FAQ's

It’s confirmed by the Resort Associations Act which allows a Resort Operator, or Resort Developer, to propose a Resort Promotion Area and petition for a resort association. Our HVRA homeowner/Resort Operator proposal was one such petition. If it fails, the Resort Operator can legally try again with a revised Resort Lands area. The Resort Operator still prefers the inclusive, negotiated HVRA. The Resort Operator has negotiated in good faith and is financially supporting the effort to establish the HVRA. But if homeowners don’t vote IN FAVOUR, the Resort Operator is prepared to move forward without us. We have no incentive to invent this; it’s public knowledge that the Resort Operator values a Resort Association on the mountain and can pursue one independently. We are disclosing it now as the SMRA effort has been gaining momentum with the HVRA petition outcome still in doubt. Everyone must make an informed choice.

Because the Resort Operator recognizes the value of a formal Resort Association for capturing tourism funds and marketing the mountain. The Resort Operator’s preference is for the Hemlock Valley Resort Association (HVRA) (which includes homeowners) to succeed. But if the majority of Hemlock Valley property owners want the HVRA petition to fail, he has every right under the Resort Associations Act to pursue an alternate resort association model (Plan B). In practice, that means the Resort Operator is conscientiously laying the groundwork to form a Sasquatch Mountain Resort Association to secure stable annual funding, the MRDT proceeds, grants, etc. for Sasquatch Mountain without us. It is a route he can take if homeowners decide they don’t want to go the HVRA route.

The HVRA was negotiated with homeowner input, resulting in a unique structure where homeowners hold a majority of board seats. Under HVRA bylaws, Hemlock Valley property owners would have both the votes and funding power to direct projects (trails, parks, marketing, long-term planning, etc.). By contrast, a Sasquatch Mountain Resort Association would be created without homeowner involvement. The operator would redraw the Resort Lands Map to exclude Hemlock Valley properties not managed, or owned, by the Resort Operator. In that case, the Board of Directors and its priorities would be entirely operator-led, and money (fees, MRDT, and grants) would flow freely to resort-focused initiatives such as marketing and resort promotions. The funds could not be used for Resort operations and infrastructure.

Yes. In 2007 Red Mountain Ventures (the resort owner) created the Red Resort Association as part of developing that ski area. That association now collects membership fees and directs them to Tourism Rossland (the community DMO). In other words, the operator formed its own resort association and prioritized funneling the money it collects into another organization for marketing and resort development. What we’re describing for Sasquatch Mountain is similar: if the HVRA fails, the Resort Operator would initiate an SMRA to capture MRDT and grant funds for resort promotion priorities.

A NO vote on the HVRA petition will not stop a resort association from happening here. It only decides which one will ultimately prevail: the homeowner-centric HVRA, or the operator-led SMRA. If the HVRA petition fails to hit the 50% of owners/50% assessed value threshold, the application does not lay dormant to be revisited some years later. The Hemlock Valley Resort Association dies. Then the operator can (and likely will) start a new process to create the SMRA in 2026. In that scenario, homeowners lose their structured influence entirely. The Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) leaves the door open for a future Resort Association under different terms. The reality is: voting NO (or not voting at all) for the HVRA just “hands the keys” to the Resort Operator’s Plan B. We do not have veto power. Our power is simply choosing which association will be set up.

Yes. Property owners may update their petition before the deadline. Only the most recently submitted petition form for an eligible Parcel ID (PID) will be counted. So, if you signed a petition “AGAINST”, but now want to vote “IN FAVOUR,” you should request a new petition form (request one online here), mark your choice as IN FAVOUR, and submit it. The new petition will overwrite the old one in the certification process. It’s simple to do, and it can make a big difference, so please consider it now.

If the HVRA petition fails (expected certification mid-April 2026), the Resort Operator has already indicated he will act quickly. Technically, the Berezan Hospitality Group would return to the FVRD with a new Resort Lands map that would omit Hemlock Valley properties that the Resort does not already own or manage. A new set of bylaws would be drafted, and a request made to start a fresh petition for those landowners. The exact timeline depends on FVRD schedules, but the early stages have already begun. In other words, the opportunity for an alternate resort association is ready to move forward as soon as the HVRA is defeated, if it is. We likely won’t have much advance notice. It will just be the reality if the Hemlock Valley Resort Association does not pass.

The SMRA would function just like any resort association under the Act: it collects annual membership fees and can access MRDT and grant funds. The difference is who decides how much assessed fees will be and how the money gained will be spent. Under the expected SMRA, the Resort Operator would control the Board and budgets. Capital would be spent on resort marketing and priorities (as Red Mountain’s resort association shows), with little or no input from Hemlock Valley homeowners. Most Hemlock properties would not be in the Resort Lands area, so they would not be assessed mandatory membership fees, they would have no representation and no say in how SMRA funds are spent. Essentially, the Sasquatch Mountain Resort Association would benefit the resort and its members (and surrounding tourism), while Hemlock homeowners are left out of important, decision-making conversations.

Not unless they want to, because the Plan B map would exclude non-SMR-owned Hemlock Valley properties altogether. This would also remove most of the resort association’s direct benefits to homeowners and reduce the resort association’s stable income that would be used for leverage to obtain matching funding from other sources.

Everything we currently stand to gain from a Hemlock Valley Resort Association. The HVRA is a one-time opportunity for homeowners to lock in a sustainable funding stream and governing voice for the village many of us have grown to know and love. If we don’t take this opportunity, the operator still gets a resort association, but without us. That means: no robust, permanent income stream for community priorities, no homeowner-majority board, and no collective voice under provincial legislation to lobby for changes at the Resort. In short, failing to establish the HVRA is a conscious choice by the community to give up its voice and power to make lasting, concrete change in the community we love.