Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Whistler soon to reap benefits of past work

Mayor Hugh O’Reilly talks about the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ Whistler is at a pivotal point right now, according to Mayor Hugh O’Reilly.

Mayor Hugh O’Reilly talks about the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’

Whistler is at a pivotal point right now, according to Mayor Hugh O’Reilly.

In the next six months, opportunities that have been in the works for years will eventually unravel and reveal themselves.

Whistler will know if the 2010 Winter Olympics are coming to town. The new sustainability plan will be fleshed out revealing the community’s preferred scenario for Whistler’s future. Promises from the provincial government of financial tools and a community land bank may be finalized. And, among all those opportunities, the much sought after answers to Whistler’s housing and affordability problems may finally have some solid solutions.

"Much of the success and the opportunities that are being provided to this next council were really work done in the last three and six years," said O’Reilly.

Now starting his third term in office the mayor sat down with Pique Newsmagazine last week to talk about "seeing the light at the end of the tunnel" with the 2002-2005 council.

PIQUE: We keep hearing about this term "financial tools." Can you give me a definition that would sum it all up?

HUGH O’REILLY: I think that it’s fair to say that we’re trying to find a way that will bring more funding to support the community initiatives that are outside the traditional sources that we have today.

There are roughly three options in discussion. The first option involves Whistler’s hotel tax. Right now there’s a 10 per cent hotel tax. We retain two per cent and they (the province) retain eight. Maybe we don’t increase that at all. Maybe we get 50 per cent and they get 50 per cent so we can get an increased portion of the hotel tax.

The second option is that the province creates the legislation to allow us to have a resort tax in the community. This kind of tax, a consumptive tax, is common in most of our competitive resorts. It can go across the whole gamut of products and services so it could be on alcohol, food, or just a general sales tax. If we went to a resort tax we might add a one per cent resort fee on certain goods so you would see the 14.5 per cent tax go to 15.5 or maybe go up one and a half points. The province hasn’t shared the PST with us so if we knew what the PST generates, then we would know that a one per cent increase would generate X amount of dollars out of Whistler.

The third option is instead of the province increasing the PST maybe they share one point of it. But again, two things would have to occur. The province would have to create the enabling legislation for that to happen or they’d have to change legislation to share the other revenues. So you can understand that this still has a long ways to go. All we’ve done today is build a foundation and an argument.

PIQUE: How much revenue do we expect to get?

O’REILLY: Right now the hotel tax generates to the municipality, very conservatively, between about $3.5 up to $4 million a year, and that’s at two per cent. We think if we were to see an additional $6 to $8 million we’d make a real impact. So right now, what people contribute to the municipal property tax is about $20 million. So $6 to $8 million would be a 30 to 40 per cent increase in resources.

PIQUE: What will the increased funds be used for?

O’REILLY: A lot of facilities we have here are really beyond what a traditional small community would have. They’re there to make sure that we’re participating in the resort amenity package and we think the guest should be participating in that.

I don’t know that I would ever be worried about lack of subscription to the funding and where it might go. These types of funds allow us to replace facilities and make sure they’re consistent with the quality that they were constructed to. Some places in the village were built in ’78. They need to be refurbished or replaced. There’s new technology. We’re trying to be more energy efficient in replacing stuff. So there’s a constant demand on revenue.

I think there’s also opportunities that perhaps we haven’t been able to participate in that some of that funding could support, whether it’s a major sporting event, or cultural event.

PIQUE: Who in the community will be affected the most?

O’REILLY: I want to make sure that the business community and the rest of the community understands that nothing would be imposed. It would be through a consultation process. There’s sectors of the community, if I’m reading their signals right, they’re worried that the whole burden might fall to them.

As far as a resort tax goes, residents would be participating in it but then they also get to participate in the benefits that are derived from those new funds. So there’s an offset. Either their taxes don’t go up or there’s some sort of reduction or there’s increased services but the funding is mostly coming from the people who are visiting. And that’s the general premise of it.

We think that this sort of form of tool allows us to control a little bit of our own destiny.

PIQUE: Let’s talk about the new affordability strategy, which is set to come out in the New Year. Are financial tools a part of that strategy?

O’REILLY: The big elements to the affordability strategy are really the school taxes, which were independent of the financial tools. We’ve gone after the school tax issue on a fairness and equity level. We think that there’s a real issue there. We’ve looked at financial tools again to take some of the burden of the property taxes. And housing. Those are the big three. And then underneath that there’s the little day-to-day things that people have addressed and are concerned about. The idea that somehow residents are being constantly nickeled and dimed.

PIQUE: Can you give me an example of some of those day-to-day affordability concerns?

O’REILLY: The study talks about some of the little things that are important to people, whether it’s community discount cards or parking. Parking is a classic. It drives a lot of interest. It’s not a big revenue generator but it’s a big personal issue.

PIQUE: What kind of housing is the biggest concern for the municipality right now?

O’REILLY: We haven’t solved any of the various elements within the housing. The seniors have been concerned for years that we haven’t really been able to address some of their issues. We’ve talked to many of the businesses that are attracting the middle management and that’s becoming ever more challenging and difficult. And then obviously the seasonal housing hits almost every businessperson. I think all three areas still need to be addressed. I think that the seasonal housing probably, from the dialogues within the business sector, they’re saying that they’re at crisis. But I think we’re still trying to address all of them.

PIQUE: The amendment of the Official Community Plan is currently before council to allow development on the 300 acres in the Callaghan. Can we put anything else there other than resident housing or an Athletes Village?

O’REILLY: If the Olympics are successful then we have to find a location for the athletes village and if we choose not to use the Callaghan then no, there probably would never be any development there. The reason being because of the infrastructure costs. We couldn’t afford it. There might be recreational facilities. We might be able to build a golf course, or do something very basic. If we lose the Olympic bid well then we probably can’t do the Callaghan either.

The only reason there would be something developed in the Callaghan is a) we win the Olympics or b) the community decided through the sustainability plan that that was an appropriate location for resident housing.

PIQUE: Can we trade the crown land in the Callaghan for crown land elsewhere if the community decides against building in the Callaghan?

O’REILLY: That’s not precluded from this because we have a second site already and if you look at the wording, it says "and or other lands" so that is an option.

I get concerned that people believe it’s predetermined. What we’re trying to propose is nothing but we have options and options and options and the community ultimately decides that opportunity of how the land bank is used. And I’m not talking about the Callaghan. I’m talking about the land bank option. Because the land bank has the Callaghan, it has a back up site and it has other lands. The beautiful thing that we negotiated is that we have a real tool and opportunity for our future that didn’t exist two years ago.

The back up site is not quite as big. It’s about 200 acres and other lands might be significantly less. We thought we should take the biggest piece that we could justify and hold on to it. You’ll never get more but you can always give land back.

It’s huge. It’s unbelievable. So it’s a little unfortunate that somehow it gets tarnished because that’s not the intent. I’m sure that with time we’ll get through all that.

PIQUE: And to sum up the future...

O’REILLY: I think we’re going to be in a great position to charter our community destiny. But it’s not easy. It’s the same old thing – our success is our worst failure. It’s not simple. But I tell you – it’s better than having other people’s problems where they have no opportunities.