The council’s preferred design for Gosford’s splash park and playground would add about $345,000 a year in running costs, its report estimates. The long-term financial plan does not allow for it

In August, Council’s Infrastructure and Assets Committee backed, in principle, the full design for rebuilding the Tidal Terrace at Leagues Club Park, and asked what it would cost to maintain. The answer is in the agenda for its 13 October meeting: a recurrent operating impact of $345,144.61 a year under the preferred Scenario D, plus $157,036.85 a year of depreciation. Council spends about $59,507 a year on the park now. The report says the long-term financial plan does not allow for the ongoing impact and will need to be updated in the next review.

8 October 2026 · 3 primary sources, linked below

Ledger-style graphic for a council story: the chamber device, with a few seats lit in tide — Story graphic: The Coast Record’s council device. Every figure below is linked to the council document it comes from.

$345,145estimated recurrent operating impact a year, Scenario D, depreciation excluded

$157,037depreciation a year under Scenario D, a non-cash cost the report lists separately

$397,765book value of the existing Baker Street toilets, written off if they are demolished

Why the park is being rebuilt

The Tidal Terrace is the water-play feature in Leagues Club Park, one of Gosford’s major civic open spaces. The Hunter and Central Coast Development Corporation designed and built it for the NSW Government, intending a sand and water play space that would be periodically flooded from Brisbane Water to simulate the tide. The council’s August report is blunt about how that went.

In practice, ongoing water quality and operational issues have prevented the Tidal Terrace from functioning as intended, resulting in an underutilised space within the park.
Central Coast Council, Infrastructure and Assets Committee agenda, 11 August 2026, item 2.4, page 87

That report set out five scenarios, from a splash park alone to the full concept built in stages, and staff preferred Scenario D: the full concept in one stage, with a working project budget of about $6 million once CPI escalation, contingency and project management are added to construction. On 11 August the committee supported Scenario D in principle at that cost, on the basis of receiving further grant funding, and asked for a further report on the differences between scenarios C and D designs and specifics, including funding options and maintenance costs. On 25 August the full Council adopted the funding parts of that resolution, 13 votes to 2.

What the extra $772,721 buys

The new report, item 2.3 on the 13 October agenda, puts Scenario C at $3,950,443 and Scenario D at $4,723,164, a difference of $772,721, about 19.6 per cent. These are construction allowances at concept stage, not the $6 million working budget. Five elements differ, and the report says all other scope is identical. Inside the Terrace Play line, the $500,000 provisional allowance for play equipment is the same in both.

Scenario C: basic delivery

Earthworks, 7,080 m²$146,639
Adult Changing Facility: slab, columns and roof only$74,351
Splash park: $700k water play, 67 m² shade, $15k lighting$1,247,519
External circulation and landscaping$502,209
Terrace Play$991,764
Total capital cost$3,950,443

Scenario D: full concept, preferred

Earthworks, 7,670 m², including the carpark edge$183,763
Complete Adult Changing Facility and services$180,696
Splash park: $1.0m water play, 120 m² shade, $100k lighting, additional stormwater works$1,795,090
External circulation and landscaping: 4 accessible parking bays, a drop-off bay, 240 m² more turf, 75 m of garden edging$536,073
Terrace Play, with shade sails added$1,039,581
Total capital cost$4,723,164

Optional extras for D only, not in the total: one White-bellied Sea Eagle bouldering feature at $196,000, or two at $350,000, excluding GST.

The five elements that differ between the scenarios, from Table 1 of item 2.3, 13 October 2026 agenda, page 30. Our lines name the change the table describes; the totals are the report’s. The five lines in each card do not add to its total: on our arithmetic the scope common to both, which the report says is identical, comes to $987,961.

Read down the right-hand card and most of the difference is water. The splash park line alone accounts for $547,571 of the $772,721. The adult changing facility is the other line that changes what the place is for: under C it is a slab, columns and a roof, and under D it is a working facility.

What it costs to run

This is the part the committee asked for. The report lists what the new precinct needs every year: a dedicated maintenance and operations worker, a share of a Gosford Pool lifeguard’s time for water testing, testing materials, and larger operating budgets for the playground and splash park, set at 5 and 7 per cent of their capital value. Under Scenario D the total is $345,144.61; under C, $302,423.79. The splash park runs from November to April in the report’s costing.

Dedicated maintenance and operations worker (1 FTE)$135,691.67
Splash park operating budget (7% of capital)$125,656.30
Playspace operating budget (5% of capital)$51,979.05
Toilet and amenity costs above today’s budget$17,650.00
Shared lifeguard time for water testing$11,249.59
Testing materials and consumables, year one$2,918.00
Total a year, Scenario D$345,144.61

Source: Table 2, Annual operational cost impact, item 2.3, 13 October 2026 agenda, page 32. The report calls these estimates and excludes depreciation. The six lines add to the printed total.

For scale, the report says Council currently spends about $59,507 a year maintaining the park and playspace, from two shared budgets: part of a playspace and adult fitness budget spread across 262 sites, and part of a Gosford high-profile park maintenance schedule, one full-time worker covering 22 sites. It adds that the development corporation’s original maintenance report said the park needed 1.5 full-time staff, that Council’s staffing plan did not adopt this, and that as a result the park currently gets basic maintenance only, with no embellishment.

A year of upkeep: the park today, and what each scenario would add

Dollars a year, Central Coast Council estimates

Spent on the park and playspace now$59,507

Added by Scenario C$302,424

Added by Scenario D (preferred)$345,145

Sources: item 2.3, 13 October 2026 agenda, pages 31 and 32. The first bar is current spending on park and playspace maintenance; the other two are the report’s recurrent operating impact of each scenario, depreciation excluded. Bars are to scale.

Set side by side, Scenario D’s added running cost is about 5.8 times what Council spends on the park now, on our arithmetic. The step from C to D is small by comparison: $42,720.82 a year, the figure the report itself gives.

The costs that sit outside those totals

Two more numbers do not appear in either the capital or the operating figures. The first is depreciation: the playground and splash park over 20 years and the buildings over 50, which the report puts at $157,036.85 a year for D and $125,140.55 for C. It is a non-cash cost that spreads the price of the new assets over their useful lives.

The second is the existing toilet block on Baker Street. Both scenarios need it demolished, although the report says it is still in service and has useful life remaining. Its combined net book value, from Council’s July 2026 asset register, is $397,764.53, and demolition is estimated at about $30,000, which the report expects to absorb within the project budget.

This is a non-cash write-off, in addition to the capital, operational and depreciation costs in this report.
Central Coast Council, Infrastructure and Assets Committee agenda, 13 October 2026, item 2.3, page 32

Where the money was meant to come from

The August report set out the funding. An Australian Government Investing in Our Communities grant of $1,650,000 is secured, and about $450,000 of it has gone on studies, approvals and design, leaving $1.2 million as at August. The report described the NSW Better Open Spaces Program as offering grants of $150,000 to $2 million on a matched basis, and listed that application as not yet submitted. Section 7.12 developer contributions would cover the rest: $2.8 million or $4.8 million depending on the grant outcome, by the report’s own table. Council has supported that use of contributions in principle, authorised the chief executive to apply for the $2 million, and asked for more time to spend the federal grant.

11 August 2026 Committee supports Scenario D in principle at a $6 million project cost and asks for the C and D comparison.
25 August 2026 Council adopts the funding recommendations, 13 to 2.
31 August 2026 Better Open Spaces Program round 1 nominations close, per the August report.
13 October 2026 Committee meeting with the scenario report on its agenda, for information.
March 2027 Required completion date of the current federal grant, per the August report.
Mid-2027 and mid-2029 Better Open Spaces projects must begin and finish, per the August report.

Sources: 11 August 2026 agenda, item 2.4, pages 91, 92 and 94; 11 August minutes, IAC-26/45; 25 August 2026 minutes, C-26/1115; 13 October 2026 agenda, item 2.3.

The October report does not return to any of this. It covers scope, capital, operating and depreciation costs; it does not say whether the state grant application was lodged, whether the federal extension was granted, or what the funding mix now is. Its funding section says only that the adopted budget does not include the impact, that the amount will need to go into a future quarterly budget review, and that the long-term financial plan will need updating.

Our view

The committee was right to ask for the running costs before the money is locked in, and the officers have answered that part line by line. The number that matters most is not the $772,721 between the scenarios. It is the $300,000 or more that arrives every year whichever version is built: $345,144.61 for D. Over the 20-year life the report gives the playground and splash park, D’s figure comes to about $6.9 million at today’s prices, more than the $6 million working budget for building it.

That is not an argument against the park. One of Gosford’s major civic parks has a water feature that has not worked as intended, and a splash park that works would be a real gain. It is an argument for settling the operating money as firmly as the construction money. The new feature depends on water quality testing 2 to 3 times each day, trained operators, regular cleaning of pads and drains, and periodic super-chlorination, and the August report says the feature it replaces was kept from working as intended by water quality and operational issues linked to its original design. The October report also records that Council never adopted the staffing level the builders’ maintenance report called for. A long-term plan that does not yet allow for the upkeep is the line we would want fixed first.

What happens next

The committee meets at 5pm on Tuesday 13 October in Function Room 2 of the council building at 2 Hely Street, Wyong. The meeting is livestreamed and the public can attend as observers. The officers’ recommendation is only that the committee note the report. The capital and operating amounts would then need to go into a quarterly budget review and the long-term financial plan. We will read the committee’s minutes when they are published and report what it resolved.

Sources

Infrastructure and Assets Committee agenda, 13 October 2026 Central Coast Council business papers, agenda published 8 October 2026, pdf downloaded and read 8 October 2026. Item 2.3, Central Coast Leagues Club Park Tidal Terrace Scenario Differentiation, for Information (agenda pages 28 to 34): the recommendation, Table 1 scope and capital comparison, the optional eagle features, current park spending and the 1.5 FTE history, Table 2 annual operating costs, Tables 3 and 4 write-off and depreciation, the testing requirements and the budget and LTFP statement. Pages 1 and 5 to 10: meeting time and place, and the confirmed minutes of the 11 August 2026 meeting, including resolution IAC-26/45.
Infrastructure and Assets Committee agenda, 11 August 2026 Central Coast Council business papers, pdf downloaded and read 8 October 2026. Item 2.4, Central Coast Leagues Club Park Tidal Terrace Funding Options, for Decision (agenda pages 86 to 94): the history of the Tidal Terrace, the five scenarios and their construction and total budgets, the $6 million working budget, the funding sources and options table, the Better Open Spaces Program description and the critical dates.
Ordinary Council Meeting minutes, 25 August 2026 Central Coast Council business papers, minutes of the meeting of 25 August, adjourned to 31 August 2026, pdf downloaded and read 8 October 2026. Item 6.3, resolution C-26/1115 (minutes page 26): adoption of IAC-26/45 parts a to c, 13 for, 2 against.

Methodology. Every figure is from the three council documents above. All capital figures are, in the report’s words, concept-stage quantity surveyor allowances to be confirmed at detailed design and tender; the operating figures are estimates. Our arithmetic: $4,723,164 less $3,950,443 is $772,721, 19.6 per cent of C, as the report also says. Table 1’s five lines add to $2,962,482 for C and $3,735,203 for D; each total less its lines leaves $987,961, the common scope. The six Table 2 lines add to $345,144.61 and $302,423.79 as printed. $345,144.61 divided by $59,507 is 5.8. Twenty years of $345,144.61 is $6,902,892, with no indexation or discounting; the 20-year life is the report’s figure for the playground and splash park, while the buildings are given 50 years. The bars are scaled to $345,145. The October Scenario D total including two eagle features, $5,073,164, matches the $5.07 million construction figure in the August report; the October Scenario C figure, $3,950,443, is about $80,000 below the August report’s $4.03 million, and the October report does not explain the difference. The $1.2 million, $2 million, $2.8 million and $4.8 million in the funding paragraph are the August report’s own figures and assume the $6 million budget. The Better Open Spaces Program is described here as the council’s report describes it; we have not read the NSW program guidelines. Item 2.3 is an information report; nothing here says what the committee will resolve on 13 October. We have not sought comment from Council.

Spotted an error in this story? Ask for a correction and we will log what changed on this page.