Following a proposal brought to Saugeen Shores Council on December 9th (2024) for an inflatable water park, to be known as Splash City Fun Park at Port Elgin Beach, the recommendation came forward to Council on April 14th that:
“Staff continue to negotiate with the proponent and that Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to enter into an Agreement with Splash City Fun Park Inc. for the operation of a water park beginning in 2025.”
At the December 9th Committee of the Whole meeting, the proponent Ramin Ganji and Claude Latulippe, presented a delegation to Council outlining the installation and operation of an inflatable water park at the Port Elgin main beach. “The proposed water park proposal was unsolicited and, therefore, was not identified within the approved 2025 Business Plan”.
It was proposed that the park would be located between the break-wall and the shoreline of the beach at Port Elgin Main Beach. Proposed Park size: Size 52m x 27m Maximum product height: 3m Floating walkway dimensions: 15m x 3m
Waterwaze is the exclusive Canadian distributor for the Wibit installations manufactured in Germany and, according to the company, the inflatable water parks have been installed in several locations including Barrie, St. Mary’s, Muskoka, Hamilton, Puslinch, Orillia, Port Colborne, Mount Albert and Milton. However, each location, with the exception of Port Colborne, are in-land lakes where weather such as high winds and wave action are not comparable to Lake Huron.
Prior to the Monday night Council meeting, during the Open Forum, resident Daniel Frank raised several concerns. “I and other citizens are very concerned about the possibility of an inflatable water park. The town is prepared to allowing more of this public space to be sectioned off and entrance restricted to those who have the money to pay for admission. The town opposed a pay-for-play entry to the the North Shore Park last year. What’s the difference between that and what is being proposed here? It’s the same thing. This is no different that designating the area surplus and leasing it out to a private enterprise that will determine who gets the use of this very public space.”
Frank went on to say that there would also be an area around the apparatus that would be unavailable to swimmers and that a wide marked-off path from the apparatus would also take up more space on the beach along with a three-metre-by-three-metre kiosk on the beach for customer line-ups and activity. He also asked if the apparatus would be deflated and left anchored in the water or would it be stored and who would have the ultimate authority in taking it down.
“The simplicity of swimming in the waves and building castles in the sand – the simple beach experience will be lost,” said Frank.
CAO Kara Van Myall in the report that came to Council said that, application had been made to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Transportation as the proposed water location is not owned by Saugeen Shores.
Therefore, two Agreements had to be met – an Agreement between the proponent and the Department of Fisheries and Ocean (DFO) for the installation and operation of the inflatable park in the water, and an Agreement between the proponent and the Town of Saugeen Shores for the logistical land requirements. The DFO expressed no concerns with the proposal.
The proposal to the Town asks for access to the water, use of the washrooms, parking, temporary use of the kiosk and a storage facility, all of which the CAO said would not be included in an agreement.
The proponent indicated that if an Agreement with the Town could not be advanced before the end of April, installation and operation of the water park in 2025 could not proceed. Therefore, if approved, the Splash Fun Park would be a one-year pilot project following which the Public could provide feedback.
The proposal also initiated considerable discussion around the Council table that raised many questions from Councillors.
Councillor John Divinski first asked what the depth of water would have to be and had it been confirmed. The CAO said that it was anticipated the water depth had to be six to eight feet before determining the location of the inflatables and was being looked into.
The CAO also said that the Beachhouse building was being considered for ticket sales in order to avoid having more trailers, kiosks, etc. on the main beach, but that other groups were already using the space.
Divinski also suggested that given the new Aquatic and Wellness Centre (AWC) there would be an impact on recruitment for staff such as lifeguards. The CAO admitted that it “… was a worry but we won’t know the impacts until it happens and I don’t have a crystal ball.”
“I think advancing this before the end of April is too fast,” said Divinski. “… I’m still on the fence with this one.”
Councillor Cheryl Grace said that she had a couple of reasons for not supporting the proposal. “I don’t think we need this attraction … we have a wonderful beach. Although this would provide a different kind of recreational experience, I have concerns about safety when this is located on a Great Lake. All of the existing examples that were provided are on in-land bodies of water … and we get very windy, rough weather here … I, too, am concerned with the conflict with our summer staff that was recognized in the report.
She went on to add that the Town solicitor was looking into any liability issues when it comes to safety, and also remarked abouth the congestion on an already busy beach. “This is a charming, classic beach and I am concerned about the change in atmosphere. “It’s not just the footprint of the park but also the marked-off pathway and area around the apparatus. The bottom line? I don’t think we need this to attract tourists. People can have lots of fun at the beach without paying for this activity.”
Vice-deputy Mayor Mike Myatt questioned the validity of the importance of providing this at the beach. “I’m also concerned about staffing availability for lifeguarding and I’m concerned about parking … I’m still struggling with this and I am lukewarm and I think we need to take this year to look at it so I am not in support of this.”
Regarding public consultation, Councillor Rachel Stack, said if the park goes ahead and people don’t spend their money then it won’t come back. “So, I challenge public consultation when this is a private enterprise and if people don’t spend their money then there won’t be a business case for it.
She also added that there are not many opportunities for kids to do something and this would provide something for them to do at the beach. Alluding to teenagers, she said that “playing in the sand is not something they do”. “We need to be more clear-eyed on how the beach is working today and what people may actually want and the benefit that a trial period could start. This is a business, so there will be a waiver … there is risk in anything we do … as a business operation, that is my expectation here.
The CAO pointed out that insurance, liability and waivers are between the proponent and those using the facility and not the responsibility of the town.
“Every time we want to bring something new, parking is brought up … we can’t let parking be a barrier to opportunities to make the community more engaged. I hear that argument about parking but people find a way. There may be a perception that the beach near homes is private but it is a public beach all the way along,” said Stack.
Mayor Luke Charbonneau said that this (proposal) would be of interest to his sons. “Coming at it from their perspective, I think they would be really excited to see something like this at the beach and to go there and have a good time with their buddies on it.”
He added that Councillor Stack said it right. “If people don’t like it then they won’t go back and the business won’t last long so we’ll know after a year. Port Elgin Main Beach is an exciting place, a place to have fun family attractions. There are lots of things where people pay to participate – people pay to have a boat in the harbour, pay to have an ice-cream cone and that’s all part of the experience at the beach. This could be an added attraction out in the water for young people. We want a whole range of experiences for all ages and this would something that would add something that could be really good.”
“My belief here,” said the Mayor, “is for the CAO and staff to continue conversation and negotiate and sign a deal but the CAO would, in my estimation only sign that deal if all the negotiations were successful and all the important questions that Councillors have raised were answered in a satisfactory way … I think it would be a good addition to the main beach.”
Councillor Myette agreed that the proposal should be explored. “It’s something new … there are no lifeguards on the beach so the trained people on the facility would enhance the safety at essentially no cost to the Town. If it doesn’t work, it won’t come back next year so it’s worth a try. If I was 14, this would be something I would be excited about.”
Deputy Mayor, Diane Huber, who also chaired the meeting, said she had also looked at the other existing facilities and noted that they are all in-land except for Port Colborne that is fairly sheltered. “Most had a five-page waiver that was expected to be signed but the company we are dealing with has a one-page waiver. The five-page waiver is extensive and had to be signed by a parent for anyone under the age of 18. Younger children had to be accompanied by a parent and, in some cases, there was the expectation of a swimming test prior to participating. I feel we are being rushed and there are a lot of questions.”
She went on to point out issues such as – what if there is a water advisory? What is used to clean the apparatus? What are we putting in the water? “I have a lot of concerns.”
The Deputy Mayor had also investigated the water temperatures throughout the summer at the Port Elgin Beach and discovered that, in June when the water park would be in operation, the average temperature is 9.91C that could cause hypothermia and not recommended for more than a few minutes. “I’m curious how this company would deal with hypothermia requests.”
Among the concerns raised by the Deputy Mayor were, “Our responsibility is not to provide service on the water and, if something was to happen, where would the support come from? I am concerned about security overnight. I am concerned about the space this would take up, not just the apparatus but a cordoned off area … there would have to be a staging area where the access route comes up to the shore as there is a shift of participants at two-hour intervals, according to the December proposal. There would also have to be signage.”
“It’s an interest idea … maybe we are lacking things in the community for a certain age group but I would personally prefer to try and get some partners for things off the lakeshore so that if the water is too cold, the winds too high or a water alert, there is something else for people to do in our community. So, I am not supportive of this right now,” she added. “I feel this is being rushed. There are lot of questions not yet answered.”
Councillor Stack said, “I think we are being the fun police. There is not a lot of activities for kids to do in the summer. We are two hours from a major city. Kids who don’t drive can’t go to Owen Sound for a movie. There is just not a lot for kids to do. We are sitting here worrying about the water temperature, access to marine rescue … these are risks that exist at the lake today. If we don’t want this because it doesn’t look pretty and that’s the basis we want to make a decision, then just say that.”
The recommendation: That staff continue to collaborate with the proponent and Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to enter into a one-year Agreement with Splash City Fun Park Inc. for the operation of a water park in 2025.
In a four-to-three vote, the motion was defeated.
