Parents involved in swimming club matters set out what they want the City Auditor to do

By Gazette Staff

September 26th, 2025

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Parents of swimmers and people who feel the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays got a bum deal from the city want the whole mess looked into.  WArd 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns is looking for a way to have the city Audtor review just how the decision that was made was arrived at.

The parents want to be sure that Kearns understands the issue and ensures that the right questions get asked.

So – they sent her the following::

It is essential that the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays (BAD) have their community club status and pool allocations restored and be afforded precedence as a Burlington-based community club. The City’s audit/review of pool and swim meet allocation decisions affecting BAD and the Golden Horseshoe Aquatic Club (GHAC), a regional club, is an imperative. Burlington-based clubs must be treated fairly and City policies on allocation, residency, and community support applied consistently. Accountability and transparency must guide all decisions impacting local athletes and taxpayers.

As a Burlington taxpayer with deep concerns about the City’s decisions to date, and the consequences, I have developed a series of questions that I believe should be addressed as part of a review/audit.  While not exhaustive, they reflect issues of particular concern to myself, BAD members, BAD alumni and many taxpayers

Questions for Council / Administration

1. 1. 1. 1. Club Integrity & Compliance

*              If a regional club (GHAC) signs/recruits Burlington swimmers and encroaches on a community club’s (BAD) area without following proper Swim Ontario protocols, does this not call into question the integrity of GHAC in the eyes of City decision-makers given “Club in good standing” is an RFP requirement?

*              Does the City intend to deal strictly with clubs of the highest integrity in its allocation decisions?

1. 1. 1. 2. Value of Community Clubs

*              Does the City see the extraordinary value of a long-standing, 40+ year Burlington-based community club (BAD) — which focuses 100% on Burlington?

*              BAD participates in multiple community events and carries the Burlington name with pride wherever they compete or train — compared to a regional club (GHAC) dividing attention across multiple communities. The swim community recognizes BAD as Burlington’s club.  How does the City weigh this community contribution in allocation decisions?

1. 1. 1. 3. Revenue Disparities and Financial Impact

*              Does the City understand that BAD’s sole revenue source is from operating in the Burlington community while regional clubs (GHAC) generate revenue in multiple communities, giving them an inherent advantage?

*              Does the City realize that BAD has traditionally charged lower fees than all clubs in the Golden Horseshoe geography, including GHAC? While BAD’s pricing advantage for Burlington swimmers and their families has been diminished, we remain the most accessible and inclusive club.

*              Since this matter arose, many BAD swimmers left the program due to the uncertainty and underlying feelings of City abandonment and distrust. The impact on BAD includes: lower fee revenue; reduced support from parent volunteers (including those volunteers with officiating certificates, thereby forcing BAD to hire costly officiants for swim meets); scrambling for more expensive, less attractive non-City pool time. — collectively forcing the remaining BAD swimmers and their families into more expensive, less convenient options. It has eroded BAD’s pricing advantage to the detriment of Burlington swimmers and their families. Did City officials fully understand the negative result their decision would have on Burlington families?

1. 1. 1. 4. Community Support and Legacy

*              Given BAD’s longstanding legacy, decades of alumni, and thousands of taxpayers invested in Burlington, does the City agree that community-based clubs like BAD should receive priority for Burlington pool and Swim meet allocations?

1. 1. 1. 5. Athlete Development & Future Impact

*              Swim clubs cluster athletes by capability; as swimmers approach senior levels, programs intensify and top coaches and facilities are required (e.g., Centennial Pool).

*              For every GHAC swimmer that comes from other communities to train in Burlington pools (clustered at the same level as Burlington swimmers), a Burlington swimmer is displaced. BAD swimmers are clearly at risk of being displaced. How will the City police or prevent this scenario over time to protect local athletes?

1. 1. 1. 6. Pool Allocation Decisions

*              Why did a regional club (GHAC) receive the majority of pool hours while the community club (BAD) received fewer hours?  Shouldn’t the allocation have been the other way around, prioritizing community-based Burlington swimmers (BAD)?

*              BAD has never wanted to displace any swimmer. It simply wants its rightful place restored and preserved. With this in mind, BAD has recommended that the city Council utilize the Shared-Use Framework which appears on the City’s website and is based on Tiered Access (a best practice):

*              Tier 1: Local, not-for-profit, volunteer-led community clubs (BAD);

*              Tier 2: Regional or private, fee-based clubs (GHAC);

*              Tier 3: Short-term rentals, camps, or revenue-driven events.

*              Is the Tiering approach no longer being embraced by the City?

1. 1. 1. 7.     Swim Meet Criticality

*              Swim meets are a major source of revenue for clubs and the Nelson Swim Meet is existential for BAD as its largest fund raising activity.  For GHAC, which operates in multiple municipalities with broader revenue streams, the Nelson meet is optional.  Does the City appreciate swim meets are key to any community club’s (BAD’s) survival?

1. 1. 1. 8. Council Oversight & Policy Consistency

*              The City’s Procurement By-law (04-2022) states: “All Procurement shall be conducted in accordance with … honest, open, fair and transparent behaviour … The City will not extend preferential treatment to any Bidder or Proponent.”

              Given this, and the fact that Council is elected to represent Burlington residents, does the City Council agree it is incumbent upon them to intervene when evidence suggests a City process has not upheld transparency, fairness, or the community’s best interest?

1. 1. 1. 9. Technical Requirements and Equity Concerns

*              BAD was disadvantaged in the RFP process. While the City required a “current and valid certificate of incorporation,” it was unclear how this applied to a club incorporated over 40 years ago and in good standing. BAD consulted authorities, who advised on the documentation that would satisfy the requirement — status easily verifiable through corporate registries and Swim Ontario.  The City’s subsequent guidance on what was acceptable was issued in response to an enquiry regarding the Adult RFP — GHAC, having bid on both Youth and Adult RFPs, benefited from this guidance, while BAD, having submitted only to the Youth RFP, became aware too late to remedy the issue, creating an unintended but unfair disadvantage.

*              Given BAD’s decades-long compliance and integrity, shouldn’t a reasonable, common-sense approach have been applied to confirm this requirement? The City could have recognized BAD’s historical good standing, exercised practical flexibility, and ensured both parties were simultaneously advised of its subsequent guidance.

*              GHAC was allowed leniency upfront regarding minimum residency requirements—why, then, was BAD held to a strict technicality for the certificate? Beyond any minor technical issue, the deeper concern is fairness, equity, and the protection of a long-standing community club.

1. 1. 1. 10. Residency Requirement (85% Burlington Swimmers)

*              The City’s public statement says: “Bidders were required to demonstrate how their organizations will ensure 85% of participants are Burlington residents … The successful bidder – GHAC – indicated it would fulfill this requirement in time for service commencement in September 2025.”

*              If GHAC, a regional club with many non-Burlington members, was allowed to defer compliance with the upfront minimum residency requirement, doesn’t this represent an unfair break relative to the 85% Burlington residency limitation that applies to community clubs like BAD?

*              Will the City be transparent and disclose any differences in the respective contracts of GHAC and BAD that relate to residency enforcement and calculations?

1. 1. 1. 11. Long-Term Athlete Development

*              Does Council understand and acknowledge that pulling pool allocation out from BAD swimmers destabilizes their long-term athletic and community development?

1. 1. 1. 12. Governance and Accountability of Clubs

*              Why does the RFP process apply to swim clubs/pools and not other sports?

 

1. 1. 1. 13. Equity of Contract Terms

*              Can you confirm whether the contract terms with GHAC are identical to those that BAD previously held?

*              If terms were altered (e.g., residency enforcement, financial commitments, contract duration), please explain why and how such changes serve Burlington taxpayers.

*              Are both contracts cancelable by either party, subject to notice? While, in hindsight, it appears the City agrees that a commercial RFP administrative procedure is not appropriate for sports/community club-decisions, nevertheless there is a provision in City documents that can help solve matters.  The Termination clause reads:   “The City may terminate the Contract in whole, or in part, whenever the City determines that such termination is in the best interest of the City without showing cause, upon providing written notice to the Vendor.”  The important clause here is: “in the best interest of the City without showing cause.”

*              Would this not be the provision that allows course correction in the best interest of the City and the taxpayers — in this case the swimmers and families of the community club, BAD?

Closing Statement.

Council must ensure that Burlington’s own residents and community clubs, including BAD, are not disadvantaged within their OWN city. Policies on allocation, fairness, and residency exist to protect local clubs, their members, and taxpayers. It is Council’s responsibility to uphold these principles consistently, without exceptions that favour external organizations such as GHAC.

We respectfully request that you seek clear answers to the above questions as part of your review/audit. Undoubtedly, additional questions will arise, and we would appreciate timely and thorough responses to all inquiries to ensure transparency and accountability.

Starting September 2026, the City needs to reverse course — giving GHAC ample time to transition (a luxury BAD was not afforded) while restoring BAD’s rightful place at the heart of Burlington.  BAD members and concerned taxpayers will remain engaged until this is done because it is the fair and just course of action.