PART 2 : THE EXPENSE LINE - A 4 YEAR SUMMARY OF TOL OPERATIONAL COSTS

THE BIG PICTURE (and a BIG post!)

Between 2023 and 2026, the Township's total operating costs grew by nearly $97 million.

From $334.3 million to a budgeted $431 million.

That's a 28.9% increase in three years. Or roughly 9.6% per year. 

To put that in context: property taxes grew at about 6% per year over the same period.

Operating costs are growing 50% faster than the taxes meant to pay for them.

THE DEPARTMENT BREAKDOWN -THREE YEARS OF AUDITED DETAIL

Here's where your money actually goes, year by year, taken directly from three consecutive audited annual reports 2023-2025.

The approved 2026 5 Year Fiscal Plan doesn't include a departmental breakdowns, which is why only the TOTAL for 2026 is provided.   Changes shown are 2023 -> 2025 (last audited year available by department).

GENERAL GOVERNMENT 

General Government covers the administrative engine of the Township : Mayor and Council, CAO, Finance, HR, Legal, IT, Communications, Legislative Services. The overhead that runs the machine.

At $42.1 million in 2025, it costs more than the Township's entire Fire Department. 

Nearly as much as Police.

Since 2022, this department has grown by over $9 million , more than 27%. 

That growth happened with no real public discussion or accountability to the breakdown, 

no detailed explanation in any budget presentation, and no year-over-year accounting for what specifically drove it. 

It's not just inflationary cost - its exceeding that by a wide margin.  

More alarming is the 2026 Budget shows $72.3M - a 58% increase in a single year

The General Government heading in the 2025 audited figure was $42.1M, the presented 2026 budget slides blows that up to $72.3M.  Without a consistent breakdown, you can't tell what's real cost growth and if there’s a real apple to apples comparison. 

It should be more transparent and straightforward.  

In any organization public or private, when administrative overhead grows 27% while the organization is also experiencing significant operational cost increases and capital investment the right question is: what did that money buy, and was it the highest-priority use of public funds? 

Influencing factors to consider are of course are the impact of legal fees, severance payouts over the term.  Hard to determine as their not isolated costs in these reports.   

POLICE AND FIRE : THE DECISIONS THAT DROVE THE COSTS

The Township of Langley has been in the process of de-integrating its policing services from a long-standing shared arrangement with the City of Langley. The decision to pursue that separation to begin building the Township's own independent RCMP detachment structure was a choice. A significant one. 

The structural decision to de-integrate, to build a standalone operation locks in a permanent cost trajectory that is not fully visible yet in the three-year audited numbers. 

The full cost of that decision is still arriving.

RCMP wages are set federally. You cannot negotiate them. When the federal government settles RCMP contracts, every municipality with RCMP policing absorbs the increase automatically. That's not a Township decision that's the cost of choosing RCMP policing.

Police costs grew from $44.6 million in 2023 to $47.0 million in 2025 ,  a $2.4 million increase over two years. Relative to other departments, that's modest. 

FIRE

Fire protection costs grew from $23.2 million in 2023 to $30.0 million in 2025 - a $6.8 million increase, or 29.3%, in two years.

The Township made a clear and deliberate decision to significantly expand its fire service, hiring firefighters, increasing resources, building capacity. Again, I'm not here to argue against fire protection. A growing municipality needs fire coverage.

But when public safety is declared the priority , when Council commits financially to building out police and fire , that commitment has to be weighed against everything else. You cannot simultaneously expand police, expand fire, and hold the line on all other costs. The math doesn't work that way.

The 2026 Budget Number That Doesn't Add Up

The 2026 budget projects $129.6 million in salaries and benefits.

The Budget for 2026 is hard to explain - as this doesn’t make sense. 

The 2025 audited actual number signed off by council was $142.6 million.

The budget for next year is $13 million lower than what was actually spent last year.

So what explains a $13 million reduction in the salary budget when the audited actual is $142.6 million and costs have grown every single year for three consecutive years?

There is no explanation - This is an obvious gap.  

There are some probable explanations but I am speculating here.    

THE CUPE CONTRACT - THE COST THAT ISN'T IN THE BUDGET 

The Township's CUPE collective agreement the contract covering a significant portion of the Township's non-uniformed workforce expired in 2024. 

As of the writing of this post, it has not been settled.

That means 2025 wages for CUPE-covered employees have been paid under an expired contract. Currently - 2026 wages are being paid under an expired contract. When a new agreement is reached and it will be, it will include:

    A wage increase for 2025, retroactive

    A wage increase for 2026

    Back pay for the period since expiry

That back pay obligation is real. And it will not be small.

It is not in the published budget. 

The general benchmark for CUPE settlements in BC municipalities over the past two years has ranged from 3–6% per year. Applied to a workforce of the Township’s size, even a conservative 3% retroactive increase generates several million dollars in back pay - money the budget has not set aside. An estimated $6.5 million per year in CUPE obligations not captured in the current budget is a reasonable working figure, informed by publicly available comparators. 

2024 Audit Report show 1495 employees, the same number as 2023. Headcount held flat year-over-year, even as salary costs grew from approx $103M (2022) to $128.4M (2024). 

That's a significant wage-per-employee increase. 

I want to be clear here: 

There is no settlement number yet because it doesn't exist yet - this is speculation based off of other municipalities . What I can tell you is that it will exist, it will add to the total significantly, and it is not in the $129.6 million figure the Township published as its 2026 salary budget. 

SEVERANCE AND SETTLEMENTS - The Hidden Costs in Salary & Benefits

There is no line item in a municipal budget called "severance."

That's by design. Severance agreements and employment separation packages are typically disclosed, if at all, as part of general salaries and benefits. They don't appear as a separate figure. They are absorbed.

What I can tell you is that the audited financial statements show significant wage increases in the General Government category;  the administrative and leadership functions of the Township. From $37.7 million in 2023 to $42.1 million in 2025. An 11.7% increase in two years; in the department that houses senior administration.

During this same period, there have been senior staff departures and transitions at the Township. I won't speculate on specifics where facts aren't confirmed. But it is reasonable and appropriate to note that leadership transitions at the senior level often carry a large financial cost in the form of separation agreements, and those costs land in the salary line.

When salaries grow in the administrative core, and headcount reporting stops, and the 2026 salary budget is $13 million below the 2025 audited actual, there is a gap in owed transparency about what drove those costs. That transparency has not been provided.

RECREATION & CULTURE, PARKS, AND TRANSPORTATION - 

WHERE THE GROWTH IS CONCENTRATED

If three departments tell the story of the Township’s growth ambitions and cost trajectory, it's these three.  To state a few things upfront - These are simply the numerical facts of what’s been planned and spent.   

Together they account for $148.7 million of the Township's 2025 operating spend and they grew by a combined $34.2 million in just two years. 

Again - That's roughly 30% of the total operating cost increase across the entire organization concentrated in three departments.

There are  a lot of positive projects and initiatives that have been happening in our Township.   The community benefits are obvious to see.   

What’s important to hold in equal tension with all the aspirational benefits - is the process, the speed & timing, public input &  engagement, the fiscal planning and funding strategies.  

These are critical aspects of responsible aspects of governance, accountability and transparency that are required to ensure risk and waste are minimized and public resources are maximally utilized. 

Let's go through each one.

RECREATION & CULTURE

This is the fastest-growing major service department in the Township — a 36.7% increase in two years.

To put that in perspective: the entire Recreation & Culture department cost $36 million in 2023. By 2025 it cost $49.2 million. 

That's an additional $13.2 million per year in permanent, recurring operating cost added in 24 months.

For context,  the 2023 draft operating budget projected Recreation at approximately $18.6 million. The audited actual came in at $36 million, nearly double the budgeted figure. 

That gap alone raises a serious question about the accuracy of budget projections in this department, and whether the true cost of recreation services was being clearly communicated to the public during budget deliberations.

The Facility Costs That Hasn't Landed Yet

The Township's new dry arenas at the LEC are scheduled to open in fall 2026.

That building cost approximately $144 million borrowed money. 

The capital cost is a one-time entry on the debt ledger. 

What it triggers is something different and permanent: an annual public subsidy that supplements the operating cost that begins the day the doors open and never stops.

It will not pay for itself. 

Staffing a new arena facility, operations, ice/floor technicians, programming, administration, maintenance, utilities, insurance, runs into the millions annually. 

In comparable BC municipalities, operating costs for new multi-pad arena facilities have ranged from $3 to $6 million per year depending on programming model and staffing structure.

That number does not appear anywhere in the 2026 operating budget. 

It is not broken out as a new line item.

It is not disclosed as a planned addition to the Recreation & Culture department cost base.

The building opens in months. The permanent annual operating costs are not on the public record.

When it does land, and it will, fully in the 2027 budget cycle it will layer on top of a Recreation & Culture base that already grew $13.2 million in two years. 

The ratchet moves in one direction.

PARKS

Parks grew 36.6% in two years -matching Recreation almost exactly in percentage terms, though from a smaller base.

The jump from $22.2 million in 2024 to $27.6 million in 2025 $5.4 million in a single year,  is the sharpest single-year increase in the department's recent history.

Parks costs are driven by a combination of factors within the Township: new parkland being brought into the maintenance inventory, expanded trail networks, new amenity installations, sports field maintenance, landscaping, and the staffing that supports all of it. 

In principle, growth drives parks costs, more development means more green space transferred to the Township, more maintained surfaces, more programming. We do need these kind of community amenities - they are essential for us.   

From my perspective - The large capital projects should have been weighed against these essential community amenities.  I love what I’m seeing with the Yorkson Creek Park - and yes that kind of amenity in our other communities should obviously be reflected.   

The problem is now - How financially to make that work given the other financial realities: Our current and planned growing debt load and associated debt servicing fees (+$55 million and growing annually), our net negative operating result - depressed development and economic climate.

Then there’s the morning after reality that sets in.  The ongoing cost of mowing, irrigating, maintaining, inspecting, and staffing that park falls entirely on the operating budget from day one. Parks maintenance obligations expand with it. That obligation is not discretionary. 

The 2023 draft budget projected Parks at $20.4 million. The actual came in at $20.2 million, essentially on target that year. 

By 2025 it had grown to $27.6 million with no public breakdown of what specifically drove the $7.4 million increase and I’m unable to determine 2026’s budget given its general consolidation with other costs. 

TRANSPORTATION

Transportation costs encompass road maintenance, road rehabilitation, storm drainage operations, fleet, traffic management, sidewalk and boulevard maintenance, and the staffing across all of it. In a municipality the size and growth rate of the Township, these costs are substantial and directionally upward. That is expected.

Transportation is the Township's single largest service department and it grew by $13.6 million in two years.  At $71.8 million in 2025, Transportation costs more than Recreation & Culture and Parks combined.

The 2023 draft budget projected Transportation at $41.2 million. 

The audited actual was $58.2 million , a $17 million gap between what was budgeted and what was actually spent. In a single year. In the Township's largest department.

Of course 208th Street has substantially contributed to this reality - and further resources are being pulled from planned projects like the 216th St. project to fund its completion. 

The Township has roads in rough shape that have been deferred for years, and road rehabilitation is a legitimate infrastructure priority.  Rehabilitation over patching can be cost-effective but only if it's funded sustainably and not borrowed.

I do have to call out what I see as a mischaracterization in a recent video - with Mayor Woodward stating :

"Our opposition voted against funding this program."

What was actually voted on matters here. 

The votes against were votes on an omnibus budget bylaw;  a single vote that simultaneously approved $584 million in accumulated debt, 

a 2027 property tax increase of approximately 23%, 

a reserve drawdown from $359M to $108M, 

and a $53.2M annual debt servicing bill in 2026 alone. 

Characterizing a no vote on that package as being "against fixing roads" is a significant misrepresentation of what the vote actually was.

A new roads program is happening alongside $584 million in existing debt and $334 million in newly authorized borrowing. The cost of that debt - $53.2M in payments in 2026 alone, rising to $73.7M by 2030 - competes directly with the operating dollars available for road maintenance every single year. 

Additionally, the Township has not published a lifecycle cost estimate for what full rehabilitation of those roads will actually cost taxpayers, or what the annual operating cost of maintaining them once rehabilitated will be.

The Bottom Line on Roads & Transportation

Nobody is against fixing roads. Roads need to be fixed. 

The question is whether this program is being funded in a fiscally responsible way, with honest public accounting of cost, scope, and impact on the tax bill or whether it's being used as a political narrative to deflect from a balance sheet that shows debt nearly quadrupling in three years, reserves being drawn down by $251 million, and a 23% tax increase sitting in the approved five-year plan for 2027.

Fixing roads and fiscal accountability are not opposites. Taxpayers deserve both.

TO WRAP THINGS UP 

These numbers are not projections or estimates - they are factually based and

came directly from the Township's own audited financial statements and council-adopted budget bylaws. 

In discussing the facts here though - I feel it important to address a few statements shared by Mayor Woodward - in his April video responding to spending and budget concerns.

Admittedly he may have some other "facts" I'm not privy to - but I haven't been able to find the statements substantiated by what is in the public domain.

Regarding the Operating Budget; 

"We increased the operating budget by some of the lowest rates in the region."

-Mayor Eric Woodward 

The audited Consolidated Statement of Operations and adopted budget bylaw show:

That is a $96.7 million increase in three years approximately 29% growth in the Township's operating cost base from 2023 to 2026. 

The 2026 figure is the Township's own adopted budget, not a projection - and it does not yet include the full-year operating cost of the new dry arenas opening fall 2026, any CUPE back-pay settlement, or the compounding effect of wage increases across the organization.

Whether that compares favourably to neighbouring municipalities does not change what Township taxpayers are actually paying. Regional comparisons of percentage increases can be framed many ways; audited dollar amounts cannot.

Regarding the reduction of Debt and paying off “Bad Debt”; 

"...Paying off debt at the Langley Events Centre and other bad debt."

-Mayor Eric Woodward

The audited balance sheet tells a different story on debt overall:

The Township may have retired specific LEC debt during this term — and that is noted. But total debt did not go down. From 2022 to 2025 it went up by $407 million. With further increasing debt projections approved for 2026.

Characterizing the debt trajectory of this term as one of "paying off debt" while the balance sheet shows a $407 million net increase over four years with more authorized in 2026 and beyond is a significant misrepresentation of the Township's actual debt position.

"We don't vote against a budget we all need while not making a single suggestion."

-Mayor Eric Woodward

The minority votes against the 2026 budget were votes against a single omnibus bylaw that simultaneously adopted:

    $584 million in accumulated debt

    $334 million in newly authorized borrowing

    A reserve drawdown from $359M to $108M

    $53.2M in annual debt payments for 2026 alone

    A five-year plan with a 22.6% tax increase embedded for 2027

The Mayor is correct that municipal budgeting involves real tradeoffs, that RCMP costs are federally imposed, and that some cost increases are external and unavoidable. Those are legitimate points.

Voting against that package is not the same as voting against roads, parks, fire, or police. Framing it that way is a political argument, not a factual one.

You deserve to know the facts - open & transparent.