Town Council defeats study for golf course repairs

Article content

Town of Pincher Creek council voted to defeat a motion to allocate $25,000 to conduct a study for the Pincher Creek Golf Club and Curling Club Steering Committee during the Wednesday, Jan. 8 council meeting.

The topic proved contentious among council, and councillors voiced frustrations towards the topic, about how no direction has been taken so far, and how there’s no feasible way to discern which course of action to take.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser.

Town Council defeats study for golf course repairs Back to video

The motion, which was put forward by councillor Mark Barber, was defeated in a 4 – 3 vote, with Mayor Don Anderberg and councillors Mark Barber and Sussanne O’Rourke voting in favour of the motion.

Barber said funding the study was a worthwhile endeavor, necessary to discern the specific costs of changing the water irrigation system at the golf course.

“That money was allocated prior to the budget, but our budget deliberations removed the said funds. I again think that was a mistake, and it’s possibly pushing back the planning of the expansion by approximately a year,” said Barber.

Article content continued

“I think there’s some urgency with the planning, and I think it would be very valid to reintroduce the $25,000, to make it available for the study,” he said.

The study in question would explore the layout of a potential 18-hole golf course, and would include site planning for residential properties and a curling rink.

Without said site planning, the Golf Club and Curling Club Steering Committee isn’t able to pursue any potential grant funding, let alone know how much the project could potentially cost.

Irrigation system repairs at the golf course are quoted at $750,000 currently.

Councillor Scott Korbett said $25,000 that’s being asked for is better left until the broader community recreation plan has made progress, so council can better discern what the communities interests are.

“I don’t believe we should be spending $25,000 before we spend $50,000 on the entire community rec plan. If this falls in the rec plan, then we move forward with the golf course and the curling rink,” said Korbett.

“If the community feels it doesn’t fit the demands of the community, then we don’t have to spend that $25,000.”

He also said going forward with the study would undermine council’s commitment to approach the topic of the curling rink and golf course in cooperation with the M.D. of Pincher Creek.

“The other side of this is that we’ve made it pretty clear that we’re not doing anything without our M.D. partners on this project. It’s not good to be debating this here, without actually having the debate with our M.D. partners,” said Korbett.

Article content continued

O’Rourke expressed interest in going forward with the study, as no progress has been made in regards to the golf course and curling rink.

“We have put this on the backburner I think long enough. I feel there are more (residents) who wish for this to go ahead, than do not,” said O’Rourke.

“I believe the $25,000 should be spent, and the study carries on, because we eventually have to do it anyways,” she said.

Barber said that while the rec plan would address the question of keeping golf and curling in the community, the study is still necessary to understand the potential costs of doing so.

“The recreation study will speak to the future of golf and curling in the community, but there’s also planning that needs to go forward. At this point, we have some ideas as to what the golf course and curling rink are going to cost, but we can’t specifically identify those numbers,” said Barber.

“I feel that we have to go forward with the study just to get some numbers in place, in order to move forward with the planning,” he said.

“It’s even harder to do the recreational study without this in place, because if it comes back and we need to spend $12-million on a curling club and another $12-million upgrading and expanding the golf course, then that puts a different perspective on it than the numbers I presented with my business plan.”

Mayor Don Anderberg said it made sense to go forward with the study in order to have a tangible plan on the table.

“In my experience, if you have a good plan, you can actually work towards the plan. If you don’t have a plan, then that’s exactly what you got,” said Anderberg.

Article content continued

“In my mind, if we don’t do this, then we could potentially be spending good money at some point in time, even if the golf course stays at nine holes,” he said.

“This overall design also includes the layout of where the curling rink could go, and where the maintenance shed could be placed—all those kinds of details that we don’t have right now. They’re all important because of infrastructure.”

Korbett said council needs an idea of the community’s interests before they can make the right decision, which is what the recreation master plan would provide.

“We have never made any decisions (regarding the curling club and golf course), but the reason we is because we are all unsure—we don’t know what the community wants, and the recreation master plan needs to tell us which way to go,” said Korbett.

“If we don’t start with that, where we have an overall picture of the direction we’re going, we’re going to keep on limping along the golf course and curling rink,” he said.

“I’m not against spending money on a curling rink and the golf course to serve our citizens, but we don’t actually know what the citizens want. We know what the curling rink wants and we know what the golf course wants.”

With the motion defeated, a study won’t be going forward at any discernible time, but the topic will remain a discussion between the Town and M.D. during their joint council sessions.