Summary#

Calgary Council passed Bylaw 6M2026 at third reading on March 31, 2026, by a 14–0 vote. The bylaw delegates Council’s powers under sections 26(2), 26(6), 26(7) and 29(1)(b) of Alberta’s Historical Resources Act to the City’s Chief Administrative Officer, who can sub-delegate them. City staff say the goal is to consolidate earlier delegations and reduce delays in handling heritage matters.

• The delegated powers cover issuing notices of intention to designate historic resources, approving changes to designated Municipal Historic Resources, and using temporary legal agreements to protect heritage resources.
• The Chief Administrative Officer may sub-delegate the responsibilities; the report says the intended sub-delegate is the Director of City & Regional Planning.
• Council revoked earlier delegations and appointments under those same parts of the Act.
• The report says Council would continue to approve permanent protection through a Municipal Heritage Resource bylaw.

What it means for you#

• Owners of heritage properties: City staff may handle the covered approvals and temporary agreements instead of bringing each matter to Council. Staff expect this to reduce delays, but the decision does not guarantee a particular approval or timeline.
• Calgarians: The decision changes who can exercise certain heritage powers within the City. It does not itself designate any property or create a new heritage program.
• Council: Council has delegated these powers, but the report says it retains approval of permanent protection through a Municipal Heritage Resource bylaw.

Money#

City staff say there are no operating or capital financial impacts from the decision.

• Staff expect less time spent on reporting and approval steps, and say this could save property owners time and money. No amount is given.

What is unclear#

• The bylaw text and its detailed rules are not included in the supplied material, so the exact limits on each delegated power cannot be verified.
• The material does not say how the Chief Administrative Officer would decide whether to sub-delegate, or what oversight or reporting would apply.
• It does not set out application steps, decision timelines, or an appeal process.
• Public communication or engagement was not required, according to the report.

Case for#

• City staff say bringing covered decisions to Council can take time, including when owners plan alterations around construction seasons, trades or grant programs.
• Staff say temporary agreements can protect heritage resources during development until Council decides on permanent protection.
• One possible benefit is that consolidating the powers in one bylaw makes the City’s delegations clearer and more consistent.

Case against#

• A possible trade-off is that decisions on notices, alterations and temporary agreements may be made by City staff rather than Council, reducing Council’s direct role in those matters.
• The supplied material does not explain the safeguards or reporting that would apply to staff decisions under the delegation.
• Staff warn that delays without delegation could deter owners from agreeing to designation. The report does not estimate how often delegation will prevent delays or how much time or money it will save.