Summary#

Calgary City Council approved the proposed terms of reference for the Calgary–Rocky View County Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) project on April 28, 2026, as part of the consent agenda. The terms set out how the two municipalities will work on updating their existing 2012 plan; the stated goal is more coordinated planning near their shared boundary.

• City and Rocky View County staff will lead the technical work and engagement. A joint committee of elected officials will provide oversight and guidance.
• Both councils will make the final decision on the updated IDP. Approval of these terms does not approve the updated plan or itself change land-use rules.
• City staff may make minor administrative changes to the terms; major changes must go to the Intermunicipal Committee.
• The municipalities are required to have an IDP by November 30, 2027, under a provincial ministerial order.

What it means for you#

• Residents: There is no immediate change to property rights, land use, or services from this decision. The existing 2012 IDP remains in place while the update is developed.
• People in Calgary and Rocky View County: City staff say the project will include engagement activities, but this decision does not approve a final plan or say what changes it may contain.
• The two municipalities: The terms establish a shared process for developing the update, including roles, decision-making and dispute resolution.

Money#

No new funding is required for this decision, and the report gives no total cost.

• The project has one-time funding confirmed in Calgary’s 2026 Budget Adjustment. An Alberta Communities Partnership Grant awarded to both municipalities will reduce their contributions; the grant amount and each municipality’s contribution are not stated.

What is unclear#

• Rocky View County’s approval of the terms is not shown in the supplied materials. City staff say work will formally begin once both councils approve them.
• The terms attachment is not included, so the specific steps for engagement, decision-making and resolving disputes cannot be checked here.
• The report says engagement will be part of the project but gives no timing, methods or details about who will be involved.

Case for#

• City staff say the 2012 plan does not fully reflect current legal requirements or growth along the boundary. Updating it could give the municipalities a shared planning process before the November 2027 deadline.
• City staff say coordinated planning can help align land use, roads and infrastructure, and protect City investments and regional assets.
• The terms give both councils final authority over the updated plan while assigning staff and the joint committee roles in preparing it.

Case against#

• No public engagement was undertaken on the terms of reference. A concern is that residents have not yet had a chance to comment on how the update process will work.
• The report does not specify how engagement will work or how disputes will be resolved. Without the terms attachment, residents cannot assess those details.