The small business review required by the law ought to accurately determine the public cost of a VDH "bare application" site evaluation, and contrast this with the cost of reviewing an application prepared by an AOSE or PE.  I believe the costs of providing a Construction and Operations Permit should be significantly altered to reflect the true cost of review and record keeping, as opposed to the cost of delivering full services for an applicant. Regions are underserved by AOSE's and PE's, based on the findings of several studies small business must compete with an unrealistically low cost of service delivered by the VDH. The burden of competing with a public service reduces the availability of private consultants which may seek to deliver these services.

Does the Commonwealth of Virginia intend to continue subsidizing permit fees? From the Request for Comment: Pursuant to § 2.2-4007.1 E and F each existing regulation shall be reviewed at least once every five years to ensure that it minimizes the economic impact on small businesses.

The 2007 Report to the Governor and GA (http://www.vdh.state.va.us/EnvironmentalHealth/Onsite/newsofinterest/documents/RD227.pdf) illustrates several aspects of the policy problem, and should be studied regarding the proposal to revise the fee structure for services. These findings are also supported by the 2009 report and the Survey of Alternative Onsite Sewage System Issues (http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/EnvironmentalHealth/ONSITE/documents/2010/pdfs/VDH-SASS%20Report%20and%20Appendices%20FINAL.pdf)

1. The EHS is called upon to perform diverse duties as the representative of the Board of Health to advance the oversight of public health and environmental protection. These duties include the onsite sewage programs which provide permitting, administration, enforcement, record keeping and regulatory oversight.

2. The AOSE program was established in recognition that the private sector may efficiently field a trained staff of soil scientists and system designers providing design services to the public. The tradition of the VDH providing design services for private residences or commercial establishments is being phased out for several reasons. There exists a state-wide body of professionals to provide these services, the soil limitations for onsite sewage systems require more technical resolutions to accomodate development which the EHS has neither training nor authority within the Regulation to provide. The factors of local importance including stormwater, nutrient management, erosion control, sub-division and zoning, utility access or easements, and restrictions on development all reduce the ability of an EHS to determine suitablity of conventional systems for a particular location.

3. Present fee structures and policies vary by Health Districts; there are many factors which drive the cost of delivering a service by the VDH: cost of staff (including loss of trained people by attrition, periods of low demand, vacation and retirement), equipment, training staff and facilities etc. The current fee is discounted a small margin for applicants which have retained an AOSE/PE to prepare an application for permitting. The knowledge, skills, time and training required to establish site limitations and resolutions no longer fit a one fee fits all applicants model. And the local policy which determines how much effort an EHS must provide to deliver a permit varies. (e.g. are commercial or institutional applicants entitled to EHS design, how many sites are considered for a field, how many hours are required/budgetted; details such as: auger refusals, site visits, backhoe policy, changes in client choices, contractor driven revisions). The 2009 Survey found that about 28% of onsite designs were delivered by EHS, 23% by PE's Working with AOSE, and ~4 % were assessed and designed soley by an AOSE. These findings were based on state-wide survey, and were conducted prior to the economic turmoil which has reduced housing starts, and employment in the building trades.

The Department should realistically determine the cost of reviewing an application, versus the cost of permitting for a "bare application," which requires at minimum: a site visit (travel, coordination with client, perhaps an excavation contractor, site and soil evaluation by a trained individual, design and staking of a system, documentation of location and delivery of construction documents, filing of all records, final inspection (including scheduling, measurements, documentation and travel). If the number of permits issued has declined by a factor of 4, then unless other factors have changed the cost/permit of the VDH providing those services has increased by a factor of 4. Meanwhile the cost of hiring an AOSE has fallen due to reduced demand, and increasing competition. The AOSE assumes the most time consuming and technical aspects of this role as well as some of the risk and liability, shouldn't the fee structure reflect this?

Prior to revising fees an analysis of the cost of permitting wells and sewage systems should be released for public review and comment. At present the fees collected from the clients of AOSE's appear to subsidize the cost of delivering EHS services to the bare applicants; thereby penalizing an AOSE's clients. The fees collected with each application fund the Indemnification Fund, which only serve to defer the costs of repairs on systems which are designed by EHS.

It is my sincere wish that the VDH work to develop a balanced fee structure which does not penalize clients of small business. Our business' serve to reduce the regulatory  load and staff requirements of the VDH. There will come a time when the public will recognize that just as a Building Inspector does not design homes, the Environmental Health Specialist does not design sewage systems.  The AOSE is qualified to provide site specific evaluations and designs which create systems designed to reduce the risk of sewage born disease, environmental damage and public nuisance. These services are in support of the VDH's goals, and the small business people which offer these services should be supported by good public policies. Service fees should shield clients from the burden of funding subsidized services to some citizens irrespective of need. Fees should also reflect the actual cost of providing service, and shield the tax payer from the cost of subsidies to applicants which are able secure necessary services from the private sector. I am confident that the Department of Health can study this issue and propose a policy which will better serve the long term growth and development of the Commonwealth.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Jeff T. Walker;  AOSE & CPSS

Blue Ridge Site & Soil; LLC; Floyd, Virginia