Stew Young’s
Record as Mayor
Service contracts · 1992–2022

Decades with the same contractor.
Another long renewal.

Young’s council renewed Langford’s parks-maintenance contract for five years in 2021, with an option for five more. The provider had held the work since 1992. The first year alone cost $2.34 million. Residents deserved a clear demonstration that this was the best deal for public money.

Updated September 30, 2026

A relationship stretching back to incorporation

The June 21, 2021 staff report1 says Victoria Contracting and Municipal Maintenance Corporation had maintained City parks, boulevards and trails since 1992, apart from the separately serviced Bear Mountain area. After the prior contracts expired in 2019, Langford extended them while staff inventoried assets and renegotiated with the incumbent.

The resulting agreement started at $2,336,124.13 for its first year. Later fees would increase with the inventory of assets and cost-of-living adjustments. This was a substantial recurring commitment, with costs that could grow.

Five years, with another five available

The adopted minutes2 record council approving the renewal through June 30, 2026, with an optional five-year renewal. Council authorized the mayor and corporate officer to execute it. The vote committed the City beyond Young’s final term; the option could extend the relationship further.

Where was the proof of value?

The staff report describes renegotiation with the existing provider but presents no comparison of competing bids. Grumpy Taxpayer$ of Greater Victoria challenged the renewal in August 20213, alleging it had proceeded without public tender and saying its requests for the City’s purchasing policy and confirmation of competition went unanswered.

That criticism concerns council’s procurement and transparency. It is not evidence that the contractor failed to perform. A longstanding working relationship still needs scrutiny: service standards, price comparisons, performance reviews and a clear explanation of why renewal serves residents.

Familiarity with a contractor is easy. Demonstrating value for taxpayers is council’s job.

City Centre Park needed a contract cleanup after a decade.

By December 2018, City staff had identified outdated and contradictory language in the operating agreements with Performance Plus Hockey, which had managed Eagle Ridge since 2008. Their report to council6 said earlier renewals had made only minor changes, and ambiguity had caused misunderstandings as the staff administering the contracts changed.

Young’s council approved a replacement agreement7, subject to final legal review. The proposed five-year term began in June 2019 and required at least 548 days’ notice if the City wished not to renew. It assigned all electricity costs to the City and required annual financial statements and operating reports from the operator.6 Public ownership still required close attention to the costs, reporting and renewal deadlines in the private operating arrangement.

Fifteen years of mezzanine revenue for an upfront construction payment

Another commitment followed in August 2022. Young’s council approved an agreement with Performance Plus Hockey5 for the Eagle Ridge arena mezzanine, over opposition from councillors Blackwell and Szpak. The City retained ownership, but the operator would fund an estimated $400,000 first phase in exchange for a fifteen-year operating arrangement.

The staff report and attached terms4 set out the trade: the City would receive no rental or lease revenue until the operator recovered its construction costs. After that, Langford would receive 10% of rental revenue and 60% of long-term lease revenue. Staff expected most income to come from rentals—the category leaving the City just 10%.

Staff estimated that recovery would take just under eight years, followed by approximately $8,000 a year for the City during the remaining seven years. A second construction phase still needed funding. Ending the arrangement without cause required two years’ notice, and the terms included repayment of a declining share of construction costs on early termination. Avoiding an upfront bill meant accepting a long claim on future public-facility revenue.

The problem with governing by familiar relationships

Young’s council extended a decades-old relationship into another long commitment. The public record should make the case for that decision easy to examine. The published renewal report gives residents the price and term, but no competitive comparison to judge them against. That is weak public accountability for a multimillion-dollar service.

Sources

  1. June 21, 2021 council agenda packagePrinted pages 240–241: provider history, renegotiation and first-year fee. Draft agreement on pages 244–267. This is the parks, boulevards and trails contract.
  2. June 21, 2021 adopted council minutesPrinted page 18, item 10(b): five-year renewal and optional further five years.
  3. Grumpy Taxpayer$, August 29, 2021: Lack of transparency at LangfordAdvocacy group’s criticism of tendering and unanswered procurement-policy requests.
  4. August 15, 2022 agenda: Eagle Ridge mezzanine report and draft agreementPrinted pages 379–394: construction funding, fifteen-year term, revenue shares and termination provisions. These are the terms council authorized, rather than proof of subsequent operating receipts.
  5. August 15, 2022 signed council minutesItem 8.6, printed page 13: agreement approved; Blackwell and Szpak opposed.
  6. December 17, 2018 agenda: City Centre Park operating agreementsPrinted pages 60–61: outdated and contradictory earlier terms and staff’s revision process. Attached proposed agreement, pages 65–66 and 73: five-year term, 548-day non-renewal notice, electricity costs and reporting duties. Approval was subject to final legal review.
  7. December 17, 2018 signed council minutesApproval of the City Centre Park Operation and Management Agreement, subject to minor amendments and final review by the City’s lawyers.