A tender for a contract for works was not awarded for the project during a recent confidential in-camera meeting.

It’s understood the project still has the support of councillors Des Hudson and Belinda Coates and deputy mayor Mark Harris who believed it would attract scores of adolescents and families to the centre. 

However, the overwhelming majority of councillors voted against the idea and are instead pushing to see the funds pushed into more critical projects or be used to pay back council debt.

Earlier this year, The Courier revealed discussions were underway to use a $1.3 million pot of money leftover from the Ballarat Lifestyle and Aquatic Centre’s contentious 50-metre pool to build an onsite water slide. 

In 2012, the council borrowed $17 million for the construction of the pool.

The logic behind the water slide was a push to replace the Eureka Aquatic Centre’s beloved water slide which was controversially torn down last year, amid fears the structure was unsafe. 

Cr Hudson said it was a lost opportunity for Ballarat.

He said if the project went ahead, the water slide could have significantly increased patronage at the centre which currently runs at a financial loss.

“Obviously I’m disappointed with the result because what we know is new aquatic facilities have the capacity to attract young people and families from all over,” he said.

Cr Hudson also added new aquatic facilities had the potential to generate strong returns to the council.

“We’ve seen the successes of similar slides like the one (mega water slide) in Greensborough,” he said. “I’m disappointed for the young people and families who would have a fantastic time on a new slide at the aquatic centre.”

Cr Ben Taylor said councillors had a "robust" debate on whether the money would be better spent on the water slide, paying back the council's debt or used for other projects.

"The vote was we wouldn't pass the tender," he said. 

He said the financial implications of the recent roll-out of rate capping meant the council had to be more prudent with money than ever before.

“As much as it was a great opportunity technically it’s money we don’t have as it’s deemed debt,” he said. 

“We need to be strongly questioning return investment on projects and looking at every cent spent and making sure we are doing right by ratepayers.”

It remains unclear what the leftover $1.3 million will be used for.