Someone asked about the difference between the mayoral candidates… and then deleted their post. It’s a good question, though, so I’m putting something about our current mayor and the former mayor in the comments. However, our current mayor has not declared his candidacy. And it’s always possible another contender will step up prior to the deadline.
Is that whistling I hear? Is there a special meaning behind the period after “our”?
Due to all the misinformation flying around about what the city should have done and when, city staff put out an official fact check. it’s long. But if you find yourself wondering where the truth lies in all the claims and posturing, here it is.
>Why did the City not renegotiate the contract four years ago? Isn’t the system paid for now? Why did the City wait until 2025 to start negotiations?
>It is important to clarify that the sewer system has never been “paid off” at any point to date.
>Discussions with West Shore Environmental Services did not begin in 2025, they date back to approximately 2022 and have been ongoing since then. Sometime in 2022 the deferral account, (not debt, but it keeps getting referred to as debt) shifted from a negative balance to a positive balance. This change in the balance was a key factor to begin negotiations and has included broader contract discussions between the parties. It is very important to point out that under both the existing agreement, and the proposed amended agreement, the City does not have the authority to unilaterally set sewer rates. The contract, as originally agreed to in 2004 does not allow for the rates to be adjusted independently and therefore must be negotiated between the City and WSES.
>As a result, the City could not simply renegotiate rates in isolation several years ago. The changes to the contract that were required and agreed upon are more comprehensive, and it has taken time to negotiate and reach an agreement on the full set of amendments now being advanced.
>The amendments not only include the reduced Sewer Capital Recovery Fees, but also the elimination of the Incremental Storage Improvement Fees and the approximately 20% reduction in sewer user fees.
https://www.letschatlangford.ca/factcheck/news_feed/wses
Compare this to what Stew said in his campaign launch speech earlier this month:
>“The biggest complaint I get is not about we’ve got the sewers handled. A little bit high-priced. They’re charging $10,000 for it. It should be $5,000 because the company that’s doing it is making too much money now, and the money is going into the bank
>“So when we put in the sewers in Langford, there was a $30 million debt. And I said, ‘We cannot have a $30 million debt in Langford. I don’t want to see debt like that.’ So what we did is we raised it to $10,000 temporarily with the support of the developing community and the house builders. And then when we did that, we said, ‘When that $30 million gets down to zero, we will lower it to $5,000.’ And that’s what you should be paying for sewer hookup now. It’s still $10,000 in the extra money that we paid down that $30 million inside of four and a half years.
>And now you can imagine four years has gone by. That money that was paid off four years ago and how much money — that’s another $20, $30 million in somebody else’s pocket, and it’s coming out of yours.”
One accusation from current council’s detractors is that they lack transparency. What do you think? Has municipal transparency improved or worsened with this council? Why? And what could they do better?
It’s good to be aware that there are legal considerations and constraints around transparency for all councils in BC. For easy reference, this post includes a few screenshots from BC’s Community Charter, one of the pieces of provincial legislation that governs how municipalities operate.
The first two refer to when council meetings must or should be closed to the public (or “in camera”), Sections 90 & 91. Key items have to do with:
>(a)personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;
>(e)the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
>(g)litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
>(i)the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose (eg Danbrook);
>(k)negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public (eg sewer);
>(b)the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations
>(ii) between the municipality and another local government or between another local government and a third party, or (eg RCMP Detachment)
>(c)a matter that is being investigated under the Ombudsperson Act of which the municipality has been notified under section 14 [Ombudsperson to notify authority] of that Act; (eg Parking-Spot Gate)
The third and fourth screenshots are about access to documents, Sections 95, 96, & 97 In addition to FOI requests, these sections are about which documents a city must provide to residents:
>(a)all bylaws and all proposed bylaws that have been given first reading;
>(b)all minutes of council meetings, other than a meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public;
>(c)all minutes of meetings of bodies referred to in section 93 [application of rules to other bodies], other than a meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public;
>(d)the annual municipal report under section 98;
>(e)all disclosure statements under section 106 [disclosure of gifts];
>(f)the report under section 168 [council remuneration, expenses and contracts];
>(g)the written disclosures referred to in section 6 (1) [disclosures by council members and nominees] of the Financial Disclosure Act;
>(h)any applicable agreements under section 9 (5) [concurrent authority agreements].
>“No new recreation in four years. No new recreation. 10,000 more people in Langford. So what we want to do is make sure that kids aren’t sitting on the sidelines. We actually have to build facilities. We need a couple of arenas, we need a lacrosse box, we need soccer fields, we need baseball fields… This is a family community, make sure everything we do is about family and safety and making sure that this is the most desirable place to live, like it was, and make sure we get back there.” - Stew Young, Mayoral Campaign Launch, June 16, 2026
Here is some clarification on how recreation has been supported since the fall of 2022.
The Langford Aquatics Building purchase. When the YMCA came to council to say they were pulling out of Stew’s tripartite agreement because, as a non-profit organization, they could no longer afford to bleed millions ($10 million, in fact) into the Westhills owned facility, current mayor and council had to quickly figure out how to make things work without being saddled with paying the full rent for an empty facility. They covered all of the Y’s rent to allow the organization to continue as the facility’s operator, and then asked staff to come up with options. They chose the option that would pay for the facility quickly, keeping the City’s debt low, and not burdening future generations with ongoing payments. www.letschatlangford.ca/ymca https://www.letschatlangford.ca/factcheck/news_feed/fact-check-ymca-subsidy
Baseball fields. Previous council secured the lands but not the funding to develop new fields. https://langford.ca/city-of-langford-acquires-13-acres-of-land-to-expand-recreation-space/ They were turned down for a grant and, as this council has learned, you have to have good plans to qualify for grants. So this council has put the time and energy into building a solid foundation of plans (including the Parks and Trails Master Plan, which defines “destination parks” that can include sports fields and ball diamonds) so that Langford can qualify for those grant monies in future as they become available. https://www.letschatlangford.ca/parks
West Shore Parks and Recreation. Unlike Stew’s seeming resentment about participating in multi-municipality endeavours, this council has embraced working in tandem with WSPR to come up with sports field and other recreational opportunities that serve the whole of the West Shore. Public consultation just closed on the WSPR Master Plan https://www.wspr.ca/sites/default/files/2026-05/WSPR%20Facilities%20Master%20Plan.pdf and Langford kids participate in many of the teams and sports orgs that are listed as being consulted. That’s not neglecting sports—that’s looking at planning for sports in a sustainable, cross-community way that will benefit Langford residents and share the costs across West Shore municipalities so that it’s not just Langford providing these amenities to the region.
Active Transportation. Hate to break it to the OL crowd, but riding a bike is both sport and recreation. It’s something whole families can do together and providing safe infrastructure to support this “across the lifespan” activity is a smart investment in community health and wellbeing. Kudos to council for all safe paths to school multiuser infrastructure that we can all benefit from https://www.letschatlangford.ca/factcheck/news_feed/fact-check. And congratulations to them for pushing for a formal Transportation and Active Transportation Master Plan — Langford’s first. https://www.letschatlangford.ca/Transportation
Cooperation with the school district on sports fields. As far as we can tell, council came through on this. They can’t dictate the speed at which the school district builds schools (and fields) though. Nor should taxpayers have to astroturf a public school field that a community sports teams/organizations can’t use due to it not being a regulation size. https://langford.ca/the-city-of-langford-partners-with-sd62-on-future-high-school-amenities/
Bottom line: Some sports activities are elite. And expensive. And they get more and more competitive and selective as kids get older. And the truth is that most people don’t play them by the time they are teens or adults. As a community, we need more than “a couple of arenas, a lacrosse box, soccer fields, baseball fields”. We need recreational facilities and amenities that serve the greatest number of people, catering to a variety of interests, ages, and abilities - and yes, that includes fields, arenas, and diamonds. Council has been working to do just that.
Note: this was originally a comment and it was suggested that it should be its own post. I’ve added sources.
Edited to add: council initiated and started building the new arts centre next to Starlight Stadium. That’s recreation, too, blueberries. https://langford.ca/langford-breaks-ground-on-a-new-community-arts-and-culture-child-care-centre/
There is a lot of 2022 election mythology floating around social media. CivicInfoBC puts paid to it. In 2022, Langford had the highest percentage of voters since 2008 (and I think it was still higher).
Still, we could do better as we were several percentage points below the provincial average. If you want to see a representative result in the next election, encourage the people in your sphere of influence to vote. This fall, there will be an additional polling station, advance polls will be at Eagle Ridge (a much bigger venue than city hall), and thanks to current council, there will be an option to use mail-in voting.
Are you participating? On a team? How many kms are you planning to ride?
Langford‘s ”Celebration Station (4)“ is at Goldstream and the E&N Trail tomorrow (May 31) from 3 to 5.
Guess the Gazette didn’t get the Tax Form Scandal memo.
I appreciate that Ravi is drawing attention to the work of the South Island Primary Care Society (on Facebook) and isn’t taking all the credit this time, but surely he knows that “Our Langford” has a completely different meaning now in Langford than it did 4 years ago.
A Victoria-based animal-rescue group is calling for dog owners to get their pets vaccinated against parvovirus, after four puppies died over the past two weeks.
