As the Pincher Creek Curling Club grapples with a funding shortfall for its new rink, some residents are questioning how the project was allowed to proceed without all funding in place.

Speaking before town council June 8, residents Shauna Sky Romano and Brian Boyce urged elected officials to examine the project’s financial planning and called for discussion about whether future recreation investments should involve greater collaboration between curling, hockey and figure skating organizations.

The concerns come ahead of a June 17 joint public input meeting with town and MD of Pincher Creek councils, where residents can weigh in on the future of the curling rink under construction since October 2025.

The club estimates it needs more than $1.8 million to complete the $5-million curling rink.

The town has already committed $1.25 million to the project and provided land on Chief Mountain Avenue at a nominal fee under a 20-year lease. MD council raised its contribution to $1 million in November 2025.

Residents raise concerns

Romano, a Pincher Creek-raised kinesiologist and high-performance coach who returned to the community two years ago, told town council her concerns date back to January 2025, when construction plans for the rink were nearly pushed through without public notice.

Within two weeks, Romano organized a petition signed by more than 500 residents opposing the original proposed location at Hole 7 of the golf course.

“When the location was changed, the petition was basically null and void,” she said, adding that photos of the signatures were sent to then-councillor Wayne Oliver to inform the relocation vote.

Romano was reluctant to submit names publicly because, she said, some residents feared repercussions for themselves, their relatives or friends employed by the town.

“Imagine my surprise when I find out a year later that they’re actually $1.8 million short with the building half built,” she said. “How could you start a building project like this without the funding in place?”

Romano also raised questions about conflict of interest, framing her concern as one of perceived bias rather than proven wrongdoing.

“A conflict of interest only needs the appearance of bias,” she said. “Even if someone is objective, if the situation reasonably looks biased to others, it can still be considered a conflict of interest, because trust is definitely affected.”

Beyond the immediate funding shortfall, Romano challenged council to reimagine recreation in Pincher Creek altogether, proposing a collaborative multi-sport complex that would bring curling, hockey and figure skating under one roof — sharing a single ice plant, custodian and engineer.

She pointed to similar facilities in other Alberta towns, noting families travelling to such venues generate significant economic activity for their host communities.

“I believe there are more grants and more private funding available when we collaborate and work together to build something for the greater good of all young families and athletes, not just curlers,” she said.

“I am not against curling in any way,” she said. “But I don’t think the town should be on the hook for that. Nobody wants to see another half-built building in this town.”

Concerns over taxpayer risk

Boyce told council that taxpayers should not be expected to assume additional financial risk for a project he believes moved forward before its funding strategy was fully secured.

“It’s astonishing that a project would start without the funding in place,” he said. “Why should taxpayers be on the hook for this kind of money when the curling club represents maybe two to three per cent of the population and wants to be autonomous?”

Boyce questioned whether the terms of the memorandum of understanding between the town and the club have been met, pointing to what he described as incomplete financial planning and uncertain repayment capacity.

“The Town of Pincher Creek is not a financial institution for the club to keep going back to,” he said, adding that lending money without a credible repayment plan would leave taxpayers responsible for the debt.

Curling club speaks out

In an email response, Pincher Creek Curling Club executive members say a range of options were weighed as the project took shape but grant timelines left little room to wait. Some funding the club secured — including its Community Facility Enhancement Program grant — carried deadlines and delaying construction could have put that money at risk.

The club knew fundraising would continue throughout the project and the shortfall built gradually as costs and commitments changed over time.

“The funding gap didn’t appear overnight — it became clearer as construction costs were finalized and some expected funding sources did not materialize at the level we had hoped,” the club says.

The executive says it understands concerns over repayment responsibility, writing:

“This project matters to the community and people want to know it is being managed responsibly. The curling club has never taken that responsibility lightly.

“Any borrowing undertaken by the club has always been viewed as part of a larger plan that includes continued fundraising, sponsorship opportunities, memberships, rentals, bonspiels, events and other revenue streams. Like any organization managing a major capital project, we continue to monitor and adjust our plans as needed.”

While the club is grateful for all forms of support, the executive says it remains a volunteer-run organization that is responsible for operating the facility and making decisions in the best interest of its members and community — viewing it as a partnership rather than a conflict.

The executive says “the club has worked hard to meet the commitments outlined in the MOU and to maintain a positive working relationship with the Town throughout this process,” and suggests questions about specific clauses or obligations are best answered by referring directly to the MOU and the records held by both parties.

The club views the facility as a home not only for its sport, but as a place that will serve schools, seniors, community groups, families, businesses and organizations looking for meeting or event space.

“Our vision has always been to create a year-round community facility that benefits as many people as possible, whether they ever throw a curling rock or not,” it says.

On Romano’s suggestion of a shared multisport complex, the club says its curling project has been years in the making, with extensive planning, fundraising, grant applications and approvals, and its focus is on finishing the facility.

“That doesn’t mean other recreation opportunities shouldn’t be explored in the future, but our responsibility right now is to see this project through.”

Council response

Oliver, who voted for the motion to relocate the rink from the golf course and has since become mayor, acknowledged receiving the petition photos but noted he has not seen the full petition.

He said the promised public open house was never held because the location change had quieted community opposition at the time.

“With the new location, it just seemed like people lost interest because they got their wish,” he said, adding that uncertainty over who should host the session — the town or the club — also contributed to the delay.

In response to Romano’s suggestion that some councillors should have stepped aside from past votes on the project, Coun. Sahra Nodge said that under the Municipal Government Act, councillors may only recuse themselves from a vote when they stand to receive direct financial gain.

“Unless any of us are pouring the concrete tomorrow,” Nodge said, “the act does not give council leeway to recuse based on perceived bias alone.”

The joint public input session is scheduled for Wednesday, June 17, at the MD administration building in Pincher Creek. Both town and MD councils will attend, along with representatives from the curling club.