Summary#

Calgary City Council approved a response to a notice of motion, as amended, on June 30, 2026. It decided not to proceed with vacant-land or derelict-property tax subclasses, but directed City staff to develop options for a purpose-built rental tax exemption and return to Executive Committee by Q3 2027. The stated goal is to accelerate housing development.

• City staff must further engage with industry about the need, design and targeting of a purpose-built rental tax exemption.
• Staff must return with proposed bylaws and supporting information for a program covering Transit-Oriented Development locations, which the bylaws would identify.
• Staff must also return with a scoping report, proposed bylaws and supporting information for a program for certain high-rise purpose-built rental housing in the Greater Downtown. The bylaws would define and identify the eligible housing.
• Council decided not to proceed with vacant-land or derelict-property tax subclasses. It did not approve a rental tax exemption; proposed bylaws would need further consideration.

What it means for you#

• Owners of vacant or derelict residential properties: This decision does not create a new tax subclass or change your property tax. Council decided not to proceed with those proposed subclasses.
• Purpose-built rental developers and property owners: No exemption is in place now. City staff must develop options for targeted programs and bring them back; eligibility and terms have not been set.
• Taxpayers: Council asked staff to refer a $130,000 annual operating-funding request to the 2027–2030 budget deliberations. That request has not been approved by this decision.

Money#

The decision does not approve program funding or a tax exemption; it directs a funding request to future budget deliberations.

• Council directed staff to refer a request for $130,000 in base operating funding for the rental exemption program.
• The staff report estimated about $10,000 in one-time costs and $100,000 in ongoing annual costs for that program. The materials do not explain why the Council-directed request is $130,000.
• The staff report estimated that the rejected vacant-land and derelict subclasses would each require $930,000 in one-time costs, plus $95,000 and $180,000 a year, respectively.

What is unclear#

• The proposed exemption’s eligibility rules, size, duration and start date are not set. The bylaws would define the locations and eligible high-rise housing.
• It is unclear whether Council will approve the funding request or later adopt any proposed bylaws.
• The materials do not explain the difference between the report’s $100,000 annual estimate and Council’s $130,000 funding request.
• Staff reported that tax exemptions could shift some tax responsibility to other taxpayers during the exemption period. The amount and effects of any future program are not known.

Case for#

• City staff reported 23,000 market homes and 1,800 non-market homes received development permits in 2025, and housing starts reached a fourth consecutive record high. Staff said there was limited evidence that broad tax measures would meaningfully speed development.
• In targeted engagement, industry participants told staff property taxes were not a deciding factor in housing development; they pointed instead to permitting, land-use processes, labour and supply constraints.
• A possible case for the Council’s narrower rental-program work is that housing near transit and in the Greater Downtown could add rental homes in specified areas. Staff identified these as possible benefits, not guaranteed results.

Case against#

• City staff estimated the rental exemption would cost about $100,000 a year to operate and said it could shift some tax responsibility to other taxpayers during the exemption period.
• Staff said current evidence did not show a need for tax intervention and warned that incentives might change which properties get developed without increasing overall housing construction.
• The rental-program direction passed 8 to 7. Councillors Ward, Jamieson, Tyers, Chabot, Wyness, Johnston and McLean voted against it.