Young’s low taxes were subsidized, not sustainable. His council used reserves to hold taxes below the cost of running the city, budgeting $6.17 million for operating subsidies in 2019–2022. The largest annual subsidy came in the 2022 election year. He left a recurring funding shortfall for the next council to fix—and residents to pay for. See the records
How the low-tax record was financed
The 2023 budget presentation1 lists the General Amenity Reserve amounts budgeted to cover ongoing operating costs. In Young's final term, that annual subsidy grew:
| Year | Budgeted subsidy |
|---|---|
| 2019 | $1,326,500 |
| 2020 | $1,406,500 |
| 2021 | $1,653,127 |
| 2022 | $1,784,956 |
| 2019–2022 total | $6,171,083 |
That is $6.17 million budgeted from reserves to pay everyday operating bills in just four years. The annual subsidy grew by roughly 35%, reaching $1.78 million in the election year. Young’s council kept the tax bill down by spending reserve money instead. The services still cost money, and the City still needed a lasting way to pay for them.
Young sold low taxes. Reserves paid the difference.
In June 2022, Young promoted keeping taxes low6. His September re-election announcement7 made low taxes a campaign priority too. But his council’s budget depended on an increasing reserve subsidy. The reserve subsidy exposes the weakness of that low-tax approach: tax revenue was not covering the ongoing cost of services.
At the March 2023 budget presentation, the finance director's warning was explicit. The City's published summary2 explains that prior policy decisions increasingly used amenity funds to offset taxes, creating future budget pressures. Even the new council's initial 2023 proposal retained approximately $1.7 million in reserve support while proposing to phase out the reliance.
Young’s council chose to pay recurring bills with reserve money and increased that reliance near the end of his mayoralty. Every budget built on that subsidy left the same problem unresolved: the next year’s services would need funding again. Spending reserves postponed the tax adjustment and reduced the money available for future needs.
The election year ended with half the amenity balance gone
The 2022 audited accounts, Note 73, show General Amenity falling from $5,105,962 at the end of 2021 to $2,504,965 at the end of 2022: a net decline of $2,600,997, or about 51%.
The General Amenity fund ended the 2022 election year $2.6 million lower. That decline reflects all money coming into and out of the fund, including its use for operating subsidies. It still held $2.5 million, and other reserve funds also retained balances. The fiscal failure was using a shrinking reserve to prop up a tax level that could not fund recurring services.
Why the next council raised taxes
Young left a funding mess. The bill was going to come due, and the next council inherited it. Keeping taxes below recurring costs could not last indefinitely. His successors had to fund the services residents needed while unwinding the reserve subsidy.
The City’s final 2023 budget summary4 records an overall 12.41% tax increase to cover inflation and growth, additional YMCA support, police and fire staffing, debt servicing, and municipal staff. The inherited shortfall added to those pressures. Residents were paying for current needs and catching up on costs Young’s approach had left outside the tax base.
In March 2024, The Westshore reported5 that council approved a roughly 15.6% increase and moved away from using amenity funds to suppress taxes. Goodmanson and Yacucha described continued reliance on those funds as unsustainable. Ending a subsidy brings its previously deferred cost into the tax levy.
The fire-service staffing gap is a concrete example of the catch-up residents had to fund: 27 additional career firefighters were phased in by the next council to address an immediate need and deliver round-the-clock coverage at Station 2.
The verdict on the record
Young built his low-tax record on reserve subsidies while leaving tax revenue below the cost of ongoing services. He increased the subsidy through his final term instead of fixing the shortfall. His successors inherited the adjustment, and residents inherited the bill. His leadership demonstrated poor fiscal management and poor forward planning, leaving Langford with a funding gap that later budgets had to confront.
Sources
- City of Langford, 2023 budget presentationPrinted pages 23 and 25 (PDF pages 24 and 26): annual operating subsidies and the need to restore recurring tax funding.
- City of Langford, March 28, 2023 budget announcementFinance director's explanation of the compounding policy problem and the initial proposal's retained reserve support.
- City of Langford, 2022 audited financial statementsNote 7, printed page 14 (PDF page 17): year-end General Amenity and other reserve balances.
- City of Langford, final 2023 budget infographic12.41% overall increase and its component cost pressures.
- Sidney Coles, The Westshore: Langford makes a corrective leap with its 15.6% tax hikeMarch 13, 2024: council's decision and explanation for moving away from amenity-funded tax offsets.
- Douglas, June 11, 2022 municipal check-inYoung’s election-year promotion of keeping taxes low.
- Victoria Buzz, September 8, 2022 re-election announcementLow taxes as a stated campaign priority.