Despite repeated protests, a plan to implement development cost charges for water growth in Greater Victoria is moving ahead.

A handful of taxpayer groups and businesses are sounding the alarm on the proposed development cost charge program to help fund eligible growth-related water projects in the Capital Regional District.

Oak Bay resident Bev Highton, on behalf of the Grumpy Taxpayer$ of Greater Victoria, reiterated three core issues outlined by Urban Development Institute - Capital Region.

He referenced the lobby organizationB次元官网网址檚 earlier letter to the CRD, asking members during the Nov. 20 meeting of the Regional Water Supply Commission to be B次元官网网址渢ransparent and forthright providing independent peer-reviewed answersB次元官网网址� to the questions raised in the letter.

B次元官网网址淭he majority of citizens have little if any knowledge of reasons why this project is required,B次元官网网址� Highton said, adding the average taxpayer wonB次元官网网址檛 have a concept of the magnitude or how it will impact individual water bills.

Ben Mycroft of Urban Development Institute - Capital Region spoke to those same issues regarding the impact of the proposed DCCs.

While not peer-reviewed answers, the CRD did respond to the concerns outlined.

Key among them is a request that the CRD commit to undertaking and publicly sharing an economic feasibility analysis to determine what the effects of these new DCCs will have on the future housing supply, before bringing it before the board for bylaw consideration.

Economic feasibility analyses are not required by the province for DCC programs but are a recommendation for amenity cost charge programs. As an economic feasibility study is not required most DCC programs do not include one, the response reads. Victoria, however, has completed an economic feasibility study showing a one per cent impact on projects until 2030.

Staff writing the response also noted theyB次元官网网址檝e not been tasked by the commission or CRD board to complete one.

While the Urban Development Institute - Capital Region organization sought to speak 20 minutes rather than the three minutes allotted the average delegation, that required support not met around the commission table. Commissioners also voted down a proposal to allow six minutes. Neither vote was unanimous.

After lengthy discussion, the Regional Water Supply Commission tasked staff with the development of a waiver or reduction program bylaw or grant-in-aid policy for the DCC program.

The issue has yet to come to the CRD board which next meets Dec 11. Find the full report online at .