Can You Pay Yesterday's Bills with ACCs?
We asked the Province directly
The Township of Langley has been charging real estate developers millions in fees to help pay for new community facilities like ice arenas and athletic parks. But in June 2025, Justice Coval of the BC Supreme Court ruled that the Township's Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) program wasn't legally enforceable.
This court decision has created challenges for the Township's financing strategy. The municipality has been relying heavily on these developer fees and borrowing to fund major projects including the ice & dry arenas next to the events centre, Smith Athletic Park, and other community amenities. These "CAC" fees have seen several significant increases since 2022 as part of a strategy to pay back the debt incurred to build these new facilities.
The ruling has created uncertainty about how the Township will pay for these projects and what it means for taxpayers and future development.
Following this ruling, the Township introduced a softened interim policy for CACs to try and comply with the court’s demands, and announced they would be switching from CACs to a new developer charge framework recently created by the Province - Amenity Cost Charges (ACCs).
Although both programs have similar sounding names they are quite different. CACs are not legislated and do not have an established legal framework; for municipal governments, this has the benefit of being more flexible, but for residents this can mean they feel ad-hoc. CACs also have limited transparency, with CAC balances not listed as separate line items on annual financial reports.
By contrast ACCs are very prescriptive, regulated, and legally binding; each specific project in the ACC bylaw has to be separately tracked and accounted for in financial reports and statements.
Are ACCs “forward looking” only?
Most significantly however, is that the legislation for ACCs implies they are “forward looking,” as outlined in the Local Government Act:
Section 570.7(1)(b):
An amenity cost charge bylaw must specify the following: (b) for each area referred to in paragraph (a), the amenities that will receive funding from an amenity cost charge;
Section 570.8(2):
Money in amenity cost charge reserve funds, together with interest on it, may be used only for the following: (a) to pay the capital costs of providing, constructing, altering or expanding amenities specified in the amenity cost charge bylaw under section 570.7 (1) (b); (b) to pay principal and interest on a debt incurred by a local government as a result of an expenditure under paragraph (a)
The legislation implies that ACC reserve funds can be used to pay the principal and interest on debt that a local government incurred when spending money on capital costs for providing, constructing, altering, or expanding amenities, but only if those amenities are “specified in the amenity cost charge bylaw” and crucially, “the amenities that will receive funding” from the charge.
This creates uncertainty about whether already-built and financed amenities can qualify. It implies that ACC funds can't be used to pay back debt for amenities that were already financed before the ACC bylaw was adopted.
We wrote to the Province's Local Government Financing department for clarity:
Can ACC revenue be used to pay for the principal or interest on existing MFA debt for infrastructure projects that were not included in an adopted ACC bylaw at the time the borrowing occurred?
I understand that ACCs are forward-looking and require adoption prior to project costs being incurred, but would appreciate confirmation or clarification, especially in light of recent legal and policy developments.
We received a response from Joshua Craig, Director of Local Government Finance at the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs:
Our interpretation of the legislation (Local Government Act 570.8 (2)(a) & (b)) for ACCs is that an amenity must be specified in the ACC bylaw in order for funds from the ACC reserve to be used to repay the cost of debt incurred to finance the construction of the amenity.
Our interpretation is also that, as you refer to below, the ACCs bylaw is forward looking and should specify the amenities that will (in the future) receive funding from an amenity cost charge (LGA 570.7 (1)(b)).
So it follows that if a project has already received financing from borrowing then it is too late for it to be included in an ACC bylaw.
The provincial government's official interpretation creates a significant challenge for the Township of Langley. The facilities that depended on the controversial CAC increases are already-started projects with approved debt that was incurred before any ACC bylaw existed. Under the Province's reading of the legislation, “if a project has already received financing from borrowing then it is too late for it to be included in an ACC bylaw”, meaning ACC revenue cannot be used to pay back the existing debt.
However, it's important to note that this is the Province's interpretation, not settled law. If challenged in court, a judge might take a more pragmatic approach, focusing on the overall legislative purpose of ACCs as cost-recovery tools rather than strict temporal requirements. A court could potentially rule that the phrase “will receive funding” doesn't preclude debt payments for already-started projects, especially if those amenities demonstrably serve new development.
But relying on this is another significant gamble. We’re not lawyers, but the plain language of “will receive funding,” combined with the strict interpretation from the very Ministry responsible for the Local Government Act itself, appears to strongly support a restrictive interpretation.
We fear the Township could be taking further legal and financial risk by adopting an ACC bylaw for already-started projects with approved debt.
The Proposed ACC Bylaw
The currently proposed ACC Bylaw does not acknowledge, either willfully or unintentionally, the possibility that ACC funds cannot be used to pay debt for projects that were financed before the ACC bylaw was adopted. Though it does acknowledge that some of these projects are “already underway”.
[Correction1]
The proposed policy is also simplified from the original CAC policy, which does away with different rates for different areas, and sets the geographical boundaries as township wide.
This exposes some of the challenges transitioning to ACCs: when facilities are financially out of scale with their immediate service area, limiting geographical boundaries to only areas within reasonable distance of these facilities would likely place too great a burden on that neighbourhood. Secondly, facilities like the Willoughby Community Centre will be located mostly within existing developed area, so there is limited scope for relying on development charges close by.
Beyond the financial challenges, this structure creates political problems which could come up during the public engagement process. It’s possible residents located far from these facilities may resist paying for them through what amounts to an indirect tax on their new homes.
And there’s another legal concern we haven’t addressed, once an ACC has recovered its specified capital costs, continuing to collect charges could be challenged as “excessive in relation to the capital cost” under section 570.7(5)(c) of the Act. The bylaw does not address this, there’s no “sunset clause” for each facility when its capital costs are recovered.
This issue needs clarification, since every facility and amenity we construct will have future costs. The soccer facility for example will need ongoing repairs, growing more significant with each passing decade. If this restriction is enforced, the Township cannot lean on fees from development going on elsewhere to cover these ongoing costs.
Conclusion
We feel the entire strategy is on shaky ground. Taking on debt relied upon future revenues, and the court has determined that the CAC policy, a pillar of these revenues, is unenforceable, so the Township is currently skirting by on a new interim policy.
The ACC bylaw in progress is problematic and risks further issues and legal challenges by failing to address key restrictions in the legislation. Furthermore, development fees are not dependable in general, varying based on the ebbs and flows of the real estate industry, which could slow down any time. These fees also have an indirect negative impact on housing affordability. There are also questions about whether new homes should be paying towards multimillion dollar athletic facilities at all.
This situation not only underscores the importance of good financial and accounting practices, but also the inherent problems of searching for shortcuts to success.
However, these challenges shouldn’t overshadow how the ACC framework is a positive step in general. Seeing ACC figures on financial reports will be a welcome move towards more financial transparency and holding political leaders accountable. ACC bylaws can also be used for alterations and expansions to facilities, which, when the geographical catchment aspect is used properly, means that there is a political incentive to densify the areas around existing facilities to expand them, or at the very least contain urban expansion to remain within a reasonable distance of the facility. These, and other changes in the ACC framework, help eliminate the financial incentives that prioritize outward growth and development over every other metric.
That being said, even though ACCs theoretically improve outcomes and transparency around the collection of fees, overall the proposed implementation looks subpar. We believe success comes from the formation of productive, successful places, not by a form of hidden tax on home construction. Only by following this approach can the Township increase property tax revenue to not only pay for the facilities we need, but to also support and maintain them in the long term.
Strong Towns Langley is a community group dedicated to making Langley, British Columbia a better place. We advocate for incremental development, sustainable transportation solutions, housing accessibility, public spaces, and responsible growth strategies. Our group is part of the larger Strong Towns movement, focusing on creating financially resilient and people-oriented communities.
To learn more visit https://strongtownslangley.org
This article was updated September 24th 2025 to correct a framing that gave the impression the Township of Langley chose to scrap the “Additional urban parks for urban areas”, the “Affordable Housing Reserve Fund” and “Climate Action Reserve Fund” programs when transitioning from CACs to ACCs. However, these programs had to be removed due to restrictions in the ACC legislation. Affordable Housing for example is specifically excluded.