Summary#

Calgary City Council approved the designation of a General Chair for the Calgary Assessment Review Board for 2027, starting January 1. The decision follows the City bylaw’s requirement that Council designate a Board member to chair both the Local Assessment Review Board and the Composite Assessment Review Board.

• Council selected the candidate named in a confidential attachment. The City Clerk’s Office must notify the appointee and publicly release the designation by the end of October 23, 2026.
• The candidate’s identity and the closed-meeting discussion are to remain confidential under the cited privacy and evaluation rules.
• The motion was carried 15–0.

What it means for you#

• People with assessment complaints: The decision appoints the person who will lead both parts of the Assessment Review Board. It does not change the complaint process or assessment rules described in the supplied material.
• The public: The designation is to be announced after the appointee is notified, no later than October 23. The candidate’s application and Council’s closed-meeting discussion remain confidential.
• City staff and the Board: The new designation takes effect January 1, 2027. The report says the current designation expires December 31, 2026.

Money#

City staff report no anticipated financial impact.

• The materials give no cost estimate or information about any staffing or other costs.

What is unclear#

• The candidate’s identity is not in the supplied material and is to remain confidential until the designation is publicly released.
• The supplied material does not include the General Chair Profile, so the full qualifications and selection details cannot be checked.
• The decision sets the designation for 2027 but does not state a specific end date.

Case for#

• City staff say the General Chair provides leadership for the Board’s role in deciding assessment complaints and chairs both the local and composite review boards.
• City staff say making the designation effective January 1 would help avoid disruption to the Board’s operational and legal matters.
• Council approved the designation unanimously.

Case against#

• A possible trade-off is that the candidate’s application and closed-meeting discussion will remain confidential, limiting what the public can see about the selection.
• The report says public engagement was not required. The supplied material does not explain the selection process in detail or provide the candidate’s qualifications.