Questions loom over fate of Mac Hall expansion
By Elaine Liang, July 14 2026—
University of Calgary students may be paying a flat fee of $11.25 this coming fall for the expansion of Mac Hall, marking a noticeable shift from the question posed to students at the ballot box in Winter 2026.
In the July 14 Students’ Legislative Council (SLC) meeting, President Gabriela Dziegielewska informed council chambers of the proposed reduction of the Mac Hall fee in the 2026 to 2027 academic session.
In the Students’ Union (SU) 2026 General Election in the winter 2026 term, students originally voted yes on the tiered fee structure, with 55.2 per cent on the yes vote.
Though, it is important to note the historic low turnout overall in last year’s general election, with only 1,684 votes in favour of the expansion project fee.
This tiered fee was designed so students nearing graduation pay less in fees as outlined below.
“As we moved through the process of getting [the building fee] implemented, we were notified by university administration that they were not able to charge the Mac Hall fee in its current form because of the technological limitations that the Registrar office […] has with their infrastructure,” said Dziegielewska.
Dziegielewska explained that the fee is tiered based on the year of enrolment of students, which is information that the Registrar is currently unable to use to track students.
“A temporary solution is including a reduced Mac Hall building fee […] so everybody across the board would be charged $11.25,” Dziegielewska described to council chambers.
Following the update from Dziegielewska, the floor was opened to Faculty Representatives for questions.
Faculty of Law Representative Mickail Hendi was first to question the proposal, asking Dziegielewska for details on the Registrar’s technical limitations, as well as other possible solutions.
Dziegielewska explained that fees have been charged in the past based on tiered systems, including full-time versus part-time status and faculty.
She further noted that the Registrar has information on the year of enrolment that students are in, but this information is not linked to their system that charges fees to students.
“[The Registrar] have said that it is possible for them to bridge that gap,” Dziegielewska said. “However, it is not a process that would be quick by any means […] they are not expecting anything shorter than three years at minimum.”
Faculty of Arts Representative Gabriela Halsey-Dam questioned what would happen if SLC does not vote in favour of the proposed flat fee.
Dziegielewska stated that the SU would not be able to fulfill the binding referendum if SLC voted against the proposal, highlighting the flat fee would not put any students at a disadvantage.
“It still adheres to the table that was included in the original referendum question,” she said. “The $11.25 is the lowest tier of that fee […] and no student would be disadvantaged […] because it would be they’re paying less than they were supposed to originally pay or they would be paying the same amount.”
Faculty of Kinesiology Representative Noah Karmali questioned what steps the SU will take if the issue persists a year from now given that the Registrar Office had noted that fixing their technological systems would take two to three years.
Dziegielewska outlined a referendum question in the upcoming 2027 general election as the option the SU is currently pursuing.
“[The option] we are pursuing at the moment [is] bringing forward a second referendum question in the 2027 general election to essentially correct this referendum to propose an amended fee structure that would be able to be charged,” said Dziegielewska.
Further details on a potential referendum question in the 2027 general election will be brought to SLC in the future for discussion.
Faculty of Science Representative Carrar Saleh raised concerns over the agreeability from students for a potential second referendum.
“I agree, lowering the fee is a great idea but my worry is that, we say this is a temporary solution but would it not like also be kind of difficult in a following referendum to actually get students to agree to raise the cost?” Saleh asked.
Dziegielewska did acknowledge the political risks with the second referendum.
“I don’t believe we’ve actually settled on the number for the fee that we proposed in the fall but yes, a big concern with this is like, how can we communicate this to students […] that is perceived as honest and transparent and is not confusing to people?”
Dziegielewska noted that this is an issue that the SU executives will continue to work on.
Faculty of Nursing Representative Natasha Tenor, raised concerns over why this issue has only come up now rather than before the 2026 referendum was enacted.
“It was essentially an assumption on our end that it would be okay,” said Dziegielewska. “Generally speaking, our relationship with the university when it came to fee collection has always been very easy.”
“That was very presumptuous [… and] it could have been prevented if we had not assumed that it was going to continue being fine,” Dziegielewska answered. “It is a lesson that has been learnt by the correct people and it’s not something that is going to be forgotten about in the future. It is an unfortunate lesson because […] it has kind of put us in a tough position in terms of trying to figure out a solution to this.”
Further discussion regarding the proposed reduction in the Mac Hall fee and the potential for another referendum question is expected in upcoming SLC meetings.