By Pepper Parr
September 28TH, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
This week – on the 29th, Golden Horseshoe Aquatic Club (GHAC) and Burlington Aquatic Devilrays (BAD) must report their membership numbers and show that they have reached the 85 % residency rule.
There is some doubt that neither club will be able to show that their number have reached that 85% level. BAD is very close, GHAC is thought to be some distance from that 85% level.
What happens then?
Exactly how many members swimming for either club live in Burlington and swim in Burlington?
The folks at BAD have a terrible feeling that the way the memberships are counted is going to be changed to using a “regional” approach which would favour GHAC.
There is very little trust within the BAD organization for the people in the Procurement group at City Hall. Suspicions of conflicts of interest dominate much of the discussion between parents. The BAD executive say nothing – a gag order is reported to have been put in place.
There is a lot riding on what the numbers submitted turn out to be and how the Procurement people interpret them.
To understand what the numbers mean and if any requirement has been met one needs to know the exact wording of the RFP requirement.
For instance
Are BAD & GHAC required to have 85% of their entire membership being Burlington residents?
Or
Are BAD & GHAC required to have 85% of the result of its City of Burlington allocated pool hours multiplied by the number of their members using those hours being Burlington residents.
Or
Some other metric
I wonder then on what basis the Gazette is able to suggest GHAC is some way off meeting the requirement when it has previously said it has not seen the text of the RFP requirement
Editor’s note: Membership numbers are on the Swim Ontario website. Actual membership numbers would not be in the RFP.
What I would really like to hear from you is your views on the use of a Procurment procedure for something that is a Parks and Recreation issue.
Editor, the numbers may be on that website but those are just numbers. We have yet to learn how they are to be applied against an unknown unpublished RFP requirement.
I very much agree with Jim. It needs to be made public as to why the city went to an RFP process for pool time and has not followed suit for all other sporting activities.
I was not aware that prior to 2020 there were four swim clubs allocated pool time. So in 2020 BAD had no problem with the other three clubs being excluded. The same fate that it faced when GHAC won the RFP but whined about!
. It is expected that priority will be given for serving City of Burlington residents, with a minimum target of 85% of Burlington residency in the youth competitive and development swimming programs delivered under this Agreement.
It doesn’t say that the club has to be 85% Burlington Residents.
The program has to cater to 85% Burlington Residents.
There shouldn’t be any question about how the 85% residency requirement is determined. BAD should have raised a question during the RFP stage. They had a second chance when they were negotiating for the pool time they currently have.
The BAD executive have failed to inform their members of the details of their agreement.
The City has also failed to communicate this important piece of information.
Where is the transparency and accountability?
The BAD parents also need to understand that GHAC was renting pool time in Burlington for many years prior to 2020.
What the BAD parents need is an explanation from Council as to why they implemented the RFP process only for swimming in 2020. And why they chose to have only one youth swim club provider. Prior to 2020 pool time for youth swim clubs was allocated to 4 clubs. Not everyone wants to swim for BAD.
They might also ask why, with pool time being a scarce resource, the city isn’t looking to build a new pool until after 2040.
Editor’s note: Wat to go Jim – you hit every nail on the head. Ya hammered them.