19 December 2025

Review uncovers why Bay Pavilions is costing so much

| By Marion Williams
Join the conversation
5
The Bay Pavilions facade

The Bay Pavilions won a national design award. Photo: Eurobodalla Shire Council.

Eurobodalla Shire Council will assume management of the Bay Pavilions’ theatre and meeting rooms in July 2026.

That is one key recommendation of a review that was conducted to identify ways to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and financial performance of Bay Pavilions.

Other recommendations include solar panels to lower electricity costs and a more advantageous contract model.

The Bay Pavilions, which officially opened in June 2022, provides aquatic facilities, gym/fitness facilities, a cafe, gallery space, meeting rooms, a theatre, as well as outdoor recreational spaces and waterslides.

READ ALSO New Bermagui group formed to campaign for Cuttagee Bridge restoration

Aligned Leisure has been contracted to manage all aspects of service delivery.

Council’s papers said the review was undertaken because Bay Pavilions “has a significant financial, service delivery and reputational impact on council and the community”. According to the review the preliminary net loss for the financial year that ended 30 June 2025, including overheads and depreciation, was $5.95 million.

The review by Morrison Low Advisory was published as part of the papers for council’s December meeting. The review cost $58,995 excluding GST. It assessed 11 management models and Bay Pavilions was benchmarked against the service offering of six other councils.

Electricity costs have fallen, but maintenance costs have doubled. Photo: Bay Pavilions.

Council’s papers reported that in the last financial year cleaning costs were $143,369 lower than the previous financial year and electricity costs had fallen $133,486.

However planned and minor maintenance costs more than doubled to $496,504. That was due to the end of the defects liability period and wear and tear from normal operations “reflecting the dynamic nature and complexity of facility operations”.

Electricity is a big cost. In the last financial year electricity cost around $691,000, with the pool accounting for 75.7 per cent of that ($524,000). The report recommended installing additional solar panels on the roof at a quoted cost of $900,000 and solar panels on the carparks at $600,000. The annual return on that $1.5 million investment would be $240,000, according to council’s papers.

As part of the review, Morrison Low Advisory reviewed several business cases, reviews and analysis.

“A brief analysis of these reports suggests the earlier consultant’s advice at the time the business case was prepared may have led to high performance expectations which ultimately failed to be realised,” the report said.

“The projections and analysis with hindsight appear overoptimistic in the earlier analysis. The modelling took into account growth which is yet to be realised, and the projections are based on other facilities and were less reflective of the Batemans Bay community,” the report said.

“This led council to approve a building design and configuration that it expected to perform better than it did in practice. The design itself also imposed cost on council that were greater than anticipated,” the report said.

Morrison Low Advisory also reviewed planning documents, monthly reports, financial reports, met with key council and contractor staff, attended an internal stakeholder workshop and presented initial management options to council.

The report said it was “widely accepted that the oversight during the design and construction of the facility left some costly legacy issues for council to deal with, the facility design makes the facility costly to maintain, and the current contract model places the responsibility on council to meet all costs, including a management fee, and that this model may not be providing best value”.

It said some of the savings to reduce operational costs meant the theatre component was receiving limited marketing. According to the report’s breakdown of performance by cost centre, the theatre posted the biggest loss of $1.55 million.

“Even with the sustainability plan improvements and the cost savings made to date the financial sustainability outlook is of concern,” the report said.

READ ALSO Suspected South Coast poisoning from blue-ringed octopus renews reminders we're not alone under water

It noted several shortcomings with the contractor including its strategic and business plans were based on project information (visitation, membership and theatre performance revenue at the time of construction) and had failed to come to fruition.

The contractor’s primary experience was in wet and dry recreation facilities and had been unable to enliven the arts and theatre space as expected “and may not possess the required skills and experience to increase use”.

“The combining of contracts may have prevented more efficient contract prices from smaller contractors,” it said.

Aligned Leisure’s three-year contract was renewed for an additional year to 30 June 2026. As a result of the review, from 1 July 2026 Aligned Leisure will no longer manage the theatre and meeting rooms and will be responsible for planned and minor maintenance. The contract will be extended to 30 June 2027 to mitigate risk and allow time to implement the review’s findings.

The aquatic facilities, gym and cafe will be tendered out for commencement on 1 July 2027, including responsibility for operational costs and revenues.

Free, trusted local news delivered direct to your inbox.

Keep up-to-date with what's happening around the Capital region by signing up for our free daily newsletter.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

5
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Agree, the community engagement process left a lot to be desired and the architectural design left out some key sustainable elements for the size of the project which the consultants and the council leadership teams missed.
However, the Pavilion is the only intergenerational facility in Batemans Bay. No matter if you are aged 0-100 it provides something for everyone. It offers social connections, cultural experiences, health benefits, supports allied services and, provides a hot shower for $2 for those in need.
Pools costs big money to operate, electricity prices are killing everyone in business and in our homes.
Aligned Leisure are not the problem, all they did was tender for the management of the facility within the scope of the agreement set by Council and the consultants. They have advertised the facility widely, and put BB on the map, from Melbourne to Sydney people are talking about the PAV for all the right reasons. Visiting artists are sharing their experiences with fellow artists and their managers too. We’ve gone well beyond the Canberra bubble in 3 years.
During the past 2 years Council have set out to develop a strategy to improve the financials, and will continue to develop these as highlighted. Only time will tell if keeping the management local will make a huge financial difference. I’m hoping the $58,995(exGST) was worth the spend.
So let’s not rip it down just because it makes us feel better and provides a platform to rant our frustrations because the benefits to people’s health, wellbeing and social inclusion in a regional town far outweigh any financial burden.

Christine Pearce12:33 pm 23 Dec 25

I have to agree with cannedbeeria comments. Ratepayers were pretty clear originally we only wanted a basic heated pool and if we could have kept the outdoor one, all the better. We want to live within our means without rate increases. Which means not just building things but looking at the ongoing maintenance costs to sustain them. I never understood the arts/theatre aspect as locals did not want this. Also our Canberra visitors do not come here for the Pavilion arts/theatre because they have that in Canberra already!
In fact it is a bit strange to say but the old pink mini golf course (which was demolished to build the Pavilion) was a great attraction for families holidaying here and locals unlike the Pavilion appears to be.
I am unsure how we ‘undo’ this huge loss situation. Can parts of the building be permanently closed down or repurposed for something that locals can use? Perhaps the indoor area could be repurposed for mini golf or ??

cannedbeeria3:45 pm 19 Dec 25

Can I hear the united Eurobodalla Ratepayers saying “We told you so!”?
Anyway, after the Pav was built the projected annual COST to us ratepayers was $5million….. Not bad eh. Now we are faced with a 4.1% rate increase, presumably to pay for that which we didn’t want in the first place.
Ratepayers said the pool, being only 25 Metres and not 50 as was the old one, and not being olympic standard meant no one would come to train there. Anyone with olympic aspirations couldn’t use it. School swimming carnivals wouldn’t use it, and would have to use Ulladulla or Narooma. And how would the arts space patrons, sipping their champers and eating canapes, mix with swimmers in their togs, thongs and a towel over their shoulder. Not really a class act eh.. Not to mention the constant chlorine smell.
So you need to have more art-type events, theatre, exhibitions etc. Where’s the market?
It was a hastily cobbled together white elephant just to make use of some of the grants floating round at the time. Even then, it was projected to run at a loss.
The only advantage of the Pav was that it helped us get rid of the complacent self-interested mob that inhabited Council Chambers.

Jeff de Jager3:14 pm 23 Dec 25

It’s no use saying we told you so now but it would have been nice to have had some of the current critics’ support when it was need back in the early stages. It is way too late now to avoid the inevitable rate increase that can’t be avoided without slashing lots of services.

cannedbeeria8:57 pm 28 Dec 25

Hi Jeff.
Regarding critics’ support: do you remember The Beagle? If you want to see critic’s support, read the back issues (IF they are available). There were MANY critics of the Pav. Many submissions. Unfortunately it all fell on deaf ears. Council meetings were held without public access. Decisions were censored as being commercial in confidence.
You know the rest of the story.

Daily Digest

Do you like to know what’s happening around your region? Every day the About Regional team packages up our most popular stories and sends them straight to your inbox for free. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.