By Pepper Parr
September 23rd, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The issue about the amount of swimming pool time Burlington Aquatic Devilrays (BAD) has been given and just how many members they have and how many hours of pool time Golden Horseshoe Aquatic Club (GHAC) has been given needs to be set out in bold letters.
This issue is about people who live in Burlington and belong to a swimming club (BAD) and want to use Burlington swimming pools. The driving force here is Burlington – not Hamilton. And the ultimate responsibility belongs with Council.
Prior to the current contract BAD had 40 hours of pool time each week. In the new contract, they have 17 hours and GHAC has 36 hours of pool time.
What many are upset about is: Why does a Tier 1 community swimming club not have the hours it needs to run a solid swimming program?
The contract the City Procurement department prepared required a swimming club to have 85% of it members living in Burlington.
BAD reported that 79% of its members lived in Burlington; GHAC reported that 28% of its members lived in Burlington. Both Clubs were expected to provide the Procurment department with their true numbers by the end of September.
When a person wants to be a member of a swimming club they have to be registered with Swim Ontario (as well as Swim Canada) That registration is done by the swimming club a swimmer is joining
The reason for this approach is that Swim Ontario collects all the data on each swimmer, including how they placed in any competitions they took part in.
Recall that the Procurement people who were given the task of determining which swimming club would be given pool time in 2026 Burlington was expected to have 85% of its members as residents of Burlington.
There have been modest fluctuations in the numbers over time, with Burlington Aquatic Devilrays (BAD) having approximately 79% residency, while GHAC was observed at only 28%.
Sources have suggested that the procurement department has, or is considering, a change in the way the 85% Burlington residency requirement is calculated.
Current Rule (original intent)
The requirement is currently calculated as the percentage of a club’s Burlington-resident swimmers compared to its total membership across all communities.
- GHAC: 150 Burlington residents ÷ 540 total members = 28%
- BAD: 316 Burlington residents ÷ 400 total members = 79%
This approach aligns with common practice in most swim communities and serves to ensure that the rule protects Burlington-rooted clubs from being displaced by larger regional organizations with multiple sources of recruitment and revenue.
Proposed Change
The suggested revision would calculate the residency percentage only among swimmers who both reside in Burlington and swim in Burlington, rather than against the club’s total membership across all communities. GHAC has a reported 540 members (give or take) spread among several communities, including Hamilton, Dundas, Stoney Creek and Ancaster.
Under this approach:
- GHAC: 150 ÷ 150 = 100%
- BAD: 316 ÷ 316 = 100%
This effectively places any club that uses Burlington pools into automatic compliance, regardless of how much of its overall membership comes from outside Burlington.
Why This Undermines the Original Requirement
- The original intent of the 85% rule was to prioritize Burlington-based clubs and ensure that city pool allocations primarily benefit Burlington residents.
- The proposed rule would strip the requirement of meaning: large regional clubs could claim full compliance despite most of their membership living elsewhere.
- In contrast, most swim communities maintain the broader calculation (total membership basis) and serves to ensure that community clubs remain protected from regional competition.
Lisa Kearns wants the City Auditor to look into just what has happened.
A closer look at what the Procurement people are trying to do suggests at the least some sleight of hand.
This situation is being very poorly handed at the department level. It belongs on the desks of the City Council where all the facts are put on the table.
Lisa Kearns, ward 2 Councillor, who is currently in Africa representing the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, is expected back later this week. Her expressed intention is to move a motion that has the matter being sent to the City Auditor who can ask the questions needed to get a full picture as to how this mess was created.
With respect to trips like the referenced trip to Africa, I have to ask if they add value to our local situation or if they are just another example of floccinaucinihilipilification?
“Lisa Kearns, ward 2 Councillor, who is currently in Africa representing the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, is expected back later this week.”
Who is paying for this junket?
Editor’s note: Federal government
Whether the Federal Government is paying or not. There is still only one taxpayer – us!!
Whatever the numbers, the Community club (BAD) has been mistreated as have their swimmers and families.
The article states “Recall that the Procurement people who were given the task of determining which swimming club would be given pool time in 2026 Burlington was expected to have 85% of its members as residents of Burlington.”. Is that what the RFP requirement actually said?
Would the Gazette please publish verbatim the requirement as contained in the RFP document?
I suggest what I think is a clearer and better requirement than those suggested in this article. I suggest the requirement be:- ” It is a requirement that a minimum of 85% of the weekly swimmer pool hours allocated by the City to a club must be utilized by swimmers who are residents of the City of Burlington.
Definition:- Weekly swimmer pool hours equals the City of Burlington weekly pool hours allocated to the club multiplied by the number of all of the club’s swimmer’s who utilized City of Burlington pools in the week.”
Editor’s response: First, to the best of our knowledge it is not a public document. Then the damn thing is more than 100 pages.
Editor, I was hoping that somebody from BAD or GHAC would be able to provide the text of the requirement taken directly from the RFP document.
I can’t recall who, but there have been others who have commented on other articles about this subject, who gave the impression they have seen and reviewed the RFP document. Maybe they would provide it..