Dunedin Mayor Sophie Barker. PHOTO: ODT FILES Dunedin Mayor Sophie Barker has been accused of straining vital relationships with the Otago Regional Council after criticising its decision-making. Some councillors believed Ms Barker had undermined a valued partner, while others shared her frustrations, saying she was right to question the impact of additional costs and workload on the Dunedin City Council. City councillor Andrew Simms said rather than “clobbering” regional councillors, they should be congratulated for “insisting” on changes to public consultation on long-term flood-risk mitigations for the area. The discussion follows comments Ms Barker made to the Otago Daily Times on Monday, describing herself as “very unhappy” with a regional council decision last week which affected the city council’s consultation approach. The decision imposed extra work and costs — likely “hundreds of thousands of dollars” — on the city council and forced councils to retread previous consultation topics. It appeared regional councillors had not questioned their decision’s impact, she said. Yesterday, Cr Simms said the mayor’s comments were “deeply disrespectful” to the regional council. The regional council last week voted 9-2 to have an engineered flood protection system designed and sent for public consultation. That was alongside the status quo and three shortlisted options developed through the councils’ joint South Dunedin Future programme. The following day, city councillors voted 13-2 to approve a motion “reluctantly” introduced by Ms Barker, incorporating a “pipes and pumps” adaptation option to consultation and noting an associated four-month delay. Andrew Simms. PHOTO: SUPPLIED Cr Simms said the “slight time delay and any cost” should be considered alongside that of the shortlisted options — priced from $1.63 billion to $2.45b over 100 years. The options proposed the purchase and demolition of from 1100 to 1700 houses, likely in the next 25 years, making way for public works such as canals, pump stations and green spaces. Cr Russell Lund said Ms Barker’s comments were “very concerning” and strained relations with the regional council, which had the right to call for more options for the joint programme. Cr Jo Galer said Ms Barker’s comments “differed greatly” from councillors and community members “delighted at ORC’s courage’’. However, regional councillor Alan Somerville said he shared Ms Barker’s frustrations. “Significant engineering work” was already incorporated into each of the three options presented and was considered throughout the programme’s development process, he said. City councillors Doug Hall and Steve Walker made similar points. “I remain perplexed that we’re now spending more time and ratepayer money to ask for something that was already incorporated,” Cr Walker said Cr Hall added that if one council changed the scope, timing or cost of the project, it was fair to ask who paid. Regional councillor Andrew Noone, who tabled the engineered system option, said the decision’s financial impact had not been discussed as “the driver at this point is to ensure the South Dunedin community were given all options”. City councillor Mickey Treadwell said it appeared the decision was made with “little understanding of the costs or impact” on the city council’s work programme. “It is unclear what the ORC intended to achieve with this motion, but I’m sure they would recognise how irresponsible it would be to present a short-term solution given the data they have on groundwater, stormwater and rising sea levels in the area.” Cr Gretchen Robertson, who voted against the motion, said she had believed the community was ready to help refine the proposed futures, and both councils were ready to listen, adapt and respond.” Given both councils voted to develop another option, “the least” councillors could do was work together and build on the work to date, she said. Several councillors expressed support for a review of the programme’s governance arrangements, some favouring a joint committee.
