The Langford Budget: There are No Solutions, Only Trade-offs

 

Image Generated with Google Gemini

I don’t often shift to this perspective on this blog, but today I am putting on my hat as a Langford City Councillor. The financial trade-offs currently before the City are a real-world application of the economic principles we evaluate in the classroom: opportunity costs, unfunded liabilities, and the "Trolley Problem" of governance.

As a Councillor, I am often asked why our tax increases seem high in percentage terms. To answer that, we have to look past the "sticker shock" of a percentage and look at the values reflected in our budget.

The Context: A Small Number vs. A Big Reality

It is important to acknowledge that a 15% increase on a small tax base looks very different than a 5% increase on a large one.

The Math: A 5% increase on a $100 bill is $5. A 15% increase on a $20 bill is only $3. While the percentage is three times higher, the actual dollar magnitude is lower.

I developed a Comparative Tax Tool to provide people with data sourced directly from the Province of BC (Schedule 704). Even with recent increases, Langford remains one of the most affordable municipalities in the CRD and the province. We are an outlier in percentage change because, for decades, Langford artificially kept rates low by effectively borrowing from our future.

From Legacy Subsidies to Community Equity

For years, Langford’s reputation was maintained through a specific set of fiscal maneuvers: selling off public land and using developer amenity funds to subsidize general operations.

In economic terms, this was a legacy subsidy. By liquidating collective assets (land owned by everyone) to keep property taxes artificially low, the city provided a direct financial transfer to established property owners, disproportionately benefiting those with the largest assets.

We have been moving away from a system that prioritized a select few at the expense of our city’s future. As a newer resident myself, I am acutely aware of the cost of this transition. Many of us are now paying to correct a system we didn't create, fixing an physical and social infrastructure deficit that was left to us as a "parting gift" from a previous era.

This transition is about fairness across generations. Instead of liquidating public assets to grant a 'discount' to those who have been here the longest, we have been choosing to build a city that works for everyone. I recognize this comes with a significant cost today, one that I am paying alongside you. But the reality is simple: we either pay the true cost of our city today, or we leave our children to pay it tomorrow with interest.

Investing in Our Values

Over the past two years, we have made deliberate choices to move toward long-term stability and ensuring that tax-payer funds are being used to have as wide-reaching benefit as possible:

Healthcare Access: In partnership with the Masons and South Island Primary Care Society, we invested $1.7M to provide space for up to 10 doctors, creating a healthcare home for over 12,000 residents.

Childcare: We secured over $10M in grant funding for 100+ daycare spaces, co-located with housing and arts centers.

Public Safety: We transitioned our fire hall from volunteer to 24/7 staffing allowing the long empty hall in happy valley to be fully staffed. Additionally we have authorized a nearly 20% increase in RCMP officers.

Community Wealth: We secured Woodlands Park at a discount (Thanks to a tremendous community donation) and kept the YMCA/Aquatics Centre open, a move set to save taxpayers over $100M over the next 20 years compared to the previous Public-Private-Partnership model which was liability-heavy.

Asset Management: We have the stage set to fund a plan so that we pay for the roads and infrastructure we use today, rather than leaving a bankrupt infrastructure to our children (look no further than Calgary to see what happens when this isn’t funded).

The Trolley Problem: 15% vs. 3%

As we look at the 5-year financial plan, we are faced with two extreme tracks.

Track A: The 15% Path (Investment & Solvency) This includes an 8% baseline increase for "uncontrollable" costs: provincial downloads (E-Comm), RCMP contracts, and debt. The remaining portion allows us to repay "internal borrowing" debt the city took from its own future with no repayment plan going back to early 2000. This path maintains our festivals, beautification, and emergency services.

Track B: The 3% Path (Cuts & Liabilities) To get to 3%, we pull the lever and the trolley hits:

Safety: No new RCMP members.

Culture: Cutting three or more major community festivals.

The Future: Failing to pay back internal borrowing, effectively "selling the furniture to pay the rent," much like the 2018-2022 term where an estimated $20M in land was sold to bridge gaps.

The Bottom Line

There are no "easy" solutions. Anything below an 8% increase is not a saving; it is a service cut and a debt-load shifted to the next generation. Anything above 8% is an active investment in making Langford a modern, self-sustaining city, but a cost we have to pay today. 

We must decide: Do we continue on the track toward paying the true cost of our city today, or do we return to the path of borrowing from the Langford of tomorrow?

The Public Service Bargain: Why "Protection" is a Pillar of Good Governance

 

In the first four weeks of PADM 112: Introduction to Public Administration, my students and I have been deconstructing the engine of the Canadian state. We’ve explored the Merit Principle vs. Political Patronage, and the delicate dance between elected officials and the professional bureaucracy.

Shortly after this discussion on administrative neutrality, I came across a post from a City Manager in Florida quoting an attorney speaking on City Manager contracts. His takeaway was a blunt reminder of a principle we often take for granted:

"If you want a [manager] to lead effectively, make tough calls, and act in the city’s best interest — the contract must also protect the manager. That protection isn’t a perk... It’s governance structure."

While the American system often leans on individual contracts, in the Canadian Westminster model, this protection is an institutionalized "Bargain."

The Anatomy of the Bargain

In the Booth and Rowley textbook, the relationship between the politician and the administrator is defined as a Public Service Bargain. While not explicitly written into the Constitution Act, it functions as a Constitutional Convention, one of the unwritten rules essential to the operation of Responsible Government.

The Administrator’s Commitment: They trade their right to public partisan expression and political ambition for permanence (tenure) and anonymity.

The Politician’s Commitment: They trade the "spoils of victory" (the right to hire/fire based on loyalty) for professionalism and institutional memory.

The "protection" mentioned by that City Attorney is exactly what allows for Fearless Advice. Without job security, advice becomes "survivalist." If an administrator knows that questioning a populist whim might lead to their termination, they cease to be a professional filter and become a "virtual yes-man." At that point, the merit principle is dead, and we have reverted to a system of patronage in all but name.

The Partisan Pressure Cooker

This bargain is more critical today than perhaps at any other point in Canadian history. We live in an increasingly partisan landscape where social media has effectively eroded the "Anonymity" portion of the bargain.

In the past, a senior official could challenge a policy in the privacy of a Minister's office. Today, that official’s identity, past social media posts, or even their perceived "body language" in a committee meeting can be weaponized by partisan actors online. When anonymity fades, the permanence of the role becomes the only remaining shield. If we weaken that protection now, we invite a "spoils system" where administrators are forced to perform for the digital mob rather than provide rigorous policy analysis.

The Tension, Who Watches the Watchmen?

A rigorous look at this bargain requires us to address the primary pushback, democratic supremacy. Many critics will argue that "too much protection" allows unelected bureaucrats to stymie the mandate of an elected government. This is the fear of Bureaucratic Sabotage, what we see with calls to end the ‘deep-state’.

The answer lies in the second half of the Westminster duty, Loyal Implementation. Protection exists to ensure the advice is honest and the trade-offs are clear. However, once the decision is legally made by the elected official, the administrator’s role is to execute that direction with the same professional rigor they used to critique it. Protection is a shield for integrity, not a license for obstruction.

From Clean Theory to the "Messy Reality"

For my PADM students, the theoretical honeymoon is over. We are now pivoting to the Application Phase. Over the next three weeks, we will be analyzing current issues at the Federal, Provincial, and Local levels.

The goal is to recognize a hard truth, very few problems have "solutions"; they have trade-offs. Whether it is housing density or carbon policy, these are not "simple" issues, despite how they are marketed. It is precisely because these issues are so complex that we require a protected, professional public service. We need experts who are empowered to weigh those difficult trade-offs without the looming fear of political retribution.

Recommended Reading List

To dig deeper into these themes, I recommend the following selections from our course text and key administrative literature:

• Booth, G. J., & Rowley, A. J. Canadian Political Structure and Public Administration (6th Ed.):
• Chapter 6: A Cog in the Machine: For the foundational definition of Bureaucracy and the Merit Principle.
• Chapter 7: Evolution of Public Administration: To understand the shift from 19th-century patronage to the professionalized service of today.
• Chapter 9: The Bureaucratic Machinery: Focus on the "Haldane" convention and the role of Deputy Ministers.
• Savoie, Donald J. Breaking the Bargain: Public Servants, Ministers, and Parliament. (2003). (LINK to the Policy Options Book Review)
• Kernaghan, Kenneth. The Politics of Public Administration.  Essential for understanding the "Neutrality" doctrine in the Canadian context and the shift and risks it faces (LINK).
• Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector (Canada) (LINK)