Minister Williams wrote to me about the early release of the September budget documents from a closed session. I will always accept the consequences of informing the public and keeping them in the budget process. Will the Mayor and administration accept the consequences of hiding non-confidential tax-dollar spending from them? I still fully invite the Minister to investigate my release of information, as well as every other complaint of leaks involving all council members, including the Mayor’s current term and his term as councillor. What I released was not confidential information and it was not a wish list. It was the basic budget numbers for essential services that Council asked administration to prepare so we could prioritize spending. Administration delivered the figures. The fear that followed was about making hard choices in public. The Mayor’s rhetoric about personal safety or police risk is manufactured. Nothing confidential was leaked. The public simply saw the real costs the Mayor and administration did not want them to see. His response to my admission was not consistent with how he reacted when made aware of other council members leaking actual confidential information. I’m not afraid of that scrutiny. I’m afraid of a city so unaffordable that people leave. Would I have done the same thing if I could go back? 100%. At the time it needed to be done to keep the taxpayers in the process and to bring awareness to the abuse at city hall. The Mayor’s response has put a major black cloud on future whistleblowers with his reliance on control and intimidation. Advice from one of my colleagues was next time just do what everyone else does and don’t admit it. To those angry or who disagree with my actions: I hope you can still appreciate that, if I can help prioritize spending, you get to be angry toward me while using safer streets, reliable transit, clean water, and working sewers. Those basics are the priority. Secretly pricing people out of the city for vanity projects is not.

This is the problem. It is very easy to be generous with other people’s money. Putting ‘infrastructure’ before anything does not automatically make it a core municipal service. But every Calgarian does rely on roads, sidewalks, water, and emergency services. Meanwhile, Calgarians are staring down a double-digit tax increases while core hard infrastructure already carries a multi-billion-dollar deferred maintenance burden. Spreading tax dollars thin across more lanes recreates the same infrastructure debt and deficit the last two councils left us with that our kids and grandkids will still be paying for it if we don't start making the hard decisions.

Fiscal restraint isn't saying no to everything. It's saying yes to the right things. ✅ $630.8M for water infrastructure: YES ✅ $51M for the Nose Creek sanitary trunk: YES ✅ New fire engine, trainers and mechanics: YES ❌ $40M downtown office conversions: voted YES to end it. Lost 6–9 ❌ 0% tax freeze: voted YES for it. Defeated 5–10 ❌ 2.4% admin cut: voted YES for it. Defeated 5–10 Some needs got unanimous support. The cuts to wants did not. Pipes and safety come first. The 2027 budget is the chance to put core services first. #yyccc #yyc

Executive Committee – Reaffirmed for 2027 The same Executive Committee that has overseen the current CAO’s performance evaluation and negotiated release was reaffirmed at the annual Organizational Meeting on Tuesday. The Mayor reappointed three Councillors-at-Large: Andrew Yule, DJ Kelly, and John Pantazopoulos. Councillor Kelly continues as Vice-Chair. The executive subcommittee handling recruitment of the next CAO was also drawn from this group in the spring. A motion earlier this year to open that process to all members of Council did not pass. Current membership: Mayor Jeromy Farkas – Chair Councillor Raj Dhaliwal – Community Development Committee Chair Councillor Andre Chabot – Infrastructure and Planning Committee Chair Councillor Jennifer Wyness – Audit Committee Chair Councillor DJ Kelly – Councillor-at-Large / Vice-Chair Councillor John Pantazopoulos – Councillor-at-Large Councillor Andrew Yule – Councillor-at-Large The committee reviews and recommends to Council on finance, budgeting, corporate planning, economic development, and CAO matters. Final decisions rest with full Council.

Minister of Municipal Affairs Dan Williams has responded to Mayor Farkas regarding closed meeting practices and the special council meeting. Key point from the letter: “Budget deliberation is not in and of itself an enumerated exception and should generally occur in public session.”

Calgary and Ward 14: Water restrictions take effect Nov. 4 As a result, city-wide Stage 4 outdoor water restrictions and indoor water conservation measures will be required beginning Nov. 4 for approximately four weeks. No outdoor water use will be permitted during this time. newsroom.calgary.ca/water-re…

The only way to identify spending habits is to look at the receipts. It is an understandably large task to compile a multi-billion-dollar budgets actuals, but I would also hope a world class corporation like The City of Calgary would have centralized and readily available financials upon request. This has not been the case. The need for oversight was evident shortly after last November's mid-cycle budget. An amendment was introduced to reduce several departments by 2.4%. The explanations on why that was not possible by admin were expected. The amendment failed 10-5. Here is a timeline of trying to get that data. Keep in mind the request was reduced and narrowed multiple times and the timeframe and standards required when the government asks for your financial information vs when you ask to see theirs. Some people fully trust others with their money, and I commend them for that. I prefer to be skeptical, diligent and thorough on how those dollars are being spent. Focused timeline: November 6, 14 and 15, 2025: You requested department-by-department, line-by-line budgets and actual expenditure records, renewed the request, and asked for the information before budget deliberations. December 9: Your “3rd Request for Detailed Line-by-Line Budget Data” sought all departments’ expenditures and revenues for 2024 and Q1–Q2 2025, in analysable format, without redactions, and with a delivery timeline. December 16: You chased the promised memo. After receiving it, you renewed the request for an itemized list of every dollar spent, then asked whether requesting one department at a time would reduce the cost and procedural barriers. January 9, 2026: You narrowed the request to the CAO office’s 2025 records; those spreadsheets were supplied January 28. February 17: You requested comparable records for Council Services/Office of the Councillors; a response with four spreadsheets arrived March 17, with stated limitations concerning other departments and detailed 2026 information. April 15: Having received those two sets of records, you asked ****** and CAO Inquiry for the cost, production timeline and funding options to obtain similar reports for all departments and business units. July 23: You clarified that you wanted potential dollar costs and hoped to obtain another smaller department’s actuals meanwhile. August 22–27: You chased the Chief Housing Office records, issued a staged request covering the remaining business units, renewed it, and escalated missing Housing and Assessment & Tax information to the CAO. August 28: The Chief Housing Office transaction listing was supplied as a PDF. That same day, you requested more: a native spreadsheet, reconciliation, and explanations for exclusions and redactions. September 1 and 4: You specifically chased Assessment & Tax, Finance, Supply Management and Human Resources, then asked for ******’s direct response and a dollar estimate for producing the reports. September 11: You asked how many redactions had been made in the three previous supplied datasets, sought confidential access, and requested a formal refusal if access remained denied. October 6: Following the redaction explanation, you requested specific grounds, a revised dataset, a redaction schedule and a delivery timeline. --------------------------------- Without these past numbers we will not be able to effectively counter any argument made by admin in reduction or cutting spending going forward.

Restoring public hearings on neighbourhood density was the whole point of ending blanket rezoning. Land use changes can still be applied for. The difference is neighbours get a chance to be heard again. Council already passed that after weeks of public input. Solidifying our own decision should not be controversial. If the plan is to replace it with something similar or worse, we will have to face residents the same way the last term did.

School areas are busy. Keep crosswalks, corners, sidewalks, driveways and bus zones clear so children and drivers can see each other. Before you stop or park, ask: Can children and drivers see clearly? Learn more: CalgaryParking.com/SafeSchoo….

Budget is still the #1 priority. But. My motion on curbing drivers from stopping under bridges during hailstorms passed technical review at executive 14-1. Only Councillor Chabot voted against it. Severe hail is a recurring Calgary problem, and every season drivers stop in live lanes under bridges and overpasses. That creates rear end risk on high-speed roads and blocks emergency vehicles. It is disappointing this needs a motion, but it is only a matter of time before someone is badly hurt. The motion does not create a new program or new spending and would still need to pass council later this month but it would direct Administration to come back with a practical strategy using tools we already have: variable message signs, existing City communications channels, a review of current rules and enforcement options, and other low-cost measures that can be ready before next summer. Selfish driving should not shut down a road or delay an ambulance.

Canada's big banks have stepped back from ESG commitments. Should local governments follow? In January 2025, all six of Canada's biggest banks left the global Net-Zero Banking Alliance. By October, the alliance had shut down entirely. The private sector is rethinking how much weight ESG ratings deserve in investment decisions. Using ESG is like hiring a contractor based on how they rate on a checklist of social issues instead of the quality of their work. Good governance matters. The rest has little to do with whether the job gets done right. When governments invest public money, they have one job: get the best return at a fair level of risk. When returns fall short, taxpayers make up the difference. If the private sector is shifting back to merit, should governments (City of Calgary) do the same?