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?