Summary#

Calgary City Council adopted the Notice of Motion – Transit-Oriented Development Funding Strategy, brought by Councillor Chabot. It directs City staff to study whether a Community Revitalization Levy could help fund infrastructure and parking at transit-oriented community sites, and to report back to Executive Committee by November 3, 2026. The stated aim is to explore funding needs while supporting community development and housing; the motion does not create a levy or guarantee those outcomes.

• City staff must assess the Province of Alberta’s appetite to designate identified sites as Community Revitalization Levy areas through provincial regulation.
• Staff must assess the finance, planning and regulatory work needed to create and support a levy under the Municipal Government Act, for infrastructure and parking needs at the sites.
• Council’s final vote was 13 to 2; Councillors Wyness and Johnston voted against.

What it means for you#

• City staff: Must assess the provincial appetite and the work needed for a levy, then report to Executive Committee by November 3, 2026.
• Transit users and nearby residents: The motion does not change parking, transit service, housing plans or land use. It does not require parking to be replaced or preserved.
• Taxpayers: The motion does not approve a levy or funding for projects. It directs staff to assess a possible funding tool.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The motion requires staff assessment, but gives no estimate of the staff time or cost.
• It does not approve levy revenue, project funding or a new tax.

What is unclear#

• Council carried an amendment to remove “CMLC-led” from the assessment’s scope, but the printed final motion still includes those words. The minutes also record a later, identical deletion amendment as defeated. The materials do not resolve which wording applies.
• The motion does not say which sites are “identified” for assessment or how the Province would decide whether to designate them.
• It does not set rules for a levy, specify how much money it might raise, or say how parking needs would be assessed.

Case for#

• City staff’s report says early community feedback raised concerns about losing existing surface parking for transit users. Studying a possible funding tool for parking and enabling infrastructure may help assess how those needs could be funded.
• The report says planning is underway for three priority sites, with outline plan and land-use applications submitted for Dalhousie and Fish Creek-Lacombe. Assessing funding needs could inform work on those sites.

Case against#

• People who took part in engagement raised concerns about losing existing surface parking. The motion studies funding needs but does not require parking to be replaced or protected.
• The motion asks staff to assess a possible levy; it does not set limits on the levy or explain how its costs might affect the public.
• Councillors Wyness and Johnston voted against the motion, but the supplied materials do not state their reasons.