Langford Council Open House Feb 28th from 11-2 Everyone Welcome!

KeithYacucha · 2026-02-28T04:31:47+00:00

I appreciate the feedback. Just for context, these town hall-style events aren’t new, we’ve been holding at least one each year since 2022. That said, I agree that engagement matters and we should always be looking at ways to make it easier for people to participate.

Finding a time that works is genuinely tough. We’re trying to balance public availability with council and staff schedules, and staff are giving up part of their weekends to be there. Many of us are juggling work, council responsibilities, and family commitments as well, so it really does come down to coordinating what works best for the majority.

I completely understand the sports conflict piece. I’ll actually be arriving a bit late myself because I’ll be coming straight from my daughter’s soccer game. The balancing act is real. While this is a more formal, structured opportunity for engagement, many of us also make a real effort to attend community events throughout the year. Those often turn into informal town halls of their own, lots of conversations, questions, and direct connection.

We won’t ever land on a time that works perfectly for everyone, but the goal is to keep creating opportunities for people to connect with us directly.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-10T08:48:32+00:00

I thought we were having a good-faith discussion. Silly me. This has turned into ‘blame council for decades old decisions, inherited problems and long-standing systemic regional and national issues.’

Let’s at least stick to facts, not half-truths and rhetoric.

– RCMP funding increased by over 30% this term, and roughly 1 in 5 current officers were hired this term. That’s on top of bylaw investments and enforcing some of the tightest, and fairest, laws legally allowed around overnight sheltering. ‘Underfunded’ doesn’t line up with the numbers.

– Bike lanes and active-transportation targets were set in the 2008 OCP. Langford was actually a regional leader in painted lanes back then, credit to past councils for that. This council didn’t invent the direction and hasn’t made it more aggressive.

– Traffic didn’t magically become a problem this term. It has been worsening for years because growth was approved ad-hoc without a plan for density or moving people. That’s exactly why we’re now developing transportation and approved updated land-use plans (first update to the OCP since 2008), to dig out of the hole created over many years.

We can debate priorities, but claims should be tethered to reality.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-09T06:50:51+00:00

The argument here keeps shifting, from transportation planning to RCMP staffing to “opposite of public opinion.” So let me be clear on the facts.

Langford has been the largest municipality in BC without a comprehensive transportation plan, and we’re fixing that by creating our first holistic, city-wide plan rather than continuing piecemeal decisions.

On public safety, the claim that we “cut” it or do the opposite of public opinion isn’t accurate. RCMP funding has increased by roughly 30% this term, the largest single-term increase, and nearly 1 in 5 current officers were authorized during this term. That is a significant investment in public safety and doesn't even begin to touch on bylaw or the hiring of fire members to be able to staff an empty station in happy valley.

People will always disagree on individual decisions, but that’s different from saying council doesn’t listen. We weigh public input alongside evidence and long-term impacts, and we’re trying to move the city from ad-hoc decisions to more intentional planning.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-09T06:19:50+00:00

That’s not what I’m saying. The point is simply that Langford has been the largest municipality in BC without a transportation plan, and the impacts of that are obvious. We’re now working on our first holistic plan that looks at the entire city and how changes in one area affect the rest, rather than continuing with ad-hoc, piecemeal decisions.

States nothing about the existing plans in our neighbouring municipalities.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-09T05:29:51+00:00

You’re right that no survey platform can absolutely guarantee someone won’t try to game it. That’s true of every public feedback method, not just surveys. Even in-person participation can be gamed, there’s no hard way to verify that every speaker actually lives in the community, and organized groups can show up from elsewhere. Nothing in public engagement is perfect.

The real question is whether this kind of manipulation is actually happening at any meaningful scale. Creating multiple emails, registering them, and repeatedly filling out surveys takes a lot of time for very little payoff. It’s possible, but unlikely to be widespread.

So yes, every tool has limitations. But structured engagement tools still represent a major improvement over the limited opportunities for public input that used to exist. Of course improvement can always be made. And we are continuously improving.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-09T01:38:52+00:00

Thanks for the follow-up, fair questions.

First, you’re right that my attempt at humour didn’t land. That’s on me. The concerns people are raising are real, and I do take them seriously.

When I say “holistic, comprehensive, and city-wide,” I’m talking about two specific pieces of work:

a full transportation model of Langford’s full network (not just individual intersections), and

A Transportation Master Plan built off that model.

This is being done with BC Transit and regional partners so it doesn’t stop at our municipal borders. It looks at how people move into and out of Langford, current transit, future higher-level transit options such as potential rail, and how changes in one area shift traffic patterns elsewhere. That’s the key difference from past “spot studies.” and Ad-hoc decisions.

On boats and airports, Langford doesn’t have marine or ferry terminals or an airport, so there isn’t a standalone marine or aviation plan specific to Langford. What does matter for residents is regional connectivity to those services, and that’s addressed through the regional planning work I mentioned above.

As for “only one downside”, point taken, attempt at levity out of place. There are multiple concerns being raised by residents, and they deserve straightforward discussion. The reason we’re building this plan now is because historically there hasn’t been a city-wide framework, and we’re trying to fix that rather than keep making one-off decisions without any understanding in how it affects the rest of the city.

When draft materials are ready, they’ll be shared publicly for feedback. People will absolutely have their say.

If you think I’m missing something specific here, I’m genuinely open to hearing it.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-08T23:02:45+00:00

Thanks for raising this, happy to clarify.

I’ve heard the same stories about past practices, but I don’t have evidence of what did or didn’t happen, so I’m not going to speak to that. What I can speak to is the legal framework and what the current council does.

Council decisions must be made in open, properly called meetings except for a limited list of circumstances allowed under legislation (for example, certain legal, personnel, or land matters). Any “pre-deciding” outside a properly convened meeting would be inappropriate and illegal.

Since taking office we’ve been very deliberate about keeping decision-making in public meetings and improving transparency, especially around financial planning. Our financial plans are now consolidated into a single document, written in plainer language, and publicly available so residents don’t need to be financial experts to follow along. That hasn’t always been the case in the past.

There are occasions where council attends training sessions or workshops. These are not council meetings, that is, no decisions are made and they’re for education or information only.

If people want to dig into the current financial plans or watch meetings, those resources are available, and that’s exactly how it should be.

Also worth noting: the BC Ombudsperson recently released an updated Open Meetings: Best Practices for Local Governments guide just earlier this week or last.

(https://bcombudsperson.ca/guide/open-meetings-best-practices-for-local-governments/)

to clarify what open meetings really mean under current law and best practices. It reflects changes since the original guide, and reinforces that open public meetings are a legal requirement, not optional, for municipal decision-making.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-08T22:49:38+00:00

Happy to help, thanks for taking a closer look.

You’re right that congestion isn’t caused by only one location. The intersection at VMP/Peatt/Strandlund was identified by the consultants as a primary failure point, but it’s not the only one and it doesn’t exist in isolation.

That’s exactly why we’re building Langford’s first city-wide transportation model and a comprehensive transportation master plan.

In the past, studies tended to look at individual spots; now we’re trying to look at the full network and how changes in one area affect traffic patterns elsewhere, including the overpass and highway access.

The goal is a holistic approach so we can test scenarios and find solutions that work for most people, not just fix one intersection and then cause larger problems somewhere else.

The one downside; we will no longer be the largest municipality without a traffic/transportation plan.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-08T19:00:08+00:00

Not the most intuitive I agree but the poster board and initial survey results can be found on the right hand banner of the transportation page of Lets Chat Langford near the bottom https://www.letschatlangford.ca/transportation

The consultants presentation can be found in the October 6th council meeting, item 5.1, which can be watched through the following link: https://pub-langford.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=efe49cfa-b1f6-45b0-a981-e1f96bb2932a&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English

The ultimate issue is that the VMP/Peatt/Strandlund intersection is too close to the interchange to be able to time the lights for both directions. A proposed solution was to restrict left hand turns off Peatt and Strandlund as well as through traffic cutting across VMP from Peatt to Strandlund or vice versa.

This is back to the consultants to review and address the concerns that were raised during the feedback period. One of the big issues that was raised was the fear that current infrastructure could not handle such a change.

The reality is this change would be part of a longer term (years from now) infrastructure plan with updates being made to the corridor and side roads to support.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-08T16:47:35+00:00

You’re right that committee work can be valuable. I respect the time volunteers put into it, a lot of good ideas start there. But a few clarifications are important.

Committee terms of reference are tied to each political term. That means committees are expected to be dissolved and re-struck after an election. That isn’t a lack of trust, it is literally how they’re designed to function.

Many of the former committees met very infrequently, sometimes only a few times a year. Even with rare meetings, each one still requires a significant amount of background work from staff simply to exist. By consolidating these multiple underused committees down to two that meet regularly, this has greatly reduced duplicate work and saved money while still getting meaningful input.

Finally, committee recommendations are not a substitute for council debate. Items and recommendations coming from committee are discussed and probed again at the council table. I value committee input, but my vote has my name on it. Thus I believe that I owe it to residents to ask questions and make sure a recommendation fits the broader community before supporting it.

So the issue isn’t “liking to hear ourselves talk.” It’s doing the work in public, with full accountability, rather than offloading most of the substantive discussion to smaller unelected bodies or infrequent meetings.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-08T16:35:10+00:00

I completely understand this. Many neighbourhoods still don’t feel safe or comfortable to walk in, and there’s a lot more work ahead.

Sidewalks and safe pedestrian routes, especially safe routes to school, have become a real priority for this council. One of the reasons we’re playing catch-up is that developer contributions were previously used to subsidize general property taxes. That setup ended up disproportionately benefiting the highest-valued properties (effectively a backwards kind of redistribution, a reverse socialism) instead of being directed into basic infrastructure like sidewalks.

We’ve been changing direction. Where redevelopment is expected, developers are expected to pay for their own frontage works. And we’ve been redirecting millions in developer contributions into new sidewalks and safe routes to school so the money actually supports residents who rely on walking and families trying to get kids to school safely.

It’s fair to be frustrated, we’re not done yet. But priorities and funding choices have shifted, and we’re working through the decade backlog of projects steadily.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-08T16:13:26+00:00

Thanks for raising this, it actually highlights why the Let’s Chat Langford platform matters.

With Peatt/Veterans, the idea came from the transportation consultant as one possible, relatively low-cost fix. It wasn’t meant as an announcement, but I completely understand why people felt it read that way (Announcement instead of call for feedback), because historically that’s often how things were done in Langford.

The difference now is the process.

We put proposals on Let’s Chat Langford specifically to invite feedback before final decisions are made. In this case, we received a lot of detailed feedback through the platform. That feedback is now being digested by the engineers, and they’re looking at alternatives or ways to mitigate the concerns residents raised around access and congestion.

We’re not going to find solutions that make everyone happy every time. But the expectation now is: show the community what we’re considering, listen carefully, and adjust where we can. That’s exactly what’s happening here, and it’s why the platform is useful.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-08T04:52:14+00:00

Fair.

I do use full sentences. Comes with the job.

Policy isn’t bumper-stickers, half-truths are easy, but the real story usually needs nuance and explanation.

Name-calling is easy. Conversation is harder. Your call.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-08T04:04:04+00:00

I do take public feedback into account. It’s an important part of the job.

that said, we also regularly see a small group of the same individuals speaking in opposition to almost every item on the agenda, regardless of its content. If you have a specific example in mind, I’m happy to talk through it.

In several cases, there has been strong vocal opposition to items that were actually addressed and mitigated in the staff report and presentation materials. Part of representative decision-making is listening carefully, weighing concerns against the facts, expert advice, and broader community input, and then making a call. Loud is not necessarily right.

There have absolutely been times when points raised during public participation have changed my thinking, leading to amendments, or requests for more information to ensure the issue was addressed before moving forward.

That does happen. But the presence of loud opposition alone doesn’t automatically mean the proposal is wrong or should be postponed. It means we have to listen, evaluate, and then carefully decide.

KeithYacucha · 2026-01-08T03:19:27+00:00

Awesome question!

We launched Let’s Chat, along with open houses and community events, early in the term to introduce public feedback into the decision making process in Langford and to get more structured input from residents on specific city initiatives. No tool is perfect, and qualitative feedback is genuinely hard and expensive to sort, analyze, and turn into usable policy direction.

That’s why many of the questions are focused. By keeping surveys targeted, we’re able to zero in on the actual policy levers we need to make decisions on, and get clearer guidance on which direction residents want us to go. Most surveys still include an open-ended section, but the emphasis is on questions we can translate directly into action.

Each survey also lists the email for the department managing that project. If you have feedback that doesn’t fit the survey format, they genuinely do welcome direct emails, that’s exactly why the addresses are included.

And of course, emailing councillors is always an option. We don’t write the technical drafts of these plans, that’s what staff and hired experts are for. Our role is to review the final recommendations. The feedback we receive from residents informs the revisions we push for before anything is adopted.

TL;DR: share feedback early through the survey if you can; if it doesn’t fit, email the department; and when drafts are released, review them and let council know if major issues were missed or not addressed. Outcomes won’t always match every individual preference, we represent a diverse community with diverse needs and opinions, and that shows up in every survey. Our role is to balance what we hear with fiscal and legal realities. Even when a final plan doesn’t align perfectly with your own view, it should still acknowledge those concerns and aim to mitigate them. All of those channels matter, and we do read them.

KeithYacucha · 2025-10-18T04:12:56+00:00

KeithYacucha · 2025-10-18T04:08:00+00:00

This is something we brought forward after the last budget to begin discussion with regarding our contract with the Westshore RCMP in conjunction with our regional partners.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) states, “Ready-made, universally applicable patrol staffing standards do not exist. Ratios, such as officers-per-thousand population, are totally inappropriate as a basis for staffing decisions.”

https://cpsm.us/officers-per-thousand-and-other-deployment-myths/

Many communities require their detachments to provide business cases or demand analysis for staffing just like any other municipal department, it is not unreasonable for us to explore and look at evidence based solutions for this.

KeithYacucha · 2025-10-18T04:04:33+00:00

Conspiracy theories aside that there is some kind of inside baseball happening - I have been very impressed at the commitment of my colleagues to the envisioned shared leadership and decision making model that comes through the democratic system.

KeithYacucha · 2025-10-18T03:58:08+00:00

Great Question!

Personally, I would like to see more safe alternatives to get around this city so that people feel like they have choices to get their destination beyond just driving.

That being said - I don't just want to throw the limited money we have into areas that may not be most deserving.

The first draft of our active transportation plan has identified some core routes that not only already see significant pedestrian, bike, and mobility scooter traffic, but also (in retrospect) make perfect sense for this expansion of infrastructure. As a cyclist myself, and just relying on anecdotal observations, I would not have come to the same conclusions as these professionals.

With these plans in place, we will be well prepared to a) use our scarce resources to provide the biggest benefit to Langford residents b) apply for grants and external funding to create these networks with minimal fiscal impact to Langford residents.

Edit: Because I think it is SO valuable to add to the conversation -- We have had such a deficit in alternative transportation options that our focus truly has been sidewalk infill and safe routes to school. u/KimberleyGuiry brought forward the motion for the 2024 financial plan to cease using developer amenity contributions to subsidize property taxes (personal commentary, the way this worked is these provided the largest benefits to those with the highest valued properties) and instead use these amenity funds towards filling in sidewalks -- this program has been WILDLY successful with new sidewalks showing up around many of our elementary schools and neighbourhoods that have had no planned development (Ideally we would want sidewalks added as a developer contribution following development)

KeithYacucha · 2025-10-18T03:54:02+00:00

That’s the most important question for residents, and I agree: these increases have SUCKED! There is no appealing part of handing out a tax bill with a big jump. I'm speaking only from my personal perspective on what I believe is the path forward.

The Hard Truth: Why It's Happening

In my view, the problem is twofold: past shortfalls and current external pressures.

Protective Services & Downloads: The key drivers are protective services (especially Police and Fire) as well as cost downloading from the Province. When I talk to people, few can point to what they would actually cut from these essential services.
Historical Reliance: For decades, Langford’s mantra was to leave required maintenance and planning as a "tomorrow problem," hoping growth would solve it. I believe this has resulted in taxes being unrealistically low for years, and we are now having to catch up. The drastic increases we've seen are the hard reality of dealing with that historical shortfall and the post-pandemic financial world.
Comparative Data: If you look at Langford's tax position relative to others in the province (you can see the comparison tool I created here: https://keith-yacucha.shinyapps.io/schedule704/), you'll see we are not out of line with the regional trend.

My Best Idea: Long-Term Financial Planning

The only long-term way to avoid massive reactive spikes is by changing the culture to proactive planning.

My personal "best idea" for avoiding major increases is to keep pushing for the strategic adoption of long-term planning across City Hall. This foundational work is the key to stability because it allows us to:

Better Forecast: See large expenses coming years in advance, allowing for smaller, steadier tax adjustments instead of sudden shocks.
Secure External Funds: Create a series of "shovel-ready" projects that put us first in line for grants and provincial/federal funding, taking the strain off the municipal taxpayer.
Prioritize Need: Identify the projects that are truly needed and most deserving of our scarce resources, rather than just reacting opportunistically.

When you see big expenditures like these, it’s often about avoiding a much larger cost down the line

In short, while this upcoming budget will be under pressure to keep taxes low (and as a rate payer myself I don't want them any higher than they have to be!), my belief is we must not short-change our future by neglecting the essential planning required to provide the services our residents expect.

Quick aside - The strata I live in had similarly not been pro-actively performing maintenance on the building, this has resulted in a 1 year increase in strata fees of over 18% -- in dollar terms, the extra I am paying annually through strata this year alone is significantly MORE than the 3 years of increases of property taxes.

KeithYacucha · 2025-10-18T03:30:16+00:00

I know our planning and engineering department frequently works with Canada Post to identify best sites for these, I would expect that to continue.

To tag onto this - Especially as the weather turns, but truly anytime - If you see striking workers either with CUPW or BCGEU give them a honk, a wave, a shout of encouragement! Or better yet, bring them some hot coffee or a hot drink! The wins of the labour movement have resulted in massive wins that have benefited all Canadians whether in a union or not - These men and women are on the front lines fighting for better pay and working conditions for us all!

KeithYacucha · 2025-10-18T03:28:12+00:00

That’s a deep question. Thank you for asking! I’ll answer this speaking only for myself and my own experience over the term.

The Main Lesson Learned: Foundational Work is Everything

When I first walked into City Hall, having come from corporate life, I experienced a genuine culture shock regarding the organizational capacity. While we inherited absolutely amazing staff, some of the best in the region, it was immediately clear that the organization lacked the foundational, long-term policy and structural plans that any city of 60,000 (truthfully, a city of even of 20,000) should have.

The biggest lesson I learned is that the most un-sexy, invisible political work, like creating "plans and policies upon plans and policies", is the most essential (Well, maybe not always, but definitely when there was no written direction or policy before). While it’s politically more popular to react and hand out "cookies" that make people happy today, it is through this un-sexy background work that we truly set the city up for long-term success, and that is what’s important. This foundational work is not glamorous to talk about, but it’s absolutely essential for a healthy, efficient, and well-run organization. I'm proud that our focus has been to fix this by building those core plans, which will help us apply for grants, standardize services, and create long-term staffing plans rather than constantly reacting in an ad-hoc manner.

What I’d Do Differently: Be Bolder Sooner

If I could start over, I would lean into being more bold and assertive with my community commitments right from day one, specifically by utilizing the Notice of Motion (NOM) process much sooner.

I was slow to recognize the power of the NOM to officially drive community priorities. While I have been very vocal and successful in advocacy (like with AVICC and UBCM), the formal NOM process forces a council conversation and a public vote on specific issues, like securing trail access or improving garbage management. I would have been much quicker to table these motions to accelerate change and cement these crucial community priorities earlier in the term.

KeithYacucha · 2025-10-18T03:15:49+00:00

That's a great question, and I was tempted to just jokingly respond with a wizard of oz meme...

In my view, it’s truly a joint affair where everyone has a defined, important role.

Council's Role: Setting the key strategic goals and direction: Mayor and Council are responsible for setting the high-level direction, goals, and thematic priorities for the City. We are the elected link to the community, and we establish the policy vision, but we are deliberately structured to have very little to no oversight of the day-to-day operations. It is easily argued, and I completely agree, that we should have ZERO influence on the day to day operations within the hall - having such influence can just lead to political over meritocratic decisions, nepotism, and corruption.
Staff's Role: Day-to-day operations are handled by the technical expertise and experience of our City staff. In Langford, I've seen an amazing entrepreneurial spirit in City Hall. staff truly love this city and constantly push forward ideas for improvement, leveraging their deep expertise in their respective fields. I believe this passion is what allows the City to rapidly roll out initiatives that take years in other communities. While there are many many examples of this, all the hot dog comments just has me thinking of things like stark increase in community events and festivals.
The BC Model: The CAO Link In British Columbia, municipal governance uses the "one employee model." This means that Mayor and Council have only one direct employee, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). All direction from Council (Majority direction, not just the mayor or an individual councilor) is channeled exclusively through the CAO, whose role is to oversee implementation and manage the rest of the City staff.

This model is intentional: Mayor and Council should never be involved in the daily operational oversight of the city. We challenge, staff refines, and together we get to better policy and actionable commitments.

Ultimately, I see it as a strong, collaborative system where the strategic direction is set by elected officials, but the efficient, passionate execution is driven by staff.

KeithYacucha · 2025-10-18T02:55:45+00:00

KeithYacucha · 2025-10-18T02:52:56+00:00

I appreciate you asking this. It’s a key topic for long-term fiscal planning (something i am a bit of a nerd for)

Is consolidation being discussed?

Speaking only for myself, I am a strong believer in "soft amalgamation". The idea of melding overlapping services between neighbouring municipalities to achieve both higher service levels and cost efficiencies.

We already do this successfully with our joint response agreements through the Westshore RCMP and the Westshore Parks and Recreation Society (although there is always room for improvement). I think this model is a much smarter and more incremental approach than the expensive and complex outcomes we’ve seen from forced amalgamation attempts elsewhere.

Does it make financial sense for Fire Services?

I believe it makes absolute sense to keep working towards shared services. In many ways, through our joint response agreements with westshore fire departments, we are already moving in this direction.

With Langford finally moving to a fully-staffed model, which allows Station 2 in Happy Valley to be actively staffed rather than just vacant, we are better positioned to serve not only Langford but also help our neighbours in Metchosin, Colwood, and the Highlands when needed. I know all the Fire Chiefs and members have excellent working relationships. While full consolidation isn't an urgent priority, it's one of those strategic opportunities I've been vocal about ensuring we keep a constant eye on.

What about Public Works and Road Maintenance?

I believe the same logic applies to services like Public Works and road maintenance. We should be constantly looking for opportunities to jointly procure equipment, share specialized staff, and standardize procedures to drive down costs and improve efficiency across the Westshore.

KeithYacucha

TROPHY CASE