Jeromy Farkas

Commissioning a proposed enforcement framework does not identify support for or opposition to the reviewed community-based prevention proposals.

Annual forestry metrics and a future funding consideration are outside both the formal-climate-commitments definition and the specific Climate and Environment operating-allocation measure.

The minutes explicitly change H-GO to R-CG. The City identifies H-GO as the higher-intensity redevelopment option (source), so a Yes counts toward narrower permissions. No motive is inferred.

This vote is explained as a specific decision and is not included in an issue spectrum.

An earlier amendment passed 8–7 before the final clause failed 7–8. Both stages are shown; the amendment's passage is not counted twice or treated as adoption.

The final clause determines adoption of the feasibility direction. It is not a rail-investment choice or a vote to abolish free fares.

The Yule/Clark amendment passed 8–7 before the final clause passed 9–6 with a changed coalition. Yule and Schmidt voted Yes at both stages; their later written reasons describe this May 26 decision, not the earlier February 24 review.

This is the adopted final deferral clause. It addresses decision timing and process; neither side identifies support for removing free fares or investing in the Green Line.

First reading and the capital-budget direction explain the purpose of Bylaw 8B2026.

A separate unsuccessful direction concerned references in City materials and is not another scored declaration decision.

The accompanying climate-expenditure portal direction concerns transparency and is not treated as support for or opposition to climate targets.

The scored question removes a formal declaration; it does not itself repeal all climate policies or cut a quantified climate budget.

The primary package explicitly adopts the coordinated community prevention and wellbeing plan.

The defeated referral sought further collaboration and redesign of the same plan, and is not a second scored policy family.

The City's planning report explicitly identifies a residential density increase and more housing choices compared with the existing Direct Control district. Only this site-specific application is scored.

This vote is explained as a specific decision and is not included in an issue spectrum.

The final bylaw narrows the broader residential permissions adopted in 2024. Only this final choice is scored in the repeal family.

This vote is explained as a specific decision and is not included in an issue spectrum.

CPC2026-0069 identifies this specific DC-to-H-GO proposal as increasing residential density and housing choice. Only final reading is scored; the recommendation’s confidential-submission direction is not a separate policy score.

This vote is explained as a specific decision and is not included in an issue spectrum.

This is an explicit final authorization for a defined capital program, including associated lending to ENMAX.

February direction requested the impact and implementation assessment before the April decision.

The minutes specify R-CG to H-GO. The City describes H-GO as allowing higher-intensity redevelopment than R-CG (source). Only final reading is scored.

Unscored: three members changed their recorded choice between policy approval and final reading. Both stages are preserved; the score does not choose one as a general stance.

Final reading passed 13–1 after a 10–4 policy recommendation. Preserved to show the changed individual choices; it adds no score.

The final financing package includes several housing bylaws; its repeated reading is contextual.

The first-reading package explicitly identifies this bylaw as financing construction of affordable housing. Final reading is the scored choice.

The same final-reading tabulation is not another scored authority.

The first-reading report identifies the maximum and purpose of Bylaw 8B2025; only final approval is scored.

The confirmed minutes identify the parcel's R-CG-to-H-GO change. Only the final reading is scored, once, for this independent application.

The recorded redesignation broadens the ground-oriented residential permissions for this parcel. Separate readings count as one application.

A Yes approved an explicitly broader residential district; a No rejected this site-specific proposal. No motive is inferred.

The resolution explicitly allocates funding for Calgary Housing's mixed-income acquisition. It shares one Calgary Housing expansion weight with the related borrowing decision, because that linked financing portfolio includes an acquisition and cannot be shown to be independent.

The first-reading report identifies the purpose and maximum authority for Bylaw 11B2025; it is not another scored decision.

Proposed additional R-CG restrictions form part of the same repeal debate and are not additional independent scores.

December 2025 direction to prepare a repeal, before the public hearing and final adoption.

This commissions options covering multiple approaches rather than adopting an identifiable community-prevention intervention.

First reading identifies the $52.5 million maximum and capital purpose.

This vote is explained as a specific decision and is not included in an issue spectrum.

This vote is explained as a specific decision and is not included in an issue spectrum.

A Yes explicitly reduces the named Climate and Environment allocation. Other budget amendments share the annual budget's scoring group; formal climate declarations use a separate measure.

This vote is explained as a specific decision and is not included in an issue spectrum.

The vote simultaneously funds peace-officer enforcement, fixed security posts, contracted guards and outreach; it cannot identify a separate preference for community prevention.

A direct transit-service funding choice, but it does not advance the Green Line programme, so it is not counted as a vote on rail investment.

The recorded amendment expressly allocates $10 million to non-market conversions. Other amendments to this same budget share its scoring group.

Funding duration and funding source change together while the stated 2026 amount remains $6 million; a single support-versus-opposition direction would conceal that tradeoff.

Police fleet and helicopter reserve funding is a different policy choice from community-based prevention and wellbeing funding.

The proposal combines fare revenue, operating-service costs and tax effects; it does not advance the Green Line, and those tradeoffs cannot be reduced to support for or against rail.