Skip to content
PolitiWardCalgary
‹ All people

Ray Jones

Former councillor. Ran for councillor in 2010, 2013 and 2017.

Elections contested
3
Won
3
Votes received
28,700
all races combined
Council terms
3
2010–2013, 2013–2017, 2017–2021
Council votes recorded
3,253
since 2010 (roll calls before 2021)
Raised for 2017
$17,700
spent $139,556

Record

Ward 5 councillor
Ward 10 councillor
View chart data

Chart values

6 rows
OfficeRecord
Ward 5 councillorCouncillor, Ward 5, 2010–2013
Ward 5 councillorCouncillor, Ward 5, 2013–2017
Ward 10 councillorCouncillor, Ward 10, 2017–2021
Ward 5 councillor2010 Ward 5 councillor: 62.1%, won
Ward 5 councillor2013 Ward 5 councillor: 73.0%, won
Ward 10 councillor2017 Ward 10 councillor: 35.5%, won
Bars are terms on council; diamonds are elections (filled = won). Records start with the 2010 election.

Elections

YearRaceVotesShareResult
2017Ward 10 councillor7,24035.5%Elected
2013Ward 5 councillor9,77573.0%ElectedIncumbent
2010Ward 5 councillor11,68562.1%ElectedIncumbent
Official results, City of Calgary Open Data (sources). Share is of all votes cast in the race; affiliations appear from 2025, the first election with municipal parties.

Name as recorded

SourceSpelling
BallotJones, Ray
BallotJONES, Ray
DisclosureJONES, Ray
Spellings matched to this person across sources. See About for how names are resolved.

Issue positions

Explore the issues and policy measures or compare this person.

Advancing the Green Line rail program

Explicit approvals to advance the Green Line program. Choices between two rail alignments and a wind-down after another government's funding withdrawal are explained separately and do not automatically count as opposition to rail.

Opposed the reviewed advancement proposalsSupported the reviewed advancement proposals
Ray Jones
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Ray JonesNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available

Broader residential permissions

Reviewed land-use decisions where the direction of residential building permissions is explicit. Broader permission does not establish that a home was built. Contextual amendments do not each become another independent score.

Favoured narrower permissionsFavoured broader permissions
Ray Jones
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Ray JonesNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available

Capital borrowing authorizations

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.

Opposed the reviewed borrowing authoritiesSupported the reviewed borrowing authorities
Ray Jones
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Ray JonesNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available

Climate and Environment operating allocations

Explicit amendments to Climate and Environment operating allocations. This is separate from formal targets and declarations; multiple amendments within one annual budget share one scoring weight.

Favoured the reviewed funding reductionsFavoured retaining the reviewed allocations
Ray Jones
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Ray JonesNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available

Community-based safety responses

Explicit funding or plan approvals for community-based prevention and wellbeing responses. This measure makes no claim about a member's position on every police budget or the effectiveness of an adopted plan.

Opposed the reviewed community-safety proposalsSupported the reviewed community-safety proposals
Ray Jones
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Ray JonesNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available

Formal municipal climate commitments

Reviewed decisions establishing or rescinding municipal climate targets, strategies and declarations. A declaration vote is not evidence of a particular dollar amount or emissions outcome.

Favoured fewer formal commitmentsFavoured more formal commitments
Ray Jones
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Ray JonesNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available

Public funding for the Event Centre

Specific public financial commitments to the Event Centre project, including the original project and the replacement agreement. These are different proposals across time; a vote is not a generic position on all major projects.

Opposed the reviewed public commitmentsSupported the reviewed public commitments
Ray Jones
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Ray JonesNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available

Public support for non-market housing

Reviewed decisions that provide a specific financial or tax benefit for non-market housing. A vote records a choice on that proposal, not an estimate of affordability outcomes or an overall housing ideology.

Opposed the reviewed support proposalsSupported the reviewed support proposals
Ray Jones
Insufficient voting evidence
0 reviewed decisions
View chart data

Policy positions

1 row
PersonScore (0–100)Independent decisionsRemove-one lowRemove-one highEvidence statusFirst voteLast vote
Ray JonesNot available0Not availableNot availableInsufficient voting evidenceNot availableNot available
Only reviewed policy choices are scored. Each independent decision family counts once per measure; choices within one budget or policy package share that family’s weight. statements, promises, absences and contextual amendments do not contribute. Two decisions are the minimum for a position. The sensitivity range shows the score after removing one decision at a time; it is not a statistical confidence interval or a prediction.

Policy choices over time

No policy history collected for this selection

Missing votes and statements remain unknown.

Votes, statements, promises and action milestones retain distinct labels. Dates preserve source precision; undated records appear last. Different proposals can explain different choices; a changed vote is not automatically a changed belief.

Statements and reasons for votes

No sourced statements collected

This is a gap in the collected evidence; it does not establish a person’s views.

Published statements are attributed to their author and kept separate from recorded votes.

Promises and actions

No sourced commitments collected

A missing commitment is not a finding that someone made no promises.

Milestones describe the evidence collected. Adoption, an individual vote and implementation are different events; a missing milestone is not proof that a promise was broken.

Policy leadership

No documented leadership entries collected

Sponsorship and committee appointments require an explicit source; a Yes vote alone does not establish either.

Appointment records do not establish continued service beyond their sourced term. Authorship and sponsorship require explicit documentation.

Voting record

CouncilVotes castOn split votesParticipationAgainst the result*Same vote as mayor
2017–2021 council67265543.6%27.9%59.2%
2013–2017 council (roll calls)1,3201,31387.8%28.0%47.0%
2010–2013 council (roll calls)70369989.0%25.0%50.7%
Vote counts and agreement here use Council meetings, with procedural motions excluded. A missing vote counts as not participating because absences are rarely recorded. *On split (non-unanimous) motions. Rows marked roll calls (and 2017–21 votes before 2021): Before 2021 a member's vote is on record only when Council took a roll call, which the minutes print; those are the votes a member asked to record, mostly contested ones. Committee votes before October 2020 are not included.

Votes the same way as…

2017–2021 council
Jeff Davison72%
Ward Sutherland66%
Shane Keating65%
Evan Woolley63%
Gian-Carlo Carra62%
Jyoti Gondek62%
Diane Colley-Urquhart61%
George Chahal60%
Naheed Nenshi59%
Druh Farrell58%
Joe Magliocca57%
Peter Demong52%
Sean Chu51%
Jeromy Farkas44%
View chart data

Chart values

14 rows
CategoryValue
Jeff Davison72%
Ward Sutherland66%
Shane Keating65%
Evan Woolley63%
Gian-Carlo Carra62%
Jyoti Gondek62%
Diane Colley-Urquhart61%
George Chahal60%
Naheed Nenshi59%
Druh Farrell58%
Joe Magliocca57%
Peter Demong52%
Sean Chu51%
Jeromy Farkas44%
Share of Council-meeting motions both members voted on where they cast the same vote (procedural motions excluded).

Votes by topic

Substantive recorded votes
NoYes
Planning & land use5341,066
Budget, taxes & finance100234
Transit & transportation83137
Governance & council6379
Other5286
Social & community services2254
Housing & affordability2138
Economy & business2522
Environment, water & climate1014
Arts, culture, sport & events815
Public health414
Public safety & policing19
Intergovernmental22
View chart data

Chart values

13 rows
TopicNoYes
Planning & land use5341066
Budget, taxes & finance100234
Transit & transportation83137
Governance & council6379
Other5286
Social & community services2254
Housing & affordability2138
Economy & business2522
Environment, water & climate1014
Arts, culture, sport & events815
Public health414
Public safety & policing19
Intergovernmental22
Council and committee votes; procedural motions excluded. Topics come from keyword rules applied to the motion text.

Vote record

3,253 recorded votes since 2010
That Bylaw 37M2020 be read a third time.
Other · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–3
That Bylaw 37M2020 be read a second time.
Other · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–3
That Bylaw 37M2020 be introduced and read a first time.
Other · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–3
Oct 5, 2020
CPS2020-0901
That Council give three readings to Proposed Bylaw 37M2020 to amend Bylaw 29M97.
Other · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–3
Oct 5, 2020
C2020-1107
That, as part of this work, Administration target a reduction of management salary expenses of 15%.
Other · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoDefeated3–12
That Bylaw 129D2020 be read a third time.
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–3
That Bylaw 129D2020 be read a second time.
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–3
That Bylaw 129D2020 be amended in Schedule B by deleting "Residential – Grade-Oriented Infill (R-CG) District" and replacing with "Residential – Grade-Oriented Infill (R-CGex) District".
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoDefeated7–8
That Bylaw 129D2020 be introduced and read a first time.
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–3
Oct 5, 2020
CPC2020-0940
Adopt, by bylaw, the proposed redesignation of 0.07 hectares ± (0.17 acres ±) located at 3404 - 3 Street NW (Plan 3674S, Block 6, Lots 11 to 13) from Residential – Contextual One / Two Dwelling (R-C2) District to Residential – Grade-Oriented Infill (R CG) District; and 2. Give three readings to Proposed Bylaw 129D2020.
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–3
Sep 14, 2020
C2020-1024
Endorse that the Temporary COVID-19 Face Coverings Bylaw remain in effect with no amendments at this time; 2. Direct Administration to report to the Combined Council Meeting on 2020 December 14 with another status update and any resulting recommended amendments to the temporary bylaw or a repeal if necessary; and 3. Direct Administration to provide future quarterly updates for as long as the temporary bylaw remains in force, or more frequent updates as information changes.
Public health · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried11–3
That Bylaw 112D2020 be amended in Schedule B by deleting "Residential – Grade-Oriented Infill (R-CG) District" and replacing with "Residential – Grade-Oriented Infill (R-CGex) District".
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried9–4
Sep 14, 2020
CPC2020-0864
Adopt, by bylaw, the proposed redesignation of 0.05 hectares ± (0.12 acres ±) located at 1902 - 2 Avenue NW (Plan 1435GB, Block A, Lot 1) from Residential – Contextual One / Two Dwelling (R-C2) District to Residential – Grade-Oriented Infill (R-CG) District; 2. Give first readings to Proposed Bylaw 112D2020; 3. Amend Proposed Bylaw 112D2020 from Residential – Grade￾Oriented Infill (R-CG) District to Residential – Grade-Oriented Infill (R￾CGex) District; and 4. Give second and third readings to Proposed Bylaw 112D2020 as amended.
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoCarried8–6
Sep 14, 2020
CPC2020-0864
Adopt by bylaw,the proposed redesignation of 0.05 hectares ± (0.12 acres ±) located at 1902 - 2 Avenue NW (Plan 1435GB, Block A, Lot 1) from Residential – Contextual One / Two Dwelling (R-C2) District to Residential – Grade-Oriented Infill (R-CG) District; and 2. Give three readings to Proposed Bylaw 112D2020.
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesDefeated7–7
Sep 14, 2020
CPC2020-0864
Adopt, by bylaw, the proposed redesignation of 0.05 hectares ± (0.12 acres ±) located at 1902 - 2 Avenue NW (Plan 1435GB, Block A, Lot 1) from Residential – Contextual One / Two Dwelling (R-C2) District to Residential – Grade-Oriented Infill (R-CG) District; 2. Give first readings to Proposed Bylaw 112D2020; 3. Amend Proposed Bylaw 112D2020 from Residential – Grade￾Oriented Infill (R-CG) District to Residential – Grade-Oriented Infill (R￾CGex) District; and 4. Give second and third readings to Proposed Bylaw 112D2020 as amended.
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted NoDefeated7–7
Jul 27, 2020
IGA2020-0640
1.File Administration recommendation 1. 2.Thank Foothills County Council for their letter of support to proceed with the Sirocco Annexation as previously passed by them July 3, 2019, and, Foothills County’s Administration capacity to undertake an annexation negotiation process in 2020/21; 3.Acknowledge the extensive analysis that has been undertaken to date by City Administration and their consultants including but not limited to: a. Site characteristics; b. Environmentally sensitive areas; c. Archeological sites; d. Policy analysis of all the Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP)/Municipal Development Plan (MDP)/CalgaryTransportation Plan (CTP)/Sirocco Area Structure Plan(ASP) and the Calgary Metro Regional Growth Plan plans and policies exist; e. Municipal Non-Statutory Development Guidelines; i. Calgary Parks Plans/Policies ii. Wetland Conservation Plans iii. Environmental Reserves iv. Sirocco/Foothills Lands Annexation Analysis f. 9 Technical Studies; i. Stormwater ii. Pine Creek Drainage Study iii. Sanitary Trunks g. Development Servicing i. Water ii. Sanitary iii. Storm 4.Direct the City of Calgary Administration to enter into annexation negotiations with Foothills County Administration on the Sirocco lands and Anthem United Landowners; 5. In view of limited City of Calgary financial constraints during this period of economic uncertainty, direct Administration to initiate next steps with Foothills County, Sirocco and Anthem United Landowners to determine how the following next steps for annexation will be undertaken along with associated resource requirements to complete: a. Transportation Network Assessment; b. Sanitary Servicing Study; c. Water Services Study; d. Stormwater Servicing Review; e. Environmental Constraints Analysis; f. Growth Study; g. Public Consultation with Final Report. And report back through Intergovernmental Affairs no later than Q4 2020. 6. Direct that IGA2020-0640, Attachments 2,3,4,5,9 &10, and the presentation and discussion, remain confidential pursuant to Sections 16 (Disclosure harmful to the business interests of a third party), 21 (Disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations), 24 (Advice from officials), and 25 (Disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to be reviewed no later than 2020 December 31.
Planning & land use · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried8–7
Jul 27, 2020
C2020-0883
In part, as follows: That Council: 2. Direct Administration to investigate the potential for schools to be regulated under the Temporary COVID-19 Face Coverings Bylaw 26M2020 and report back as part of the Council update no later than 24 August 2020.
Public health · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried9–6
Jul 27, 2020
C2020-0883
Proposed Bylaw 28M2020 be amended by adding the following after Section 1.2 as section 1.3: 1.3 Schedule B is deleted and replaced with the following: SCHEDULE B PENALTIES Section Description of Offence SpecifiedPenalty 3 Fail to wear face covering where required $50 5 Fail to display prescribed signage $200
Public health · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried10–5
That Bylaw 28M2020 be introduced and read a first time.
Public health · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–3
Jul 27, 2020
C2020-0815
To further assist the Chief Finance Officer with recommendation #19 (Distribute tax responsibility appropriately), as well as assisting the Business and Local Economy (BLE) team in tackling recommendation # 33 (Investigate the crisis level vacancy in the downtown office market and respond with actions), direct Administration to: a. establish an Administration-led Real Estate Working Group by bringing a mandate and direction for the Real Estate Working Group (similar to the 2019 Tax Shift Assessment Working Group) to the October 2020 meeting of the Priorities and Finance Committee of Council b. the Real Estate Working Group will liaise directly with the Priorities and Finance Committee of Council through a standing agenda item, until Administration recommends that the working group be disbanded; c. determine composition of the Real Estate Working Group to include but not be limited to interested members of the Real Estate Sector Advisory Committee of Calgary Economic Development, as well as the now disbanded Financial Task Force with real estate experience, and/or other experts within Calgary; d. Direct the City Manager to assign an Administrative Chair for the Real Estate Working Group other than the Chief Financial Officer (who is presently tasked with execution of the Financial Task Force recommendations), and e. As part of the scope of work of the independent consultant for recommendation #19, as led by the Chief Financial Officer, ensure appropriate stakeholder engagement, including the Real Estate Working Group.
Budget, taxes & finance · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried13–2
Jul 27, 2020
C2020-0815
Direct Administration to implement the 17 Financial Task Force recommendations that only require existing resources (expanded work programs or re-directed to prioritize the action items). 2. Direct Administration to implement the 18 Financial Task Force recommendations identified in Attachment 4 that require new one￾time resources using the 2020 investment income attributable to the Fiscal Stability Reserve as the funding source for one-time funding components. 3. Approve up to $4 million in one-time funding across City departments for 2020 and 2021 to be funded from the Fiscal Stability Reserve. 4. Direct Administration includes a request for the base funding required for implementation in 2021 and beyond in the Mid-Cycle Adjustment report to Council in November 2020.
Transit & transportation · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried11–4
Jul 27, 2020
CPS2020-0708
That the recommendations contained in Report CPS2020-0708 be amended by adding the following: i. Explore the opportunity for a Central Dispatch System for Taxi Plate￾holders.
Other · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesDefeated7–8
Jul 27, 2020
CPS2020-0708
That the recommendations contained in Report CPS2020-0708 be amended by adding the following: h. Explore the possibility of regulating Stand Rents for Taxi Plate￾holders who affiliate with a Taxi Brokerage.
Other · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried11–4
Jul 20, 2020
PFC2020-0726
Council direct Administration to recommend adjustments to the 2021 service plans & budgets based on a 0% tax rate increase in 2021.
Budget, taxes & finance · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried11–4
Jul 20, 2020
PFC2020-0726
Council direct Administration to recommend adjustments to the 2021 service plans & budgets based on a -7.5% tax rate increase in 2021.
Budget, taxes & finance · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesDefeated4–11
That Bylaw 26M2020 be read a third time.
Public health · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–3
That Bylaw 26M2020 be read a second time.
Public health · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–3
That Bylaw 26M2020 be introduced and read a first time.
Public health · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–3
Jul 20, 2020
C2020-0845
1) Give three readings to the Temporary COVID-19 Face Coverings Bylaw, to come into force on 2020 August 1; 2) Direct Administration to return to the Combined Council Meeting on 2020 July 27 with amendments to Bylaw 26M2020 if necessary; 3) Direct Administration to provide Council with progress updates on the implementation of Bylaw 26M2020 no later than 2020 August 24; and 4) Direct Administration to report back to Council no later than 2020 September 14 with recommended amendments to Bylaw 26M2020 or a repeal if necessary.
Public health · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried12–3
Jul 20, 2020
PFC2020-0802
City Council directs City Administration, through the Tomorrow’s Chinatown project and with support from Arts and Culture, to engage the Chinatown community to discuss the history of the Short site, the roles of James Short and the Anti-Chinese League in Chinatown’s history, the relocation of Chinatown, and the resiliency of the Chinese community in Calgary; AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that City Council directs City Administration to report back with new names for the Short Site that are recommended by the community through Tomorrow’s Chinatown, with particular consideration of names recognizing historical Chinese Canadian contributions to Calgary, as well as with an action plan for further programming and/or physical installations that interpret the historical learnings from the community discussions; AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that City Council requests that the Mayor write to the Calgary Board of Education to encourage the name change of the James Short Memorial School, and interpretation of Short’s past, for the same reasons as detailed above.
Arts, culture, sport & events · Combined Meeting of Council
Voted YesCarried14–1
Showing 30 of 2,667, newest first.

Campaign funding

All campaign finance
ElectionContributionsOwn moneyFundraisingSpendingTotalsStatements (PDF)
2017$17,700$0$104,169$139,556Checked2017
Largest contributors (from itemized listings)
ContributorTypeElectionsTotal read
Special DesignationIndividual2017$2,057.81
ChristianIndividual2017unreadable
General FundIndividual2017unreadable
From the candidate's disclosure statements (scanned; read by OCR or transcribed). Checked = the totals satisfy the form's own arithmetic. Contributor names and amounts are read by OCR from the attached listings and may contain errors.

Funding context

All recorded candidate elections
Itemized gifts read
$2,057.81
All recorded candidate elections
Largest five donors
100.0%
Share of readable itemized gifts
Verified organization coverage
–
Share of readable itemized gifts
Unreadable gift amounts
2

No verified business mappings for this selection

Business activities are curated from primary sources; personal employers are not inferred.

Candidate filings only; party and third-party advertiser gifts are excluded. Concentration uses readable itemized amounts, not all fundraising. Incomplete listings can change the result. Business sources verify the named organization’s activities; donation identities retain the name-matching limits of the listings. Shared funding and similar votes do not establish influence.

Office budget and spending

All offices
YearOfficeBudgetSpentUsedItemizedLargest categoryDetailsReport
2021Ward 10$278,400$169,003
61%
$30,169Communications, printing & postageShared with Andre ChabotPDF
Largest itemized lines
YearAmountVendorDescription / rationaleSource
2021$7,000Pattison Outdoor Advertising LPDigital Superboard - Promoting Collective Wellbeing in Northeast CalgaryPDF
2021$4,016CBN Commercial SolutionsPrinting - Jumbo Postcards (25,103) - Ward 10PDF
2021$3,301PostagePostage - Ward 10 MailoutPDF
2021$2,470PostagePostage - Ward 10 MailoutPDF
2021$2,320Telus Mobility2 iPhones - J Auren and M RacinePDF
2021$1,670CBN Commercial SolutionsPrinting - Community Cleanup Postcards (18,778)PDF
2021$1,524Can West LegacyRecognition (Ribbons and Badges) - Ward 10 ContributionPDF
2021$1,084Corporate GiftroomWard 10 Gift InventoryPDF
From the City Clerk's quarterly reports. Spent includes staff salaries, which are not itemized. In a year the seat changed hands the report covers both members.