Summary#

Calgary City Council defeated Councillor Raj Dhaliwal’s notice of motion on May 26, 2026, by a vote of 7 to 8. It would have directed City staff to study support and funding barriers for community-based organizations and report options; it did not itself approve new funding.

• The proposed study included scans of existing City and community supports and municipal funding models.
• It would also have required targeted engagement with community groups and funders, and options to reduce barriers to City funding.
• City staff would have reported findings and possible funding approaches to the Community Development Committee by September 2026, for consideration in the 2027–2030 budget cycle. Council’s defeat means staff were not directed to do this work.

What it means for you#

• Community-based organizations: The decision does not change their eligibility for City funding, application requirements, or the support currently available.
• City staff: They are not required under this decision to conduct the proposed scans or engagement, or to report by September 2026.
• General public: No new City funding approach or program was approved.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided for the proposed work or any future funding approach.

• City staff said the proposed assessment and engagement could be done within existing resources. The motion was defeated, so it did not authorize that work or new spending.

What is unclear#

• The motion did not set out what a future funding approach would include, or how much it might cost; those details would have been options for later consideration.
• The Council minutes list the eight members who voted against the motion but do not give their reasons.

Case for#

• The motion cited barriers for community groups, including complex applications and reporting, limited awareness of available supports, and poor coordination among funders.
• A scan and targeted engagement could have identified barriers and possible ways to improve access or coordination before a funding approach was considered.
• City staff said the proposed assessment activities were achievable within existing resources.

Case against#

• The motion would have required staff time for scans, engagement, and developing options, but the material gives no cost estimate for that work.
• It would not itself have given organizations more funding or reduced application requirements; any changes would have needed later consideration.
• Councillors Ward, Jamieson, Clark, Tyers, Chabot, Wyness, Johnston, and McLean voted against it. The minutes do not record their reasons.