Was a Small business impact review ever done? The application fees for well and septic, certification and permit, with AOSE/PE documentation are only a nominal amount lower than the same application fees without AOSE/PE documentation. This has a direct impact on the Small Businesses of Virginia that provide Onsite Soil Evalutions and Onsite Septic System Design. The State of Virginia is actually proving to be in direct competition with the private sector licensed COSEs, AOSE, CPSSs, and PEs.

A Small business impact review should definately be done "to ensure 'this regulation' minimizes the economic impact on small businesses". And this review board should include actual small business owners, not just VDH employees.

Child Developmental Centers in Virginia is indeed doing a great service in terms of providing substantial value to underprivelaged children. The services provided by CDC have been instrumental in filling the gap in psychological services to children. I sincerely applaud your effort.

Regards

Tim

plr articles

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

The current fee's for septic and well construction permits and Certification letters are unfair.  When an AOSE's prepares a report for a permit or certification letter he/she has done the majority of the work required.  The EHS is responsible for a review of paperwork only and a 10% field review.  This review of the paperwork should not take very long and when a site visit is made it takes much much less time than when the full evaluation is done. The fees collected for AOSE permits are being WAY over charged and is subsidizing other programs which is plain unfair.  Please look at the actual reasonable cost of an AOSE permit versus a Health Department permit.  There should be a significant difference maybe as much as 10 fold increase for bare applications.  If you think about it an EHS could process as much as 8-10 AOSE combination septic and well permits a day if that was his/her only responsibility.  I think that the most an EHS could process is 1 bare application combination septic and well permit a day.  The EHS that processes bare application must be more highly trained, visit the site multiple times including site visits, pre-construction visits with contractors, installation inspection, pump inspections, and final grading inspections.  Also consider the increased office time, increased support staff, increase liability, and increased training required to name a few.

The Health Department should re-evaluate their mission, to protect public health and the Environnment.  By continuing to process bare applications in direct competition with the private sector they are not accomplishing their mission.   Ask an EHS, Do they have failing systems in their county?  How many?  How do you find failing systems?  Are the alternative systems being maintained?  What are you going to do if they are not maintained?  What is the health of the streams in your area?  Do you monitor for bacteria?  Are their other pollutants that you monitor or look for?  What type of Education or outreach are you doing?

The unfair fees has a huge negative impact on my small business.  The private sector is/can save the State millions of dollars if the fees are done fairly.  Please read the Report titled VDH Re-Engineering Initiative Onsite Sewage Program 2006. Also read the 2007 Report to the Governor and the General Assembly.  It clearly stated that reviewing AOSE reports takes 30-60 minutes and the fees should reflect the actual cost.  Why was this not used to calculate the fees during the last adjustment?

Adam Herman, AOSE#104

Based on the Agencty Background Document, it appears that VDH is seeking general comments regarding the Regulations Governing Application Fees for Construction Permits for Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems and Private Wells.  I appreciate the opportunity to comment.  I believe that the Application Fees for Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems and Private Wells should be amended, as the current fee structure ignores the apparent intended paradigm shift in the onsite permitting process (vis-a-vis DPOR licensure), putting private sector (small business) OSE's at a significant disadvantage. 

Today, the onsite permitting program in the Commonwealth is unique, if not complicated: licensed Professionals in the private sector and public sector directly compete to provide site evaluation and design services to the Public.  I cannot think of a parallel situation in any of the associated professions that we work with on various land development projects.  In these other professions, it seems fairly well established that the private sector professional provides the evaluation and design (front end) services for the Public, and the public sector provides the review and approval (back end) services.  I understood the creation of the AOSE license through DPOR to indicate a shift towards this model, where the private sector AOSE’s provide site evaluation and design services, and VDH staff (AOSE or otherwise) review and issue/deny necessary permits/approvals accordingly. Licensure appeared to be an acknowledgement of qualified private sector professionals capable of performing site evaluation and design work, thereby significantly reducing overall VDH man hours spent on the front end of the onsite permitting process, and allowing EHS staff to shift focus onto other equally important tasks.    

However, heavily subsidized "bare" applications continue to incentivize the Public to contact VDH, not the private sector, for site evaluation and design services.  The cost differential between "bare" applications and applications with supporting documentation by private sector AOSE’s to the Public is nominal, and in my opinion, does not even attempt to reflect the actual costs associated with providing site evaluation and design services for a given project. 

Just an example, the State fee for a "bare" application for Certification Letter is $350, and the State fee for an application with supporting documentation for Certification Letter is $320.  This appears to place a value of $30 on the following tasks:

 1)     Coordinating with clients, surveyors, engineers, etc.

2)      Researching the site.

3)      Evaluating the site.

4)      Developing the evaluated site.

5)      Preparing deliverables for the site.

6)      Overhead.       

Certification Letters are but one example of the current fee structure giving the appearance that VDH is willing to subsidize the land development pursuits of the Public.  It is my understanding that applicants should be serviced by the private sector for site evaluation and design services, unless financial hardship can be demonstrated, and it is my opinion that the fee structure should be changed to reflect as much.  This would free up valuable VDH man hours to pursue other tasks necessary to protect human health and the environment.  Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to comment.    

Rob Charnley

First of all, I would like to say that I whole-heartily agree with the previous comments posted by Mr. Walker, Mr. Herman, and Mr. Charnley. 

As an AOSE and a small business owner, I've found it to be extremely frustrating in dealing with the current VDH sewage and well permitting fee schedule.  As others have said, it places the public sector (VDH AOSE/EHS) in direct competition with the private sector AOSE.  In this economy who can blame the general public in choosing who will conduct their property's soil evaluation and design their sewage system for the least amount of money out of their pocket.  Under the current fee structure, it naturally drives the general public to apply for a bare application through VDH as it will cost them less money to pay the bare application fee than it will cost them to hire a private sector AOSE and still have to pay an only slightly reduced AOSE/PE application review fee.  I have had many a conversation with prospective clients, spent countless hours of my time discussing options with them, only to have them tell me, "Well, I appreciate you taking time to talk with me about my lot and I'd prefer you to do my work, but I guess I'll have to go with the Health Department since I can get them to do the work cheaper and I'm on a rather tight budget". 

While the applicant my be spending less money out of his/her pocket to apply for a bare application through the Health Department, it comes at a tremendous expense to the state and the VA taxpayer to pay for this tax-subsidized service.  While an AOSE permit application submittal can typically be reviewed in 15-30 minutes for a Level I review, a bare application will require the public sector AOSE/EHS to travel to the site, conduct an hour or longer site and soil evaluation, more travel time back to the local Health Department office, and then another hour or two drafting the necessary paperwork.  If the EHS travels to the site and finds that the property owner has failed to mark the property corners or if the lot is overgrown and needs to be cleared in order to evaluate, addtional time is lost in multiple travels back and forth from the site and additional office time lost in having to generate administrative denials until the property owner makes the necessary corrections.  Once all is complete, a final visit will be required to the site in order to inspect the sewage system installation.  Therefore, most AOSE/EHS personnel would be limited to processing one bare application per day.

The report prepared by L. E. Hamm & Associates, Inc. dated May 2006 recognized that  there is an obvious conflict of interest that has been created between services offered by the public sector and the same services offered by the private sector.  Even though AOSEs are now licensed through DPOR (AOSEs were still certified under VDH at the time of this study), VDH continues to compete for services with the private sector while also serving as the regulatory authority for sewage permit approval.  As stated in this study:  The Virginia General Assembly created the AOSE program through legislative mandate to help alleviate the ongoing problem with backlogs of onsite septic applications.  AOSE regulations were established to govern the actions of the private sector doing public health work.  VDH has oversight responsibility for AOSEs, yet it competes against AOSEs for the same business, i.e., the direct services part of the onsite septic system permitting process.  It competes for these services at subsidized prices that far undercut what the private sector can provide...At the same time the VDH is competing with the private sector at subsidized prices, it also regulates and provides oversight of the private sector functions.

I should also point out that the amount that is being charged in the current fee schedule for various permitting services don't actually correspond to the amount of time or labor involved in performing the service.  In the Health District where I primarily work, the fee schedule also includes local county fees as well.  Still, for an AOSE/PE submittal, it costs $370 for an onsite certification letter with no pump.  Yet, it costs $275 for an actual sewage construction permit with no pump.  Yet, there is more time involved in actually designing a sewage system than drafting the necessary paperwork for a certification letter.  So, what do these fees actually reflect?  Also, as others have pointed out, the difference in fee between a bare application certification letter and an AOSE/PE submitted certification letter application is only $30!  How can the private sector AOSE compete if the cards are stacked in favor of VDH performing the work with susidized prices?

Either VDH needs to reevaluate their fee structure and lower AOSE/PE application fees while making bare application fees substantially higher, or VDH should get out of the soil evaluations and system design services all together and serve in more of a regulatory/review capacity.  Right now due to the economy, VDH has been fortunate that their bare application backlog has been pretty much eliminated by the recession, however, eventually the economic conditions which gave rise to the backlog will eventually resurface to some extent resulting in the re-emergence of backlogs, and unless steps are taken to preserve struggling private sector AOSE small businesses, VDH may find that less private sector AOSEs will be available to help alleviate future backlogs. 

In an attempt to clarify what is proposed by the "Board" would it be to much to ask if you could publish the existing fee schedule and beside it publish the intended changes and a detailed justification for the specific reasons that the fees should be increased. 

The priviate sector "OSE' as a tax paying enity must charge a fee for services rendered...The VDH charges a "filing fee" to review the subject OSE submission and issues a permit.  The client is obligated to pay a double fee one for "services rendered" and one for a "septic tax". 

There are many impediments to the integration of the AOSE into the onsite permitting process, notable is the lack of a statewide policy regarding the part time employment of VDH personnel as consultants for AOSE or PE's.

It is common practice for EHS in some districts to solicit AOSE's for "part time work" in conjunction with their review of applications. It is also common for VDH staff to offer informal recommendations to the public for consulting firms. And it has been common for the public to be told that there are no lists of AOSE active in a District, but that firm XYZ is preferable to all the others. The specter of a public employee recommending one consultant over another is damaging to the reputation of all, and policy should address this conflict.

Until the VDH establishes a uniform policy for conflict of interest the public will be right to assume it is business as usual for insiders. The public also seems skeptical of the subsidized services provided by the VDH for speculators on property for sale, or properties for sub-division also for private profit. Is there an EHS who has not been leaned on by a realtor or speculator demanding rapid service for their property? The VDH does not have policy which distinguishes between residential or repair property or commercial or speculative property, nor is their universal acceptance of requirements to identify commercial property, or property which is disposing of process waters rather than domestic wastewaters.

Since DPOR took on the AOSE administration it is very difficult for the public to select a consultant from the DPOR website listing registrants, since no differentiation is made between EHS staff which seem to have been "deemed approved" in the wake of the change-over from VDH, and AOSE's who offer consulting services for the public on a fee for service basis. The intent of Regulations concerning the OSE being separated into two fields, one of “Conventional Evaluators” and another of “Advanced Evaluators” has been twisted beyond recognition by this deceptive designation by the VDH.

A solution would be to identify private versus public licensees, however this would be left to DPOR. The VDH has the power to establish a policy of listing AOSE’s available for service in Districts based on an open enrollment list available to the public identifying consultants in good standing who are active in that District, and restricting enrollment to those firms not employing moonlighting public employees.

I apologize for not signing my name, however it is safe to assume that there is a penalty for open discussion of these issues, and it is not worth the risk of calling attention to myself by commenting on these issues of common knowledge.

Ya'll really should widen the fee gap between AOSE and bare applications.  You charge way way way too much for AOSE supported permit preparation and these fees should be slashed drastically.    It can't cost that much to check 10% of a licenced professional work. 

Fees attributable to site evaluation,  permit preparation, and inspection charged for bare applications should reflect the private market not determine it.     It is an invalid comparison for the state health department to say 'since it takes X time to perform such and such a task and we pay employee so and so  this amount an hour the cost of doing a permit is Y' . This kind of analysis  negates the supply of and demand for a service as a factor in determining a fair market price.      The only factor is how much (or little) does the state pay to to have an employee available to provide the service regardless of how many times the service is provided.    That state employee is going to have a job whether he does 10 permits a year or 100 as long as the state is in the business.   

You can juggle the numbers but the fact is that the state health dept  competes for  work ( site evaluation, permit preparation, and inspections) for which there are private  sector state licenced people -at a taxpayer subsidized rate.  It also, in my opinion,  employs arcane policies, such as double evaluations and inspections of AOSE documented sites, to maintain the employee base and revenue stream generated by the on site evaluation program.     

Virginia set up this AOSE business but still is in direct competition with the private sector it created and all the while driving permit prices through the roof.      Either the AOSE program is a gigantic failure and should be eliminated to decrease the overall cost of the service and ya'll can just hire everybody back or it should be left to the market to determine its value unburdened by unfair competition and an unfair fee structure.