{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigw5zn3bkqexqzcqatj6izx4xmx5j7hvb5ilay2ia5nxbf7aftxzi",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:xkz32c6cte4uowstz3cl433p/app.bsky.feed.post/3moitq4om3b42"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreignn2z7tqv22ay4mbjw7xzon7pliucndqho4eik354kq7d5uabsau"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 103046
  },
  "description": "Langley City is paying nearly $1 million in the latest budget cycle to defend its interests in the 'War of the Langleys': the Township-driven dissolution of the joint RCMP detachment, plus a parallel judicial review with a sitting councillor.",
  "path": "/township-led-rcmp-split-adds-900-000-to-langley-city-budget/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-17T17:30:45.000Z",
  "site": "https://www.langleyunion.ca",
  "tags": [
    "Langley City June 15, 2026 Regular Council Agenda Package",
    "https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/",
    "https://www.tol.ca/en/news/joint-policing-agreement-terminated-rcmp-service-delivery-continues.aspx",
    "https://www.tol.ca/en/news/township-moves-forward-with-rcmp-deintegration.aspx",
    "https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/langley-rcmp-township-city-dissolution",
    "https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/langley-rcmp-split-1.6838378",
    "https://globalnews.ca/news/9688305/langley-township-separate-rcmp-detachment",
    "https://www.langleyadvancetimes.com/news/rcmp-report-breaks-down-city-township-split-7372769",
    "https://langleyadvancetimes.com/2026/01/01/top-stories-of-the-year-township-formally-split-with-city-over-rcmp/",
    "https://pqbnews.com/2026/05/07/councillor-takes-langley-city-council-mayor-to-court-over-freedom-of-speech/",
    "https://summerlandreview.com/2026/06/08/langley-city-responds-in-legal-fight-with-sitting-councillor/",
    "https://www.langleyunion.ca/united-no-more-township-and-city-end-shared-policing-agreement/",
    "City of Langley Council Code of Conduct Bylaw",
    "Judicial Review Procedure Act",
    "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms",
    "Take the Survey"
  ],
  "textContent": "Nearly $1 million of the Langley City budget amendment passed Monday evening is a direct consequence of the Township of Langley's unilateral decision to dissolve the joint Langley RCMP detachment, a separation Township Mayor Eric Woodward championed despite consistent opposition from his counterpart in the City.\n\nBylaw 3340, the City's 2026-2030 Financial Plan amendment, was adopted unanimously at the June 15 Council meeting. Among the nine items added to the City's Capital Improvement Plan is a $900,000 allocation for the \"negotiation, arbitration and mediation of policing partnership agreements,\" funded from the Future Police Cost Reserve.\n\nTwo further line items appear in the amendment: $500,000 for 'unanticipated legal and professional costs related to labour, employment and investigation matters,' and $600,000 for 'workforce succession, strategic capacity and temporary coverage,' a routine staffing contingency for retirements and leaves.\n\nThe bulk of that spending, and the conflict driving it, did not originate at Langley City Hall.\n\n### How we got here\n\nIn May 2023, Township of Langley Council voted unanimously to \"de-integrate\" the shared Langley RCMP detachment, a force that for decades had served both municipalities under a single command.\n\nThe Township, under Mayor Woodward, argued its rapid population growth and what Woodward called the unfairness of \"subsidizing policing in another municipality\" justified establishing an autonomous Township detachment.\n\nThe City did not request the separation. Mayor Nathan Pachal and Langley City Council were unanimous in opposing the move. Pachal publicly stated his preference for renegotiating the existing service agreement rather than dissolving it.\n\n\"If the Township believes the agreement for policing in Langley is not equitable, I am 100-per cent committed to sitting down at the table with Mayor Woodward and hammering out a new contract for Langley integrated policing that is fair for both municipalities,\" Pachal told Global News in May 2023.\n\nThe City has continued to maintain that the agreement could not be unilaterally terminated without provincial consent.\n\nInternal RCMP analysis, conducted by E Division (the headquarters of B.C.'s federal force), flagged potential safety issues with separating the detachment and noted concerns about plainclothes investigation capacity, particularly in the shared regional commercial centre that crosses the two municipalities.\n\nThe Township pushed ahead anyway.\n\nIn May 2025, it took over the joint detachment building outright, declaring itself the sole owner and offering the City temporary use at market rates while it found a new location.\n\nProvincial officials have since lent some support to the Township's position on its authority to separate.\n\nWhat followed was inevitable: the City has been forced to defend its interests in the wind-down of the joint agreement and the future of the detachment building through formal mediation and arbitration.\n\nThat is what the $900,000 in Bylaw 3340 pays for.\n\n### What the $900,000 covers\n\nAccording to Chief Administrative Officer Francis Cheung, the $900,000 figure is a working estimate based on costs incurred to date.\n\nHe told Council during the meeting that the funds cover ongoing mediation around the police service agreement termination and arbitration around the RCMP building agreement.\n\nCheung also confirmed that no feasibility studies for a standalone Langley City RCMP detachment are included in the allocation. Strategic communication advice on the file is being provided by former Langley City mayor Peter Fassbender.\n\nThe line item is funded from the Future Police Cost Reserve, a fund the City established to anticipate growing policing expenses.\n\n### Mack's petition, the City's bill\n\nThe Township-driven policing dispute is not the only legal expense in Bylaw 3340. The $500,000 for \"labour, employment and investigation matters,\" drawn from the Capital Works Reserve via 2025 operating surplus, addresses a different legal front.\n\nThe amount raises the City's legal fees budget from $90,000 to $500,000.\n\nThe increase, and the dispute behind it, came into public view at the May 25 Council meeting, where the bylaw received its first three readings.\n\nAsked by Councillor Teri James how much of the spending related to code of conduct investigations, Councillor Delaney Mack said the items were \"all confidential\" and that referencing them would violate the Community Charter. Chief Administrative Officer Francis Cheung disagreed, telling Council \"at least part of it at this point [in the process] is not confidential.\"\n\nCheung reported that code of conduct investigations had cost $186,000 in 2025 and $142,000 so far in 2026, a combined $328,000.\n\nAsked by James whether the $500,000 request was, for the most part, related to the code of conduct issues, Cheung replied: \"I would suspect that most of the $500,000 will be allocated towards the code of conduct investigation and defending the city through the petition.\"\n\nThe petition is Mack's own.\n\nOn May 6, 2026, she filed in the BC Supreme Court (file no. S263386), challenging Council decisions tied to a code of conduct complaint Councillor James filed against her in 2025. That complaint concerned comments Mack made to a resident in an email that later appeared in a Facebook group called \"Say NO to the 6 Story Building.\"\n\nJames' complaint alleged the comments were not accurate, running afoul of section 32(a) of the Code of Conduct Bylaw, which requires councillors to \"accurately...communicate the decisions of the council, even if they disagree with the majority decision...so that there is respect for and Integrity in the decision-making processes of Council.\"\n\nThe City's outside investigator found Mack had breached that section. Mack's petition also seeks a Charter declaration striking the section down.\n\nThe City filed its response on June 5, 2026, denying Mack's allegations; none of the claims on either side has been tested in court.\n\nMack, for her part, has called the spending an attempt \"to persecute me for my political speech,\" and her lawyer has contacted the City about the May 25 meeting.\n\nBy the CAO's own account, then, most of the $500,000 is what the City is spending to investigate and defend itself in a matter that includes Mack's own petition.\n\nThat context casts an unusual light on her criticism of the bylaw, which she called \"representative of ongoing conflict with… the mayor's slate\" and a \"mishandling… of the relationship with the Township of Langley.\"\n\nThe City did not initiate the policing dispute, and the legal spending Mack criticized is, by the CAO's estimate, largely money the City is spending to respond to her own court petition and the underlying complaint.\n\nDespite these criticisms, Mack voted in favour of Bylaw 3340. The motion passed unanimously.\n\n### The rest of the agenda\n\nBeyond the budget amendment, Council moved several other items forward.\n\n#### Glover Road Innovation District Plan\n\nCouncil endorsed amendments to the Plan, which aims to guide development of a \"dynamic mixed-use community supported by transit\" in the area. Staff were directed to prepare a related Official Community Plan amendment bylaw.\n\nCouncillor Paul Albrecht raised accessibility alignment as a priority, dovetailing with the City's new 10-year accessibility plan adopted at the same meeting.\n\nCouncillor Rosemary Wallace asked about circular economy opportunities for food and plastic waste.\n\n#### Retired Mark 1 SkyTrain rail car\n\nCouncil supported in principle a proposal from the Arts, Recreation, Culture and Heritage Committee, chaired by Councillor Wallace, to acquire a retired Mark 1 SkyTrain Expo car from TransLink as a heritage and public engagement project.\n\nTransLink is retiring 150 of the cars, which first entered service in Vancouver in 1985, and bidders are responsible for transport and repurposing costs. The proposal originated with Committee Member Andrew Palmer in 2025. The Volunteer Rail Car Sub-Committee will continue identifying partners, donors, and funding sources.\n\n#### Voting procedure changes (Bylaw 3341)\n\nCouncil gave three readings to a bylaw amending the City's Election and Assent Voting Procedure Bylaw.\n\nThe change removes the special voting opportunity at the Langley Seniors Resources Society Centre, which had already been converted to an Advance Voting Opportunity in 2022 following a 2019 motion.\n\nA staff report noted logistical challenges in maintaining ballot chain of custody between off-site locations and City Hall, and pointed to the Seniors Centre's proximity to Timms Community Centre (less than 1 km).\n\nMail-in ballots and curbside voting remain available. Councillor Albrecht voiced concerns about the impact on older residents and people with disabilities. The bylaw carried, with Councillor Mack opposed.\n\n#### Political sign bylaw correction (Bylaw 3342)\n\nCouncil read a sign bylaw amendment that corrects a long-standing typo in the political sign size restrictions.\n\nThe maximum size remains 0.91 metres by 0.91 metres; the imperial measurement is being corrected from \"4 feet by 4 feet\" to the actual conversion of \"3 feet by 3 feet.\"\n\nCouncillor Mack moved to refer the bylaw back to staff to relax property line setback rules. Her motion was defeated 6-1.\n\n### The bottom line\n\nThe June 15 meeting moved several constructive items forward: a transit-oriented Innovation District, a regional heritage project tied to the imminent SkyTrain extension, a long-deferred sign bylaw fix.\n\nBut the headline financial story is unambiguous.\n\nThe City of Langley is paying nearly $1 million in this budget cycle for a policing dispute it did not start, while also paying to defend itself against a court petition filed by one of its own councillors.\n\nBoth are exercises of governance authority by others. Both have produced real costs the City must absorb. Neither is the kind of self-inflicted \"mishandling\" Councillor Mack invoked at the meeting.\n\nThe dispute over the joint RCMP detachment did not begin in Langley City Council Chambers.\n\nIt is the latest chapter in what many have previously characterized as the ongoing \"War of the Langleys\".\n\n### References and Further Reading\n\n#### Primary documents\n\n  * Langley City June 15, 2026 Regular Council Agenda Package (eScribe). The agenda includes the Bylaw 3340 Explanatory Note with the official descriptions of all nine Capital Improvement Plan amendments, including the policing arbitration and mediation allocation funded from the Future Police Cost Reserve.\n  * Petition to the Court, Councillor Delaney Mack v. The Council of the Corporation of the City of Langley and Mayor Nathan Pachal, BC Supreme Court file no. S263386, filed May 6, 2026 (Vancouver Registry, 800 Smithe Street).\n_Available through BC Court Services Online:_ https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/\n  * Response to Petition, City of Langley and Mayor Nathan Pachal, filed June 5, 2026, in file no. S263386.\n_Available through BC Court Services Online:_ https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/\n\n\n\n#### Township of Langley official statements\n\n  * \"Joint Policing Agreement Terminated – RCMP Service Delivery Continues\" (Township of Langley, May 10, 2025): https://www.tol.ca/en/news/joint-policing-agreement-terminated-rcmp-service-delivery-continues.aspx\n  * \"Township Moves Forward with RCMP Deintegration\" (Township of Langley, May 12, 2023): https://www.tol.ca/en/news/township-moves-forward-with-rcmp-deintegration.aspx\n\n\n\n#### News coverage: RCMP split\n\n  * \"Langley Township moves to create its own RCMP, separate from Langley City\" (Daily Hive, May 11, 2023): https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/langley-rcmp-township-city-dissolution\n  * \"Township of Langley announces split over policing with City of Langley\" (CBC News, May 11, 2023): https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/langley-rcmp-split-1.6838378\n  * \"'Not fair:' Langley township doesn't want to share the RCMP with Langley city anymore\" (Global News, May 10, 2023): https://globalnews.ca/news/9688305/langley-township-separate-rcmp-detachment\n  * \"RCMP report breaks down City-Township split\" (Langley Advance Times, June 14, 2024): https://www.langleyadvancetimes.com/news/rcmp-report-breaks-down-city-township-split-7372769\n  * \"TOP STORIES OF THE YEAR: Township formally split with City over RCMP\" (Langley Advance Times, January 1, 2026): https://langleyadvancetimes.com/2026/01/01/top-stories-of-the-year-township-formally-split-with-city-over-rcmp/\n\n\n\n#### News coverage: Mack petition\n\n  * Matthew Claxton, \"Councillor takes Langley City council, mayor to court over freedom of speech\" (Langley Advance Times / Black Press, May 7, 2026), syndicated as: https://pqbnews.com/2026/05/07/councillor-takes-langley-city-council-mayor-to-court-over-freedom-of-speech/\n  * Matthew Claxton, \"Langley City responds in legal fight with sitting councillor\" (Langley Advance Times / Black Press, June 8, 2026), syndicated as: https://summerlandreview.com/2026/06/08/langley-city-responds-in-legal-fight-with-sitting-councillor/ (and across the Black Press network)\n\n\n\n#### Langley Union prior coverage\n\n  * \"United No More: Township and City of Langley End Shared Policing Agreement\" (The Langley Union, May 13, 2025): https://www.langleyunion.ca/united-no-more-township-and-city-end-shared-policing-agreement/\n\n\n\n#### Legislation referenced\n\n  * City of Langley Council Code of Conduct Bylaw, 2023 (No. 3225)\n  * Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSBC 1996, c. 241\n  * Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b)\n\n\n\n* * *\n\n###  What did you think?\n\nHelp us improve! Take a quick 60-second survey to share your thoughts on this article.\n\n Take the Survey ",
  "title": "Township-led RCMP split adds $900,000 to Langley City budget",
  "updatedAt": "2026-06-17T17:30:45.625Z"
}