No government funding has been identified for Warnervale airport’s runway upgrade. Officers now recommend a staged hybrid plan

The airport plan Council adopted in February 2025 rested on the NSW Government paying 80 per cent of a runway upgrade. A report to the Economic Development Committee of 6 October 2026 says No appropriate government funding program has been identified to date, and recommends a smaller, staged model instead: keep majority ownership, consider selling part of one development parcel, lease the rest as demand appears, and decide whether to bring in an outside operator.

6 October 2026 · 2 primary sources, linked below

Ledger-style graphic for a transport story: a route line with nodes, one segment lit in tide — Story graphic: The Coast Record’s transport device. Every figure below is linked to the council document it comes from.

$60 to $40the land rent per square metre the model now assumes, down from the 2025 business case

30%of Area 2 the consultants model selling in 2027, for $3,822,000

$100,000a year: the payment the model assumes from an outside operator, before any expression of interest

What changed since 2025

In February 2025 Council adopted the Central Coast Airport Master Plan. The draft business case behind it, by ACIL Allen, preferred a scenario in which the runway and taxiway were upgraded to Code 1B for about $8.9 million, with an assumed NSW Government contribution of about $7.1 million (80 per cent) and Council paying about $1.8 million, while Council serviced and leased four development areas around the airfield and the Rural Fire Service moved there from Charmhaven. The committee report sets out those figures itself.

Two of those foundations have moved. The government money has not appeared: the report lists seeking co-funding as an ongoing action and says no appropriate program has been identified. And the land is now valued lower. ACIL Allen’s updated analysis, dated September 2026 and attached to the report, attributes most of the fall in the old scenarios’ value to land rents revised down from $60 to $40 a square metre. On its figures, the 2025 preferred scenario’s 20-year net present value at a 5 per cent discount rate falls from $24.9 million in the 2025 report to $16.3 million now.

What the report recommends

Officers recommend what they call a staged hybrid-delivery model. In the recommendation’s own terms it retains majority Council ownership of the airport and the land to the south for emergency services, aviation education and aviation support industries; considers the sale of part of Area 2 to contribute to enabling infrastructure costs; requests no additional capital funding for this stage; and requires further Council approval before any land disposal, external operating arrangement or additional capital commitment proceeds.

On the runway, ACIL Allen’s own report points both ways: its scenario table schedules a runway upgrade for 2032 in both hybrid scenarios, and its hybrid cash flow carries $1,501,958 of runway upgrade costs in each of two years. Yet in ACIL Allen’s description of the two hybrid scenarios, the runway remains as is, with the taxiway and apron upgraded and emergency lighting installed. The amended list of next actions, numbered 15 to 22, includes taxiway upgrades and temporary solar-powered runway and taxiway lighting, and no runway widening. Separately, lighting upgrades are to proceed from the capital budget Council already approved for 2026-27.

One part is left open for councillors rather than recommended. The committee is asked for direction on whether to pursue an Expression of Interest process for an external operator for Airport operations only. The report also asks that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate a long-term access agreement with the Central Coast Aero Club.

The numbers behind the choice

ACIL Allen modelled five scenarios. Two of them are the hybrid: 4(a), in which Council keeps running the airport, and 4(b), in which operation of the runway and taxiway is leased to an outside operator. Both assume selling 30 per cent of Area 2 in 2027 at $350 a square metre, which the model books as $3,822,000, then leasing the rest of Area 2 and Areas 1 and 5 at $40 a square metre.

Net present value relative to doing nothing, 5% real discount rate
Scenario	5 years	10 years	20 years
2. Council funds runway and land	−$16.6m	−$10.0m	$8.9m
3. As 2, State pays 80% of runway	−$9.2m	−$2.6m	$16.3m
4(a). Hybrid, Council operates	$2.4m	$5.3m	$18.9m
4(b). Hybrid, outside operator	$3.7m	$7.6m	$22.6m

Source: ACIL Allen, Central Coast Airport updated economic and financial analysis, Table 4.1, in the committee agenda. Rounded to $0.1 million.

On these figures the hybrid wins at every horizon, and wins early because it sells land in the first year and defers most servicing. ACIL Allen puts the largest financing need before cash turns positive at $1.5 million for 4(a) and $1 million for 4(b), both in 2028.

Two things worth reading closely

The best option now is worth less than the best option was. The 2025 preferred scenario was put at $24.9 million over 20 years. The strongest 2026 option, 4(b), is $22.6 million. The hybrid is the best of a set of options that now all assume the lower rent, so the choice in front of councillors is about limiting exposure on a smaller prize, not swapping one big return for another.

The outside-operator case rests on assumptions, not a bid. The model assumes an operator pays Council $100,000 a year, growing 4 per cent a year, and that Council’s own operating costs fall by 90 per cent once one is engaged. Those two assumptions, less the aviation revenue Council would hand over, make up the difference between 4(a) and 4(b), which is $3.7 million over 20 years on our subtraction of ACIL Allen’s figures. The consultants tested a 30 per cent cut in the operator’s payment and 4(b) stayed ahead. The report describes no approach to the market so far; finding out whether anyone will take the airport on those terms is what the expression of interest the committee is asked about would do. The report itself says Its success will depend on a robust EOI, realistic lease assumptions, clear allocation of responsibilities and disciplined project hold points.

It is also frank about who could be affected. If 4(b) is selected, appointing an operator may impact Council staff who currently support or undertake Airport operations, which the report says would need consultation, workforce planning and redeployment processes.

What the airport costs to run today

In the updated model’s do-nothing case, Council’s operating costs are $270,577 a year against aviation revenue of $67,109, a shortfall of $203,468 in the model’s first year, 2027. The 2025 business case, as the report summarises it, put the 2024-25 loss at about $158,000. The report’s case for an operator is that its payments would offset that loss from the start of the arrangement.

Promises from 2025 still open

Council resolved in February 2025 to obtain agreements with the Rural Fire Service on relocating to the airport, and with the University of Newcastle or TAFE on aviation degree programs, by its June 2025 meeting. The report marks that resolution in progress: Council continues to engage with the Rural Fire Service, is awaiting a response from TAFE NSW, and The University of Newcastle is not presently pursuing an aviation pathway or Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). In the hybrid scenarios Area 4 is retained for a future Rural Fire Service relocation, but no relocation is modelled, and nor is the $11.86 million sale of the Charmhaven site that scenarios 2 and 3 book in 2036.

Council’s funding wishlist still carries the airport. Its Key Enabling Projects 2026 page, last updated 2 July 2026 and read again on 6 October, asks for $10 million for Infrastructure upgrades (lighting, sewer and electrical) to enable expansion of Jack Grant Avenue. That ask sits alongside the rest of the list we set out in July; the committee report says no appropriate government funding program had been identified to date.

What happens next

The report asks the committee to endorse the hybrid model and the amended Gateway 2 actions, and its stated purpose includes recommending that they be referred to Council for final consideration and determination. Any land sale, operator contract or spending beyond the 2026-27 lighting budget would come back as a further report. A planning proposal for the airport land is to go on public exhibition, which the report notes will give the community a chance to make submissions. The committee’s minutes will record what it resolved; we will read them when they are published and report what they show.

Sources

Economic Development Committee agenda, 6 October 2026 Central Coast Council business papers, 195 pages, pdf downloaded and read 6 October 2026. Item 2.3, Central Coast Airport Master Plan Update (agenda pages 22 to 43): the eleven-part recommendation, the February 2025 resolutions 553/25 to 561/25 and their status, implementation actions 1 to 14 and amended actions 15 to 22, the February 2025 scenario figures, the hybrid model, the financial and staffing notes. Attachment 2, ACIL Allen, Central Coast Airport updated economic and financial analysis (agenda pages 45 to 86): scenario descriptions, global assumptions (Table 1.2), net present values (Tables 4.1 to 4.8), the comparison with the 2025 report, financing need (Table 4.9) and detailed cash flows (Tables B.1 to B.5).
Key enabling projects 2026 Central Coast Council, page last updated 2 July 2026, read 6 October 2026: the $10 million Central Coast Airport infrastructure ask.

Methodology. Every figure is from the two council documents above; the scenario figures, assumptions and net present values are ACIL Allen’s as published in the council’s agenda, and are modelling, not results. Our own arithmetic: the $3.7 million gap between scenarios 4(a) and 4(b) is $22,604,257 less $18,875,151; the $203,468 shortfall is $270,577 less $67,109, as in ACIL Allen’s Table B.1; the table above rounds Table 4.1. ACIL Allen’s cash-flow tables for 4(a) and 4(b) carry a line labelled runway upgrade costs of $1,501,958 in each of 2032 and 2033, while its scenario description says the runway remains as is and the taxiway and apron are upgraded; we report the description and the action list, and the $9.47 million runway line in scenarios 2 and 3 is not in either hybrid. The 2025 loss of about $158,000 and the 2026 shortfall of $203,468 come from different documents and years, so we do not present them as a trend. The report was written for the committee meeting of 6 October 2026; it is a recommendation, and nothing here says what the committee or Council decided. We have not sought comment from Council or ACIL Allen.

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