How municipal services and capital projects are financed, including the particular borrowing authorities Council approves. People are shown across their recorded careers unless dates are set.
Final readings of specified capital borrowing bylaws. This is a record of support for these particular debt-financed projects, not a general tax, spending or fiscal-conservatism score; utility-supported and tax-supported debt may differ.
Policy positions
1 row| Person | Score (0–100) | Independent decisions | Remove-one low | Remove-one high | Evidence status | First vote | Last vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nathaniel Schmidt | 100 | 3 | 100 | 100 | Reviewed position | Jan 27, 2026 | Jun 30, 2026 |
Bylaw 8B2026 provided financing authority for Calgary's $51 million portion of the Nose Creek Sanitary Trunk Extension.
Outcome: Council gave final readings. The earlier report describes recovery through wastewater rates and off-site levies; the vote does not prove project completion.
City report EC2026-0402, Nose Creek Sanitary Trunk Extension · reviewed Oct 29, 2026The pilot would test potential benefits across three business units, with $1 million of one-time 2026 funding and further funding considered in the next budget cycle.
Outcome: Council approved the pilot and required phase-two findings by Q3 2027. Realized savings are not established by the approval.
City Clerk's Council and Committee Votes · reviewed Oct 29, 2026The package authorized up to $251 million of borrowing and lending for ENMAX's regulated capital program, including systems, buildings, equipment and technology.
Outcome: Council passed the package. Authorizing debt and lending does not establish a new municipal property-tax rate.
City Clerk's Council and Committee Votes · reviewed Oct 29, 2026Bylaw 8B2025 authorized capital borrowing for City vehicles and equipment.
Outcome: Final reading passed unanimously. The authority does not establish how much was later borrowed.
City Clerk's Council and Committee Votes · reviewed Oct 29, 2026Council directed a 0.25 percentage-point annual shift in tax share from non-residential to residential property over eight years starting in 2027.
Outcome: Council adopted the direction. This distributes the tax burden between property classes; it does not by itself set total municipal spending.
City Clerk's Council and Committee Votes · reviewed Oct 29, 2026Council requested the work plan, selection criteria, business-unit priorities and proposed schedule for a zero-based review program.
Outcome: Council adopted the direction. It authorized scoping, not a completed whole-of-City review or proven savings.
City Clerk's Council and Committee Votes · reviewed Oct 29, 2026| Date | Person | Decision | Recorded vote | Meaning and scoring rationale | Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun 30, 2026 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Authorize borrowing for the Nose Creek sanitary trunk | Yes | Give the borrowing bylaw second and third readings. The May report specifies the $51 million self-supported debt purpose; the June final readings are scored once. | Reviewed policy choice |
May 26, 2026 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Authorize borrowing for the Nose Creek sanitary trunk | Yes | Give the borrowing bylaw second and third readings. First reading and the capital-budget direction explain the purpose of Bylaw 8B2026. | Context / unscored |
Mar 31, 2026 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Fund a three-business-unit zero-based review pilot | No | Reject this pilot package. This vote is explained as a specific decision and is not included in an issue spectrum. | Context / unscored |
Feb 24, 2026 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Authorize ENMAX capital borrowing and lending | Yes | Approve the capital borrowing and lending bylaws. This is an explicit final authorization for a defined capital program, including associated lending to ENMAX. | Reviewed policy choice |
Jan 27, 2026 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Authorize $52.5 million for vehicles and equipment | Yes | Give the capital borrowing bylaw final reading. The same final-reading tabulation is not another scored authority. | Context / unscored |
Jan 27, 2026 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Authorize $52.5 million for vehicles and equipment | Yes | Give the capital borrowing bylaw final reading. The first-reading report identifies the maximum and purpose of Bylaw 8B2025; only final approval is scored. | Reviewed policy choice |
Dec 15, 2025 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Authorize $52.5 million for vehicles and equipment | Yes | Give the capital borrowing bylaw final reading. First reading identifies the $52.5 million maximum and capital purpose. | Context / unscored |
Dec 3, 2025 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Direct a phased shift of tax share toward residential property | No | Reject this proposed distribution of tax share. This vote is explained as a specific decision and is not included in an issue spectrum. | Context / unscored |
Dec 3, 2025 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Scope a zero-based budget review program | Yes | Direct preparation of the review program's scope. This vote is explained as a specific decision and is not included in an issue spectrum. | Context / unscored |
| Date | Person | Record type | Choice or statement | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 30, 2026 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Recorded vote | Authorize borrowing for the Nose Creek sanitary trunk · Yes The May report specifies the $51 million self-supported debt purpose; the June final readings are scored once. | City report EC2026-0402, Nose Creek Sanitary Trunk Extension · reviewed Oct 29, 2026 |
| May 26, 2026 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Recorded vote | Authorize borrowing for the Nose Creek sanitary trunk · Yes First reading and the capital-budget direction explain the purpose of Bylaw 8B2026. | City report EC2026-0402, Nose Creek Sanitary Trunk Extension · reviewed Oct 29, 2026 |
| May 4, 2026 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Vote explanation | Opposed another external budget review because he considered it duplicative of recent reviews and ongoing internal work. | Schmidt: vote explanations, May 4, 2026 · reviewed Oct 30, 2026 |
| Mar 31, 2026 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Recorded vote | Fund a three-business-unit zero-based review pilot · No This vote is explained as a specific decision and is not included in an issue spectrum. | City Clerk's Council and Committee Votes · reviewed Oct 29, 2026 |
| Feb 24, 2026 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Recorded vote | Authorize ENMAX capital borrowing and lending · Yes This is an explicit final authorization for a defined capital program, including associated lending to ENMAX. | City Clerk's Council and Committee Votes · reviewed Oct 29, 2026 |
| Jan 27, 2026 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Recorded vote | Authorize $52.5 million for vehicles and equipment · Yes The same final-reading tabulation is not another scored authority. | City Clerk's Council and Committee Votes · reviewed Oct 29, 2026 |
| Jan 27, 2026 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Recorded vote | Authorize $52.5 million for vehicles and equipment · Yes The first-reading report identifies the maximum and purpose of Bylaw 8B2025; only final approval is scored. | City Clerk's Council and Committee Votes · reviewed Oct 29, 2026 |
| Dec 15, 2025 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Recorded vote | Authorize $52.5 million for vehicles and equipment · Yes First reading identifies the $52.5 million maximum and capital purpose. | City Clerk's Council and Committee Votes · reviewed Oct 29, 2026 |
| Dec 3, 2025 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Recorded vote | Direct a phased shift of tax share toward residential property · No This vote is explained as a specific decision and is not included in an issue spectrum. | City Clerk's Council and Committee Votes · reviewed Oct 29, 2026 |
| Dec 3, 2025 | Nathaniel Schmidt | Recorded vote | Scope a zero-based budget review program · Yes This vote is explained as a specific decision and is not included in an issue spectrum. | City Clerk's Council and Committee Votes · reviewed Oct 29, 2026 |
Opposed another external budget review because he considered it duplicative of recent reviews and ongoing internal work.
Schmidt: vote explanations, May 4, 2026 · reviewed Oct 30, 2026Corrects the link to the later funded pilot that this source discusses; the earlier unanimous scoping direction was a different choice.
A missing commitment is not a finding that someone made no promises.