Ranchmen's Club Borrowing Cap Removed

Summary#

• This is a private bill that updates the founding law for The Ranchmen’s Club in Calgary.

• It removes a very old borrowing limit and updates the title of the original ordinance. The goal is to let the club borrow what it needs for projects and operations.

• Key changes:

  • Updates the title to “The Ranchmen’s Club Ordinance.”
  • Removes the cap that limited the club’s total borrowing to $75,000.
  • Keeps the club’s ability to borrow by using its property as security (for example, through mortgages or bonds).
  • Applies only to The Ranchmen’s Club; it does not change general laws for other groups.

What it means for you#

• Most Albertans

  • No direct effect. This bill concerns one private club in Calgary.

• Club members

  • The club would be able to take on larger loans for repairs, upgrades, or other needs.
  • If the club borrows more, it could affect future fees or services, depending on how the loans are repaid.

• Club staff and suppliers

  • Easier access to financing could lead to renovations or new projects, which may mean more contracting and event activity.

• Lenders (banks or others)

  • The club may seek larger loans. Lenders could receive security over the club’s property.

• Neighbors and local community

  • If the club upgrades or renovates, there may be construction activity at or near the site.

Expenses#

Estimated public cost: none.

• This bill affects a private organization’s borrowing power.
• No direct impact on provincial or city budgets is indicated.
• Any costs or risks are borne by the club and its lenders.

Proponents' View#

• The $75,000 limit is over a century old and no longer practical due to inflation and modern costs.
• Removing the cap lets the club finance maintenance, renovations, and long-term projects when needed.
• The change helps a longstanding Calgary institution manage its own finances without relying on public funds.
• The bill is narrow and private; it does not change rules for other organizations.

Opponents' View#

• Without any cap, the club could take on too much debt, which may create financial risk for the organization.
• Some may question why a special law is needed, rather than using modern, general corporate rules that apply to other clubs.
• Larger, unregistered security interests may reduce public visibility into the club’s debts, which can concern potential counterparties.
• If finances tighten due to higher debt, members could face higher fees or reduced services.