674 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

Langford council approves financial plan with record-high tax increases

 

Taxpayers in the growing West Shore city will see their property taxes rise 12.41% this year, in part to pay for new police officers and firefighters, additional city staff and a new RCMP headquarters

 

https://www.timescol...creases-6943178

 

 

Taxpayers in the growing West Shore city will see their property taxes rise 12.41% this year, with projections of 11.68% in 2024 and 9.5%, 9% and 8.44% in subsequent years.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 03 May 2023 - 08:57 AM.

[Mike K.]

Former Mayor Young: “I’ve got 30 years at 2% on average, they’ve got six months and they’re at twelve and a half per cent.”

https://twitter.com/...LNt72cvXf0yWpgg

[Stephen James]

Former Mayor Young: “I’ve got 30 years at 2% on average, they’ve got six months and they’re at twelve and a half per cent.”

https://twitter.com/...LNt72cvXf0yWpgg

 

This is called ideological redistribution, and was always part of the plan. It's why they love to pad their slush funds, rather than help the community out during a difficult economy.

Langford is f-ed, unless and until they undo the manipulation of their local politics; I think they will.

[Victoria Watcher]

Former Mayor Young: “I’ve got 30 years at 2% on average, they’ve got six months and they’re at twelve and a half per cent.”

 

 

 

 

 

Taxpayers in the growing West Shore city will see their property taxes rise 12.41% this year, with projections of 11.68% in 2024 and 9.5%, 9% and 8.44% in subsequent years.

 

[Mike K.]

So that's a compounded 62.5% over five years?!

[Stephen James]

So that's a compounded 62.5% over five years?!

if you're surprised, Mike, what's the compounded rate for Victoria since the Mayor Helps tragedy began?

(lower but still shocking.)

 

I'm sure there's a cruel ideological catch-up.

[Mike K.]

It’s about 45% over a decade in the CoV, since 2013, I think we learned recently?

[Stephen James]

It’s about 45% over a decade in the CoV, since 2013, I think we learned recently?

that sounds about right.

Helps legacy is a 50% increase.

 

Despite the highest interest rates in decades, one recession quarter already, runaway inflation on food... our council passed a business-as-usual budget with spending that looks generous, tone-deaf, ideological and childish.

[Danma]

This is called ideological redistribution, and was always part of the plan. It's why they love to pad their slush funds, rather than help the community out during a difficult economy.

Langford is f-ed, unless and until they undo the manipulation of their local politics; I think they will.

 

That slush fund would maybe save us 2% for one year. As a Langford taxpayer, I don't think it makes a big enough dent in the larger picture to spend it.

 

I mean, this 12% sucks, but I've seen the meetings, and I know why it's this expensive. I don't like the Y deal, but current council didn't agree to it. I didn't like the $4 million cost of moving the power lines this year, but it was again something that was already in motion. The new cop shop and new police hires... I actually don't agree with this one, but I do acknowledge it has to happen sometime. And I agree with the need for more firemen, in light of not being able to recruit more volunteers. 

 

The point is, between all these new expenses and inflation, I think in light of 40% increase saving 2% for one year won't fix the hurt in any meaningful way. And I sympathize with our council (and those others in the CRD who have large increases – Saanich, Sooke, Esquimalt are all around 7%) whose hands are being blown up by the cost of literally everything.

[Mike K.]

The increase over the next five years is about 64%, according to council’s latest projection.

Danma, you don’t think it’s peculiar, than over the last 30 years taxes increased by 2% annually and the electorate had no complaints about paying low taxes and felt there was good value for the money, but over the next five they’ll increase 64%.

Do taxes really need to rise 6x based on a council that’s only been in power for six months?

[Danma]

The increase over the next five years is about 64%, according to council’s latest projection.

Danma, you don’t think it’s peculiar, than over the last 30 years taxes increased by 2% annually and the electorate had no complaints about paying low taxes and felt there was good value for the money, but over the next five they’ll increase 64%.

Do taxes really need to rise 6x based on a council that’s only been in power for six months?

 

I think Stew and his cadre would have maybe held this year's increase to maybe 7 or 8 percent, by not hiring more firemen or maybe holding off the new police station, and yes, Stew would have spent the float money to postpone those increases as far down the line as possible.

 

However, the YMCA deal was gonna blow up sooner or later (we've all known it was a **** show since about 2019), and Stew et al wouldn't have been able to stave off the costs of inflation any more than anyone else.

 

I can't speak about the next 3 years, though, I haven't seen what their projections entail.

As for being a member of said electorate, while I appreciated the low taxes, I also know we get very little for it...

Edited by Danma, 08 May 2023 - 03:53 PM.

[Danma]

I would add that out of my total tax bill in Langford, General Municipal Tax only makes up a third of it, so as a taxpayer while this is... annoying... to have such an increase, it's only one line item out of many.

 

I'll also add that, conversely, despite Langford's "low" tax rate, my effective overall property tax bill has increased by 18% between 2019 and 2022, so how this actually pans out remains to be seen.

Edited by Danma, 08 May 2023 - 04:00 PM.

[spanky123]

Most people don't realize it but nearly 1/3rd of Langford's revenue came from developers in 2021 (we don't get the 2022 statements until June). That wasn't sustainable with interest rates shooting up and development slowing. That is likely the primary reason why even the old council was forecasting big property tax increases in upcoming years.

 

2021 Final April 19 2022 Audited Financial Statements with JDF.xlsx (langford.ca)  

Edited by spanky123, 08 May 2023 - 05:46 PM.

[Lorenzo]

Danma, thank you for bringing some clarity to this issue. I concur with everything you say. And I read somewhere that we are still below average for the region. Perhaps we could get some of the Our Langford Stew Crew to read this forum, and start letting this M+C do their work.

Edited by Lorenzo, 08 May 2023 - 05:48 PM.

[Mike K.]

Isn’t the municipal portion of the Langford tax bill 49% of the total bill?

For a lot of people who earn good wages an additional $1,000 or $1,500 in property taxes is not a big deal, but there are many people who who will struggle with that higher cost. Couple that increase with what’s happening with insurance rates, and with what’s happening with energy costs, and people are getting hit hard.

[Danma]

I agree that this is gonna exacerbate the affordability issue our region faces. Between interest rates and rising prices, I don’t envy anyone right now who’s on the edge of being able to make ends meet.

[Victoria Watcher]

[Danma]

Isn’t the municipal portion of the Langford tax bill 49% of the total bill?

On my last property tax bill, General Municipal Tax and General Municipal Debt was 35% of my total taxes. CRD is 15%. The rest is all individual items like JDF, GVPL, school, police, hospital, transit, etc.

[Stephen James]

That slush fund would maybe save us 2% for one year. As a Langford taxpayer, I don't think it makes a big enough dent in the larger picture to spend it.

 

I mean, this 12% sucks, but I've seen the meetings, and I know why it's this expensive. I don't like the Y deal, but current council didn't agree to it. I didn't like the $4 million cost of moving the power lines this year, but it was again something that was already in motion. The new cop shop and new police hires... I actually don't agree with this one, but I do acknowledge it has to happen sometime. And I agree with the need for more firemen, in light of not being able to recruit more volunteers. 

 

The point is, between all these new expenses and inflation, I think in light of 40% increase saving 2% for one year won't fix the hurt in any meaningful way. And I sympathize with our council (and those others in the CRD who have large increases – Saanich, Sooke, Esquimalt are all around 7%) whose hands are being blown up by the cost of literally everything.

2% is 2% and should be applied.

The slush fund culture being imported from Victoria is immature, poor governance and weak financial management.

But it sure helps out the incumbent when $$$$ needs to be passed around with less scrutiny...

[Stephen James]

I think Stew and his cadre would have maybe held this year's increase to maybe 7 or 8 percent, by not hiring more firemen or maybe holding off the new police station, and yes, Stew would have spent the float money to postpone those increases as far down the line as possible.

 

However, the YMCA deal was gonna blow up sooner or later (we've all known it was a **** show since about 2019), and Stew et al wouldn't have been able to stave off the costs of inflation any more than anyone else.

 

I can't speak about the next 3 years, though, I haven't seen what their projections entail.

As for being a member of said electorate, while I appreciated the low taxes, I also know we get very little for it...

Part of the point is exactly that.

A cost deferred is a cost reduced.

Not using all available funds to keep this increase as low as possible (and I have no insight into the common sense, or lack thereof, of any line items) is wrong, and appears ideological.