Ms McIntosh could not see any point waiting for the start of the 10-year plan, saying the information currently held by the organisation should be reviewed to see what extra information was needed to make a decision next year.
Councillor Terry Molloy withdrew from this week's debate on the issue after staff advised him that he had a conflict of interest because his wife had asked the council to dust off its plans for the walkway.
Robyn Molloy said in her submission to the 2017-18 Annual Plan that the project had gone on for too long. The long history of the walkway project meant that most of the consultancy work had been done. There would be minimal impact on bird and aquatic life, and the walkway would lead to the reinstatement of beaches lost through erosion.
"Don't let a few residents of Fifth Ave stop the walkway," she said.
This week's meeting was told that $30,000 was the upper limit needed for the investigation. It would mainly involve staff time needed to trawl through previous designs and reports.
Councillor Catherine Stewart, who joined Mayor Greg Brownless to oppose spending the $30,000, warned there would be huge costs to protect the riparian rights of some residents whose properties adjoined the harbour.
She was also concerned about the cost of the investigation when most of the information was sitting in council cupboards.
Mrs Molloy said she was heartened by the council's decision. "I think it is great. Not a lot of money needs to be spent."
Tauranga could look at what other New Zealand councils had done to mitigate the effects of walkways along beaches, she said.
Mrs Molloy said she appreciated the concerns of residents living beside the planned route of the walkway but people no longer had the right to exclusive usage of waterways.
Members of the Tauranga Harbour Protection Society have historically opposed the walkway, arguing it would become a corridor used by criminals and troublemakers to gain access to properties.
Two years ago the society began using ecological arguments to sway public opinion, saying it wanted to restore the beach so it became easier for people to negotiate, to build new accesses to the foreshore and upgrade existing accesses that had fallen into disrepair.
Society spokesman Brian Scantlebury declined to comment because the society had not met to discuss the council decision.