Some submitters were quick to comment on social media, with Nancy Caiger angered and confused by the move.
"Central city park has been added as item 10 on the list of projects. But this is no different to item 1 - Central City Park-River Plan," Ms Caiger wrote.
"No project should receive more weighting than another."
"By adding River Plan to Central City Park might have also confused some submitters into thinking of the previous River Plan."
The city council released a statement on Friday saying that the change was due to a "typographical error".
"The 10-Year Plan consultation document referred to a project as Central City Park – River Plan, a title approved by the council prior to consultation. However, a typographical error on the submission forms saw the project referred to only as Central City Park," the statement said.
"The project title was corrected online on 20 April.
"During the review and analysis of submissions following the close of consultation on April 30, it was identified the correction had meant online submissions made before 20 April do not publicly show responses to that project in the tickbox. The data has still been collected," the council statement said.
"To clearly show the responses before and after the correction, the Council is now including both versions of the project wording on all online submissions. This work will require the submissions site to be offline from time to time in coming days."
Kelli Pike was another submitter who was annoyed at the move.
"The Hamilton City Council must want the Victoria on the River extension real bad if they're going to change a form after it's been completed," Ms Pike said
"Yes, project 10 has been added this week, so now apparently I support the VOTR extension."
Ms Pike had only supported the Waiwhakareke Park Development by leaving the project unticked, however the central city park now appears also unticked.
The public consultation document has been the subject of major confusion, with council voting on Thursday to inform submitters who had provided an email address of the possible miss-interpretation.
The Council's General Manager Strategy and Communications, Sean Hickey says Councillors were notified yesterday morning and updated on how the issue was to be addressed.
"Our priority is that public views are presented transparently," Mr Hickey says.
"There's been some discussion about the wording in the consultation document and whether some people may have misread a question but our city solicitor has confirmed, the process itself is robust," council CEO Richard Briggs said.
"Further, the council has resolved to contact all submitters who have supplied an email address to confirm they understood this question and offer them the opportunity to amend it if needed."
