Municipal Spending; A Runaway Train

 

In early 2026, the Business Council of BC described the rapid rate of property tax inflation province wide as a “Runaway Train”, citing a 94% increase over the past 15 years, compared with a national average of 54%. No doubt, these concerns are well founded, but it is nonetheless satisfying to note that this trend is not reflected in Abbotsford’s property tax experience.

Reflecting on my own property tax increase in Abbotsford over the same period (for a property I have occupied since 1990), the increase has been 55%. This personal observation is corroborated by Government of BC Local Government Statistics. Based on that data, Abbotsford has been comparatively restrained in its property tax increases over the past 15 years, relative to both the provincial average and the averages of neighbouring municipalities—Chilliwack, Mission, and the City and Township of Langley.

 

Two metrics are provided: “Municipal Taxes Per Capita”, and “Total Taxes and Charges on a ‘Representative House’”. (Schedules 707 & 704)

1/Municipal taxes per capita

Municipality	2010	2024	Change	Avg annual growth
Abbotsford	761	1,088	+43.0%	+2.59%/yr
Chilliwack	650.8	1,010	+55.2%	+3.19%/yr
Mission	698.8	1,157	+65.6%	+3.67%/yr
Langley (City)	770.3	1,321	+71.5%	+3.93%/yr
Langley (Township/District)	821.3	1,289	+56.9%	+3.27%/yr
BC (weighted avg across municipalities)	801.3	1,326.9	+65.6%	+3.67%/yr

2/Total residential property taxes & charges on a ‘Representative House’

Municipality	2010	2024	Change	Avg annual growth
Abbotsford	3,743	5,497	+46.8%	+2.78%/yr
Chilliwack	2,951	4,831	+63.7%	+3.58%/yr
Mission	3,729	5,874	+57.5%	+3.30%/yr
Langley (City)	3,522	6,395	+81.6%	+4.35%/yr
Langley (Township/District)	3,592	6,363	+77.1%	+4.17%/yr
BC benchmark (median municipality)	2,762	4,673.5	+69.2%	+3.82%/yr

Abbotsford’s per-capita municipal tax burden growth has been well below the BC-wide municipal average for the period, 2010 – 2024, and lower than that of each of the three adjacent comparator municipalities listed here. On a homeowner-based measure, Abbotsford’s increase is again lower than the BC median and lower than Mission, Chilliwack, and Langley over the same period.

In a subsequent study (June 29, 2026) from the Business Council of BC, a report was released showing that most municipalities across the province increased operating spending at a pace that exceeded what population growth and inflation alone would justify.

The one fact that cannot be lost in this discussion is that Abbotsford is the largest BC municipality in area. This has significant implications for investment in infrastructure like roads, water, and sewer, and operational costs related to police and fire protections services -  much greater than most municipalities. Furthermore, our agricultural land (74% of our area) accounts for only 3% of our tax base.

Overall, 135 of B.C.'s 153 municipalities (88%) increased real operating spending faster than their populations grew between 2010 and 2024, according to the report. Their findings (below) indicate the average annual growth in real operating spending (adjusted for inflation) and population for Abbotsford between 2010 and 2024 was within our “means”.

Abbotsford Spending, 2010-2024:

Real Spending                        Population                    Difference
Annual Growth %                    Annual Growth %

       1.2%                                     1.7%                              -0.6

Their analysis covers 153 of B.C.'s 161 municipalities. Seven were excluded due to incomplete data for the 2010-2024 period. Overspending will eventually “catch up”; it is not sustainable. Abbotsford was one of 18 municipalities where spending is not a “Runaway Train”; where sustainability guides fiscal policy.

This is the city that the incoming Council will inherit. “Understand what came before – Decide carefully what should come next.”

Qualities Of A Prospective Councillor

If we were to identify the qualities that mark effective elected officials, I would choose the following broad categories: character, competence, temperament, and service. 

Character

When we begin to consider whom to support or vote for, the first question that usually comes to mind is, “Who is this person?” Apart from identifying where someone comes from or exploring their background, we want to know whether this person is trustworthy. Are they honest and transparent in their relationships with others? Can we expect them to take responsibility, even when they have failed in some manner? Do they respect others, regardless of personal differences?

Character also requires courage and independence of judgement. An elected official must be willing to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions when the evidence and the long-term interests of the community point in that direction. Public opinion matters, but responsible representation requires more than simply determining which position is most popular. The question I learned to ask myself was: What is in the best interest of the community as a whole?

Newly elected officials will obviously be inexperienced and will make mistakes. Competence can compensate for inexperience, but it cannot compensate for deficiencies in character.

Competence

What, then, are the basic competencies we should look for? Does this individual have strong thinking skills? Can we expect them to exercise common sense and sound judgment? Given the nature of the position and the consequences of the decisions involved, we should expect intelligent people who not only can learn, but want to learn. After all, the initial learning curve is significant.

We also need individuals who can think strategically and systemically. A competent elected official must be able to see how today’s decisions contribute to the city’s long-term direction. Transportation, parks, utilities, housing, and other municipal responsibilities are interconnected rather than isolated issues. Is this candidate a big-picture thinker, capable of balancing individual projects and immediate concerns against a broader vision? The question that should always remain at the forefront is: What is best for the city as a whole, rather than simply for one neighbourhood or interest group?

An effective elected official must also understand that major infrastructure and community development unfold over decades, not election cycles. Just as importantly, they must understand where the city is headed and recognize that a sequence of decisions is required to get there. No major decision exists entirely in isolation.

We should also expect the people we elect to understand the principles of good governance. Without that understanding, the result can be a dysfunctional Council, impaired in its ability to respond to unexpected challenges or alter course when circumstances require it. And there is one further competency that should concern every taxpayer: Will this candidate exercise fiscal responsibility in the interests of all residents and future generations, rather than responding primarily to the immediate demands of a vocal minority? The financial consequences of Council decisions can extend far beyond a single term of office.

Temperament

The third category—temperament—may be underestimated or overlooked. Municipal government is almost entirely a collaborative enterprise. One of its unique strengths is the presence of nine independent voices and opinions around the Council table, working together to govern the city. A Councillor who possesses excellent ideas but cannot work constructively with colleagues will usually accomplish less than someone with perhaps fewer ideas but stronger interpersonal skills.

Is this candidate a collaborator—someone who has not only the ability but also the willingness to work as part of a team? Are they open-minded enough to seriously consider points of view that may be unfamiliar, contrary to their own, or even unorthodox? Can they disagree without becoming disagreeable? Can they accept that, on occasion, the majority will reach a conclusion different from their own and then continue working constructively with their colleagues?

If I have learned one thing from my 21 years on Council, it is that patience truly is a virtue. It is a virtue I have struggled with at times. I have learned, however, that in the context of my role as a Councillor, patience has generally resulted in better decisions. Rushed decisions, particularly when dealing with complex issues, can produce consequences that are difficult to undo.

Service

A fourth quality is a genuine commitment to public service. Why is this person seeking office? And whom do they believe they are there to serve? This category speaks to motivation and purpose. An individual may pass the first three tests but fail to appreciate that elected office is not about status or influence, nor simply about advancing a particular cause. Does the individual demonstrate a genuine desire to serve the community as a whole?

Public office is a position of trust. Those elected are given authority to make decisions affecting people they may never meet, with consequences that may extend well beyond their own term of office. Effective elected officials understand that the position is not about themselves. They are temporary stewards of a community entrusted to their care.

Of the four qualities, character comes first. Knowledge can be acquired. Experience comes with time. Skills can be developed. But integrity, humility, and courage provide the foundation. Service gives those qualities their purpose—a genuine commitment to place the interests of the community ahead of personal ambition, recognition, or gain.

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?