial requirements don't uh don't per or the the province would not certify a civic census the same year that it lands on a federal census, so we wouldn't conduct a sen a civic census the same year that there would be a federal census. So there would be a gap between that time period. So it's not set in stone that it's every two years, it's it's that's the okay. That's correct. Um yeah, I'll I I I I think with that confidence that we won't be lining them up together, I won't be supporting this amendment. Being ward three, looking at 2021, Livingston and Carrington didn't exist, and they are now massive communities in my ward. And so I do think the frequency does need to ramp up a bit. So I won't be supporting this amendment. Okay. Back to Councillor Jameson, please. Okay, let's see if we can sway some lines here. Okay, so I I do support doing a census, a civic census in 2028. Uh this amendment will then push the next one to 2033. Keep in mind there will be another federal one in 2031. So, to be clear, we're never more than two to three years without fresh population data with my amendment. What I don't support is to census every budget cycle for a cost of between 6.4 and 9 million each, on top of a federal census that already runs every five years. A census almost every year, in my opinion, is overkill and it's not physically responsible. My amendment keeps the census in 2028 as scheduled, but saves the taxpayers in the budget cycle millions of dollars going forward. The province relies entirely on the federal census. They don't do their own. With the federal census, we'd still be collecting this critical data every two to three years. That's complementary, it's not redundant. So we have to find ways to save money. I think that this is a small way that we can start doing that. I hope you can support it. Closed. All right. Let's engage the vote, please, on this amendment. Councillor Shabot, your vote, please? All the votes are in. Uh okay. Um be cast the vote. Yeah, we'll have to recast the vote. Okay. Councillor Ward? Councillor Shabot? Yeah, all the votes are in. All right. Please display the results. On that, the uh motion has been defeated with Councillor Schmidt, Kelly, Daliwall, Panasopoulos, Atkinson, Clark, Ewell. Wynus and myself opposed. Alright, we are now back on the main as amended. Any further debate, colleagues? Who moved this uh back yesterday? I think it was Councillor Ward to close. Alright. Do you want to say anything? Look forward to the data. Alright, uh, let's engage the evote, please. On this as amended. Councillor Johnston, please. Yeah, all the votes are in. All right, uh display the results, please. That motion is carried thirteenth to two with counselors Johnston and Jameson opposed. All right, uh I think we're on 7 30, and I believe it was Councillor Weines on um Alternate recommendation. Thanks. Clerks has the amendment. It's to after our conversation at Council Services, we realize that this ward community event fund is very important for our communities to fundraise for capital project infrastructure to host events. And even though we have taken this account from $10,000 per ward to $20,000, our community groups are struggling and need some extra support. I I'd like to move it up to 50,000 per ward and we can try it out and if we find that we're not utilizing it, we can drop it year a year from now. But I think the next step for each ward, given some have a lot of community associations, to is to increase it to 50,000 per ward. Sir, was that 1-5 or 5-0? 50. Do we It's currently at 20, just because I just had a question, so it's currently 20. all right? So let's get the original recommendation from the committee on the table. So uh who is our committee chair of that? Remind me. Councillor Shabot, would you mind moving the original uh recommendation from the committee? Yeah, no, I'm actually happy to move the recommendations. The uh the recommendations um that administration brought forward was to Make hole an amendment that was introduced last term. Last term we doubled the amount going into ward community event funds. It was only done on a temporary basis, and so this embeds it into the base, which makes it a permanent source of funds, which is double what the ward community event fund was previously. So we went from 10,000 per ward to 20,000 per ward, but making it as a permanent source of funds. I know at the time we did discuss making amendments to the ward community event fund to increase it beyond what was being proposed. But council at the time felt that doubling it was a good first step. And it was focused around the idea of that on a per capita basis, yeah, each member of council should have equal amount of funds to distribute amongst their communities. Whilst some communities, some wards have more communities, typically our average on population is is relatively similar, and hence the reason for the decision at the time. That's why I'm moving the recommendations that administr administration brought forward and trying to address any issues in my clothes and the subject to amendments. So we'll see what happens. Okay, that's been moved by Councillor Shabot. Who's your vice chair? Uh all right, Councillor Ward, uh you mind seconding the recommendation? Okay. I'm gonna go back to you, Councillor Wines, for your amendment. And I believe it's just a number change on the uh incorporation of the increase. Yep. And Councillor Dollywall is my second on this one. So I've already done my open and I think it's important. I think Coming off of the census conversation, the the growth of the city has been uh quite large, and we are also dealing with inflation on hosting community events. And I've watched the the trend in my office of an increase in ask to host a community event, and I think it's important we address that for the volunteers that uh are working hard for our city. Okay. That's been seconded by uh Councillor Dallywell. Over to you, uh Councillor Dallywell. Yeah, no, thank you, Mara. And I really appreciate bringing this amendment. Yes, the data tells us that sometimes we don't fully use our board event fund, and that's not because there's not eligible organizations. There's other reasons. Last year's data, because it was an election year, we got to be very careful how we give out money. But yes, this is a great fund. This actually helps the organizations that cannot get access to events and festivals, but they want to do great stuff in the community. These are small little organizations who do not have grant writing folks who are hired full-time. So thank you, Councillor Wanus. We discussed this last term, but it was a temporary fix. This will properly fix it. And again, uh the onus is on each Councillor to be prudent who they give this fund to. 50,000 doesn't mean we're gonna spend 50,000. It just gives us flexibility to support those organizations. With that, I'm happy to uh second this. Thank you. Okay. Uh Councillor Clark, please. Yeah, just for a bit of uh debate or support, I suppose. Um Ward 9, I've got 17 community associations and and uh and that doesn't include uh all of the community organizations that reach out. So if you think that's just over a thousand dollars-ish per organization, uh which really limits the opportunity to help support and reinvest in our communities the way that they'd like to be uh reinvested. And I think another thing about these Word budgets is it gives the the opportunity to have those conversations direct with our associations with those communities about how they want to build and invest in their own neighborhoods. So quite supportive of this concept and uh really appreciate you bringing it forward. Thank you. Uh Councillor Shabot on the amendment? Yeah, so there was um Special events fund that council used to administer that's now being handled by um I believe by Tourism Calgary for larger type events. And the the challenge with giving council more money is that you can expect that you're gonna get a whole bunch more organizations coming to you, not necessarily the ones even within your ward. You're gonna get citywide, you know, uh groups coming to you saying, Yeah, there's still money left in your ward community event fund. Do you think you can throw another an extra 10K my way? And uh so Whilst there is a I guess a more rigorous process for some of those larger events to access funding through uh Tourism Calgary, I don't think reallocating those funds or allocating additional funds to the ward community event to help some of those organizations access additional funds is is is the right thing to do. If we want to make this $30,000 per ward, I'd be more inclined to support that. This $50,000 is just going above and beyond. In fact, in the past, when it used to be administered by the Council Council's Office Coordinating Committee, anything over $25,000 would have to be decided by council as a whole. This essentially gives a member of council the ability to allocate. you know, a large amount of funds. I I can't remember, I think there was a limit on each one. Um, but we didn't actually adopt the limit, if unless I'm mistaken. We did adopt the 5,000. We did not. So see again, this would allow a member of council to actually allocate funds to one organization that exceeds what previously had to be approved by council as a whole, which is why I'm I'm not going to support this. I think this is too much. Um it and it I guess it it leaves the ability for a member of council to be supportive of a particular organization that they may have. Personal ties with. And it I just I I'd rather leave it as community focused as opposed to something that could potentially be utilized for citywide sort of opportunities. And for me, that funding should be distributed through uh Tourism Calgary for the special events fund, which, like I said, was relinquished by council to be uh dealt with. Uh they have a rigorous process on assessing who the recipients are going to be. I don't think this provides enough rigor to assess um the viability and and the rationale around uh funding distribution. So for me, this is enough. I'm just gonna insert myself into the queue. Uh I'm quite uh persuaded by Councillor Shabot's uh argument. I I do think some level of increase uh is justified. I I feel like uh sight unseen without myself being aware of some of the The background in terms of uh this program. Like when I was a city Councillor, I believe it was $5,000 per ward. And when I first thought it was maybe $1,500,000, $15,000, that made a lot of sense to me. But having such a big increase, especially if we understand that uh the commun Ward Community Event Fund has not been fully subscribed in the past, I think that this is a bit too much of a leap. Um I'm not gonna leave necessarily my my chair to do so, but you know, if any of you colleagues wanted to perhaps suggest Uh maybe the mayor's office be able to participate uh for the purpose of the Word Community Event Fund for some of the bigger ones, uh the more grassroot ones. I'm thinking of, I'm not gonna name specific names here, but there are ones that are far below the threshold of like the big fish that say Tourism Calgary would be entertaining a major proposal for. But there are some with a citywide application. And having served on CCCO before the the Council Services Committee before it was changed, we did feel like some of those more broader citywide, especially ethnic festivals kind of ended up not having a specific home. Uh ward it would have been ward five and ward three at the time were really oversubscribed in terms of the number of asks and just because it had some um ethnic component to it or a cultural association didn't mean that the same Councillor always had to be the one uh necessarily doing the lifting. So I'm open to persuasion on this. I think to to see any number of hundred and forty thousand and go to seven hundred thousand without necessarily my own understanding of uh what the level of asks were in the past. I don't know if I'm comfortable supporting that, but uh one option may be say a terms of reference adjustment to allow the mayor to be able to have like say ten or fifteen thousand dollars at uh at uh disposal to be able to support the city wide ones that don't have a very specific ward that they benefit. So another example is maybe a lot of ward seven, ward eight, I think, downtown, Princess Island Park, there's a lot of events that happen in that ward. But it's not uh fair to say that it's a specific ward benefit that they're serving because that's where all the meeting spaces and the gathering spaces are. So uh I think there could be a more targeted way to do that. I really appreciate the intent though, because I know how valuable this is to the various organizations, especially in the current uh corporate giving environment. So uh I'm a bit skeptical, but I'm open to hearing some of the other uh arguments and and debate from my colleagues. All right, Councillor Atkinson, please. I just to clarify, because the motion is or the original resolution is to direct administration to incorporate an increase of 140,000. But that's being that 140,000 is being replaced by 700,000, but the increase is on top of a base. If I'm Got it right, but maybe I don't, so I'm not sure. Thank you for the question, Councillor Atkinson. Yes, you are correct actually. The way the motion is currently written, the total amount for each ward would end up being $60,000 each. Right. Yeah. So we actually want it to be 700,000 minus a hundred the hundred and forty uh that's originally in place. Yeah. Okay. Uh yeah. So I guess make it for 560 if we're trying to do 700,000, or we're going for 60,000 apiece. I guess I'll I'll I'll make an amendment to the amendment to make that 560,000 if uh we need to do that. Mr. Clerk, are we able to amend the amendment as it is standing, or do we dispense with this amendment and attempt a different amendment? No, it may be amended. Okay. Alright, so that's uh we're gonna go to amend this amendment. Councillor uh Atkinson is going to attempt to amend this amendment and is the am your amendment to the amendment uh strike the number 700,000 and replace with 560,000. So that the total in the end, because the original the original uh resolution that is proposed is to direct administration to incorporate an increase of a certain amount, so currently 140. Uh but if we increase the base amount by 700,000, we actually end up with 840,000 in the yeah. So we're just trying to make it so that the end result of the actual motion is 700,000, not 840,000. Okay. Is there a seconder for this amendment to the amendment? Could maybe Councillor Wynus could ask you to weigh in is is this amendment to the amendment serving your purpose, your intent, or is it No, when we had written it is to replace a total amount for the budget line. So I'm hearing like on right on this side, we're debating on making it to be. for a total of 30,000 per ward. So do we want 50,000 per ward or do we want 30? And that's where council's gonna have to get clarity because this side of the bar is debating on dropping the number to get an increase for our ward community of end fund. So that's what I'm trying to navigate right now. I guess I I Maybe if we could just go to administration right now to see how you interpret that final number of 560,000 and if you have better calculators than ours, what do you deem the the ultimate per ward amount to be? Based if five if 560,000 is accepted, how much will be available per ward? So the base operating budget is $140,000. In 2025, that was increased to $280,000 through the Council Innovation Fund. So what administration is originally proposing today was to add an additional $140,000 to get it back up to that $280,000. So If Could I just ask you uh just simply if the 560,000 increase is accepted here, and this amendment to the amendment is adopted and the amendment is adopted, what is the total amount available per ward? fifty thousand dollars. 50,000. 50? Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. So Councillor Atkinson, Councillor WineS, to be clear, everybody involved, if this amendment to the amendment is adopted, the outcome is $50,000 per per ward. Correct. Okay. All right. Anybody else on this amendment to the amendment? Uh Councillor McLean on the amendment to the amendment. Um I agree that w increasing reward budget is good for the community events are very important. This is still a lot of money. The 700,000 was way too much. And I don't know if you want to be going back and forth nickel and diming on this stuff. I I still feel this is too much. So I don't know how to approach this. A twenty thousand award. Twenty-five, 'cause we're at fifty? This is fifty this is fifty. I don't know. I guess I'll test the will of co the council we can debate more, but I would suggest thirty at a max. I mean, we're just we're really have to dial in and we're all doing our surveys on our budget and uh this is a pretty significant increase in the base budget. So uh on another note, I d I don't uh quite agree. I like this your your suggestion and your offer, the mayor's offer w you know Chiming in. I prefer that not to get uh this should be each board councillor deciding each on one of that. I don't want it to get political, but yeah, that's still way too much money. Um so I I I'm gonna suggest thirty thousand and I don't know how that works, but um debate amongst yourselves. Okay, before lunch, I want us to resolve at least this amendment to the amendment. Uh I will be supporting the amendment to the amendment to lower the amount because I I think the 700,000 is too big. 560 is probably too big too, but I'd like the smaller amount rather than the bigger amount when it comes to spending money. Here's uh Councillor Chabot on this amendment to this amendment. Uh yes. So I guess the the best way to get to the ultimate solution, which I think Several members of council seem to be aligned with in the concept of increasing amount of funding, but maybe not to this level. This is suggesting $50,000 per ward. What we did previously was go from $10,000 to $20,000. I think a more reasonable number as as Councillor McLean pointed out is probably $30,000 per ward, which would then make require this number to be $280. So essentially $280 plus $140 would give us $420, which would equate to $30,000 per ward. So sorry, a little bit of head math here. Anyways, but the only way to get there, actually, is by defeating this motion and having a new motion brought forward, a new amendment to change that to 280, because you can't amend. An amendment to an amendment. No, but we can amend an amended amendment. It has to be defeated and then it has to be reintroduced as a as a new amendment to the amendment. Colleagues, we're gonna be back at uh 115 for nomination committee. All right, the chair has called you back to Calgary City Council. Mr. Clerk, please call the room. Councillor Kelly? Sorry, was that me? Yep, that's a roll call. I just couldn't hear uh present. My apologies. Uh Councillor McLean? Councillor McClain. Yes, I'm here. Sorry. Councillor Penzopoulos? Councillor Schmidt? Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ward, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot, Councillor Clerk, Councillor Dollywall, Councillor Jameson, Councillor Johnson, Here. Mayor Farkas. Here. All right. Councillor Atkinson's amendment to the amendment did not receive a seconder, so that's uh fizzled. What I'm gonna go is just recognize real quick Councillor Kelly on a referral motion. Uh thank you, worship. Yeah, after uh hearing the debate and what should the number be, uh um I I kind of this sausage making on the floor, I guess, is it feels like it's kind of gotten away a little bit. Should it be 50,000? Should it be 30,000? Should it be the 20,000 that the recommendation came forward? Should it be the 60,000 that the current motion uh says? Um I I feel like we need to just have a bit more of a conversation about it. And if it were only that, we probably could have that conversation here at council. I do feel, though, that there's a second conversation to be had here, which is the current administrative process for the council ward fund was established when the amount was $10,000 per office. Moving to a $50,000 amount, I feel like that may require a different administrative process or additional protocol. I want to recognize that around the horseshoe here, that $50,000 is more than most of council spent on our entire election campaigns. And this would be year over year. And so the amount of rigor that we know that we have around something like an election campaign where uh uh where we have uh uh reporting requirements, et cetera, I think that. Rather than us trying to do all of these things on the council on the council floor, I'm gonna bring forward this recommendation here, which is to refer it back to administration for them to come forward with a new uh uh a new recommendation on these two fronts. I did contemplate just simply sending it back to the committee, uh, but I think it would be good to have administration weigh in on this again. Uh my only concern with this particular um Amendment that's here that I'm or this motion to refer that I'm recommending here is just as it relates to uh budget timing and when the next council services committee is, like I'm aware that that might be a little bit on the tricky side. But I just think for something that's this important, we need to have the right rigor in place. We've had conversations today already about appropriate belts and braces around different dollar amounts for things. And uh for me, this is probably one of the most important ones because uh if ever there were to be something that we might get accused of doing something wrong, uh uh vote buying things like that, this is the place where it would happen. And so from that point of view, I think it is wise for us uh under uh to consider some changes to the process, not just the dollar amount as well, because once that dollar amount gets higher, there's more risk of that kind of thing happening. And like I said, the appropriate governance uh for managing a $10,000 fund, I think the previous way that we had it, where it was simply, you know, $500 to that group, that group, et cetera, that was fine and appropriate, but at a level of something like $50,000 or the $60,000 that's currently uh sort of accidentally in front of us right now, uh, I think we need a little bit more rigor to that. So that's why I'm gonna bring forward this uh motion to refer it, because I don't think that we as council should be um uh sort of having this debate in this kind of a way here today, where we're literally adding more money uh to our uh to our office budgets effectively uh to be able to go out to the community in a in uh in a way that feels a little too off the cuff. I I would rather have a little bit more discipline or rigor around uh the decision making on this. So while I was able to uh Uh support the original notice of motion that came forward from committee. Uh I'm not sure that we're now moving into territory with these amendments that I'm not uh terribly comfortable with. And so that's why I want to make this motion to refer. Thank you. Point of procedure before you seek a second, before you seek a second or point of procedure. There was an amendment that was before us. Can you refer a motion when there's an amendment on the floor? We'll uh seek some advice from Mr. Clerk here, but my understanding is that the referral can even can be placed even with an amendment motion unresolved on the floor. It takes primacy based on my reading, but if uh Mr. Clerk can confirm that. Yes, that's correct. Okay. All right, is there a seconder for Councillor Kelly's referral? Okay. Looks like there is no seconder for uh the referral. So So can I propose propose an alternate amendment? An amendment to this amendment? It's currently sitting at 700. Just a moment here. I'm just gonna recap. We had the amendment with the number. Maybe we'll just get everything back on the screen. I recall the number was 700,000 Yes. from uh Councillor Weinus. That amendment was uh moved and seconded. And now we are looking to you, Councillor Chabot, to an attempt amendment to this amendment. So the amendment to the amendment that I want to make is to change 700 to 280,000. That would in effect raise the total amount to 420, which would then allow each ward to have $30,000. So that's the amendment I'd like to propose. I think it's in light of what we've heard around the table that people are seeking additional funding beyond the $20,000 per ward. I think $30,000 meets that sort of reasonable compromise. So I'd like to propose that. If there's a second or if not, Okay, that's been seconded by Councillor McLean, and that is to delete the word 700,000 and replace with 280,000. That's a doubling of what the increase was. Okay. Any further discussion here as we'll allow uh our clerk colleagues to get caught up? Okay, uh Councillor McLean on this? Just as uh the second or I think this is a fair compromise talking with Councillor Wine. That's the reason why I think We need to do do this now so we can get it into budget. It's fair's down the middle, I think an increase, so I think let's move on. This is a fair compromise. Let's just support this and that's it. Uh clerks question uh in last term we were able to accept things like this as a friendly to the original. Are we still able to accept friendlies? My understanding is the procedure bylaw doesn't allow for the term friendly. Uh uh a different uh you could withdraw yours and invite a different one, but unfortunately we just can't accept it without a vote, is my read of the procedure bylaw. Unless the clerks want to weigh in. Okay. All right, uh on this amendment to the amendment, uh Councillor Kelly. Yeah, just based off of the the last uh uh uh failed uh motion to refer, I wanted to jump and say uh I do think this is a fair compromise. I'm happy to get behind this. Uh this is a a dollar amount that I don't feel is too far outside of the realm of what we of the process that we had when we uh were at 10,000 and 20,000. So yeah, I'm happy to support uh Councillor Chabot's amendment here. All right, uh can we engage the e-vote on this amendment to the amendment? You good to close, Councillor Shibel? close. Okay. Let's engage the e-vote on this amendment to the amendment. Councillor Ewell, your vote, please? Councillor Johnson? Yes. Mayor Farkas? Yes. All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. Okay, that motion is carried 15 to 0. Uh the words now read 20 to 8280,000 for the amendment. Uh can I go to you to close on this amended amendment, Councillor Winness? Yep. This is called transparency. It's a ward community event fund and the number and com oh you got a comment before I close. I just see a Sorry, point of procedure. Uh mayor, I was in there for RTS on the main. Yeah. Yeah, well I'll go to you maybe after the amendment is closed on. So it's closed. Closing on the amendment still? Yep. We're Sorry. still on the amendment. Yeah, go ahead. this is transparency and action when it comes to a ward community event fund. Even the number and increase needs to be debated in public. As much as a Councillor wanted to refer it back, I think you really need to take a look at why this exists and what kind of inflation our community groups have been under. I'm happy to at least see this grow by another 10,000 for our volunteers, for our community associations, so that some communities can even host a stampede party because we are not getting equitable support of volunteer led initiatives in our communities, and this is what this fund does. So please take a look at it before you try and kill this fund. And it's very important that this continues to be an act accessible for our ward residents. Okay. That uh has been closed. Let's uh engage the vote. Uh Mayor Farkas? Yes. Okay, all the votes are in. All right, please display the results. That motion is carried 15 to 0. On the amended main, uh Councillor ward, please. Yes, um I'm a bit confused here because during The Council Services Committee. We had the two Oh, see now it's not there. Okay. Earlier on the on the on the present Okay. This is all Mew Point. The second yeah, the second one was voted down at committee and it I saw that it was still listed. It's not now. We're good. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else on this? All right. Uh back to you to close on the motion that's been amended. Councillor. I'll be brief. Uh first of all, administration, thank you for bringing this. Um we needed to resolve this one way or another because uh previously there was only one time funding allocated to this to double the amount. And so I think uh going to thirty thousand, maybe m a little more than I I I would have recommended to start with, but it sounds like uh there's other members of council that are struggling to meet the needs of their of their uh community associations. I appreciate the fact that. Many counselors have multiple community associations they have to respond to. And $500 per is somewhat limiting. So happy to support this. And whilst I'm likely not going to spend the total amount myself, uh it will go back into the city's uh general revenue and and potentially could be utilized by other wards that need it more than my ward into the future. So closed. All right, let's engage the vote on the uh this motion is amended. Councillor Clark? And Mayor Farkas? Yes. The votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. All right, the motion is carried unanimously 15 to 0. Moving on, I believe that we're on 9.3.1. Rascind Citywide Rezoning Report recommendations following the repeal. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, members of council. Peter Schravers with Local Area Planning. This is going to be a pretty short presentation. This report is to amend direct previous direction from council that was directing a series of reports on the implementation of rezoning for housing. Given that rezoning for housing has been repealed, we are just asking for removal of that direction. Next slide, please. So just a quick background here. April 8th, 2026 is when the amendments to the land use bylaw, which included the repeal of rezoning for housing, happened. Prior to that, in May 2024, was the series of approvals for rezoning for housing. Two of the recommendations that were part of that were different reports reporting on the implementation of rezoning for housing. And then again, given that the rezoning for housing initiative has been repealed, those reports are no longer required. And if you just go to the last slide there, our recommendation is pretty straightforward. Just removing the direction to provide those reports to Infrastructure Planning Committee and Community Development Committee. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. All right. Uh Councillor Shabot's moving that. Councillor Kelly is seconding it. I'll go to you, Councillor Shabot. Yeah, I think I can make a very brief introduction. Now that we've repealed the motion, the reporting requirement has been pretty much negated. However, that doesn't mean that on a go forward basis, as we start implementing new policies, that we may not want to revisit this insofar as what deliverables have been achieved through new amended policies that this council is likely going to be bringing forward and supporting into the future. But for now, this was specifically directed around. We're on the blanket zoning, and so I think it's appropriate that we we uh we you know follow through with uh everything that was associated with that and create our own plan on a go forward basis. So moved. Councillor Kelly, at a way in. Uh nothing much further to say. This is uh a pretty straightforward procedural amendment. So uh yeah, there's no need for the reporting uh on the thing that you no longer have. All right, Councillor Atkinson. just a question like um a lot of what we were reporting on here uh does have value. We're still trying to have provide housing to Galgarians. I would hope that that is still the mentality here. And I just wonder whether the data that was being provided. Is still being captured, will still be reported? Like how do we st how do we know? Uh, while I recognize that this was originally brought in to understand when we brought in housing uh you know, RCG, is there something to be gained about learning what removing it and using this as a as a way to sort of juxtapose and and have an understanding of what this does to uh overall, sort of housing affordability, housing starts, et cetera? Yeah, so we we do have some various ways that we report on that. So one of them is the Home is Here Strategy update that it comes to council, sorry, it comes to CDC every every year, came in May. So that reports on it's basically the same numbers. The quarterly reports were just obviously quarterly, and there was a little bit more detail to them, but you're still getting that update on housing starts, on on things like that. And then there's also the established areas growth and change strategy update. And then there's also several dashboards we have that are open to the public that report on very much the same thing. So what really what we're removing is that specific um issue of what was the effect of rezoning for housing. If we continue these reports, you're just gonna see a bunch of graphs with zeros on them. All that data still exists. You can still look at the effects overall with those various other reports. So is there any element of the reporting that we're doing on a quarterly basis that is not captured in that home is here? Uh annual report that we might want to to sort of beef up or make sure that we're including that if these are going away. There's not really it's it's mostly it's the quarterly element, it's quarterly instead of yearly. The other element is those quarterly reports we're reporting on kind of various stages of the approvals process. So development permit submission, building permit issue, and then occupancy. A lot of those other reports are building occupancy, but there are some that that do those other ones. And so we're not really losing much other than the very specific what is the effect of uh rezoning for housing, again, which would be zeros, and just a quarterly versus. But some of these reports and dashboards have some of that information, so we're not really losing much here. That's great. Thank you very much. Anybody else on this? Okay, seeing none. Councillor Shabot, please. All right, let's engage the vote, please. Mayor Farkas? Yes. All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. Okay. On that, the the motion is carried, 15 to 0. We'll move to 9.3.2, procedure by law, 42M2025 amendments. Question period. Thank you, Mayor, uh and members of council. My name is Jeremy Fraser. I'm the Deputy City Clerk for Council and Governance Services. I'm here to present uh a brief overview of changes to Procedure By Law 42 M 2025 with respect to question period. Next slide, please. Uh so the um pardon me. I believe it was at the May meeting of Council that Council gave direction through a notice of motion entitled Fair Timing and Randomization for Question Period Amendments to the Procedure By Law that adjustments be made to the procedures set out in the procedure bylaw for question period. Next slide, please. The recommendation before you is that council amend the procedure bylaw 42M 2025 by giving three readings to proposed bylaw 20M 2026, which you'll see in attachment one. Next slide, please. With respect to the specific amendments that are identified, the way that the procedures set out in the proposed amendments to the procedure bylaw are set up is that the amendments establish that all members will compete equally for three available opportunities, each meeting to ask a question during question period. Beginning at the scheduled start time of the meeting as shown on the agenda and the council calendar and continuing until the chair calls for question period, members may request to speak. The validity of each request to speak will be determined by the timestamp in Microsoft Teams. Any submission before the scheduled start time of the council meeting will be invalid. The banging of the gavel by the chair calling of the meeting to order will have no bearing on the window of time during which request to speak during question period will be open, and the timing of request to speak within the window will not determine priority. If more than three members submit a request to speak within the window, the three slots will be assigned by transparent random draw conducted by the city clerk. After the draw, the chair will announce the results and determine the order in which the three questions are asked. All other aspects of rules respecting question period would remain unchanged. Next slide, please. So the recommendation is that council amend the procedure bylaw by giving three readings to proposed bylaw 20M 2026, and I'm happy to take any questions council may have. All right. Can I go to you, Councillor Johnston, to introduce this? I believe is your notice motion, right? Yeah, of course. Um yeah, it's just a simple change to the bylaw, just to make it more fair for all of us counselors, when we want to have a question to ask at the start of council meetings. Um, and I think it's just pretty straightforward, gives us all a fair shot at having a question asked if there's more than three, um, and it also incentivizes us to be here on time. Um And yeah, I think it's just a simple way of uh fixing a bylaw. I hope you can support it. It's moved by Councillor Johnston. Councillor Shabot, you want to move this procedure by law amendment? Or second it, rather? Nope. I want to I want to speak against Anyone else want to second this? All right. Councillor Penizopoulos has seconded it. Councillor Yule, please, for debate. Yeah, question about just process. So sometimes we have two questions in the queue, and then those questions start, and then somebody still has a question and they can throw another question into the queue while while questions have started. If there are two questions in the queue and questions have started, and then two or three more come in the queue, do we have to stop and uh do a draw? So there couldn't even be a third thrown in while questions had started. Uh once questions have started, then the questions that are in the queue are in the queue. And the need for a draw is now at that point in the rearview mirror, if I could put it that way. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Uh Councillor Shabot on this, please. thanks, Councillor Ewell. You actually raised an interesting point that as it stands, if there's only one question in the queue and that question is being asked, two others can actually enter into the queue. Uh this wouldn't allow that. This would take away that opportunity. Once once you start down that path, then then it's only those two. And you know, I I guess the challenge for me is I of course I maybe it's because I've been here for too long. There was a time when we could actually turn our lights on, even before the council started to request to speak for a question period. So so as soon as council chambers would open, we could come in, we could press our button to turn our light on, and whoever happened to show up the earliest, earlier. Early bird gets the worm, so to speak, would be able to uh get their question asked in question period. And so there are many times when I came here early specifically for that reason. And when I wasn't able to, when there was three other lights on, I was like, darn it. Start drafting my motion uh or my administrative inquiry. For me, this is this is the challenge that I see with this. It's kind of like, you know, somebody who isn't able to hit the button quick enough. Wants still wants a chance to answer a question. And they don't want to have to type out an administrative inquiry. This is like, I don't know, for me, it's like I guess a way of being lazy and and not doing extra work if you don't get your way. So for me, this I just can't see supporting this. This creates additional work for administration. We want to try and shorten our meetings, not lengthening them. This is not going to shorten our meetings. It's going to lengthen them, having to go through a draw. More work. More work for administration. Nope, I'm not on side. Okay. Uh Councillor Kelly, please. Yeah, I admit uh more uh more rules mean more hoops to jump through. That that's uh Kind of what we do here. Um and I'm not saying that negatively. Uh just a couple of I mean comments maybe. Uh Taking a look at the proposed bylaw itself, I'm not a huge fan of us using the word compete. All members shall compete equally for things. I don't feel like it's a competition to ask questions on behalf of our behalf of our constituents. I don't have an amendment for you here. I I looked at other words or whatnot, but I just wanted to acknowledge the fact that despite the fact that it says compete, uh, I want to uh share that with my colleagues that I don't feel that we're competing for question period questions. Um did have a question though, uh, under number seven uh in the proposed bylaw, which I guess is what, uh section 617. Uh it says here uh the last bit of it after the random draw, the chair shall announce the result and determine the order in which the three questions are asked. Uh just to be really clear on this, according to this, my reading is that the chair will determine what order the questions are. Is that what is intended? Um, I would just make two points. Yes, number one, I that would be my interpretation. And secondly, the wording that's contained in the proposed bylaw was in the notice of motion that council adopted in May. Uh just because I like uh you know I I guess I can't ask a question of the chair here, but I I would definitely say uh it feels to me like the order that they were in the in the chat or the order that they were drawn would be the appropriate order for the uh um uh for the questions to go in, uh rather than just simply leaving it up to the chair. Um I appreciate Councillor Yule's point earlier as well. Welcome to the reality of having rules. Like there will be tricky little bits in here like this. And so if this is the direction we want to go, I think that we're going to have some of those tricky little bits that are that are going to pop up. And obviously, while using it, we will uh we'll learn a little bit more and potentially want to come back and make some amendments to it at some point in the future. But for now, uh yeah, I can get behind uh uh the intention of this, and uh there's nothing egregious in the in the proposed bylaw. I'm happy to give it a go. Thank you, Your Worship. All right, uh Councillor McLean. Thanks, Mayor. I don't know how long we've been doing question period. I don't even need the answer. I'm just gonna think it's been a long time. Sometimes I find it's in my f few years here, it's kinda fun trying to get you in you win, you lose. Maybe it's a competition. I think we're trying to fix something that's not broken here. I love what Councillor Chabot said. We want to speed up our meetings, not make them go longer. But yeah, it's not broke. What are we trying to fix here? It's not a big deal. Put your name in. If you get your n question in, you get it in. I'm just not gonna support this, even though I understand the intent. I just think that we're wasting time. That's all. All right, uh any further debate? Okay. Seeing none, I'll go to you close, uh Councillor Johnson. Okay. Yeah. Um I think you guys might have lost the intent behind this. Um and that's I didn't want to have to make it about it, but um I'll I'll just go through a couple things here. Uh Councillor Kelly, um the chair ultimately decides how the agenda goes. So right now, even within the RTS, how it's uh numbered, he can change it all he wants. He's the chair. We can appeal or disagree with what he says, but leaving it up to chair is Automatically, what we do, anyways. So that in itself, he can determine whether it's who went in first. Um, again, that's just the chair's duty. Um, that should be simple. The second thing is um there's no additional resources, it's not gonna take any more time. I've already dealt with the administration and the clerk's office on how long this would take, and it's not gonna take any longer than it already does. There's a simple process of if we have more than three people in the queue, they just write a number on a piece of paper and pick three numbers out of it. That's as simple as that. Um, and so to reiterate why I brought this motion forward is that there is a competition for this, right? And it's unfair. And I the chair has all the authority in the world to always ask a question, and this was to fix that, and to make it fair for us as Councillor to have a say. Um, previous mayors never used it as an opportunity to ask questions because the chair and the mayor have the opportunity to ask questions at any time, any place, probably more than us combined. He has the ability to ask questions. This was our ability to make it fair, and so everybody has to put their RTS in from a set period from 9 30. Until when the question period starts. So that could be two minutes, that could be 30 minutes, depending on recognition, right? Everybody has the ability to put it in. If you think of a question after, of course, you can always do a CAO inquiry after. That's not an issue. You've always had the ability to do that. But this is our opportunity as counselors to ask direct questions like Councillor McLean did today. He asked a direct question from a constituent, right? that you could still do that at any point. This just gives us the ability to ask questions. Th uh how many times have we gone um over three? Not very often. So this is the odd chance that we go over three RTS is so again this makes it fair for everybody, right? It allows the chair to operate under the same rules as counselors to ask questions. So I saw a problem. This is my way of fixing it, and I think it's fair for everybody. So again, this it is a competition right now. This takes the competition out of it, right? There's no additional resources, and it's up to the chair to determine who gets to vote or who gets a question and when. So please support this. All right, let's engage the e-vote, please. I'm Mayor Farkas. No. Okay, and all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 9 to 6 with uh Councillor Schmidt, Clark Yule, Chabot McLean, and myself opposed. Okay. We'll now move to the readings of the bylaw to amend the bylaw. Okay. First reading of bylaw. 20 M 2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Shabot is opposed, and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 20 M 2026. Councillor Shabot is opposed and that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 20 M 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 20 M 2026. Councillor Shabot is opposed, and that is carried. Alright. Let's move to 9.4.1 Transit bylaw weapons provision. Afternoon, Council. My name is Craig Pastrick. I'm the team lead for Policy and Biology Development Community Strategies. Are you interested in the presentation? Or would you like to go straight to questions? Let's uh hear the presentation. With me today is Ashley Wedderman, Manager of Community Safety Strategies. And we're here today to recommend that transit bylaw 4M81 be amended to explicitly expand the existing prohibition of visible weapons on transit vehicles to include all transit property. The report also provides administration about municipal weapon regulation in cities across Canada and confirms that Calgary's approach is consistent with common practice. Next slide, please. Next slide again, please. Please. The visible weapons provision of the transit bylaw was introduced in October of 2024 as part of a package of changes that introduced a variety of new offenses, including the harassment of transit system users, non destination use of transit, and altering transit passes. That batch of changes also allowed bicycles on the C train at all times. Separately, the Public Behavior By Law's Visible Weapons Provision came into force on June 24, 2025. In September of 2025, Council directed administration to undertake additional research and report back with information about rules in other Canadian cities. This report fulfills that direction, and administration is not recommending any changes to the public behavior by law. Next slide, please. What administration is recommending is an amendment to the visible weapons provision of the Calgary Transit By Law. Since the end of 2024, it has been an offense under the Transit By Law to visibly display a weapon on transit vehicle. Weapons enforcement at stations has used the public behavior bylaw. Having these offenses in different bylaws has introduced avoidable operational complexity. What we're recommending today is an amendment to the transit bylaw that will simplify enforcement by prohibiting visible weapons on transit vehicles and on transit property in all in one provision of one bylaw. Next slide, please. You may have noticed that the recommended bylaw amendments change in what parts of the transit system the city bans the visible display of weapons as opposed to the possession of a weapon. A visible display of a weapon is a behavior which the city can regulate as part of its authority granted by the government of Alberta through the Municipal Government Act, including section 7B of the MGA, which allows the municipality to pass bylaws to regulate people, activities, and things in public places. If a province does not have an authority under the Canadian Constitution, it cannot delegate that authority to the city, and we therefore cannot legislate in that area. This is the case, for example, with criminal law, which is the exclusive domain of the federal government. This approach to regulating weapons while avoiding possession bans is consistent across Canadian cities and is reflected in the jurisdictional scan provided in attachment three. Next slide, please. Once again, uh here's the recommendation uh to amend the Cadre Transit bylaw for M81 by expanding the visible weapons prohibition to include both transit property and transit vehicles. And we thank you for your time and are available for questions. All right, uh anyone? Okay, hearing none. Uh Councillor Dollywell, are you interested in moving this? Thanks, Mayor. Moved. Okay. Can I get a seconder? Councillor uh sorry, Deputy Mayor Towers? Okay, and seconded it. Any further debate or discussion, colleagues? Okay, seeing none, over to you to close, Councillor Dollywell. Thank you. Close. All right, let's engage the U vote, please. Councillor Clark. And Mayor Farkas. Yes. Okay, all the votes are in. Okay, please display the results. Motion is carried 14 to 0. I'll move to the readings of the bylaw. First reading of bylaw 21M 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 21 M 2026. Anyone opposed. Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 21M 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 21 M 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. All right. Let's go to 9.4.2 Truck Route and Transportation of Dangerous Goods bylaw updates. Thank you, Mayor. Uh we have report CD 2026 0289, truck route and transportation of dangerous goods bylaw updates. I'd like to introduce Stephen Kay, our senior engineer uh with mobility operations and acting manager Pat Griesack as well to join him. Uh we do have a presentation if you're interested, or we can go to questions. Thank you, Mayor. We all one mother one other thing. Um we have two attachments, six and seven, uh, that were updated with uh both a legend and some line continuity that was raised at committee just for um making corrections to those two attachments and the clerks has that for you as well for distribution. Thank you. Take us away. Thank you. Good afternoon, uh members of council. My name is Stephen Kay from Mobility. Uh with me today is Pat Grizzak from Mobility as well. We're here to discuss truckroute and transportation of dangerous goods bylaw updates. The purpose of this presentation is to provide recommendations to update the truck route bylaw and the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw. Next slide, please. The truck route bylaw was last amended on 2020, March 16th. The transportation of dangerous goods bylaw was approved on 2004, February 23rd, and last amended on 2005, April 11th. Next slide, please. The recommendations today are that the Standing Policy Committee on Community Development recommend that Council give three readings to proposed bylaw 18M 2025 in attachment two to amend the truck route bylaw 60 M90 and give three readings to proposed bylaw 17M 2025 in attachment three to repeal and replace the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw 13M 2004. Next slide, please. These updates support safe, reliable, and efficient movement of goods across Calgary by focusing truck traffic on major corridors and minimizing impacts on local community roads. This helps businesses operate effectively while ensuring Calgarians continue to receive the products and services they rely on. The recommendations include harmonizing the mass based truck definition to the definition in provincial commercial vehicle safety requirements. These changes were brought forward from the police to help with enforcement activities and have been discussed at truck route committee meetings, the city hosts with industry. Support has been provided from the Alberta Motor Transport Association. As well as changes to the truck routes and dangerous goods routes needed as a result of the growth of Calgary and roadway improvements that have been built, such as the completion of the ring road. The transportation of dangerous goods bylaw requires provincial ministerial approval prior to coming into force. Consultation with Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors has indicated that they will recommend ministerial approval for the proposed bylaw in attachment three once council has given it three readings. The two bylaws have 2025 bylaw numbers rather than 2026 because we assigned numbers to them last year prior to sending the Transportation of Dangerous Goods bylaw to the province for approval. And those are the numbers we are still using for the sake of consistency in communicating with the province. Next slide, please. Goods movement is an important component of Calgary's economy. As a hub for transportation and logistics that supports the two major rail lines, the airport and roadways to move goods into, out of, and through the city, it contributes over $10 billion to the Calgary region. Calgary follows regulations and policies to support and regulate the movement of goods. Regulations are mandated by the federal and provincial governments, as well as the traffic bylaw, truck route bylaw, and the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw. The bylaws allow the city to designate where the movement of goods is to take place through the roadway network. A safe, efficient, and connective roadway network to move goods is critical to the success of Calgary's role as a logistics hub. The city endeavors to provide a network of roadways that provides carriers with an easily followed and efficient network of roadways that are supportive of business. Next slide, please. Once again, the recommendations are that the Standing Policy Committee on Community Development recommend that Council give three readings to proposed bylaw 18M 2025 in attachment two to amend the truck route bylaw 60 M90 and give three readings to proposed bylaw 17M 2025 in attachment three to repeal and replace the Transportation of Dangerous Goods bylaw 13M 2004. Thank you. Alright, uh that's getting moved by Councillor Yule. Would you like to speak to it? Yeah, happy to move this. Um being the supply chain and logistics guy on council, um, supply chain and logistics are about managing expectations. Um, and I think that goes both ways. This allows uh uh carriers to know exactly where they're supposed to go. This is really helping those good players in the industry uh plan their routes properly. Uh, and the fact that we have the AMTA support uh letter as well bodes well. So uh happy to support this. Do we have a seconder? Second by Councillor Dallywell. Anybody else want to weigh in? Going once, going twice. Uh Deputy Mayor Tyres, please. Uh yeah, in committee um I mentioned that I didn't support the truck route side of this because I wasn't able to amend uh the route that went through 112th Avenue in Country Hills, which is a major uh intersection in my ward that's dealing with constant gravel truck, um traffic through the community is dangerous for drivers, pedestrians, causes serious damage to vehicles and infrastructure. Um as such, I would like to divide the vote um one in two, so the truck route and the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw separately so that I can vote against the truck route bylaw. Thank you. All right, over to you to close, Councillor Yule. Yeah, and just a reminder from committee that this will also be on us as a council to make sure that we are upgrading our industrial routes. Um, Country Hills Boulevard widening project has been a project unfunded for a while. Um, if we want to make sure that we have those proper routes through our industrial areas, we need to we need to make the spend. So closed. All right. Uh we will have two different votes. Uh Mr. Clerk, let's give uh let's engage the e vote on the first of three readings of proposed bylaw 18M 2026 to amend the truck route bylaw. Councillor Jameson. And Councillor Atkinson. Okay. Councillor Kelly. Johnson's absent. And Mayor Farkas. Yes? All the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. That motion has carried 12 to 2 with counselors Jameson and tires opposed. I will move now to the readings. Or rather, do we want to figure out the vote for the second? Okay, sorry. Well, let's engage the e vote on the bylaw 17M 2025, the repeal and replace of the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw. I'll engage the e vote on that. Okay, Councillor Clark. Yes. Councillor Atkinson. Okay, and uh Mayor Farkas. Yes. Okay, and Councillor Johnson's absent. So all the votes are in. Thanks. Please display the results. That motion is carried 14 to 0. So I'll move to the uh readings of the two bylaws. Starting with bylaw 18M 2025, the the truck route bylaw. First reading of bylaw 18M 2025. Anyone opposed? Councillor Tyres is opposed, Councillor Jameson is opposed, and that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 18M 2025, Councillor Tyres is opposed, and Councillor Jameson is opposed, and that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 18M 2025. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 18M 2025, Counselors Tyres and Jameson are opposed, and that is carried. Alright, moving to the other one. First reading of bylaw 17M 2025. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Second reading of bylaw 17M 2025. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Authorization for third reading of bylaw 17 M 2025. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried unanimously. Third reading of bylaw 17M 2025. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. We'll move now to notice of motion 9.4.3. Notice of motion annual in camera report. Uh perhaps Councillor Johnston, if you don't Okay. Uh maybe Deputy Mayor Tyres, if you don't mind uh taking the chair, I'll introduce the item. Where did Landic go? Okay. Colleagues, you'll have had the opportunity to review notice of motion. Not gonna get into too much of the the technical merits here. Appreciate your consideration. This is really about uh helping to compare and tally uh the uh the items as well as the the topics of certain issues as they are discussed in our closed session. Uh I think a big part of this is also just public education to to uh lay out that there are always certain matters that that make sense to be discussed uh in closed session. Uh if it's personally identifiable information, say land transactions, uh labor negotiations. Uh this is really about uh helping compare ourselves to to previous councils with an aim to keep our business as tight as possible, but with the recognition that there is a legal reason for for council to be doing so. So hope to earn your consideration and uh on the fly uh maybe desperately seek a seconder to put this on the table. Councillor Clark has seconded that and happy to answer any questions you may have uh in debate. Point of procedure. I believe the chair has to be the one to recognize the seconder. Oh, whoops. Oh Yep, that's up. the secondary council clerk. Thank you. And um I suppose uh oh I don't see the cue here, but uh open it up for debate. Any uh sorry I um Councillor Shabot, please go ahead. Yeah, I'm uh I appreciate the um the intent here. I guess from my perspective I have to consider how administration um would interpret this direction and what we can expect to see as reporting back. I appreciate the mover's intent, but devil's into details and I want to know what administration's take is on this and what we could expect to see as a report back if this gets approved by council. Somebody? anybody so it all jump up at once? It's just going to be a summary, just uh headings. Uh Deputy Mayor Tyres, I'm happy to speak to this a little bit just from the city clerk's perspective. There is obviously in every set of minutes a record of all of the decisions of council and or each respective council committee with respect to their decisions on motions to move into closed meeting or otherwise referred to as in-camera sessions. But there isn't one consolidated source of that information. So what I would see this being is uh, and I don't want to speak on behalf of the chief administrative officer because this is uh speaking to the chief administrative officer's uh quarterly report, but the data for uh this kind of a summary report could be derived from the publicly available records of council and council committees in their minutes, and of course, those are all publicly available uh on cowberry.ca. so I could expect to see something similar to notices of motion, notice of motion with the heading, the title, and what the what the resolution was of in the horizon report. No in camera reference or anything like that. Um Councillor should through the chair, the the the motion on screen as as contained in the notice of motion directs the specific content um of the summary to include um Close sessions from the previous calendar year and for each session the date, the meeting body, the legal reason given for closing the meeting and the title. And I think that's the scope of direction that that's provided by the notice of motion. Okay, so it's clear to administration what you'd be reporting about. All right. All right, that's all I need to know. Thanks. Councillor Wynus? Thanks Thanks um just for confirmation this is already publicly available correct I I just want to make sure that we all know what's there. Yes, the the minutes for each meeting have to record. The municipal government has the municipal government act has specific requirements and basically they are that council and council committee meet in public unless there's a reason for moving into closed session that's related to one of the grounds set out in I think it's the Access to Information Act. And so every time council or council committee moves into closed meeting, it takes a motion and it identifies those legal reasons to move into closed session. And those motions are, of course, always recorded in the minutes of a council meeting or the council committee meeting, and those are made publicly available. They're in the corporate record as part of the minutes, and there's a requirement that those motions be kept in the minutes. And that's all available on Calgary.ca. But again, in a particular meeting, there might be one, two, maybe a small handful of four or five, depending on the context of the meeting, of motions to move into closed meeting. And those will be interspersed with all the other decisions that council makes or council committee makes in the course of its deliberations. So what I would see this direction doing is to create a consolidated distilled summary of all of those motions taken by council or respective council committees and putting them in one place. And and so that's where I kind of have a little challenge with this. When I look at last council, if we're creating a stat sheet to be who can be in camera the least, we were spending a day in camera to deal with the green line. So it's already publicly available, and I have concerns about this report. Further scorecard of councils leading us to rush our decision making. We're already I'm already seeing this council do that. I'm seeing speed wobbles of just get in camera, shut up, and get back out here. That is not good governance, and that is very concerning, especially when you start having uh this annual report card of oh, who's the council that was most transparent, most in public? Well, how much work was actually left undone? Or even with this council, we didn't want to hang out in camera. Doing the work, and now we've all just gone off and done one-on-ones with administration, which then is going to take us back to have to go in camera after administration has been even less transparent on tracking how much time we're spending with them confidentially discussing issues. So I don't think we really need a scorecard. I think you need to give councils uh time to learn the job in the first year, figure out how we're going to utilize in camera, and if you have that clock running, we will be making poorer decisions. For the city. So and with AI, most people can run it through our website and create their own reporting off of AI platforms out there. So I won't be supporting this today because I definitely have concerns how council will be operating when they know the clock is running. And we have to make some very important decisions when we do go in camera. Thank you, Councillor Wynus. I'll just throw myself into the queue here. I think any way moving forward towards more transparency is a good thing. Navigating the website is sometimes uh difficult to find uh the information you're looking for. It'd be great if you just clicked on in-camera meetings. You know, you can see exactly what's there. And in the name of transparency, I think this is something that we should do. And if anybody else isn't in the queue, I'll uh send it over to Mayor Farkas to close. So sorry. Uh Councillor Kelly, please go ahead. Jumped into the last second. If the mayor wouldn't mind and uh just as close, sort of addressing a little bit of like what additional value does this get. I think we heard in the debate, right, that it's kind of publicly available uh data already. And I certainly have uh uh opined previously that I don't think anyone is really reading our quarterly report. So I'm not I'm not exactly sure uh um what benefit it provides us to uh to uh to put it in there. But um yeah, I'll just sort of throw it out there as maybe a little bit of uh if the mayor wouldn't mind on his close. Thank you. Thank you. And uh Councillor Ward. Yes, just touching on what Councillor Weiness said, she's dead on. You can pull this very quickly. I've already done it. 28 hours, 56 minutes. That excludes the strategic sessions. 12 hours 23 minutes in council committees. So that was hard. Um over to Mayor Farkas to close, please. Yeah, thank thanks colleagues uh for your consideration. And this is largely uh brought to me because uh the the the co-signer of the notice of motion, Councillor Johnston had had uh identified that having all of this in one central area makes it a little bit easier for those who may not necessarily have the the skills or the expertise to uh or the sharp data mind that uh Councillor Ward does to pull everything together in one place. Um it's it's agnostic as far as the time. So uh again, it's about topic by topic. This isn't actually running a tally or stopwatch or anything, it's just simply listing. of the items, which I think uh uh having it in one central place makes sense to folks. But you know, vote as you will on this. Uh I appreciate the opportunity as mayor to be able to collaborate with any member of council who brings to me an idea. So happy to uh ask for your support on this. Okay, please engage the e vote. And I guess I will be voting verbally because my laptop's over there. Okay. Uh and Mayor Farkas, your vote? Yes. Uh yes. Councillor Tyres. Or Deputy Mayor Tyres, my apologies. Yes. Okay, and uh Councillor Johnson is absent, so all the votes are in. Okay, and that's carried eight to six with uh counselors Wynus Clark, Atkinson, Dollywall, Kelly, and Ward opposed with Councillor Johnson absent. Alright uh what's next? I think our NOR 9.4.3 is what we just included so 9.4.4 Notice of motion transform from the Council Innovation Fund to the Council Community Fund. I'm gonna go to you, Councillor Ward. Yes, um, so this is basically um a procedural cleanup thing. Uh essentially we have two, we actually have three applications coming forward to council from the council community fund. I know that uh two of them are mine, one of them is in Ward 7. These communities have put in an extraordinary amount of work. It's actually very impressive the amount of work that they put in. The issue is that our council community fund has almost run dry. Um, so this is simply to uh transfer them from the innovation fund to the council community fund. There is no pending asks in the council innovation fund, whereas there are three outstanding in the community fund. So it is basically just moving money so that we can fulfill the commitments to these council community fund applications. Um and Yes, come budget time we can uh refill these funds accordingly to our desire. Alright, I think uh Councillor Atkinson called Dibbs for for seconder. I think we're in the queue here for Councillor Dallywell, please. Actually, Councillor Ward answered my question that we will get an opportunity to replenish both of these at the at the budget. Thanks, Mayor. I'm I'm out. Alright, uh Councillor Brennasopoulos. Yeah, a couple that was answered too. Emil just asked, uh maybe for admin, the last time the Council Innovation Fund was utilized. Any idea? I'm gonna guess a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Okay, no, that's that's uh it obviously was I know in Word 6 uh they used it before my time, but um obviously something that's not there. Um so the intent is not to close it, and maybe that's Councillor Ward, you just said it just to confirm it. It's not intended to close it down and opportunities at at uh budget. See the logic. The fact my concern was uh getting rid of the fund because there was some opportunities. You know, you just even look at the definition. Um supports larger experimental or pilot initiatives that could be expanded across Calgary or fundamentally changed city practices. And I think you know, our CAs are the tip of the spear, they have some innovative ideas. So the fact that both are going to stick around, I can put my head uh get behind it. So that's something important for me, and and we'll look at budget to uh potentially replenish both. Thank you. Yeah. All right, uh back to you, Councillor Ward. Yes, um so I d I don't have dates just to answer Councillor Pentosopoulos. The last usage of the fund it looks like was by Councillor DeMong. So um it has been a while. Uh this is not the first time that the Council Innovation Fund has been transferred to the community fund either. This is there is precedence for this, so I would ask for your support just so we uh can get those community initiatives funded. Thank you. Closed. All right, uh let's engage the U vote, please. Okay, Councillor Jameson and Mayor Farkas. Yes. Okay, all the votes are in. Thanks. Please display the results. Motion is carried 15 to 0. We'll move to 9.4.5. Notice of motion improving community traffic safety. Over to you, Councillor Schmidt. Yes, thank you. Uh what we've seen since we've taken our seats at council and in the last couple of years is Concerning rise in traffic incidents around the city, whether that be fatalities with drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, long term injuries, near misses, uh, and chaos on our roads. There's a lot of reasons for this, and we need to address all of those reasons in meaningful ways. Some of them we can't do on our own, but this is something that we can do, and we can do it right away. So the purpose of this is to take the $6 million from our current surplus, which originally in working with the mobility team, we intended to tie to the revenue surplus from the enforcement. Uh revenue with Calgary Parking Authority. That ended up being too complex. The estimates this year would be put that around $5.8 million. So to simplify it, we simply tied it to the surplus, but the amount is tied to that original amount. And what this seeks to do is to find ways to use that extra funding and very responsive funding, which is why I wanted to take it from the surplus, because we're addressing an issue that continues to get worse that's affecting people in all of our wards, whether they be traveling in their own wards or throughout the city, as we know there's certain hotspots. And to find a more reactive way for us to be able to fund improvements, whether that be through education, uh the community based initiatives that have been listed here, and other actions related to the Calgary Safer Mobility Plan. Mm-hmm is that uh with the report back in Q3 2027 that um the mobility team We'll be able to come up with a framework for something that we can use to benefit our wards directly. And one thing that I'm going to check with administration and Director McLeod is if I made a mistake there. If the intention was Q3 2026 or Q32027. Uh Mayor, uh Councillor Schmidt, I think the intent was if uh funds are available this year that we activate right away to respond to the safety needs, uh but to come back in Q3 of 27 uh with an update on how effective those investment dollars were. So that I think that was the intent. Thanks. Right, yes. So then On that point, this will come back in September 2026. That's where my confusion was, sorry. Uh, with a framework for this program that we can see, and we that will give council time to communicate with mobility about how we might like to see this function. My thought was around the rapid flashing beacon program that we currently have, where we received a small pool of funding with data from mobility, and we were able to put up rapid flashing beacons in key locations in our own wards. What this seeks to do would be to for to test this out is to expand that funding on an amount determined through mobility's work on the program to not only include crosswalk improvements but other types of uh traffic calming infrastructure that's readily available, primarily temporary traffic calming infrastructure, and then also to give mobility that extra room to improve different initiatives around education or other strategies that are within the safer mobility plan. The original scope of this was much larger when uh some issues involving enforcement and using our currently deactivated traffic cameras to send warnings. That was found to be too complex, so we simplified this to have this as it is now. Um I'm happy to address any concerns coming from council uh in debate in my close. And um the fact that Director McLeod is here, uh, who deserves a lot of credit for uh coming up with this idea as well. I'm sure he'll be able to address anything that might arise if there's any sort of uh holes or questions that you may have when it comes to this notice of motion. But for me I think that ultimately every traffic incident is preventable and the money that we spend on preventable injury and death is money well spent and that we need to do this now because the numbers are not slowing down. All right. I believe Councillor Dollywell called Dibbs on seconding. Over to you, Councillor Kelly, please. Yeah, Councillor Delhi will get in a second before before me there. That's uh it's uh totally fair. I think I think that um the number one thing that we're hearing in our office in Ward uh Ward 4 is around pedestrian safety, pedestrian uh uh uh veh vehicular uh incidents and potential for those incidents. Uh I think the last one of these that we had sort of come forward similarly was uh uh Councillor Johnston brought forward a sidewalk initiative. And I think I was one of the few that voted against it because I said uh next budget, like let's do it in the let's do it in the next budget. But um he definitely uh in our conversation definitely convinced me that uh I I should have voted the other way around uh on that particular one. And so that's what I'm gonna do here. This is a huge one we uh for our office. We've identified uh um uh areas where we can make some improvements, and this particular notice motion brings forward specific solutions uh and uh identifies the source for those funds in an area that previously was uh unbudgetable uh because they are uh uh overage funds. Um we're gonna have to pay for this one way or the other. And uh, if we're not going to uh improve our roads, then what are we going to do? Uh yeah, I'm really happy to support this particular notice of motion. Uh I think we need to be doing more of these things. And as we've heard from uh uh some of our our our uh tra mobility safety update from a couple of meetings ago, um we have to do something, and this is um a very good solution that uh will start moving us in that direction. So, like I said, happy to support this here today. Thank you, Rush. Alright. Next we got Councillor Clark. Thank you. Yeah, um a question just for Mr. McLeod. Um can you just in plain language describe what this is likely to achieve for us? Sure, uh Mayor, Councillor Clark. One of the uh opportunities that we have is to increase our investment to see on-street um countermeasures, and there there's been increased funding uh from council. But if we were to look at some of the trends happening at Edmonton and Calgary through the cessation of the automated traffic enforcement, both cities have seen a significant increase in uh severe incidents and fatalities, and both cities are now looking at greater investment. Edmonton has approved $150 million in their four-year plan. This helps make use of enforcement revenue and reallocate it to safety measures on streets. So I think it's an innovative way to use uh net surplus or net revenues and uh put it onto the street right away and see these investments uh result in lower incidents. When it countermeasures in place, it can result in uh say a left turn advance arrow can see up to a 90% reduction in incident reduction, and those uh there's cost to implement some of these things. That's one example. Yeah, wonderful. Thank you. I remember during the conversation around that mobility plan presentation. Um, how do we will this uh move some of these implementations forward maybe a bit faster? Like can you speak to that? Because we're finding in a number of ways that these things are getting caught in in the data analysis side. So we deliver more funds to deliver more results. Will that happen efficiently? Certainly there are opportunities for us to implement in a in a more speedy way when it comes to having the investment dollars available. Some countermeasures do require us to evaluate to have them appropriately placed. And so that is what uh results in some of these delays is that we do need to analyze and put them in the highest risk locations first and then look at our system accordingly. So to answer the question, in short, yes, uh there'll be uh greater countermeasures implemented more quickly, but we still need the opportunity to review the system and make adjustments when we're seeing um. Trends that are not favorable when it comes to a safety history. And you you do such a wonderful job of explaining things. That's why I love asking you questions. But again, just in sort of a simple format, um, this is approved today. Can you can you just maybe um illuminate what that might look like for the average Calgarian over the course of the next for the rest of this year? Like will we see implementation? What can we expect to see? What we'd see at least in the late part of the uh fall, uh additional uh road marking, other countermeasures such as curb extensions, uh device improvements, such as uh leading pedestrian interval acceleration from an implementation that gives uh the pedestrian the advanced phase before. The signal goes to green. So it'd be implementation measures like that. More of them in the wintertime that are aren't weather dependent, so less road marking obviously, but other geometric changes and traffic control, operational changes, things that we can do in the wintertime. So it would allow us to work from right at the beginning of September right through to the end of the year. And then continue on with our current safety program as well. So it's a a welcome addition. Wonderful. Thank you. I'll just slide into a bit of debate here and confirm that uh uh what Councillor Kelly has said. I remember this as being a quite a passionate conversation. And I mean, yeah, it's it's the thing I've heard the most across Ward 9 as well. Um, and I will absolutely be glad to support uh further investment in in a safer transportation and mobility model for this uh for for the city thank you All right, Councillor Chabot, please. Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Um in a previous report there was some reference to how um Number of incidences have have increased significantly in Alberta, Calgary Edmonton specifically, and now other places that they had actually gone down. But we've also seen a huge uh in migration of new immigrants into our city. As has uh new drivers from other parts of the world maybe um uh affected some of those results? Have we analyzed it from that perspective? Yes, Mayor. Council Chabot, one of the items that we review is our safer mobility plan annually, and we look at a number of contributing factors that are associated with this increase in severity of collision. We have 46,000 new licensed drivers in Alberta this year, and we'll be coming back to council in September with an accelerated plan and some more detail. I think some of the counselors had asked for more detail on the data and some of the contributing factors, which we will bring back in uh September, and we can have that dialogue then. We're not prepared uh today to talk to the details of some of the contributing factors, but definitely we've seen um less compliance when it comes to speed. We've seen uh increased distraction, and we've seen an influx of new drivers all in from a registration perspective. And so those are some contributing factors, but we'll be back in September to talk in more detail. Yeah, I think communications plan is a is a good one. It was something I was mentioned before you sit down in regards to rectangular rapid flash beacons. And I know that there was an enhanced program to allow counselors to actually select two additional locations in each of their ward, but that's outside of your existing budgeted amount for rectangular rapid flash beacons, right? Yes, Mayor, Councillor Chabot. Thankfully, uh at the last budget, this council approved an additional two million dollars to uh fund uh increased uh installation of rapid flashing beacons beyond our warranted program. We install all of our warranted uh rapid flash beacons. This allowed us to put additional locations that are suitable. So we provided locations that that were suitable and allowed the counselors uh to provide feedback on which of those locations they preferred because they were all above the warrant. Um, and so that was the opportunity where that two million All warranted locations are are then uh uh delivered, uh i.e. r RRFBs are delivered in those locations. Uh yes, historically they've always been funded, thankfully, yes. Okay. Yeah, I know it's just that it was sort of implied that. That you know we need to expand on that program. I think the intent here is is certain members of council would like to see more applied directly at their direction. And and I think that's something that we'll have to consider at budget time because there's we always will get requests from our our community folks saying, well, I I need more here, I need more there. But again, you have to you have to weigh that with budgetary implications and where it makes the most sense. It's kind of like it's kind of like those signs that you have at schools. You know, in the center medians, you know, those if you have too many of them, pretty soon people start ignoring them and don't want to have them unnecessarily applied in places where they're not warranted. Yes, Councillor Chabot, that is a good point. That's why we have that evaluation process to make sure they're applied in a suitable location. And uh the additional funding just allows us to provide an expanded program that we currently don't uh provide with the funding that we have. So that's what it allows. So what I was challenged with in this notice of motion is uh the cost benefit and outcomes of redirecting the equivalent of net parking enforcement revenue to the expansion of program in the Calgary Safe and Mobility Plant. I what what does that mean? Because typically some of the parking. revenue in BIAs is then applied in some of those business improvement areas. I just don't know what this is supposed to mean and what this is going to do. Thank you, Councillor Chabot. It's a good clarifying question. I do have Chris Blaschuk joining me as well, manager of Calgary Parking, but that program will not change as part of the Calgary or sorry as part of the parking policy that was approved by council. That's unchanged with this. This is the net uh parking revenue from enforcement was calculated, but that's not where it's being directly used from. It's being used from general revenue, so a general general account. It's just that was the amount that was uh deemed budgeted this year for net surplus revenues. So the current policies are not being changed. Uh Les Tucker looks like he wants to talk. Thanks. Yeah. Just to just add in, when this conversation uh started, it was more tied to those specific net revenues. And um, from a flexibility perspective and and to manage changes in volatility, um, I would rather prefer it to be looked at holistically. So that math uh that was mentioned earlier was to give an indication of sort of size or magnitude, but the actual uh flow of transactions uh will be that that six million will be taken from uh the positive uh variance that we're looking at for the entity as a whole, for the city as a whole. So when we report back on the quarters, we report on what is the positive variance year to date and what we're forecasting, and this would be uh utilization of a portion of that in this current year. Up to that maximum of six million. Okay. So Mr. Blaschik, maybe you can elaborate on the net parking aspect of this. How how do you determine what's net parking enforcement revenue? Yeah, thank you for the question, Council Chabot, Chris Blastrich, Manager, Calgary Parking. Uh, Mr. Tucker, Mr. McLeod have explained most of the basics. What's being proposed here, the $6 million for 2026 is from corporate variants. But what we would explore as part of the report back September 2026 is if subsequent to that we were to fund this through uh parking enforcement revenue, um what that would look like. And I think what's important for council to keep in mind currently um for parking enforcement revenue, 100% of net revenue from enforcement is returned to the city and put into the general revenue program. So there's two components there's the budgeted amount, what we expected we were gonna obtain from enforcement activities, and then there's a surplus amount if that amount's higher than the budget. We'd look at both those amounts and indicate um if those were funding sources, instead of uh just having it go into the general revenue program, it could be specifically directed to this. Sorry, one when I see something that says net to me that that means that the the cost to actually do the enforcement is taken out of the total revenue. Yeah, so when parking returns the net enforcement, all the costs to conduct enforcement have already been removed. So it's that remainder amount. And then of the remainder amount, there's an amount that was expected that's uh determined through the budget process. And then so you know if we felt We're going to return 5 million net revenue from enforcement in 2027, and it turned out we received six million in net revenue, there'd be a one million positive variance. So we'll look at both through this uh direction. Yeah, if we dedicated that five million, what would be the impact corporately? Uh, because the corporation was expecting that to offset general revenue, and then if we only um made available any surplus beyond those budget amounts, would there'd be two amounts we'd report on and just what that would mean for funding this initiative. Okay, that helps understand. Help me understand this. All right, thanks. That's uh all the questions I have. All right, Councillor Johnson, please. Sorry, my uh question was answered. Thank you. Councillor Schmidt to close. Yes, w one final point of clarification. I shouldn't have brought it up. The net uh surplus from parking enforcement revenue was the original inspiration, but it's not what is listed here anymore as what the funds are being taken directly from. And that was at the suggestion of um uh CFO Tucker and and finance to simplify things. So that that was just simply an explanation as to how we got to this point, but that is not the mechanism through which this is operating anymore. So uh to move to debate and close. For me, when I think about traffic safety, which is something that we hear about in Ward 8 on a weekly basis to the point where we have a standing monthly meeting with mobility to discuss the issues that are arising in one of the busiest wards, which includes downtown, some major roadways, and and I know other wards have this issue too, is that every incident that is possible to prevent, we should try to prevent it. And through the countermeasures and other initiatives that could be funded with this additional $6 million, my mind goes to individuals affected by these incidents. So you have young kids crossing the road or traveling to school or to the park. And even a near miss is something that can affect them for much of their life and cause distress for them and their families. An injury that results from some type of collision or incident is even if it's not lifelong, you can carry that with you, especially if it happens at a young age. When we see as is what happened last summer on 26th Avenue in Ward 8, a cyclist die in a bike lane traveling there. When we see pedestrians die and mark crosswalks, those are the things that we need to respond to immediately because there's individual families and friends and neighbors that are affected by this when somebody loses their life or has lifelong injuries from something that it makes the news, but a lot of things don't make the news. And we often talk about risks around crime and violence, but one of the most dangerous things we can do right now is travel through the city with the rate of injuries and death. And mobility in the city generally is doing a lot of hard work to do this uh and and to prevent these things from happening. And and like I said in my open, we can't. Do everything in this single motion. There's so many other issues that are affecting this right now, but we need to start somewhere and we need to start making progress now. And this is a way for us to ramp this up quickly and to start doing the work so that we can start to see those numbers go down to reach the goals of the safer mobility plan, which wanted to see a 25% reduction in these incidents. And so far in the first two years, all we're seeing is a rise. So to me, there's not a limit to the amount of money we should spend to prevent these things from happening and this is one way for us to start getting there. So I would hope for all of your support today in making Calgarians safer and especially I think of children when they want to move around the city freely and safely. Thank you. All right, let's engage the vote, please. Councillor Clark? with pleasure Councillor Johnston and Mayor Farkas? Yes. Okay, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 15 to 0. Uh, if there's no objection, colleagues, let's uh finish the notices of motion before going on our afternoon break. Okay, hearing no objection. Over to you, Councillor Dallowell. Thank you, Mayor. I'll keep it brief. Very straightforward notice of motion just asking administration to update and the mandate and bylaw of multi-sport fieldhouse committee. And the reason is we just want to have a strategic alignment of information and updates uh related to multi-sport fieldhouse project and other strategic sport infrastructure opportunities with our external partners, funding partners, and other orders of government. There's so much happening. Working in silos is not helpful. So we are one city, one voice, and this will allow us to have those discussions as a one city when we are going to our funding partners like provincial government and federal government. And provincial government is also of the opinion that that should be the approach. So I love Y Sport. Let's approve it. Let's move it to the next move it to the bylaw changes. Thank you. All right, can I get a seconder? Second by Councillor Atkinson. Over to you, Councillor Weines, to speak. Thanks. So the this Multisport Fieldhouse is sort of stalled too and and other support, but I'm curious, are we gonna fund all of our big multi-sports through this? Is it are we how how broad are we making this committee? Um it hasn't been effective. Um I've heard since Braun Kanye days, so uh I don't know how adding a scope will improve the problems. So does admin have any answers on this notice of motion? Councillor Wynus, I will look to Councillor Dollywall to uh comment further in his close. Uh but my understanding is the focus remains uh primarily on the field hubs. Okay, um I'll let others ask questions. All right, uh maybe back to you, Councillor Dallarywell, to close. Yeah, no, that's a very fair comment. We are not changing the scope. We're not going to start funding any other projects. Well, multi-sport field house is number one priority. It remains number one priority. And all this does is it's bringing other projects that are happening in the city. For example, McMahon Stadium, Olympic Oval, Wind Sport. Just bring them to the table to have that conversation. So we are one, again, one city, one voice. We're not funding anyone. This is just a discussion panel that we are expanding the scope. It's not the project scope, it's discussion scope that we are talking about here. With that, I'm closed. Thank you. Okay, let's engage the evote, please, Mr. Clerk. Councillor Jameson, your vote, please. Councillor Clark? Okay, and Mayor Farkas. Yes. And all the votes are in. Thanks. Please display the results. All right. Motion is carried 13 to 2 with Councillor Shabot and Wynus opposed. Uh uh We are gonna go on to our break. We'll see you at uh 347. All right. Welcome back. Let's roll. Call the roll, please. Mr. Clark. Okay, Councillor Schmidt. Okay. Councillor Tyres. Okay, Councillor Ward, Here. Councillor Wyness, Councillor Ewell, Here. Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot, President. Councillor Clark, Councillor Deleywall is absent. Uh Councillor Jameson, Present. Councillor Johnson, Here. Councillor Kelly, Idea. Councillor McLean, Here. Councillor Pentasopoulos, and Mayor Farkas. Okay. I think we are now on uh bylaw and tabulations. 10.1.1 nose creek sanitary trunk. Capital borrowing bylaw. Can I get a mover and seconder for the main motion? Councillor Yule to move Happy to move, uh happy to keep sanitary waste out of the nose creek. it. All right. Is there a seconder for that? Okay, seconded by Councillor Chabot. All right, uh, that's to give second and third readings to proposed bylaw 8B 2026. Think you're closed. Let's engage the e-book. Okay, Councillor Atkinson. Okay, and Mayor Farkas. Yes. I believe Councillor Deliwell is absent. Okay, all the votes are in. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried. 14 to 0. Alright, second reading of bylaw 8B 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none, that is carried. Third reading of bylaw 8B 2026. Anyone opposed? Hearing none. That is carried. Alright, I think we're on urgent business. I was not present for the public hearing for this notice of motion. So I'm gonna vacate the chair and ask uh Deputy Mayor Tyres to come on up. I think it's super quick. Okay. Good stuff. Okay, um, I believe this business carried forward from our recent public hearing, uh, wherein the unanimous consent for third reading of the bylaw. 17 P2026 C20260670 did not actually pass. I believe there was not unanimous consent. It's now being brought forward for urgent business from Councillor Clark. I believe would you like to open? Sorry, what i will move it yeah Okay. Thank you. And um Is there any debate on this? Or any second? Sorry. you'll Councillor Yule? I'll second You're gonna second it? Okay. And clerks, is there any debate on this? I'm sorry, this is new. no debate at third reading Okay, excellent. Um S sorry if I can just jump in there on that question. This isn't actually third reading. This is just a motion to propose that council give third reading. So there can be debate on this motion. okay Okay. So I will now read. No, give me a second. Okay, so we have first, we have second, now we've open for debate. And I do not have access to our channels. Okay. Councillor Johnson, please. Sorry, just uh through the chair to the clerk. Um what would happen if we've voted no to this? Just out of curiosity. Okay, so this this um would come forward to the July 21st uh public hearing meeting. Yeah. It flows naturally under the procedure bylaw if the third reading isn't provided. So the Councillor's motion is to put it to this meeting. That's the intent. Okay. And it just takes one vote again on the third reading to push it through? Uh so the the motion And vote against, sorry. uh so the mo the the Councillor's motion would have to pass, and then it would be the the third reading at that time. So sorry, the reading itself, if there was one vote against the third reading, it would Why she just one one vote you mean? I'll just leave it there. Yes. I that's okay. I was just curious. That's sorry. Thank you. Councillor Shabot, please. Yeah, in case there's some requirement for clarity around this, the reason I voted against authorization for third reading is because it was a standalone policy amendment for for a single land use to allow an RCG to move forward. But because what we passed at a RCG when the blanket zoning was repealed, um That application had already been submitted, so they were allowed to move forward. But they couldn't because the the policy, the area structure plan, I believe it was, uh, did not allow that type of development in that area. But I said it should be done more comprehensively as a holistic thing, which is currently underway. It just wasn't completed. I was trying to make a point more than anything. I wasn't actually against this development because it it was actually in a in a good location in close proximity to amenities, so it would have been supported through policy likely. Just that the policy wasn't in place and I didn't like the idea of doing it as a one-off. Hence the reason I voted against authorization. More out of principle than anything. Thank you, Councillor Shabot, and to Councillor Clark to close. yeah um this was you know what the outcome was the outcome of that particular meeting I followed up with the Councillor that um withheld third reading had the conversation I've I've I've presented this to all the council colleagues. Uh there's nothing left to do but vote. Thank you. Thank you. And please engage the e-vote. Uh I can see Council Delaware is absent. I mean yes. Oh, is here I'm sorry, you're online, okay. Okay. And uh Deputy Mayor Tyres? Yes. Okay, and Mayor Farkas is marked as absent. Okay, all the votes are in. Thank you, Clerk. Please display the results. Oh, sorry. Give me a second here. Just Shabot. Carried 13 to 1 with Councillor Shabot opposed. And Mayor Farkas absent. Okay, so now I read. The bylaw. Third reading of bylaw 17 P2026. Anyone opposed? Councillor Shibeau is opposed? That is carried. I believe that is the completion of the saga of that last public hearing. Thank you so much. All right, uh Mr. Clerk, I believe at this point am I seeking a mover and seconder to go into close session? All right, I'm seeking a mover and seconder. All right, move by Councillor Atkinson, second by Councillor Shabot. We'll wait a moment to get that up on the screen. Okay, we have the three topics that are up there on the screen now. Any discussion or debate on this, colleagues? Okay, seeing none, let's engage the evote, please. Okay, all the votes are Mayor Mayor Farkas, my apologies. Uh yes. Okay, and all the votes are in now. Thank you. Please display the results. On that, the motion is carried 14 to 1 with Councillor Johnson opposed. We'll head over to the boardroom. The regular meeting of council will be resuming in public meeting shortly. Please make your way back to council chamber. Thank you. Welcome back, uh, Mr. Clerk. Please call the roll. Okay, uh Councillor Wyness. Okay, Councillor Ewell, Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Chabot, President. Councillor Clark, Councillor Dollywall is excellent. Online, thank you. Councillor Jameson. Councillor Johnson. Here Councillor Kelly. we go. Okay. Councillor McLean. Absent. Councillor Pantasopoulos. Councillor Schmidt? Councillor Tyres. Councillor Ward. And Mayor Farkas. Here. Oh, and sorry, Councillor Jameson. Thank you. All right. Uh I need a motion to rise and report. Colleagues. Moved by Councillor Kelly, seconded by Councillor Penazopoulos. We'll get that uh spun up on the screen there. The hamsters are working. They're spinning. All right. Uh on that are we agreed? All in favor? Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion's carried. All right, uh let's deal with the I believe it's first the confidential notice of motion. All right, that is up on the screen. Uh believe that's moved by Councillor Atkinson. Seconded by Councillor Schmidt. Okay. Any discussion or debate on this, colleagues? Yeah, Councillor Shabot. Yeah, I I although I'm not allowed to discuss what happened in camera, um I would like to at least be on the record of saying that I'm not happy about about the way this was rolled out in regards to the transparency around it. How it was introduced. For me, this is kind of a backwards process that was utilized for this particular application. Now, having said that, I will support it, but it's kind of a shot across the bow to say, please don't bring them like this again. Make sure that you follow a more I guess transparent process so that we can come along the journey in a in a way. I I don't know it's a more structured and coordinated fashion so that it doesn't look like it's reactive just saying that. But I will support the recommendation that's here today. Thank you. Uh Councillor Johnson, please, on this. Am I allowed to ask if uh money was discussed in camera regarding this notice of motion? Uh the in the entirety of the closed session is uh confidential. But what could we talk about uh in here about what was talked about back there? Uh Just what's on the screen? the the title, the description of the matter. Is that title EC two zero two six zero five six four? Is that People just have to trust us, what that is. There is a maybe a that's a question perhaps for the city clerk's office, but I believe that a a complete paper trail and record keeping process is adhered to, and I believe that the notice of motion is only confidential to the extent that it's required to uh undertake the the direction they're in and the confidentiality is lifted. And s and so we're at the mercy of the outcome of what we spoke about before the public will ever know what was said in camera. That's probably not a question for me, but if you're asking me the question, the Well I'm asking through the chair I guess to anybody that can answer it. maybe legal would like to weigh in. So I'm just gonna direct you to uh number two on the um notice of motion there. So it is clear that the um notice of motion would be kept confidential until 2036, June 9th. So that would include the contents of that notice of motion. Yeah. Um I would just speak to Councillor Atkinson. I think What was discussed could be discussed in open and I think it would pass. I think people could get behind what we spoke about here, but the way this is worded, I think this is a very slippery slope. I think we're already falling down this slippery slope. And I I'm I'm asking you if if you vote no to this and bring it back in the open, I think you would have better reception. Um because this makes me feel really dirty. Um I don't like this. And I I think being more transparent is better for the public right now, and this doesn't feel right to me. Um and if you do decide to bring it back, if this fails and you do decide to bring it back, I think. That would be the right way to go. So okay, I'll leave it there. All right, Councillor Wynis, please. Thanks. I think when this goes public, and perhaps if there is a time where we complete what is this, we may be able to disclose earlier and Calgarians will um understand and see why we had to do it this way because when they will when they eventually do get to see this, they understand why we are in camera when when it comes to this topic. Um I I like Councillor Chabrault, uh, do not like this process, um, and I think it could have been handled. Better. Um, but uh you can see how I vote when I vote. Thanks. All right, back to Councillor Atkinson to close. I totally understand the concerns around this. Happy to sort of learn if there are better ways. With this being uh Uh a purchase between outside entities and a requirement to sort of make sure that we have to make sure that that that is is protected and that it um sort of goes through. But I think I just want to sort of lean back into what we're doing here. We're leveraging dollars made for housing and set aside by council for fund uh housing. Yeah, you can't get into the detail of the the action. Oh no, I'm just going into leveraging funding. That's exactly I'm just leveraging funding for affordable nonprofit homes. That's what we're doing, right? So um, but I I'm happy to learn if there are better ways and processes to uh to to do that. Uh this this is the one that Yeah, I pursued and uh happy to pursue a better one if uh if you've got other suggestions, happy to take those learnings from other folks. So yeah, closed. All right, uh let's engage the e-vote, please. Councillor Yuli Vote, please. Councillor Atkinson. Yes. Okay. Councillor Chabot? And Mayor Farkas. Yes. Okay, all the votes are in. All right, that motion is carried. 1124. Oh whoops. With uh counselors Johnston, Jameson, tires, and McLean opposed. All right, uh the last one, I believe it's all a public recommendation. I'll go to Councillor Dallywell to introduce it. I just move it. Okay, we'll get that up on the screen and maybe. Uh City Manager Duckworth, if you don't mind just introducing the item. Sure, Mr. Farkas, we'll just wait for that to come up on the screen. Maybe as we're waiting, I might as well speak to it. So it's going to be coming up on the screen in 2024. The City of Calgary hosted the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' largest conference. We had over 300, 3,300 delegates, elected officials and administration from across the country. We have been asked to submit another intent to hold another conference because the time it was held in Calgary before that was in 2007. So 2007 to 2024, a considerable amount of time. They would like us to host again. So I believe what is before you is seeking uh council's approval to submit a letter of intent that we would actually. host potentially host the conference again in twenty thirty two. This is again just the letter intent. There's lots of work that would have to be done between now and then um but this is just signaling to them which is a requirement that uh we are interested. All right, that's been moved by Councillor Dallywall, seconded by Councillor Clark. Uh Councillor Shabot on this, please. Yeah, sorry um and see what Juck Ducker um so last time was 2024 and before that was 2007. Was it that long ago? Wow, time flies. I remember so was I. Worked in Camloops at the time and I came here to that conference. I was here for both. Um anyways, um So through this process, how is this? So I I get that our representative for FCM is moving this item and who's all going to be involved in this uh the uh the submission to to host um insofar as you know our partners. So that is a work in progress. I know for 2024 we work closely with um Tourism Calgary. Those were the main folks that we work closely with on our bid submission and the hosting requirements, but uh there will likely be other partners as well that won't be involved for the submission of this bid. And and I would hope that we would be engaging our provincial counterparts as well, our MLAs in in our Or potential application because typically at Federation of Canadian Municipalities conferences there are opportunities to uh actually meet with uh with ministers at all at levels of government and they typically participate in some of the activities. They even would typically have um uh like uh host receptions as well. So they uh leverage uh that opportunity uh with not just uh provincial um municipal elected officials but also. Some of their current counterparts across the country. So they stand to benefit from this as well. So I'm hoping that the province would be uh at least considered as a partner in in this application and hopefully help to contribute to to funding the the thing because it's obviously not going to be free. It's not net positive to the corporation as of as it were, maybe long term from future investments, but uh I would say we should maximize on that opportunity with the uh not only tourism but Calgary Economic Development, Tourism Alberta, the provincial government, and whatever other partners we can think of to bring to the table. So happy to support it though. Thanks. All right. Uh I don't see any other debate, but I I think that's wise of you, Councillor Shabot, to to go there. I I was actually quite surprised up at Anbinton for FCM to not really see much at all uh provincial participation. I know Minister Williams was there and and spoke, but I couldn't even tell you that I saw any other cabinet minister or really any other MLA. Uh provincially at Edmonton. And that would have been really good opportunity for us to be able to just honestly welcome the rest of the country. Like this moment in time where we are now as a country and as a province. It it felt like as great a party that uh Mayor Nack and everybody else uh put on generally, it it felt like it was a missed opportunity for us to be able to really put our best foot forward and advocate to the rest of the country what our needs are and and so on. So I think it makes sense for us to pursue this eyes wide open from a Financial ROI standpoint, but the bigger benefit is gonna be, you know, hosting the feds, hosting uh the rest of the province here, making the case for investment here, Calgary in Alberta. So if we're gonna do this, let's make it worth our while and uh strongly urge any uh bid exploration to to include that in it. So could I go to you, Councillor Dallywell, to close? Thank you, Mary. Yes, definitely. Um actually this um AGM happened I don't know how many of you guys many of you guys uh probably remember it happened in June 2024 when we had our first water break and still when I was in Binton people raved about how good of a show this city put on. So thank you, CAO Duckworth, for um uh um your debate or your uh advocacy. So with that I'm close. Thank you. All right, let's engage the evote. It looks like there's issues. Could we just do a simple roll call? Okay, we'll do a voice vote. Okay, maybe all in favor, colleagues? Any opposed? Uh counselors uh Johnson are opposed. Councillor Ward is opposed. Any or sorry. Oh, whoops. Okay. Uh all in favor? Okay. I see a lot of hands. Great. Uh anyone opposed? Okay, I see no hands. So nobody is opposed, and that motion is carried. Okay, let's move on. I believe that we're on our last section administrative inquiries. Uh maybe let's just briefly display them on the screen here. Uh Mr. Clerk, yeah. Sorry, Mr. Mayor. Just the um motion to um confirm the chair. Oh my gosh, I'm I'll go to Councillor Ward for that. Okay. Yes, sorry, we forgot about this. I know. Uh yes, so this is just to uh appoint our chair for our water utility oversight board. Um That that is my open, that is all. Okay. It's moved by Councillor Ward, seconded by Councillor Panasopoulos. I'll I'll just repeat what was uh said before by others. Just great leadership you've shown, uh Councillor Ward. Thank you for stepping up on that. Thanks for keeping the the bus moving on time. Uh really appreciated the the rigor that you approach this in. And I feel like this is probably one of the best subcommittees I've ever had the privilege to serve on. So big part to to you your leadership, Councillor Ward, and and thank you, Councillor Penizopoulos. Public member Kiefer as well for supporting that. Alright, uh on this motion, Councillor Wynus. Um well I I support the work you're doing, and um I I'm gonna do a protest vote on this one because I I feel like I'm watching a hostile takeover of a monopoly in our water utility, and I I can't in conscience vote yes. Uh I know there's been past decisions by council, but at this point this is no offense to the named candidate. It's just Th this is a protest vote. All right, Councillor Shabot. If we have any idea on timelines when we will be able to make this uh appointment uh public. I think likely later in July. Okay. Thanks. Okay, anybody else? Councillor Ward to close? Uh closed. All right, I think the hamsters are still uh on break, so I'm gonna call a voice vote on this. Uh that's up on the screen. All in favor? Any opposed? Councillor Wynus is opposed. And that uh motion is carried. Okay, we'll move now to the administrative inquiries. And if it works for you, colleagues, we'll just uh briefly display each on the screen and uh forego verbalizing. First one up there is uh one by me I started question period with. I can email that as well if it's of interest. It's about the uh conducting the referendum and our advocacy or legal constraints therein. And then uh maybe we can move to the next one. So Sorry, can I ask a question on that first one? Uh I do not believe that a Minister of Inquiries are open for debate. A procedure bylaw just shows uh calls for us to display it on the screen. There's no debate or discussion. Point of order then? Okay, point of order, Councillor Johnston. All of these questions came from your question period, right? Sorry, could you repeat that? All of these questions came from your question period, right? Uh this is a written version of my submission uh expanding on what I said verbally earlier, so that I can get the response from legal in writing or uh at further length uh when they have the opportunity. But question period is usually designed for a single question. Okay. That's correct. Uh typically the the question was really twofold. It was around the legal authority and the other constraints. So it there's more technical merits to that, so I've opted to uh send in a written version. We'd be given the same benefit of the doubt for our question period. Uh well it depends on the question. I'm um I'll make the determination at that time. And if if you I'll make the ruling as chair, and if you feel that the ruling of the chair is not appropriate, you have the opportunity to challenge it. But I'll use my best judgment. I've allowed significant flexibility, including to to you, Councillor Johnston, even to extend a fourth question. So happy to make sure that we have the opportunity for fair discussion. Well your judgment's been very all over the place. And so more consistency would be better. Yeah. Thank you, Councillor Johnston. You're happy to challenge any determination. Otherwise, could we move to the second uh and then get to the point? Okay, let it we're gonna move along maybe to the second administrative inquiry. Mr. Mayor, we uh would only typically show the newly introduced um administrative inquiries, so the two just appear uh on the agenda. Okay, they're already submitted the agenda, so we don't need to display them. Uh can I get a motion to adjourn? Move Oh my gosh, so many hands. Uh okay, move by Councillor Schmidt, seconded by Councillor Kelly. All in favor? Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion is scared. Good day's work.", "num_speakers": 38, "consolidated": true, "metadata": { "source_file": "731a1bbc-4219-4649-ad2d-029a398cf308.json", "original_segment_count": 2517, "consolidated_segment_count": 765, "max_gap_seconds": 150.0, "reduction_percentage": 69.61 }, "file": "/tmp/tmpywm6o34c/df4acd40-fcd1-447c-b15a-85011cf9a667.mkv" }