There was a new development in the battle over shared policing in Langley City and Township on Tuesday, Jan. 7, with City Mayor Nathan Pachal saying the municipality has rejected a Township demand for $1.75 million more under an RCMP cost-sharing deal, which he said would work out to a four per cent property tax hike.
Pachal described it as "bullying."
Township Mayor Eric Woodward called the comments "inflammatory," saying the City was short "at least 20-25 RCMP Members."
About the same time, two members of City council, Delaney Mack and Leith White, called for withdrawal of the City press release on the issue, saying it used "inflammatory language" and the City should apologize.
As proposed, the $1.75 million hike would amount to a 10 per cent increase on the $17.4 million the City budgeted for policing last year, and would place an undue burden on Langley City taxpayers to fund policing in both communities, the City statement maintained, calling it "unfair."
"We're not going to agree to shotgun terms," Pachal told the Langley Advance Times.
“The City rejects the Township’s latest proposal because it simply amounts to bullying tactics, with unilateral terms that are not based on evidence by experts in policing or regional best practices for cost-sharing based on crime rate and population,” Pachal said in the City press release.
Woodward replied the new cost sharing formula proposed by the Township "more fairly reflects the respective costs of policing between the City and the Township. We look forward to the City engaging on this proposal in good faith," Woodward added.
"The Township of Langley has made an offer for a policing agreement renewal to May 2025," Woodward said "In response, Mayor Pachal has apparently chosen to issue a press release."
Woodward said the City of Langley offered to continue the previous agreement for 2024 only.
"The City of Langley has never proposed a new Police Servicing Agreement effective to the date of the de-integration of the RCMP detachments in May 2025."
Also at issue is the agreement for the two municipalities to share costs for the Langley RCMP headquarters in Murrayville.
Pachal warned if the agreement isn't renewed by May of this year, it could lead to City RCMP officers and support staff being evicted from the detachment building.
"There's a whole bunch of unknowns here," Pachal commented.
“It is neither reasonable, nor will it provide safe and effective policing for both communities, if the Township evicts Langley City RCMP members and support staff from the detachment building in May 2025. We want to negotiate a solution that allows our RCMP members and staff to remain in the building until an alternate solution can be found.”
In his response, Woodward said the Township was being asked to take up the slack in policing.
"In the City of Langley’s letter they themselves outline that “From a public safety perspective, there cannot be a reliance on routine mutual assistance to cover calls for service between Langley Township and Langley City.” I agree," the Woodward statement said.
"The City of Langley is short by at least 20-25 RCMP members, and has, so far, refused to fund them. This failure is to the direct detriment of service levels within the Township of Langley. I look forward to seeing the City’s 2025 Universal Operating Budget and hopeful this issue will be addressed.
"It’s clearly long past the time for the City of Langley to take responsibility for policing its own community," Woodward said.
Councillors Mack and White filed a notice of motion calling for withdrawal of the Jan. 7 press release and demanding "that the City of Langley Council apologize to the Township of Langley for the inflammatory language used within the referenced press release."
Mack objected to the use of “unfair” and “bullying" in the statement.
"Making inferences about intent and characterizations is not how we will negotiate the most cost effective deal for Langley City residents," Mack said. "We should be responding amicably and in good faith."
Woodward announced a plan to split the local shared RCMP detachment into two not long after his election, and has been vocal that the Township was paying too much for the shared service compared to the City.
Langley City's position, outlined in its online post of the press release, is that there "is no compelling reason, financial or operational, to de-integrate the current integrated Langley RCMP detachment."
It argues Langley City "pays its fair share of policing costs when comparing the proportionate share of the police costs attributed to Langley City versus the percentage of criminal offences and number of people who live in each community."
