Profile: Valerie Wynder

A divided town council voted June 22 to provide up to $1 million in additional funding to finish Pincher Creek’s half-built curling rink — but only if the MD of Pincher Creek matches it.

The 4-3 decision is contingent on matching funds from the MD and on lease amendments to formalize town ownership before any money is released.

While discussion of curling rink funding was on the June 23 MD council agenda, the matter has been tabled and will come up again in July.

Town council’s vote followed a public information session five days earlier that drew roughly 130 town and MD residents, where speakers alternated between praising curling’s role in the community and questioning how the shortfall happened and why the town and MD were being asked to provide up to $1.8 million combined to keep it going.

A funded project, then a shortfall

Discussion of a new curling rink stretches back more than a decade.

The Pincher Creek Curling Club first approached the MD in 2015, seeking support for a replacement facility. Estimated at $3 million in 2011, the project moved between proposed sites, survived a failed borrowing bylaw and outlasted a dissolved task force before construction finally began in October 2025.

By that point, the total project budget stood at $5.23 million, supported by $1.25 million from the town, $1 million from the MD and a $1-million Community Facility Enhancement Program grant.

In November 2025, the club learned its application for a $1.5-million Active Communities Initiative grant from the province had been declined.

By April 2026, club officials had appeared before both councils to disclose that funds were running out and they were seeking up to $1.8 million in bridge financing while reapplying for the ACI grant.

130 voices, divided

On June 17, about 130 people packed MD council chambers, as supporters and critics lined up to address elected officials of both the town and MD.

Representatives from Curling Alberta said curling clubs are community spaces and that the organization stood ready to support Pincher Creek as the project evolved. Letters of support from Curling Canada and three universities were also submitted.

The community testimony that followed was more layered.

Former teacher Diane Reed said the community needs a variety of recreational opportunities to attract and retain young families, along with activities that bring youth and seniors together.

Allan Anderson, a curling club executive member, described a school program that has seen a surge in youth participation. Hayley Smith, club past-president, shared a vision of a year-round community facility — available for weddings, indoor sports courts and other uses in the summer months.

But the evening was not a pep rally. Several residents stood to ask harder questions, many circling around the same core concern: how did the club break ground without the money in place?

Don Hill, an MD resident, said he understood the project would cost $3 million with no further public contribution required. Seeing a budget now exceeding $5 million, he questioned whether more cost overruns could follow.

“Curling is wonderful, that isn’t the issue,” he said, adding that municipalities should be fiscally responsible with public funds.

Brian Boyce, a town resident who has spoken against the project to both councils in the past, pointed to earlier agreements that envisioned the club raising the balance of required funding. He argued additional grants and fundraising efforts should be explored before turning again to municipal governments.

MD resident Dean Kennedy noted the town’s recreation master plan ranked trails first, hockey rink upgrades second and a new curling rink third. He questioned whether a separate multiplex, combining curling and skating under one roof, might have been the more logical approach, and asked how taxpayer dollars could be expected to support the curling rink while a new arena also looms on the horizon.

Council weighs in

When town council convened June 22, the divisions expressed during the public session were reflected almost exactly around the council table.

Coun. Brian McGillivray moved the opening motion: no additional funding.

He framed it as a question of democratic math. Curlers, he said, represent roughly three per cent of the town’s population and the other 97 per cent had not told him what they wanted.

“Until I know what that is,” he said, “I can’t vote for any further dollars.”

Coun. Gordon McMullen also opposed funding, citing concerns about the original memorandum of understanding, escalating costs and future expenses including demolition of the existing rink.

Couns. Mark Barber, Bernice Cyr and Sahra Nodge took a different view.

Nodge called it a genuinely close community question but said it was in the public interest to complete the project — with conditions. She raised the idea of public-sector ownership, saying the level of public funding involved warranted a corresponding level of public accountability over the asset.

“I want that in black ink, fully done before money goes out,” she said.

Barber pointed to the recreation master plan, which identified a new curling rink among recreation priorities.

Cyr said she would support funding only if the loan could be guaranteed repaid and that failure to do so should result in town ownership. She later framed her position in generational terms.

“I look seven generations past when I’m long gone and I think we need this curling rink,” she said.

Coun. Valerie Wynder described feeling “torn.” She walked through the financial risks of stopping — including the possible recall of the $1-million CFEP grant if the project were abandoned — but said she could not support funding without significantly more robust reporting requirements than were attached to previous contributions.

Mayor Wayne Oliver took the opposing view. Shutting the project down would cost an estimated $800,000 in materials already ordered and demobilization costs, he said, and that figure would not decrease with time.

“It just seems more practical to finish it and not waste the $3.25 million of public money that’s already been put into it,” he said.

McGillivray’s motion to provide no additional funding was defeated 4-3, with McMullen and Wynder joining him in support. Oliver, Nodge, Barber and Cyr voted against.

Cyr then put forward the alternative motion: up to $1 million in additional funding, contingent on matching funds from the MD. The money would be released in monthly instalments aligned with construction costs.

The funding would draw $682,000 from existing Local Government Fiscal Framework and Canada Community-Building Fund grants, plus $318,000 from the land development reserve.

The motion was amended to require changes to the lease agreement that would formalize town ownership of the facility before additional funds are released.

Town CAO Konrad Dunbar clarified that because the building sits on town land, the municipality already holds a form of ownership — the lease change would formalize it. The CFEP grant is not affected by ownership structures, he added; its only requirement is that the building be operated as a public facility.

That motion carried 4-3, with the alignment reversed. A second motion, carried unanimously, directed administration to bring back the amended lease for council approval at a special meeting.

What comes next

MD council will resume funding discussion in July. The town’s $1 million is contingent on the MD matching the contribution.

The club’s application for the $1.5-million ACI grant remains pending. If successful, the club has committed to repaying both the town and MD from those proceeds.

Construction is now expected to wrap by the end of September 2026.