Summary#

Edmonton City Council approved changes to Council Policy C610B, the City policy for the Planning and Development Business Model (PDBM), and exceptions allowing reserve money to fund several activities outside the model’s usual scope. The stated goal is to manage a reserve built up during high development activity while supporting development-related services and future growth; the decision does not guarantee those services or outcomes.

• The reserve may take five years—not three—to return to its target after rising above 75 per cent of budgeted operating expenses.
• Council approved a one-time $12 million transfer from the reserve for an Infill Infrastructure Program service package in the proposed 2027–2030 operating budget.
• The PDBM may fund Community Standards Peace Officer work on development-related compliance, including enforcement under the Traffic, Community Standards, Public Spaces and Public Tree bylaws.
• The PDBM may fund potential City-staff-led residential and non-residential plans for future growth, but only with Council authorization.
• The PDBM may fund items in the Industrial Investment Action Plan, totalling $8 million.
• Council also directed City staff to report on infrastructure barriers to residential development in generally complete neighbourhoods by the first quarter of 2027, to the Infrastructure Committee.

What it means for you#

• Developers, builders and permit applicants: The decision changes how the City may use money collected through development-related fees. It does not itself change those fees or create a new application or approval process.
• Residents: The reserve may help pay for peace officer work related to development compliance, including enforcement under the named bylaws. The decision does not set staffing levels or require enforcement in any particular case.
• People in infill areas and future growth areas: The $12 million transfer is for an infrastructure package described by City staff as supporting the Downtown Action Plan and infill in nodes and corridors. Funding for future residential and non-residential plans requires a separate Council authorization.
• Taxpayers: The decision allows use of the PDBM reserve for these purposes; it does not directly impose a tax or fee change.
• Industrial investment: Up to the stated $8 million is authorized for items identified in the Industrial Investment Action Plan. The decision does not list those items.

Money#

The decision authorizes specified uses of the PDBM reserve, but the available material does not give a full cost for all approved activities.

• The one-time infill infrastructure transfer is $12 million; the Industrial Investment Action Plan funding is $8 million.
• City staff’s financial strategy proposed $5 million for potential growth-planning studies. Council’s approval allows that use subject to further Council authorization, but the carried motion does not state an amount.
• No amount is stated for peace officer activities.
• City staff projected the reserve at $77.6 million at the end of 2026. Their forecast under the proposed full strategy put it at $55.5 million at the end of 2027 and $51.7 million at the end of 2030. Those are projections, not guaranteed results.

What is unclear#

• The materials refer to the policy as both C610B and C610A. Council’s motions name C610B; the staff report uses C610A in its explanation.
• The decision does not specify the amount or duration of peace officer funding, or which activities and staffing levels it will cover.
• Council must authorize the residential and non-residential plans before reserve money can fund them. The decision does not set out when or how those requests will come forward.
• The $12 million is for a service package in a proposed budget. The decision does not provide project locations, schedules or a breakdown of infrastructure spending.
• City staff’s reserve forecasts assume the proposed strategy is fully implemented. The decision does not approve every other measure in that strategy, such as the proposed fee increase pause or additional staffing and technology spending.

Case for#

• City staff say high development activity drove revenues above costs, leaving the reserve above its target. A five-year drawdown period could give the City more time to manage that surplus.
• City staff say the reserve-funded investments could support infill infrastructure, industrial investment, compliance work and plans for future growth.
• City staff say peace officer funding could address development-related complaints such as construction traffic, blocked walkways, debris and noise.

Case against#

• Industry partners consulted by City staff raised concerns that the $12 million infill transfer falls outside the policy’s usual scope and may favour infill over greenfield, commercial and industrial contributors.
• The decision permits ongoing funding for peace officer activities outside the PDBM’s usual scope, but does not set an amount or a long-term funding arrangement.
• Councillors J. Wright, A. Stevenson, A. Salvador and M. Janz voted against allowing funds for both residential and non-residential growth plans. The decision leaves the amount and specific plans for later Council approval.
• The longer drawdown period means the reserve may remain above its target for more time than under the previous three-year rule.