Fees effective July 1, raise the cost of services for citizens contracting design services with Onsite Soil Evaluators (OSE). Adding another tax further diminishes the consumers interest in securing non-subsidized services.
The fee regulations under https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title12/agency5/chapter620/section70/. Conflict with the Budget Bill, which does not authorize a higher fee, nor any supplemental fee to any locality except Augusta County. The funds appropriated by the General Assembly cover the contract cost of the Onsite program, the legislation was clear if the VDH can not provide the service at $425, it shouldn't solicit the work. Additional local fees compound the market interference with an illicit markup.
A.1. Notwithstanding § 32.1-163 through § 32.1-176, Code of Virginia, the State Health Commissioner shall charge a fee of no more than $425.00, for a construction permit for on-site sewage systems designed for less than 1,000 gallons per day, and alternative discharging systems not supported with certified work from an authorized onsite soil evaluator or a professional engineer working in consultation with an authorized onsite soil evaluator.
OSE and our customers are being punished, by administrative fees, delays in review or denial's for issues inconsistent with regulatory process.
3. Notwithstanding § 32.1-163 through § 32.1-176, Code of Virginia, the State Health Commissioner shall charge a fee of no more than $225.00, for a construction permit for an onsite sewage system designed for less than 1,000 gallons per day when the application is supported with certified work from a licensed onsite soil evaluator.
Naturally these compounded actions raise the cost of compliance, thus our cost of service to the landowner. It appears VDH review is being used to penalize or favor consultants, it is clear that time is money, and the power to delay or deny permitting is being used as an anti-competitive effect. This is compounded by the lack of substantive policies restricting VDH staff from opining on the cost of private services, indeed we understand that staff has ability in their choice of words to affect the public's choice of service provider.
VDH has persisted in maintaining a dual standard, transferring liability to the consumer, and choosing which regulations or standards of practice are applicable at their staff's discretion. The practice of approving unlicensed contractors installations is a clear and present threat, and yet to date the agency has succeeded in persuading it's sister agency DPOR not to investigate complaints against staff who clearly violate the requirements to report unlicensed activity. Indeed certifying work absent license is a type of fraud against the homeowner, which is unethical by any standards.
A free market introduces competition for services, in both price and quality; and forces firms in the marketplace to become more efficient in obtaining results. But for VDH interference this would also be the case in onsite services throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. Clearly the consumer benefits in hiring a licensed professional, yet not every consumer has the ability to distinguish the difference between VDH bare applications, and fully supported services. Indeed VDH favoring winners, and penalizing losers in the competitive marketplace undermines the agency's own authority, and the reputation of our industry.