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.