I object to the Economic Impact Analysis which shows no impact to small business or use of private property.

While I acknowledge the need to consider revisions to the fee schedule I believe further consideration must be given to small businesses than has been reported. Specifically according to the report the proposed regulations “do not impose any direct costs on these small businesses,” and “The proposed changes are not expected to have a significant direct effect on the use and value of private property.”

No analysis is offered the consequence of fees or refunds to small business.and the value of private property.
Specifically consider: 12VAC5-620-90. Refunds of application fee.

An applicant for a construction permit or certification letter whose application is denied may apply for a refund of the application fee.

In my opinion the refund policy clearly impacts small business:

1. A design firm cannot compete with free services, and is restrained from trade by any offer of free or subsidized services.
2. Following evaluation and denial of a site application by VDH staff a design firm has a higher burden of proof which must be paid for by our client. A consequence to the consumer is the additional expense of site evaluation and design for an advanced or engineered design.
3. A denial casts an encumbrance on that parcel despite being an incomplete evaluation. (VDH policy allows for evaluation of 2 sites for conventional design) These limitations are not disclosed in writing to the applicant.
4. The VDH local offices do not disclose to applicants that public servants are limited in consideration of the owner's interests and may not design advanced systems which a consulting firm is authorized to provide.

Consider further: 2VAC5-620-70. Application Establishing fees. 

"fees to be charged by the department for services related to construction, maintenance, and repair or replacement of onsite sewage disposal systems,"

Smal business owners are in direct competition with the services offered for a subsized fee by VDH offices.

Dr. Larry Getzler (DPB) provided fee analysis during SHIFT indicating that application fees support ~20-23% of the cost of delivering services by VDH onsite program. VDH's Environmental Health Director acknowledged that the agency does not know the cost of providing this service. In documents released since 2010 there is no indication of any time or cost studies by the agency.

The cost to the VDH for delivering services has a fiscal impact which should be considered by the fee regulations. During FY2012, refunds of fees for denied or withdrawn applications exceeded $232,300. FY 2012 data showed 10,736 permit applications, including well, septic, OSE and “bare applications” Total permit revenue is reported as  $4,219,253.

In light of the incomplete analysis in support of this fee regulation,  I believe the report should be revised to reflect current costs of VDH providing direct services, and changing economic and policy considerations including the concern over public services in competition with licensed professionals and engineering design firms.

I also suggest that the comments offered in a previous TownHall Comment forum which closed in May of 2011 have not been addressed in a public response by the responsible agencies which should include VDH, DPOR and Department of Planning & Budget.
 

In light of these shortcomings, and the history of these problems which were considered by JLARC 2002, and other studies I ask that consideration of the impact of fees and policies on professionals licensed to serve the public be incorporated into any regulatory changes.

Jeff T. Walker; LPSS & AOSE