Raj Dhaliwal

Both the selected and baseline options are rail alignments. Treating this Yes/No choice as a general pro/anti-transit score would be misleading.

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

Confirmed minutes PDF page 530 reconvenes the July 28 meeting on July 29; page 531 records the implementation receipt after July 29 attendance markers. Its raw ref retains the meeting-start date. Receipt adds chronology, not another adoption, spending approval or proof of completed results. The vote occurred in the July 29 continuation, after the reconvening marker on PDF page 530; the source meeting is dated July 28.

The confirmed agenda identifies the approval as NMLS #6. CP2019-02 defines the programme as below-market City-land transfers to non-profit housing providers, and the public resolution expressly recognizes a City land contribution and committed non-market units. Score only the reviewed programme authorization; exact terms and member motives remain unknown.

Formation of the associated advisory committee is governance implementation of the same plan; it is not an independent prevention-policy score.

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

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 (https://www.calgary.ca/planning/projects/rezoning/background-info.html), so Yes has direction −1. No motive is inferred.

The minutes specify R-CG to H-GO, which the City describes as allowing higher-intensity redevelopment (https://www.calgary.ca/planning/projects/rezoning/background-info.html). Only final reading is scored; a missing individual vote is unknown.

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

Earlier amendment passed 8–7 before the final clause failed 7–8. Keep the stages visible without double-counting or substituting amendment passage for 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; written reasons should link to this May 26 case rather than 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 (https://www.calgary.ca/planning/projects/rezoning/background-info.html). Only final reading is scored.

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. Score the final reading 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 must share a conservative Calgary Housing expansion weight with the existing borrowing case because that linked financing portfolio includes an acquisition and cannot be proved 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 and cannot supply a rail-program-investment observation.

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 is not Green Line advancement and those tradeoffs cannot become one rail-support sign.

A Yes removes a formal declaration; a No retains it. Audit proposals do not become extra climate-position votes.

This package explicitly grants a financial benefit to eligible non-profit non-market housing.

The package expressly advances construction and planning for an LRT program, with specified conditions.

The downtown functional-planning direction is another part of the same program package.

This initial carried occurrence preceded reconsideration and is not the final outcome or an independent scored decision.

The final substantive vote after reconsideration rejected the explicit transfer; a Yes would have directed funding toward community-based safety.

The procedural decision to reconsider reopened the question and does not itself establish support for the transfer.

The proposal responds to another government's withdrawal and cannot reliably distinguish support for rail from opposition to the funding circumstances.

An amendment sought transparency, cost recovery and criteria for future LRT participation.

Instructions to secure funding-agreement amendments and procurement waivers.

Related contracting authority is context, not another independent rail score.

This vote explicitly advances rail construction and its financial framework. Related approvals and amendments are counted within the same program decision.

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

This strategy package combines non-market financial support with market-housing, zoning, tenant and reporting policies. A Yes supports the package; a No cannot identify opposition to its non-market component. Retain explanatory evidence without a narrow financial-support score.

Although the automated motion classifier calls this procedural because it includes confidentiality directions, the released report shows adoption of substantive financial commitments. The reviewed interpretation uses the public report, not the keyword label.

The primary vote adopts the updated climate strategy; its amendments and related recommendations are not separate scores.

Related clean-electricity recommendations explain part of the same strategy debate.

The vote explicitly strengthens formal municipal climate commitments through a net-zero target and implementation-reporting requirements.

Seconded the implementation reporting amendment.

Seconded the transit operating funding amendment.

Appointment recorded in the 2025 organizational meeting, which continued on November 3. The stated term expires at the 2026 Organizational Meeting; continuation is not verified.