Yesterday, the same seven councillors who voted for an October 31 notification date for the council’s contentious land and water plan voted in favour of the report, saying it set out the "costs, benefits and implications" of the council’s timeframe for Ms Simmonds.
On the other side, the same five councillors who voted against notification in October, voted against the report, saying it failed to provide an accounting of the costs.
Ms Simmonds called for the report after telling the council she did not want to see it wasting ratepayer money on its land and water plan when there were significant changes on the horizon for the overarching national policy statement for freshwater management.
Cr Andrew Noone, who voted against the report, called it "a futile exercise" when there was a range of other issues staff should focus on instead.
"I think it’s an absolute waste of time."
Yesterday’s debate was a repeat of one councillors had already had "two or three times" and it was creating division between them.
"The sooner we start recognising there is a better way forward than creating that divide, the better."
Cr Kate Wilson said the report was not what she expected as it was missing any real mention of money.
The report instead focused on explaining the region to the minister, outlining its economy and geography, and even then Cr Wilson said it was not forward looking, but based in the past.
The report pushed a narrative that Otago had a problem.
"Peak dairy and peak cattle are well and truly passed, that’s not the problem."
The region instead faced pressure from forestry, urban sprawl and growth.
"And we’ve actually got a real problem with rural communities and their ability to be around."
Cr Kevin Malcolm said the report was filled with "emotive words".
"My ratepayers pay money, they will want to know what it costs. The minister wants to know what it costs.
"All that we are doing and all that the seven who voted to notify on October 31, all those councillors have done, is to ensure that my ratepayers will incur greater costs and greater anxiety.
"I cannot believe that when the minister asks for costs we give the minister no costs."
Cr Gary Kelliher, who has been a vocal opponent of the council’s present direction, called the report "nonsense".
"I urge the minister to see this paper for what it is — it’s a sham deal to fill Otago with red tape for everything and an attempt to justify ORC’s ballooning 350 staff.
"It does everything the new government promised it would change."
Cr Michael Laws said the report was not "mature, nor is it rational relationship building" with the government.
Instead, approving the report amounted to "raising a certain digit at a certain group of ministers".
Cr Alan Somerville said he supported the report.
Cr Elliot Weir said the report showed the council knew the needs of its community.
"We’ve given all the information the minister has asked for — more.
"Staff have put a lot of effort into getting this report written up in the given timeframe."
Cr Alexa Forbes said the report clearly set out why the council wanted to notify its plan as soon as possible.
It showed the plan had been five years in the making and had cost $18 million to date, Cr Tim Mepham said.
Cr Lloyd McCall said the costs outlined were "not just financial costs".
Cr Gretchen Robertson said there were groups in the community doing good work for the environment who wanted "a backstop of rules for dealing with the minority that are an issue, and will be in any community".
