Is An Appeal Realistic

 Opinions have flowed freely on how the City ought to respond to the recent Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) decision regarding the King and McKenzie Roads property. There is evident optimism that reconsideration will result in a different outcome. In fact, too many Council election candidates appear to be offering hope that other options remain. Is their hope justified or just "election bait"?

Beware! Are they familiar with the history of ALC decisions? Are you? 

Recent history provides some useful perspective.

On December 11, 2023, approximately 14.2 hectares (35 acres) in Surrey were removed from the ALR for the Surrey–Langley SkyTrain Operations and Maintenance Centre near Fraser Highway and 176 Street. Importantly, however, this land was removed by the provincial government through Order in Council 709/2023, rather than through a conventional ALC exclusion decision.

One of the clearest recent examples of the ALC itself approving a substantial exclusion in the Fraser Valley/Lower Mainland occurred in the Township of Langley on March 10, 2020. The application involved eight properties totalling 14.58 hectares (36 acres). The ALC Executive Committee approved their exclusion from the ALR, subject to conditions relating to buffering, fencing and drainage. The intended use was ultimately industrial development.

The ALC's current application and decision records identify File 51725 as “Exclusion — Approved,” South Coast Region, Township of Langley, dated March 10, 2020. Interestingly, the same records show another Langley exclusion application, decided in 2018, being refused.

Another instructive example occurred in Delta in 2024. On August 7, 2024, the ALC Executive Committee conditionally approved the exclusion of 1.82 hectares (4.5 acres). According to Delta's reporting on the application, the land had limited agricultural capability because of historic filling, compaction and other disturbances, while surrounding development had substantially isolated it from viable agricultural use.

There has also been at least one small ALC-approved exclusion in Metro Vancouver since then. The ALC's annual reporting, however, identifies exclusions by regional district rather than necessarily identifying the municipality involved.

Acreage Approved for Exclusion Is Very Telling

The amount of land the ALC is approving for exclusion is extraordinarily small.

In 2024–25, the ALC approved the exclusion of only 3.78 hectares throughout the entire South Coast region. These figures represent land approved for exclusion by Commission decision during the fiscal year; the actual change to the ALR boundary may occur later, after any conditions attached to the decision have been satisfied.

The South Coast region includes Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Langley, Mission, Pitt Meadows, Richmond, Surrey and other municipalities.

That is an extraordinarily small amount of land.

Agricultural Capability Is the Threshold Issue

This is perhaps the most important distinction between municipal planning considerations and the ALC's mandate. A council may ask: “Is this the best location for an important community use?”

The ALC's starting question is closer to: “Does this land have meaningful present or future agricultural value, and would removing it impair the agricultural land base?”

Abbotsford's 2018 industrial-land application provides an important example. The City sought the exclusion of approximately 201 hectares (497 acres) in Special Study Areas A and B. The ALC found Area A capable of agricultural use, with most agricultural soils in Classes 2 and 3, while Area B contained Class 1, 2 and 3 soils. It rejected drainage and irrigation deficiencies as sufficient reasons for exclusion.

The Commission's conclusion was unequivocal: “the Properties are capable of supporting agriculture and are therefore appropriately designated as ALR.” It also made clear that whether the land happened to be actively farmed at that particular time was not determinative.

That distinction is important. Land does not necessarily lose its agricultural value simply because it is not currently being farmed.

Municipal Need Carries Surprisingly Little Weight

This may be the most important lesson for municipal planning.

Abbotsford's 2018 case was not casually prepared. The City had completed a three-part Industrial Land Supply Study, demonstrated a diminishing supply of industrial land, identified employment requirements associated with population growth, and selected areas with excellent transportation and infrastructure characteristics.

The ALC acknowledged those considerations but did not regard them as overriding its agricultural mandate. Although Abbotsford pointed to the “dwindling supply” of industrial land in the Lower Mainland, the Commission stated that addressing that supply problem was not its role.

That is an important statement for everyone to take note of.

Arguments such as “Abbotsford desperately needs additional industrial land” or “Abbotsford needs land for recreational facilities to serve its growing population” may be compelling municipal planning arguments. But they do not, by themselves, answer the questions the ALC is required to consider.

The same principle appeared in the ALC's refusal of an exclusion application in Aldergrove. The Commission emphasized that local governments should consider density, infill, redevelopment and other ways of accommodating urban growth rather than progressively eroding the Agricultural Land Reserve.

That history should temper expectations about what might happen next at King and McKenzie Roads. The central question is not simply whether Abbotsford needs additional recreational land. Few would dispute that need. The more difficult question is whether that municipal need provides a sufficiently compelling basis for the ALC to reconsider its determination that the land should remain protected for agriculture. 

Furthermore, are we prepared to wait multiple years to explore possibilities without any certainty of a positive outcome?

 

 

Reflections for Prospective Members of Council

 Planning, Priorities, and Fiscal Stewardship

Every newly elected Council inherits a city shaped by the vision, planning, and decisions of previous Councils. While each Council has the authority to establish its own priorities, it also assumes responsibility for commitments made years earlier and for decisions whose financial implications extend well into the future.

For prospective Council candidates, understanding Abbotsford's long-term financial planning is therefore as important as developing new ideas. Municipal government is not simply about identifying worthwhile projects. It is about determining which projects should proceed, in what order, at what pace, and how they can be financed responsibly.

From Vision to Implementation

The 2016 Official Community Plan established a vision for Abbotsford's future growth. It recognized that a growing population would require substantial investments in transportation, utilities, emergency services, parks, recreation facilities, civic buildings, and community amenities.

An Official Community Plan, however, is fundamentally a vision document. It identifies where growth should occur and what kind of community residents wish to create. It does not answer equally important questions: What infrastructure will be required? When will it be required? What will it cost? How will it be financed?

The City's Plan for 200K process was intended to help answer those questions by translating the broad vision of the OCP into practical implementation strategies.

One of its strengths was the recognition that infrastructure cannot be planned in isolation. Transportation, water, sewer, drainage, parks, recreation, fire protection, policing, development financing, asset management, and long-term financial planning are interconnected. A new neighbourhood requires far more than houses. It requires infrastructure and services, together with the ongoing resources to operate and maintain them.

The planning process revealed that accommodating future growth would require investments measured not simply in millions, but in billions of dollars over several decades. To understand how those investments could be accommodated, the City developed a 25-year financial plan.

Among the major initiatives identified were a new Police Headquarters, replacement of Fire Hall #6, Fraser Highway and arterial road improvements, water and sewer infrastructure, recreation facilities, park development, and renewal of aging civic infrastructure.

No municipality can undertake every worthwhile project simultaneously. The central challenge is therefore one of prioritization and sequencing.

The most difficult decisions seldom involve choosing between a good project and a bad one. More often, Council must choose among several worthwhile projects competing for the same financial capacity. Saying "yes" to one project frequently means saying "not yet" to another.

Fiscal Discipline as Stewardship

Fiscal discipline is sometimes equated with keeping taxes low or resisting new spending. Neither definition adequately describes responsible municipal financial management. Fiscal discipline is better understood as the careful stewardship of public resources: balancing present needs with future obligations while ensuring that today's decisions do not impose unreasonable burdens on tomorrow's taxpayers.

Every major capital project carries more than its construction cost. Once built, infrastructure must be operated, maintained, and eventually replaced. Those costs become obligations for future budgets and future Councils.

Fiscal discipline also means preserving financial capacity. Healthy reserves, manageable debt, sustainable taxation, and realistic capital plans provide the flexibility to respond to emergencies, changing priorities, and unexpected opportunities.

Nor does fiscal discipline necessarily mean avoiding debt. Borrowing may be appropriate when it finances long-lived infrastructure that will serve residents for decades. The important questions are whether the debt is affordable, whether the asset justifies the obligation, and whether sufficient financial capacity remains for other future needs.

Abbotsford's experience since 2010 demonstrates that significant infrastructure planning and investment can occur while maintaining comparatively moderate growth in property taxes and charges. According to provincial statistics, Abbotsford's average annual increase in property taxes and charges over the past 15 years was 2.78%, compared with 3.82% provincially and 4.17% in the Township of Langley.

Fiscal discipline, therefore, should not be measured solely by the size of an annual tax increase. It should also be measured by whether a municipality continues to improve essential infrastructure and deliver required services while maintaining a tax burden that is reasonable and sustainable.

The Responsibility of Future Councils

Annual budgets do not begin with a blank slate. They are often the implementation of decisions and plans established years earlier. Long-range planning establishes the direction; annual budgets determine the pace.

Projects may be accelerated, delayed, reconsidered, or replaced as economic conditions, construction costs, funding opportunities, and community priorities change. That flexibility is a normal and necessary part of responsible governance.

Every newly elected Council has both the authority and responsibility to revisit priorities. Fresh perspectives are healthy and often necessary. But responsible change requires understanding why existing priorities were established, what commitments have already been made, and what consequences will follow from changing them.

The question is seldom simply whether a proposed project has merit. More often, Council must ask: Is this the appropriate priority? Is this the appropriate time? Can it be financed responsibly? What other projects would be delayed? What ongoing operating costs will result? What are the long-term implications for taxpayers?

These are questions of stewardship rather than ideology.

Effective Councils also think beyond their own four-year mandate. Infrastructure should be planned according to its useful life and the community's long-term needs, not according to the length of an election cycle.

They must also be able to step back from individual requests and consider the needs of the community as a whole. Community organizations, neighbourhoods, businesses, sporting and cultural organizations, and other interests all bring legitimate concerns to Council. Good governance requires listening carefully to those voices while retaining responsibility for determining what best serves the broader community.

Fiscal discipline is not an obstacle to progress. It is what makes sustained progress possible.

Conclusion

Every generation of civic leaders inherits a city it did not build. Roads, utilities, parks, emergency services, recreation facilities, and civic buildings represent decades of planning and investment by earlier Councils and taxpayers. Likewise, today's decisions will shape both the opportunities and obligations inherited by those who follow.

The responsibility of elected officials is therefore not simply to respond to the issues of the day. It is to understand what they have inherited, exercise good judgment in determining what should come next, and leave the community stronger than they found it.

That requires vision, discipline, and above all, stewardship.

 

The Tale of Two Cities

 The Township of Langley has pursued an aggressive approach to addressing its infrastructure deficit, particularly recreational infrastructure. That approach has not been without internal opposition. Langley Council has experienced acrimonious budget debates and has divided 5–4 on significant financial decisions (Langley Advance Times, March 16, 2026).

Comparisons with Abbotsford have followed quickly, raising the obvious question: Why not do the same in Abbotsford?

The answer begins with the fact that Langley and Abbotsford have taken quite different approaches to financing infrastructure. Langley has relied heavily on debt financing, while Abbotsford has relied less on debt and more on reserves, Development Cost Charges (DCCs) and senior-government funding.

In essence, Abbotsford has sacrificed some speed of capital development in return for financial flexibility. Langley has accepted substantially more debt in order to accelerate capital development. The difference is not simply one of ambition or willingness to build; it is also a question of financial risk and flexibility.

Two Very Different Debt Positions

Abbotsford ended 2025 with only $26.927 million of long-term debt, down from $31.436 million a year earlier. It also had approximately $393 million in net financial assets and $391 million in reserves at year-end. Using a population of roughly 172,000, Abbotsford's long-term debt amounts to approximately $156 per resident.

Langley, by comparison, ended 2025 with approximately $600 million in debt, having increased its debt by more than $300 million in a single year. With an estimated 2025 population of 154,122, that amounts to approximately $3,900 per resident—about 25 times Abbotsford's debt per capita.

The difference is striking, but debt alone does not tell the whole story.

Borrowing and Financial Flexibility

Langley's borrowing has not all gone into sports facilities. The Township is also addressing transportation, water, sewer, parks and other infrastructure requirements. The financial question is therefore the cumulative scale of that borrowing.

Abbotsford's infrastructure program is being financed quite differently. It too is undertaking substantial infrastructure work, but much of it continues to be financed through reserves, DCCs and senior-government funding rather than debt.

The 2026 program includes major Highway 1-related storm-drainage improvements, sanitary-sewer upgrades, JAMES wastewater-treatment investments, road projects, water infrastructure and flood-recovery work.

For example, the 2026 plan includes approximately $25 million in urban storm-drainage projects, including $18.6 million for the Peardonville underpass drainage upgrade. Abbotsford also ended 2025 with substantial dedicated capital reserves for waterworks, sanitary sewer, storm drainage and general capital purposes.

Those reserves provide considerable capacity to fund infrastructure without immediately resorting to borrowing.

The critical point is not that Langley should not have built its new facilities. Rather, money borrowed for those facilities uses borrowing capacity and creates debt-servicing obligations that, for a period of years, reduce the financial room available for roads, drainage, sewer, water, fire halls and other infrastructure.

That is particularly significant because Langley is one of B.C.'s fastest-growing municipalities. Its conventional infrastructure requirements are not declining.

The Cost of Carrying Debt

The difference becomes particularly apparent when annual debt servicing is considered.

Abbotsford's annual debt servicing is approximately $6–7 million. Langley's total debt payments and interest are approaching $50 million annually, and the Township itself has identified debt servicing, interest rates and the cost of operating new infrastructure—including the new ice/dry-floor arenas—as financial pressures (Langley Advance Times, February 20, 2026).

During the March budget debate, Councillor Blair Whitmarsh pointed out that total debt-servicing costs are projected to reach roughly $53 million and potentially $74 million by 2030 under current financial projections.

Those annual costs are important because they compete with police, fire, road maintenance, parks and other municipal services for operating dollars.

There is also a second cost that is sometimes overlooked. Building a recreational facility creates not only a capital cost and, when borrowed, a debt-servicing obligation; it also creates permanent operating costs for staffing, maintenance, utilities and programming.

Interestingly, Langley's sports-building program has had a surprisingly modest direct effect on reported property-tax increases between 2023 and 2026. That is partly because borrowing allows major capital costs to be spread over many years rather than immediately recovered through taxation.

Borrowing, however, spreads the financial consequences; it does not eliminate them. Those consequences increasingly appear in annual debt-service payments and in the permanent operating costs of the facilities themselves.

The Growth and Industrial-Land Factor

Notwithstanding these financial pressures, Langley has some important advantages in supporting its infrastructure strategy.

Its rapidly expanding population and its capacity to continue expanding its industrial and non-residential tax base provide a significant growth engine. Approximately 375 acres of developable industrial land have been identified along the Fraser Highway corridor. Abbotsford, by comparison, has only about 35 acres of developable industrial land remaining.

That difference matters. Industrial and commercial properties contribute substantially to the municipal tax base, and continued development can generate additional revenues to help support both new infrastructure and the debt incurred to build it. If population and economic growth continue, Langley therefore has considerably greater opportunity to expand the tax base upon which its infrastructure strategy depends.

Abbotsford faces a different structural challenge.

Its conservative approach to borrowing has left it with a strong balance sheet and substantial financial flexibility. Borrowing policy can also be changed. If future councils decide that infrastructure should be accelerated through greater use of debt, they have considerable capacity to do so.

Abbotsford's shortage of industrial land may prove much more difficult to remedy.

Council can change borrowing policy relatively easily. It cannot readily create hundreds of acres of industrial land when the logical areas for expansion lie within the Agricultural Land Reserve.

That distinction is important. Debt capacity is a financial choice; industrial land availability is, to a considerable degree, a structural constraint. With approximately 375 acres of developable industrial land identified in Langley compared with only about 35 acres remaining in Abbotsford, the two municipalities do not have the same opportunity to grow their future industrial tax bases.

That may prove to be one of the most important long-term fiscal issues facing Abbotsford.

The Question Candidates Need to Answer

The comparison, then, is not simply about which municipality has been more willing to build. Langley and Abbotsford have chosen different ways of balancing infrastructure needs, taxation, debt and financial flexibility.

Langley has accelerated capital development by accepting substantially more debt. Abbotsford has proceeded more gradually while maintaining considerably greater financial capacity.

Neither approach is without consequence.

For Abbotsford, the legitimate debate is whether some of that financial capacity should now be used to accelerate needed infrastructure. That is a question worth asking.

But when candidates promise to deliver the kind of infrastructure the Township of Langley has delivered, the appropriate response is not simply to ask what they intend to build.

Ask how they intend to pay for it—and what financial trade-offs they are prepared to make.