COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thurs., 5/14/98, 12:20 p.m. - - - BILL 970092 - Amending Title of Philadelphia 7 Code entitled "Zoning and Planning" by amending Section entitled "Hearings" to establish fee for 8 accelerated hearings before Zoning Board of Adjustment. 9 BILL 970395 - Amending Philadelphia zoning maps by changing zoning designations of certain areas of 10 land located within area bounded by Elsworth St., Broad St., Snyder Ave., and 16th St. 11 BILL 970778 - Amending Philadelphia zoning maps by changing zoning designations of certain areas of 12 land located within area bounded by Snyder Ave., Broad St., Oregon Ave., and 18th St. 13 RESOLUTION 980251 - Declaring it desirable for health, safety, and welfare of people of 14 Philadelphia, PA, for Quakertown General Authority to undertake certain health-care projects. BILL NO. 970713 - Amending Title 9 of Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulations of Businesses, Trades and Professions," by adding a new chapter, entitled "Agents". . . PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X Page Bill No. 970092 Commissioner Frances Egan . . . . . . . . . . 4 Department of Licenses and Inspections 5 John P. Campbell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legislative Affairs Regulatory Affairs Manager Department of Licenses and Inspections Bill No. 970395 Chief Richard Lombardo. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Project Planning, Planning Commission Marie C. Donato, Private Citizen. . . . . . . 9 Bill No. 970778 Chief Richard Lombardo. . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Project Planning, Planning Commission John Furey, President . . . . . . . . . . . . Broad Street West Civic Association 13 Resolution No. 980251 Tim Hoover, Payne Weber . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Frieda Lee, Presbyterian Foundation . . . . . 27 Bill No. 970713 Commissioner Frances Egan. . . . . . . . . . 40 John P. Campbell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Steven Pollack, Esq. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Board of Governors - Philadelphia Bar Assoc. John H. Morley, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 License and Permit Agents Association Former Councilman James Tayoun . . . . . . . 90 Neil Schlosser, Architect. . . . . . . . . . 96 Eric Auerbach, Sr. Attorney, Law Dept. . . . 110 Jody Pessolano, Professional Engineer. . . . 133 Joseph Beller, Esquire . . . . . . . . . . . 133 3 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970092 P R O C E E D I N G S
Ladies and gentlemen, the Council Committee on Rules has established a quorum. Present are Councilmembers Cohen, DiCicco, Nutter and Kenny, who will take a short recess and then come right back. (Short recess taken.)
Good afternoon. The Council Committee on Rules is now in session. Those who are testifying, please take seats behind the rail. We will do a number of bills first dealing with zoning issues. The first is Bill No. 15 970092, which is an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-1805, entitled "Hearings," to establish a fee for accelerated hearings before the Zoning Board of Adjustment good afternoon please identify yourself for the record and proceed. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Thank you, Mr. 4 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970092 Chairman. My name is Frances Egan. I'm the Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. With me is John Campbell, our Legislative Affairs liaison.
Please proceed. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Bill 970092. This process is already in place, but what it does is create a mechanism for accelerated hearings before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Prior to the current fiscal year, the Zoning Board conducted accelerated hearings and paid for them by abating the vouchers against the fees collected. For the current and future fiscal years, the Finance Department has placed funds in the Board's budget to handle these hearings. So this very simply gives us the mechanism in place to account for the change in accounting procedures that have already taken place.
So the need for this ordinance is to formalize a practice that's been going on and also to provide for the accounting of the additional fees that are being 5 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970092 collected as a result of the service. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes, sir.
John P. Campbell, Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Mr. Chairman, we would request a suspension of the rules so that we could have this legislation enacted as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions of our members for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Hearing none. Is there anyone else in the room to testify on behalf of Bill No. 970092? (No response.) 6 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970395
Seeing none, we'll move to Bill No. 970395, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia zoning maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Elsworth Street, Broad Street, Snyder Avenue, and 16th Street. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Richard Lombardo, Chief Project Planning, the Planning Commission, here today to speak on Bill 970395. This bill is one of an ongoing program of zoning remapping embarked on in South Philadelphia with Councilman DiCicco and Councilwoman Verna and yourself. The purpose of this bill basically is to update the zoning maps that reflect the pattern of the development which has existed for -- well, since there was zoning in South Philadelphia, which is basically reflecting the single-family row house nature of most of the housing in these neighborhoods, and also to use where appropriate the C-1 commercial to reflect the neighborhood 7 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970395 service type of retail stores on the corners of a number of these streets in this area. The bill involved here involves approximately 40 acres of the City, the area between Elsworth and Snyder Avenue, Broad Street and 16th Street. And as I said, the major changes in this bill would bring about would be the rezoning of the majority of the residential properties from R10 residential, which is a multifamily row house district, to R10-A residential, which is a single-family row house. We are retaining some R10 in this area basically along the Broad Street frontage and around St. Agnes Hospital, but most of the other area is becoming R10-A. There is also C2 commercial and C1 commercial being used. The C2, which is the heavier commercial is basically a heavier commercial, allows the entire use of the property as commercial, is being retained along Broad Street, along Federal Street, west of Broad along -- basically where are those types of commercial properties. The rest of the commercial properties are being changed to C1 commercial to reflect the 8 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970395 upper-floor residential above a service type commercial store. For the record, the Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 1997 recommended the adoption of Bill 970395.
This bill was prepared in conjunction with Councilwoman Verna's office and with her and her staff.
Yes. And I would just like to add that we did have several communities meetings, and the area residents are in full support. And Broad Street will be R10-A.
No, no. As I said, there's a little bit of R10 being retained around St. Agnes Hospital. That's the only R10 that's being retained.
Thank you very much 9 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970395 for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the room to testify? (Marie Donato comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
My name is Marie C Donato. I live at 1522 South Broad Street. I've been on Broad Street for 62 years. It's a one-family owner-occupied dwelling and funeral home. The apartments on South Broad Street have made my life very miserable. I'm constantly living in trash, tenants that breed pit bulls, sell dope, prostitutes. They are all absentee landlords. And I think that this bill is long overdue.
Thank you very much. We agree. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill. (No response.) 10 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778
Seeing none, we'll move now to Bill No. 970778, which is an ordinance 4 to amend the Philadelphia zoning maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Snyder Avenue, Broad Street, Oregon Avenue, and 18th Street. Please identify yourself for the record, and proceed.
Good afternoon. Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Richard Lombardo, from the City Planning Commission, speaking on behalf of Bill 970778. This bill involves approximately 123 acre of land immediately south and to west of the previous bill. This area is bounded, as you said, by 18th Street and Broad Street from Snyder Avenue to Oregon Avenue. The purpose of this bill was basically the same as I testified the previous bill. It's to reflect that the pattern of development throughout this neighborhood as being predominantly single-family row housing, with quite a few corner stores. As a matter of fact, we were surprised 11 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 -- not surprised, but when we did this area, how many active occupied service commercial stores there were throughout neighborhoods in this area. So you'll see me looking at the map. An awful lot of corner commercial stores. All those C1's reflect active businesses that are still serving the community in this area of South Philadelphia. Once again, along Snyder Avenue, along Passyunk Avenue and along South Broad Street, we're retaining the C2 commercial which is the heavier commercial, reflecting a heavier or a total commercial use of the properties. West of 17th Street, between Ritner and Shunk, we're using some R5 residential to reflect the pattern of the development of that portion of Girard Estates, which is either detached or semidetached houses. The rec. center -- the (unintelligible) Recreation Center is being rezoned from G2 industrial. I don't know why it was G2 industrial, but it's being rezoned from G2 industrial to class-recreational. That's basically the highlights of this remapping. Again, this was done in conjunction 12 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 with Councilwoman Verna's office. And the Planning Commission, for the record, at its meeting of May 7, 1998 recommended adoption of Bill 970778.
Thank you very much. Should this bill, as the other bill and the other bills that have been introduced and passed here, as it relates to South Philadelphia, would require property owners, whether they're resident property owners or, in many cases, nonresident property owners, to display a hardship before the Zoning Board in order to convert a property from a single to a multifamily dwelling.
That's absolutely right. That's the difference between the R10-A and the R10. If it's R10, they can walk into L&I and just get a permit to convert. With the 10-A, they'll need to go to the Zoning Board and prove hardship.
They've been, for years, been walking into L&I and getting a permit to convert without any neighborhood involvement and to the detriment of our community. 13 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778
Mr. Chairman, I do have a petition signed by most of the area residents in favor of this ordinance. And there were some community meetings. I don't know if Mr. Furey would like to testify. He may have some questions that the City Planning Commission may be able to answer for him.
Thank you. The petition will be offered to the record. (John Furey comes forward.)
Mr. Furey, please identify yourself for the record, and proceed.
John, why don't you pull the microphone right directly to you.
My name is John Furey, F-U-R-E-Y, President of the Broad Street West Civic Association. Originally when this remapping was proposed, we had a meeting in the neighborhood and we discussed the various options and this whole proposition with the City planners. We have no problem with the R10 to 14 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 R10-A. We want to see anything that will slow down the multifamily conversions. Our neighborhood is saturated with apartments, we don't need any more apartments. We want to see the emphasis on single-family dwellings. So the R10-A is very helpful because we have a number of three-story apartment buildings that are sitting along the residential streets with single-family homes, but our concern is with the corner properties. The corner properties now have a C2 designation, and a lot of these corner stores are closing up and converting to duplexes. Some of them are three stories and they're zoned C2. So we're concerned that if we go to C1, the way we're reading the code here, C1 will enable a person to convert a building from a store to a duplex without going to the Zoning Board. We need the Zoning Board's input. That's where we catch a lot of problems, and that's where the neighborhood opposes conversions. If we give them access to converting without going to the Zoning Board, that's where we have problems. They are inevitably converting 15 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 stores to duplexes, 'cause the business doesn't work so they convert it to two apartments and they make their income from that. We want to reduce the amount of apartments, so anything that's going to help businesses convert to apartments without going to the Zoning Board has got to raise a flag for us. I understand that the C1 and the C2, there's more restrictions on the use of a C1 property as far as bars. I don't see that many neighborhood bars opening up in our neighborhood anymore. The opposite is true. They're converting these commercial corners to duplexes and triplexes. We had one on the corner of Ritner and Hicks. It was an old dilapidated store for years, 10 or 15 years. It was C2, the guy wanted to put apartments in there, so he had to go to Zoning Board, and we were able to work out a compromise. But I think if that was C1, he could convert easily to a duplex, just make it two big apartments instead of three. And I just ask the City planners if they would clarify that C2 to C1. If it enables a 16 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 store to convert to a duplex without going to the Zoning Board, there's got to be an amendment made there. I'd like to see it read: If you want to convert the store to a single-family home, God bless you, you don't have to go to the Zoning Board. But if you're going to convert it to an income property, then I think you should get some public scrutiny.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask that Mr. Lombardo address this issue?
I'd be glad to answer the question. The reason we use C1, generally speaking, is that C1 limits the use of the property, of the upper floors, to the most restrictive residential properties, which is basically single family. C2, however, is a multifamily district. The only thing that limits your ability to have two, three, four units is how much rear yard you have. So leaving 'em C2 does not take away the right of people who (unintelligible) 17 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 convert that store or the upper floors of the building to apartments. We use the -- C1 used to be exclusively a single-family dwelling but what we found is that a lot of commercial properties, in some past conversion, eliminated the steps that connected the store to the upper floor -- not just in South Philadelphia, this happens throughout the City. So when the goes out of business, you now have a space that is not part of the residential unit, and it winds up either becoming a storage space or a vacant store. And a lot of instances, it's a blighting influence. We did a sort of study of this. And we saw that usually the first instance of blight that starts appearing in the neighborhood is the vacant store on the corner of a little street. So Council and the Planning Commission, about eight, ten years ago, changed C1 to give you a one-time conversion from a store to an apartment. Once you make that conversion, you can't go back to being store. So if the property is a viable commercial property, you, as an owner or landlord, 18 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 have to decide whether you want to give up forever the potential rent as a commercial property in exchange for converting just the area of the store, not but the whole building of the two-family, but what was the store in that building to a single-family. We thought that was a worthwhile trade-off. But to get to the point of this bill, to leave the C2, you're not going to accomplish much in stopping people from having as-of-right conversions of those properties to multifamily. You still can do that under C2. The only alternative would be to make 'em all R10-A. And then every time those stores want to rent to new tenant, they'd have to go into the Zoning Board to get a variance because they would be residential. They would be no longer commercial. And that idea wasn't -- I'm sure the Councilwoman didn't bring that idea before the community or the business people in the community. That would -- I mean, to try to amend the bill that way, you'd have to go back and start from scratch in terms of talking to people again. 19 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 But that's the only sort of way to get at the problem he raised, which is to make every conversion from a store to an apartment have to go to the Zoning Board.
So that's the -- my question is: If it's zoned C1, they can convert from a store to a duplex without going to the Zoning Board.
But it goes to a duplex and is an income-producing property instead of -- couldn't it be easily converted to -- why does the emphasis have to be on an income-producing property and not on a single-family. Are you going to give him an option of --
The question is that because of the C1, as you testified, requires a single-family residence above the store, is that correct? 20 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778
It jibes because, like I said, we changed the C1 about eight or ten years ago to get at this other problem that when you've rezoned the store of the C1, which limited -- the old code only limited you to one family in the building, period, and that store did not get reincorporated back into the single-family dwelling, it just became a vacant store and then became a problem in the neighborhood. And we were looking at a way of finding a reuse for that vacant store is why we changed to C1, to allow the one-time conversion to an apartment.
So you're going to allow them to convert to a residence but an income-producing residence, a duplex. You have to remember there are some of these corners that are not two stories, they are 21 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 three stories.
Then we'd limit it to one family on the second and third floor, and it could convert the store to an additional apartment.
That's right. But today, then C2, that three-story building could have as many apartments as the area of the lot would allow.
By right. C2 allows -- it's a multifamily district. It allows the -- basically, if you have 100 square feet of rear yard for every family. So if you have 300 feet of 22 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 square rear yard, which is, you know, 15 by 20, you could have three families in that building.
Obviously, the corner properties are not working out, and the emphasis is on converting them to residential but still allowing for commercial activities by means of rental properties by income-producing apartments rather than a single-family dwelling. And that's where -- we'd like to see more emphasis on single-family dwellings than trying to make it available to rental incomes. The concern seems to be, Well, the stores aren't working, so we're going to let them convert to a duplex and make their money that way. But we've already stated that we have too many apartments in the area now. We're inundated with apartments. And if we're given that option, I think a lot of these stores are going to convert to duplexes. Right now whenever they do conversations, we wind up with petitions and a lot of discussion at a Zoning Board.
But as they exit now, Mr. Lombardo, don't they have that right to 23 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 convert to a duplex now?
In C2, yes. Or, like I said, as many families as you could fit into the building. If we could for a minute, we sort of lost the focus of one thing. If you look at the two maps, the existing map and the proposed map, there's a lot less corner stores on the proposed map. And that reflects the fact that where we saw a vacant store, where we saw a property that was no longer being used as a store, we rezone that to 10-A residential; we didn't leave it zoned either C1 or C2 commercial. So we -- or where we found a property that was incorporated back into the residence or it was already converted to an apartment, we made it 10-A, not left it zoned commercial. So we did try to get at that --
And above. And also, like I say, these are all very -- you're more familiar than I am with how active this retail is and has been. And the question of whether --
Is there a potential with -- if you were advising or suggesting that we make them all residential, is there a potential action by the property owner by removing its commercial designation in toto?
You probably make it a little more likely that that store will become vacant because a person looking for a commercial occupancy, a lot of people, when they hear they have to go to the Zoning Board, forget -- they're not interested in leasing the property. That's -- one of the things I think we've done years ago in remappings, which we -- now we use C1 more because we found that we didn't do anybody a favor by making commercial properties residential; they just became vacant. As a matter of fact, in Manyunk, that's an ongoing problem. They've come back -- Manyunk 25 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970778 has come back to us and said put the commercial designations back on the corner because all the neighborhood services have gone away.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a suggestion on that since we have other bills to be heard. Maybe Mr. Lombardo and Mr. Furey can discuss this. And at the conclusion of the public hearing, we'll either vote it out or hold it for further study. But perhaps you could work out details now. Do you have any other bills to testify on?
All right. Would you please -- perhaps you could go into my office with Mr. Furey and discuss this and come back and let us know.
Is there anyone else in the room to testify on this specific bill, 970778, dealing with rezoning of the area bounded RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 980251 by Snyder Avenue, Broad Street, Oregon Avenue, 18th Street? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 980251. This is a resolution declaring it desirable for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Quakertown General Authority to undertake certain health-care projects. (Two new witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, thank you for waiting. Please identify yourself for the record, and proceed. And let me say for the record that Councilwoman Blackwell, who was in attendance here, had to leave and wanted to leave her words of both thanks and support and encouragement for this project. Please identify yourself and proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're here very much here to testify on behalf of Bill No. 980251 to provide funding for local health-care institutions through the Presbyterian Foundation and New Cortland. 27 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 980251 My name's Tim Hoover, with Payne Weber.
Would you move the microphone closer. And just kind of explain, for the record, the project and what's anticipated to happen -- it's in the bill, but it's more for the written record.
Certainly. The project will include the issuance of about $50 million bonds through the Quakertown General Authority in order to fund projects -- in order to fund health-care projects in the City of Philadelphia, the Care Pavilion of Walnut Park, the Cheltenham and York Road Nursing Center, the Cobbs Creek Nursing Home, and Tucker House.
Is there a reason why the Philadelphia Municipal Authority was not used to --
At this point in time, the Quakertown General Authority has funds on hand 28 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 980251 which are allowing the bonds to be issued without the institutions having to pay the up-front cost of issuance, and save them money.
Has this been discussed with the Philadelphia Municipal Authority?
Yes. We went through both Philadelphia Municipal Authority and PAID to see how much it would cost us to issue the bonds through them and did a comparison to see how much it would save these institutions.
All right for now. I think we ought to find out, though, why Philadelphia is not able to be competitive with Quakertown.
Well, it seems to me, from your testimony, that it's an issue of the position of Quakertown General Authority, at this particular time. Due to an excess amount of 29 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 980251 cash.
Yes. It's not just the fees that they charge. They have an excess amount of cash on hand to provide for funding of a pooled bond issue for health-care facilities that is unique to any other issuer that would be available.
Well, I've asked the only questions that I think are pertinent at this point. But to the Chair, I'd just say that I think it would be awfully good if we could find out from the Philadelphia Municipal Authority what its response is. They may very well agree with you.
I assume, because of the fact that they weren't involved in this decision today, they are not here to testify. So, John, if could you get a hold of Mr. Cramp's office and see whether or not they can offer us any information either by letter, faxed over, you know, okay. Thank you very much. Do you have anything to add? 30 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 980251
Well, it's a resolution, so we'll just be voting it out.
There's no need for a only suspension of the rules on an ordinance 12 today.
If it gets out today, it will be ready for next week -- actually, it's two weeks 'cause we have no session next week.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to testify on Bill No. 980251? (No response.)?
Thank you very 31 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 much. We're going to move to 970713 in one moment. I would ask Mr. Campbell and Commissioner Egan to come to the witness table. (Commissioner Egan and Mr. Campbell come forward.)
Councilmember Cohen has an outstanding question on Bill No. 970092, and the Chair recognizes him now.
Under certain circumstances, I think particularly when permits are issued over the counter, but it may not be limited to just that circumstance, the communities initiate proceedings before the Zoning Board to have the matter reconsidered. Now, it's always been my understanding that when a community files for such a hearing, that there's no fee required. Is that accurate? And would this provision in any way impact on that?
Again, John Campbell, L&I. That is correct, Councilman. That was the change that Council made a number of years 32 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 ago.
And this bill would not impact on that particular situation for community organizations.
Okay. The other question I would have is, do we have any study -- how much use has been made of these accelerated hearings? There again, I'm just concerned whether the use is so great that it holds other hearings. Has there been any effect on the scheduling of cases normally that did do not pay this additional fee?
Well, two things, Councilman. Approximately 300 of the cases in the process of a year, if my mathematics is correct -- yeah, we do about 300. What this does, this is generally for the person who wants to fast-track whatever they're doing and to get ahead or to get in. They're not jumping in front of anybody because what actually happens is the Zoning Board has a special hearing for those particular cases. 33 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 What it does with the regular load of cases, though, it moves them up quicker too because there's nothing in front of them to delay them, so we actually -- it's sort of like a win-win proposition. And that's what we've sort of found in all of the accelerated actions that we take, whether it be a permit review, whether it be a hearing, that you're actually doing -- people are paying for the premium of whatever they have to do to get done to meet budget requirements, to meet, you know time deadlines. And the regular person also gets the advantage of moving up quicker because that person isn't in front of them. You know, they actually move up in line without benefit of having to pay the additional money.
Does members of the boards still get paid per session; and then, as understood the law, the number of payments they can get, or the total amount of money they could get, was capped. Do those two provisions still exist, payment per session up to a cap? 34 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092
They do. Unfortunately, I sort of like have a problem with the flu today. I sort of forget exactly what the cap is, but they are limited to $80 a session. And, as I said, I'm sort of losing it a little, I guess. I can't remember what the cap is right now, but I think we changed that a few years ago to expand the number of meetings before the board. Actually -- yeah, it's -- yeah, we've expanded the number of -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: But the point is there is a per-session and there is a cap. If you need us to tell you exactly what that is, we can get back to you on that.
One effect may be that down the road, we'll be asked to increase the cap to accommodate the additional meetings. But I can understand that they work very hard and they do an excellent job. But I think you've answered my question. I wanted to mainly be certain that the community had -- because communities just don't have cash around, community organizations -- that they had free access to the Zoning Board in the 35 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 same fashion that they've enjoyed for a good number of years. COMMISSIONER EGAN: That is correct.
And that includes, where necessary, the provision of transcripts of testimony to the community without cost, is that right, Mr. Campbell?
Mr. Campbell, I think your testimony has somewhat confused me. Why would anybody pay for an accelerated hearing if they are not really being accelerated, so to speak? You said they don't really jump over anybody who has not paid.
I would like some explanation. 36 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 COMMISSIONER EGAN: What he meant to say was that it just goes on a different track, that's all. It goes on the fast track for people that don't ask for the accelerated track and people that ask for it. There are two separate tracks.
Well, Mr. Campbell's did not indicate that. He just said that they simply do not go up ahead of someone else that has applied who has not obtained an accelerated hearing.
My understanding is that when they first instituted this process, there was overtime work associated with examiners and other people who needed to do work on the expedited cases in off-hours and were being paid overtime, which incurred additional costs. I also understand that because of the rapid pace in which zoning hearings normally are heard in recent times, there are been very little, if any, request for specific expedited hearings because the process has moved relatively quickly in recent years. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Everything you said 37 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 is correct.
Councilwoman, I just -- again, I apologize. I'm having a problem today with feeling --
Well, maybe to compound your illness, and I'm sorry if it has that effect, my understanding is that Councilman Kenney's statement is based upon the general principle that the City does not have a right to charge a fee except in proportion to the cost that the City incurs. We always have to be able prove to the court that the fees, you know, are related to the expenditures that the City has to make. COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's correct.
And I'm always a little bit troubled by this expedited business wherever government acts in a way which gives 38 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970092 preference to people that are well-heeled financially against people that are not; it's always a disturbing consequence. So that I just think, at some point, this whole procedure ought to be reviewed. And if they're working as efficiently as they seem to be in producing, maybe we don't need the expedited hearings.
I think the genesis of the expedited opportunity was with outside developers who were coming into the City that were -- we were not exactly in a buyer's market-- I'm sorry, in a seller's market for our city to be developed for economic purposes and for job creation and that the larger companies were coming in to do development, who needed things to move quickly in order to do their development, create the tax ratables, create the jobs, were willing to pay this fee to employ the overtime personnel necessary to get their thing done on track and quickly. I think that was the basic genesis of this -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: That is correct. 39 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 And keep in mind, as you stated earlier, it is done on the employee's, you know, overtime; it's not done during the normal working day. They take this work home at night and over the weekends so it's not impacting normal work process flow for everyone else that's in our system.
Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions on this bill? (No further questions at this time.)
You can stay right here because we're going to move into Bill 970713, which amends Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulations of Businesses, Trades and Professions," by adding a new chapter, entitled "Agents," requiring any person who represent or acts on behalf of another person in any matter before the Department of Licenses and Inspections, the Board of Building Standards, the Board of Licenses and inspections Review, the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Board of Safety and Fire Prevention, or the Accessibility Advisory Board to obtain a license; and setting forth standards for 40 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 the issuance of such licenses requiring such persons to complete entry of appearance forms prior to any active representation, prohibiting certain conduct by such agents, and providing penalties for violations, all under certain terms and conditions. What I would like to ask is for the Commissioner to re-identify herself for the record on this bill, give your testimony, and I understand there are a number of amendments that Mr. Campbell would then be permitted to offer prior to beginning our entire discussion of the issue. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Thank you, Councilman. I don't have a whole lot to say about this bill except that this is legislation that I have been interested in having passed by Council since my accepting the appointment to Commissioner of Licenses and Inspections. And the reason for that is that there is a business activity taking place in the City that is, at this point in time, unregulated. This is a business known, you know -- known and 41 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 performed by people calling themselves "expediters." And what this legislation would do is provide a consumer some protection mechanisms for people who do hire these people to represent them to do business with the Department of L&I. I consider this important for all the citizens of Philadelphia. It's important for my Department to be able to track, regulate and, if necessary, discipline this type of business taking place. And I would just hope that, particularly, elected officials as yourselves, Councilpeople, would recognize that this type of business can be just as easily performed, if the citizens of Philadelphia would take advantage of it, by just simply calling their Councilpeople, relating their problem or business that they need to get done with a department like my department, and utilize the staff of the Councilperson to get this done. I mean, I would love to think, as Commissioner of L&I, that -- you know my vision for the department would be that some day we'd be so efficient and so just well-organized and oiled 42 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 that no one would need any type of expedited service or special service by Council staffer or other elected official. But right now, it does seem to be a necessary business to be performed in the City, and it's important for the consumer to have a recourse should they not be treated fairly or be wronged in some way by the business person representing themselves as expediters. And this legislation would put all of that into place. It would regulate this business, it would license their activity, and it would provide recourse for consumers who take advantage of this business should they be wronged or treated unfairly.
For the record -- and I'm asking an obvious question, but I want to make sure the record's clear, this bill -- this legislation that's proposed in no way eliminates the practice of expediting or providing this type of service to the citizens. It simply sets standards and requirements in order to participate in the business. COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's correct. 43 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
Okay. COMMISSIONER EGAN: And I guess I would just add, on a personal editorial note, that the timing of this couldn't be better, given the indictments that came down this morning out of the attorney general's office.
Are there any questions for the Commissioner before get into Mr. Campbell's testimony relative to amendments?
Just an explanation. Could you just tie in these indictments? How do they impact on this? We don't have any information with respect to the item the Commissioner just spoke about. Was there an indictment of people who are expediters? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes it, is Councilman Cohen. There was a former L&I employee and now known as an expediter who was indicted this morning by the U.S. Attorney General's Office for activity while he was an employee at L&I and prior, and then post-activity, as an expediter.
All right. I just think the that the record has to disclose the 44 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 relevance. Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner, can you tell us why it's necessary to require error and omission insurance from these agents? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, unlike, you know -- and another reason we need to regulate this group of business people. You know, whether you're a lawyer or a contractor or an architect or engineer, you're required to have certain insurance so that if do you in some way perform unfairly or not to the satisfaction of the customer, the customer then has recourse to recover the money that they paid this person. So this simply would set into place same type of standards that are in place for other types of business in Philadelphia.
And I'm asking you these questions because they've been asked of me, and I think you're the one that should be answering them. Do you have any indication as to how expensive it would be for individuals to obtain 45 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 the insurance? COMMISSIONER EGAN: No, I don't. However, what we propose to do in the bill is ask the City's Risk Management Office to determine what type of insurance would be required for this type of business, so it would be done in a professional and fair way.
May I follow, Mr. Chairperson, that line of questioning?
I know it's been stated that the intent of the bill is not to deny expediters the opportunity to important the functions now perform, that it's only intended to regulate, but sometimes regulation takes the form of denial if the regulation is too prohibitive in costs or otherwise too burdensome. Do we have any statistics at all about the number of expediters, what their income is from this? Because it looks to me like you're applying standards that are generally admissible to, say, attorneys who have to carry malpractice insurance and that kind of thing. 46 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 I don't know how much work is done by individual expediters, and it could be that requiring too many requirements can effectively eliminate them because their income may not be high enough to justify their continuing in the field. And I gather, Commissioner, from what you said, that you do believe that currently, there is the need for the work of expediters. Could you comment with respect to that? Did I accurately understand your statement or did I -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: I don't think any of the provisions which would be required for someone to become a licensed expediter are of an onerous nature whereby we would put them out of business. I mean, you know, if you look through the provisions of the bill, you know, the type of the things we're requiring are, you know, there's an application fee of $200, they have to possess insurance. And, if I could just reiterate, this insurance -- the insurance required would be determined by a professional agency, the Risk Management Agency, which -- that's their 47 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 business. They're going to assess the kind of business that's done by expediters and come up with a fair insurance requirement. Report of criminal history records. There's just nothing that onerous that would -- I don't think that you would be able to then conclude that they would somehow be put out of business because of the some of the type of requirement we have here.
Well, I think we'll want to hear from the persons involved as to how they view these requirements, and we note your comments. If the work is necessary, you know, to make the system work effectively, then I think we have -- maybe have to have some regulations, but they have to be those consistent with that work, you know, being continued. But we won't know that. For example, on insurance, it would seem to me that we would to know -- we should have a pretty good idea as to what the cost of insurance is before we go ahead and enact the bill. We don't really want to delegate a group of 48 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 insurers the right to determine whether or not, you know, it's worthwhile for an expediter to remain in business. They make think a $5,000 insurance fee is reasonable -- that is insurers may, but I'm not sure expediters would feel that. And malpractice insurance, you know can vary. Sometimes it's 1,000 a year, but it could be 100,000 a year in the case of many doctors. So I think we need that information before we were to enact the bill. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, I would just ask you to keep in mind, Councilman, that right now -- in other words, if I had my way, there would be no need for expediters because what I would say to every citizen of Philadelphia is, if you need to conduct business with any City department in Philadelphia, and you don't feel, for whatever your reason is, maybe your homebound, maybe you have a language problem, maybe, you know, you're working during the day so you don't have the time to come down, you can call your City Council person and get that same service that is now provided by an expediter.
Well, we'd like to 49 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 think every City Council office always is prepared to do that, but the judgments's got to be made by the constituent, you know, whether they choose to use our services or whether, choose to use some other service, but I think -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: See, I'm also a realist and a pragmatist -- at least I think I am -- and I recognize, you know, that there are people -- first of all, that there are people who are very resourceful, and when there's a way to make some money. Usually somebody finds a way to do that. And this is a business where, certainly, people have able to stake their livelihood. And that's the way it is, and I recognize that. So given that reality, i it think it's important for us, as protectors of the citizenry, to put in place ways that we can protect the consumer, if this business is going to be conducted in Philadelphia, regulate it so that our consumers that make use of this type of business have recourse if they are wronged.
Well, there's a lot to be said for what you say, but this morning, I spent an hour in a street demonstration. It did 50 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 not involve L&I, but another department where the citizens felt, after a great number of years, you know, the City employees were still not sensitive to their needs, and they finally felt, in desperation, the only way was to take a street action which interfered with the convenience of many other people. So the ideal of the City department being able to meet all the needs is a great ideal, and I think we've got to keep working toward it, but we're not always able to achieve it. But let's -- but I think, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to ask any more questions. I think we ought to hear from the people directly involved.
Commissioner, can you tell us how many expediters we presently have that do business? Do you have any indication? COMMISSIONER EGAN: I really don't know. I could only give you my, you know, just like an unprofessional guess at it. I mean, I 51 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 just think there's probably about to active expediters working in the Department of L&I -- you know, working through the Department of L&I. You know, I can tell you that I've heard that there's been a trade association formed. Probably one of those people are going to testify today, so you could ask them those questions.
Fine. 11 COMMISSIONER EGAN: I don't know how 12 much they charge, I don't know how much they 13 make. You know, those questions can be answered 14 by those people. 15
Thank you. Just one question before we go to Mr. Campbell. Of all the professions that have interaction with the Department of Licenses and Inspections, going from lawyers, architects engineers, expediters, plumbers, electricians, home improvement contractors, are there any other professions that do not have a license requirement or an insurance requirement or some other type of requirement that's being asked for in this bill? 52 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
Councilman Kenney, if I can answer that. Again, with only one exception, and that is contractor license, and you introduced that piece of legislation within the last two weeks, so that that's in the hopper, waiting to be enacted. But no, everybody else -- lawyers, architects, engineers, electricians, roofers -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: Plumbers.
Errors and omissions insurance and other types of identifying features that identify the individual for these consumer-protection issues?
That is correct. COMMISSIONER EGAN: For some system of tracking and recourse.
And throughout the code, you'll have a whole group of other areas that we license. Like tow trucks have garage keepers insurance and other requirements. 53 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 So that this is the only group, really, that deals with the Department that has no 4 requirement.
And the only other thing I want to clear up is I think Councilman Cohen was under the impression that there was some trade group of insurance people that would be determining this level. I want to make it cheer from your testimony that the City's Office of Risk Management would be the entity looking, or hopefully would be doing this kind of work in determining the setting levels of insurance that would need to be provided. COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's correct.
Right. But I'm saying that they would be setting the levels of consumer protection, but it would be a City agency, not an --
-- that would be charged. The insurance companies would have to set that, right, we wouldn't have the right to determine the rate of coverage?
Isn't that done now for every other profession? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Mm-hmm.
Well, the other professions, they may have by this time established rates so that the people, before they go into business, know what they're confronted with.
Here we have a group people who are already working, who may be confronted with, you know, a serious change in the amount of rates. I mean, they are the area of my concerns. I don't know what the evidence is going 55 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 to show in any of these areas.
Okay. Mr. Campbell, could you please give your testimony. And I think it's in the form of offering specific amendments to the bill. And are those amendments in writing?
Councilman, with the exception of two drafting errors, everything has been presented to the Chair, and to the --
Hold on one second. Before we start, I'd like to make sure we have it.
Okay. On -- excuse me. The first amendment that I want to make is in Section 1902. And it's just a changing of the initial words which just says, "Except as set forth in Section 919.2" -- I'm sorry -- yeah, 19 19.2 -- 1902 -- (2), excuse me.
Okay, yeah. The first amendment is just a word change in license required. And it's just adding -- instead of starting with the words "No person shall act. . ." it starts with "Except as set forth in Section 56 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 9-1902(2), no person shall act. . ." Again, it's just a drafting language change. The next change is a major change. And with that change, we completely rewrote the exceptions section. Those people who are not required -- or to be licensed under this chapter. The first one, obviously, are attorneys currently licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania. Simply the State Supreme Court regulates attorneys, and nobody else. And we changed the language because it wasn't that clear in the original bill. The second exemption are those people who are already professionally licensed, the licensed contractors that we hope this Council would adopt shortly -- architects, engineers, other persons, who, when they perform or supervise work, they already meet the requirements, they already have those codes of ethics and procedures and have the insurance requirements. And this would only be a burden for something that really wasn't required of that group. The next group are -- the provisions would not apply to public officials or their 57 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 employees or City employees in their ministerial duties. And, finally, the provision of this chapter would not apply to those Realtors who are coming in to apply for the certification statements seller certificates.
For just for clarification on the Realtor exemption, that is for the obtaining of real estate certificates only.
That is correct. And the next amendment, which is under Section 9-1904, we put an additional section in to further delineate -- or that clearly defines the Department's right to establish disciplinary procedures for suspension and revocation of licenses. This is something that, you know, we really adopted from the valet parking ordinance 22 that this Council passed some weeks ago, that it was not clearly delineated, so I put that in the bill. I have two other -- 58 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
Two others that are not included on the cover -- my understanding of what you gave us this morning is a cover sheet explaining -- or highlighting the specific amendments, and then the following pages are the marked-up bill --
-- which would be the proposed amended ordinance, correct?
Two more on the marked-up bill. The bill of proposed amendments are adopted. Under the definition of "agent," there's a drafting error.
Okay, it would be of the ordinance markup or of the pink bill.
And I am taking out -- the section now reads, "Any person employed or 59 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 compensated for taking action on behalf of any other person in matters before the Department of the Review Boards or before any of their officers or employees. . . " And I am taking out the words in the very first line which say "for taking action on behalf of." That should be the words "to represent."
Okay. The second -- or final change goes to 9-1903, license renewal. And that would be 1-ii.
And that's on 2, bottom, right, of the marked-up bill?
And at the top of the pink bill, but at the bottom of the marked-up bill. And that now currently reads, "Proof that applicant possesses insurance in such type and amount as the Department shall, by regulation, require covering claims made by the agent's clients for errors and omissions in the course and scope of the agent's work on behalf of such client and. . . " And we added the words -- and then I'll read it as it should now read: 60 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 "Proof that the applicant possesses insurance in such type and amount as the Department, after consultation with the Office of Risk Management. . ." And they are the new words added to that section. And they are the amendment changes that we are recommending to the bill.
Hold on one sec. Are there any members of the committee have any questions relative to the amendments offered by Mr. Campbell? (No questions.)
Do either of you have anything else to add relative tower testimony on this bill or the proposed amendments? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Just thank you for your time.
Thank you. Could you remain? Because what I'd like to do is, in the event -- I know that there are questions that are going to be questions raised about the propriety of this bill and about some of its specific requirements. And I would like to have those, for the record, immediately 61 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 responded to. COMMISSIONER EGAN: I'll be happy to stay.
Thank you very much. Mr. Pollack, are you testifying today? (Mr. Pollack comes forward.)
Hold on one second. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Councilman Kenney and Councilwoman Verna. Steven Pollack. I am appearing here on behalf of -- wearing two hats today. One hat, which I will present testimony on at this point is that I have with me today a resolution which was adopted by the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Bar Association on February 26, 1998. And I have about -- I have 15 copies. I didn't know how many people would be here from the committee, and I have two or three or four, whatever you want me to hand out --
The 62 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 Sergeant-at-Arms will bring them, we'll get them.
And Councilman Kenney, if you want me to read this into the record, we would read it into the record. Or if not --
The crux of the testimony with regard to this matter is that when this resolution was passed, the bill stood without amendment. And we attached to the resolution 15 there the amendments that the Bar Association wanted included with regard to this bill. This bill was not something that -- and it's been put that this is a Steve Pollack bill 19 and that Steve Pollack wrote this bill and I am the major proponent of this bill. And I would just point for the record that Steve Pollack wouldn't have written a bill 23 where I would have to come back in front of the City Council and say lawyers should be exempt from discipline by L&I. 63 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 Also, we are -- so therefore, the resolution was that we are opposed to this as it stood, but if the two resolutions -- the two amendments were included which are in 9-1902(1), that there was a definition now that says (reading) provided that no person who is not an attorney currently licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania shall represent another person at a hearing before a review board or otherwise engage in the practice of law. We were asking for that. That is based on -- and I have copies and I would also ask the Sergeant-at-Arms, sorry, to come to pick up some copies of this case. There's a case that goes back to 1961 Letag (ph.) verse somebody named Dilworth, Richardson -- Mayor Dilworth. And this case clearly holds that appearing before the Philadelphia Zoning Board is the practice of law. If the Bar Association is guilty of seeking to try and protect the rights of land owner to use his property, then the Bar Association is guilty. If the Bar Association is guilty of trying to protect the land owner's Constitutional 64 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 right to use property, then we're guilty. And if we're guilty of trying to protect the guilty, then we're guilty, also. This --
So I understand your testimony, the two issues that the Bar is discerned about was, number one, that we do not try to impose any additional discipline on the legal profession that is already imposed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
And that we, in some way, eliminate the opportunity for people other than lawyers to practice before or to represent individuals before these boards.
Okay. And on one count, you're happy; on the other count, so far, you're not. Is that --
Well, no, the amendments -- we believe the amendments, as proposed, would take care of that.
This Letag case -- the 65 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 old law used to be that no person could -- a person could appear by himself or with an agent or through an attorney. After that, if you look at the Philadelphia zoning code right now, it provides that you can either represent yourself by yourself or by an attorney. So that the battle was fought in 1961 to say that practicing in front of the Zoning Board and Boards of Record is the unauthorized practice of law. And I will probably -- I'll try and have more testimony when I come up possibly later, if you will let me come up later as an individual. I am testifying now -- unless you want me to now where another -- wear another hat.
Okay. I am attorney, who, everybody knows that's sitting in this room, uses an expediter because I don't think that we should deprive anybody of their right to earn a living. I think expediters are an integral part of the practice as it exists in Philadelphia. 66 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 I think that without them, you know, the system would break down. I think that everybody has to be aware that they do play that role. And I am not here to put anybody out of business. What we are concerned about -- and, you know, part of the reason I think that they exist is lawyers are like every other layman; we'd much rather spend our time doing some other things than have to put up with all the things that the expediters put up with to get their job done, because they put up with a lot of things to get their job done. But I guess we are also concerned that -- we are in the business of protecting the consumer, and we feel that the consumer is not being protected, and the rights of people are not being protected if you are going to go in front of a Board of Record on an issue that affects your ability of you to use your property. And Letag case says it much more eloquently than I'm ever going to be able to say it as to what the role of a lawyer is, what the role of anybody is with regard to appearing in 67 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 front of a board. This case gives the method to be pursued, the form to be selected, and the practice to be followed for the enforcements of such rights as it's engaged in the practice of law. And it has Constitutional founding. And this court even said it here (reading). " Here we are 37 years later. ) We are aware of the fact that non-lawyers appeared for many years before the Zoning Board, and we are mindful that this particular plaintiff, Mr. Letag, has, for years, earned his livelihood at such practice. We do not pretend to know precisely when it should have been recognized that the presentation of zoning problems involved the practice of law. It may well be, as the Assistant Solicitor so well suggested in his oral argument -- and that was Leonard Wolfe, some of you may remember Leonard Wolfe -- that what started out as a relatively informal forum imperceptive evolved 68 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 into a tribunal adjudicating very substantial rights and requiring skill, judgment, and artistry. And in the leading Supreme Court case that established zoning and allowed this Council and all councils and municipalities throughout this land to start regulating land use through zoning, in the Village of Euclid case, the Supreme Court recognized the evolutionary aspect of zoning problems. It said (reading) until recent years, urban life was comparatively simple. But with the great increase of concentration of population, problems have developed, and constantly are developing, which require and will continue to require additional restrictions in respect of the use and occupation of private lands in urban communities. And then the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recognized that there are functions that the lawyers perform. They instruct and advise clients with regard to the law so that they can be properly informed of their rights and obligations and their Constitutional rights they 69 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 prepare clients' documents, requiring familiarity with legal principles; and they appear for clients at tribunals; and they're committed to the function of determining the rights of life, liberty and property according to the law of the land in order that he may assist the deciding official in the proper interpretation and enforcement of the law. It says that in order to determine such rights, it's necessary first to establish the pertinent facts which are frequently uncertain, controverted, and, at best, unascertainable, as experience has demonstrated, by the application of the rules of evidence tested by centuries of usage.
A lawyer, being technically fitted for the purposes, examines and cross-examines witnesses and presents arguments to jurymen to guide them. As an ancillary, he participates in trials and legal argumentation. Where the application of legal knowledge and technique is required, the activity constitutes such practice, even if it's conducted before such administrative board or commission is the character of the act and not the place where 70 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 it is performed, which is the decisive factor. In modern times -- and these are not Pollack's word, these are the words of the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia in 1961. In the modern times, the affairs of people requiring the services of a lawyer become more intricate and complex, demanding a corresponding increase in the standards of the profession through preliminary education and a lengthened and more diverse course of study. In addition to the rigid educational requirements, the applicant must possess a good moral character. These prerequisites are not for the purpose of creating a monopoly for the legal profession, nor is it for its protection; but are for the better security of the people, the people, against incompetency and dishonesty. And these are not Pollack's words again. These are the case's words. This is the court. And the court goes on to say --
Mr. Pollack, I need your to sum up. We have copies of the case, and we can -- 71 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
So that's why we are here, to say that, I think Boards of Record are where we are trying to protect. I think that the ordinance may go a little too far in terms of when an expediter might appear in front of certain boards. I think that the Accessibility Advisory Board is not that board. It's an advisory board so I think that in going that far, it overreaches. I think that probably the L&I Review Board and the Zoning Board, since you're appeal -- when we say "Board of Record," your appeal from those two boards are right up to Common Pleas Court. And the rule is that unless you raise the issue, you don't get another shot at presenting testimony in the Common Pleas Court. So whatever is going to be presented has to be presented in front of the L&I review board and especially the Zoning Board. People's rights and their right's to use the property -- I had a recent case where I 72 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 represented neighborhood group. I was opposed by an expediter. I can tell you, I know the legal doctrine. There's a case I brought, and I with me. It's the Logan Square case. That wasn't used to the best advantage, I feel, by the expediter 'cause he doesn't know the case, doesn't really know how to -- what evidence to present. So there's an individual now who, I feel, doesn't -- has a property that he's bought, and has had his rights limited to how he's going to use that property because we have to leave the practice of law to those people who know the practice of law, who've gone through, have special training and expertise, and have done that. I also feel that if L&I feels that it needs to regulate the role of the expediter to have some handle on it because we are subject to disciplinary rules, my ticket, my livelihood can be suspended, can be taken away from by me by the Disciplinary Board of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. If L&I feels they need some sort of regulations, I feel personally -- this is not as the Bar Association. I feel permanently that L&I 73 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 should have that right and has an obligation to the consumer public to regulate that industry. And I believe that would be the sum of my testimony.
Thank you very much. One nuance, though, as it relates to the L&I Review Board and as it relates to the Zoning Board. I mean there have been times -- and I am not an attorney, but there have been more times than I wanted to be before that Board, representing, along with Councilmember Verna and members of her staff, Councilman Cohen -- I mean every Councilperson and Councilmember staff who are not necessarily attorneys have been there to represent the community group or constituency that are normally opposing a particular -- sometimes in favor of, but normally opposing a particular project or proposal. I know that there are certain procedural changes that happen when a person like myself who is not an attorney goes before that board, and that is that the Chairman does not permit direct questioning of witnesses, and all 74 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 information --
-- is discussed through the Chair. So it's not exactly a courtroom, although it is a procedure of record which is appealable to a court in Pennsylvania, but, it does kind of -- it's a horse of a different color sometimes.
Letag will tell you that these administrative boards, they are quasi-judicial boards; it's not a horse of a different color. The cases come out of the PUC, which is the utility commission, but it's a State regulatory agency. Cases come out of the Workman's Compensation area where you are dedicated to being in front of like referees -- they're now called "judges." It is the practice of law before a tribunal that affects your rights, and the 75 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 consumer should be protected by somebody.
As a lawyer, I understand how -- I know it's a very unfair question to ask you as lawyer to lawyer, but could you summarize your position, just summarize it without quoting from anything.
What is your position with respect to this bill? And that is the Board of Governors position, I guess.
The Board of Governors' position, Councilman Cohen, was that, as originally drafted, we were opposed to it, with two amendments. We endorse two amendments. The two amendments are to 1902(1), which would change it so that it provided no 20 person who is not an attorney currently licensed to do practice law in Pennsylvania shall represent another person at a hearing before a review board or otherwise engage in the practice of law. That is one. The other one is to 19-1902-A, which 76 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 exempted lawyers totally from getting the license and being subject to discipline by L&I. We feel that, one, we are licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania. We have --
So that, basically, your position is that expediters should not be permitted to practice before the Board of Review.
Yes. Expediters, knock yourself out downstairs, do what you have to do to represent people, help them with their paperwork, help them move the process along in getting permits, building permits, licenses. But when you step from downstairs on the concourse and you go in front of that tribunal, that administrative agency representing and making arguments, you are making legal arguments, you are representing somebody, and that that is the practice of law.
Well, just to get your position, what was your position with respect to the appearance of an expediter at the Zoning Board itself? Not the Board of Review, the Zoning Board itself.
Clearly, we are -- we say 77 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 that if they appear at representing somebody or, in the Letag case the case -- in the Letag case, the case finally went on because --
Please, I'm asking you precisely, is the Board of Governors --
He's a lawyer. He can't give a -- he can't give a short answer.
That's the reason I said it's (unintelligible) pinning down another lawyer.
Councilman Cohen, I'm even on my own clock. I'm not billing anybody.
But are you saying that it's the Board of Governors' position that the expediter should or should not be able to appear before the Zoning Board?
They cannot appear and represent people before the Zoning Board; they are engaged in the practice law.
So it's not just the Boards of Review. You would limit the expediter 78 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 to --
Not appear before any board that has any authority to render a decision. It means the Zoning Board or any of the or appellate boards?
Right. Then I testified personally that I thought the Accessibility Advisory Board, probably the Board of Fires, Safety and Prevention, and the Board of Building Standards might not be boards of record so, therefore, this ordinance may overreach a little bit with that respect. But as far as the boards of record, where there's a record kept and you can only appeal that to Common Pleas Court, then I think you're affecting people's Constitutional rights to use their property. And every --
I didn't want -- heard all the arguments. I just wanted to be clear as to what your position was. 79 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 And you're speaking on behalf of the Board of Governors.
Right. I have the authority to speak on behalf of the Board of Governors.
Today the Pennsylvania Bar Association, unfortunately, has its annual meeting, and Chancellor Aronchik, Chancellor-Elect Chacker (ph.) and Vice Chancellor Doreen Davis were all unable to make it today.
And I'm Vice Chair -- and I am Vice Chair of the Real Properties section.
Well, since you said that, I have to state that I have a son who's a member of the Board of Governors and --
Whether or not he's present at that meeting or participating, I don't know.
I can tell you he was and that he voted in favor or this resolution. 80 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. I have a list here of witnesses who are requesting, I think, to appear -- to testify in opposition to the bill. But in fairness to what I believe is a relatively newly-formed organization, is there a spokesperson for that, and is that the people -- if you could just nod your head that that individual is. Okay. Everyone will get an opportunity to speak, but if there is someone who can be concise about the specific opposition to the bill prior to each individual testimony, I'd like to give him an opportunity first, so -- (Unidentified man responds inaudibly off mike.)
Okay, let's get 81 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 someone from the other side first, and we'll go a little bit back and forth. And let's just go off the record for a moment. (Brief conferring off record.) (Hearing resumes.)
This is additional testimony relative to Bill No. 970778, which was an ordinance to amend the zoning maps for an area -- within Snyder Avenue, Broad Street, Oregon Avenue, and 18th Street. The Chair recognizes Mr. Furey.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After having had a chance to discuss the matter of changing C2 to C1 with the City Planning Department, we support this bill as it is. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Let's go back now to the bill in question. And could you please come forward, identify yourself for the record, and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is John H. Morley, Junior, 82 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 M-O-R-L-E-Y. I represent a fledging association, the License and Permit Agents Association. I first would like to comment on Commissioner Egan's testimony. With all due respect, I interpreted Commissioner Egan's testimony to be a personal attack on one or two individuals, and I don't believe that that justifies legislation. In their own testimony -- and "they're" being Mr. Campbell and Commissioner Egan -- they stated that there were 10 to 15 agents. That, in my opinion, doesn't justify legislation of this nature. Commissioner Egan stated no need for expediters. She clearly, clearly wants to terminate a trade. I object to that.
No, I understood her differently from what you did. I heard her say -- at least this was my interpretation of what she was saying. She hoped that someday the Department would be able to function in such a way that there would be no need for anybody outside the Department to offer these services. She also indicated clearly that she 83 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 thought, at the present time. That expediters were in fact needed. And I did not interpret it in any way any personal attacks on anyone. I'm sorry if you got that interpretation, but I didn't feel there were any personal attacks intended or even made.
Thank you, Councilman. Please proceed with our testimony.
Commissioner Egan also stated that most trades carry insurance. And in response to that testimony, this legislated insurance would be redundant. Mr. Campbell --
I don't want to interrupt you again, but I want to make sure -- it was a response to my question.
I asked her whether or not, of all the professions that have any interaction with L&I, are there any other professions, with the exception of the agent, the permit agent that you're representing, that does not have errors and omissions insurance and other 84 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 types of -- she did said no, she was not aware of any of those professions other than expediter, a/k/a permit agent. So I just -- there's -- it's not clear -- and I mean the only reason I interrupted you is 'cause that was in response to my question, and I think the record's clear that the only profession that has interaction with L&I that doesn't have this type of insurance is yours.
Our association would request a continuance of this hearing and a vote by the committee so that we could have the opportunity to work with Council and the Department of L&I regarding the contents of this legislation. Our ethical consideration of the Pennsylvania Statute is -- I'm quoting from the statute. The essence of professional judgment of the lawyer is his educated ability to relate the general body and philosophy of law to a specific legal problem of a client and, thus, the public 85 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 interest will be better served if only lawyers are permitted to act in matters involving professional judgment. Where this professional judgment is not involved, non-lawyers, such as court clerks, police officer, abstractors, and many governmental employees may engage in occupations that require a specific knowledge of law in certain areas. This is not a 1961 case, this is not my words -- these are not my words; this is a current statute. We believe the professional judgment required before review boards is not of a legal nature but, rather, a technical nature that falls into professional judgments of architects and engineers who work with building codes and at times a logistical nature that falls into the judgment of agents who have experience with and an understanding of the Philadelphia codes. The public's L&I matters somebody disposed of said chosen agent, be that an architect, engineer, attorney, expediter or any other person. Agents are not design professionals. Therefore, errors and omission 86 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 insurance is inappropriate and arbitrarily escalates the cost of services to the public. The City should not deny the freedom of employment because of a criminal past. As written, the bill does not provide consideration to the public in exchange for the fee, tax, the considering of separate lines, clerks, phone lines, fax lines, etc. for agents, and discounts on the purchase of City codes for agents should be included in the bill for a tangible benefit to the public. In accordance with Resolution 1, Section 5, order of business, paragraph 4, reading of communications, I am asking that you read the transcript of my testimony to Council at the appropriate meeting. I reiterate our request for the opportunity to work with Council and L&I. If said opportunity cannot be given, we must oppose the bill as presently written, and we request the Rules Committee to reject and vote against this bill. I have petitions with hundreds of -- in my experience, these are my friends, and I believe 87 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 that these are the friends of our association. There are hundreds of people here I'd like to give to the committee.
All right. I request -- we request that rules be enforced. The following statement is not the opinion of the License and Permit Agents Association; it is my personal opinion. In order for this bill to truly protect the public, an examination for competency must be included. This bill, as written, does not include enough language regarding the disciplinary procedure. And, finally, in my experience as a contractor, when I first got into business, error and omission insurance was 10 percent of my revenue. It is now, after seven years in business, been lowered to 2 percent of my revenue.
Excuse me. You have errors and omissions insurance now?
I have errors and omissions insurance for a business. 88 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
For your agent business -- for your expediting business?
Okay, fine, thank you. I'm sorry wanted to make sure it was clear.
Let me ask you a question. You had indicated in your testimony that agents -- expediters or agents, whatever term you prefer, are not design experts, do not engage in the practice of the law. Could you tell me what it is, what service you actually perform? What do you do for a client? Give me a typical client that you would move through the process, and what is it that you provide to them?
All right. We take information that is composed by property owners or, in short, interested parties. Sometimes we also receive information from architects and engineers. We take information that someone else 89 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 composed and go through the logistical process of permit application and variance requests to the Board of Building Standards or appeals to the Board of L&I Review, or any other review board. We're taking information that someone else composed. That's why E&O insurance is not appropriate.
I don't mean to diminish the practice; I'm trying to understand. Is it more of a type of courier service? I mean, is it more of a type of courier service where you take paperwork to a particular office, receive back what it is you need, receipts, other things, move to another area? I mean, to kind of walk it through and then deliver the paperwork back to the either the architect, the resident the homeowner, property owner?
I don't mean to be -- just want to understand what the job is. What do you do?
In regards to applying for permits, it is -- can I yield to Mr. Tayoun, 90 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 please?
If Mr. Tayoun could enlighten us to what the exact -- what the job is.
I shouldn't have to tell you that, but please identify yourself.
There are several levels of expediters, or agents, underneath the one label "agent." There are those who fit the category, like I would normally, and several others who are simply couriers. Some of them represent chains that do a great deal of business within the City of Philadelphia. If Council, for instance, decides there's something wrong with the signage code and decides to make an amendment someplace because it's been called to their attention and it passes, all of a sudden, L&I goes out and reminds all these chain stores that their signage no longer is 91 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 legal, they've got to do something to bring it in compliance. These companies with then notify an expediter, go put all this stuff together and get these various stores that have been cited on line. So he comes down and he makes the applications, he then goes to the proper agency. If he cannot convince the planner, or whoever examines the plans, that this is only a minor change, it should be adjudicated right here then and now, and it's not now because, for some reason, they're not given that kind of power anymore. He then goes to a Zoning Board or a board of review or a board of standards, and what happens is, he follows it through. This saves that syndication group, that chain group, that business conglomerate a lot of needless headache and work for a minimum fee. They're happy with the services, they continue to use the services. And then there are other people like myself who will get a call from someone who's an immigrant or someone who doesn't understand the 92 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 law so much and started up a little corner grocery store and has found out that since, even though it been a corner grocery store years ago, it no 5 longer can be again because the zoning was changed 6 by City plannings through the work of the Council, 7 and he has to go in for a zoning appearance. 8 So the man takes and files the 9 application, returns down -- takes him to the 10 Zoning Board and says, Here's the situation. 11 Mr. Pollack indicated there was a case 12 that he represented in the community and the 13 expediter was ignorant of the Logan case. Well, I 14 was that expediter. And if I had known about the 15 Logan case, I still don't think I would have 16 (unintelligible) because I had the City Councilman 17 and the State Senators, the State Representatives, 18 Congressman and 60 people against me. 19 And this poor guy. So I knew he 20 couldn't win because nobody would weigh logical evidence in a situation like that. They normally go with what the neighborhood wants. So there are precedences and traditions that have developed in the 30-odd years since he's cited the case that he mentioned that state it 93 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 should be simple for couriers to really carry information to the -- and make applications for permits to be able to follow them through. If we screw up, it's our fault. If the client realizes he's making a mistake by going through us, he's been told this is a very difficult case by us, I can't handle this, I think you're going to need an attorney, there's too much solved. Then he makes that judgment and decides whether or not he wants to spend more money for an attorney or not. Most of these people do not want to hire an attorney because the do not have the money. And the tradition that we're seeing over the years before the Zoning Board and the other boards has been one where they've listened to someone who's able to put into words more clearly -- and that is an expediter or an agent -- then the consumer himself who has made the application. Then they're very happy to have us before them because we can articulate well what the problem is and what the need is for that place. And that's basically what that is. 94 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
-- complete my answer? In regards to the administrative agencies, they have different jurisdictions. The Board of Building Standards will listen to an appeal to do something that is contrary to a building code. I'm trying to be general just to explain the point. If you wanted to do use a different size structural member on a building, you would ask an engineer to design that structural member if it was in violation of building code. If you were to ask the City to use something less than National Fire Protection Association codes, you would take a fire protection designer, you would hire them to explain why you're changing the pipe size or head locations so that they still meet the intent of the code. These are the engineers. When you go before the Board of L&I Review, in most cases, a Department of L&I 95 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 employee has interpreted the codes, and you would make your argument and your interpretation in regards to the handicapped board. The City has flat standards for accessibility, and BOCA allows exceptions to accessibility. You would have the opportunity to speak before the Accessory Board, and you would be given the opportunity to state what that nationwide exception is. So I hope, Mr. Chairman, I've explained that. That's in general the nature.
Is there any disagreement with the Commissioner's estimate that 10 to 15 active expediters that are involved at L&I?
I have no opinion on that, sir. I don't know, I don't know how many there are.
How many are there in your association as of now. And I understand you're a fledgling association.
That's correct, sir. 96 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 We've had to people attend our association meetings. Not all have been agents. There are several architects, there are several engineers. Recently, there's been people in the construction industry. The attendance at our meetings has ranged from people to 18. 8
I'm sorry. Please 15 identify yourself for the record. 16
My name is Neil 17 Schlosser. And that's spelled N-E-I-L, 18 S-C-H-L-O-S-S-E-R.
Okay. I'm a registered architect. I've been registered in the state of Pennsylvania since 1972. I've had businesses, both architecture and related businesses before that time and continue to have a practice. I'm part of a practice that I own in Philadelphia. 97 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 We've been active all those years. We have a wide range clientele, ranging from community groups to the School District of Philadelphia to private clients. I'm also a member in good standing with the American Institute of Architects Philadelphia Chapter. And I'm here -- I've been asked by the Executive Director to appear at these hearings to express their views on this bill. The opinion is that the bill, as originally presented -- I believe it was in November -- was unacceptable to the American Institute of Architects. The bill as amended -- which, frankly, has not -- they feel as though they haven't had the proper time to review it in detail -- may be acceptable. Although my recent -- and I'm talking about as recently as today and yesterday -- examination of it and discussion of it with other people indicate they still have some problems with it. And for that reason, we'd like to -- I don't know what the term is -- extend these hearings or allow some time for the AIA to submit a more -- 98 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
Could you tell me what the specific areas of concern that still exist are so we know what they are.
Yes. We'd like to take exception to Steve Pollack's opinion that architects are not qualified to appear, or it's illegal to appear before these various regulatory boards. If you took that same argument, I imagine the (unintelligible) commission would mean the same thing, even though that's not part of L&I. The Art Commission, it would mean the same thing. Architects have always historically on a regular basis appeared before these boards. For instance, the Zoning Board is one -- is not always an adversarial relationship but it's one where the architect is much better qualified to talk about the impact, the quality of life, what the built environment's going to be. And to limit that in any way, we think, is inappropriate. 99 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 The same thing is true of zoning and the L&I Review Board. In a sense, architects are lawyers. We deal with codes which are law. That is, in fact, our responsibility and the way we're licensed by the state to perform. I was talking to our insurance -- my insurance carrier. My firm is about seven people total, so it's not a large firm but it's been a steady player in the Philadelphia architectural scene. We pay $20,000 a year for professional liability for errors and omissions. I spoke to my carrier today, and he has a problem just with the word characterizing the activities in here as an "agent." Apparently in the insurance word, an agent -- that word is one of the so-called bad words. That we are really independent consultants, you know, to owners and, you know -- but routinely are authorized to perform these activities.
But do you read that to apply to architects after the amendment?
I'm sorry. Mr. 100 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 Campbell and/or Commissioner Egan, could you or, whoever else the Law Department wants to talk about this, I just want you to be ready to go after the testimony. Have heard Mr. Schlosser's testimony on those two specific issues? (Inaudible response -- off mike.)
Okay, please proceed. We'll have their response. Please proceed.
You're asking me to proceed, okay. There was a big question as to whether our existing errors and omissions would even cover the actions of what's characterized as an agent here, that this new requirement of the law would necessitate yet another layer of insurance, another layer of cost, which, of course, has to be passed on to our consumer clients. I'd like to add some of my personal opinion. I won't say this represents AIA's, but when I read this bill, it has a presumption of guilt, I think, of the people, that the requirements for criminal background checks, the 101 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 -- it just seems to -- if fraud and bribery are being committed, if that's what this bill is really about, there certainly are mechanisms in place for that. I don't think another layer here is necessary in a bill of this kind. I have -- do a lot of my own permit work, particularly when it requires appearances between L&I boards. I do use expediters. I have never been asked or expected nor have I ever received any special favors as a result of hiring an expediter as far as I know. And I really don't think that is what happens. So, again, when I do use an expediter, I see all these additional costs -- the insurance, the background checks, and others as something that just is ratcheting up the cost of doing business in Philadelphia. I don't think that the consumer's going to be additionally protected, I don't think this bill will do it. And I think the existing mechanisms already in place now are, you know. . . Indictments were turned out by a systems that's in place now apparently this 102 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 morning. I don't know much about it yet. I just heard what I heard today. So the AIA position now is that this bill needs further work, and we would certainly like to offer our offices to do that. We would like to hire an attorney in light of Mr. Pollack's testimony today to examine that issue. We've had heard two conflicting legal opinions right here in this room here today. I'm not going to answer any of those, although I know that I have, according to Mr. Pollack, been criminally appearing before all of these boards for the last -- since 1972. I don't think I'm a criminal, and certainly I think AIA and all the architects of that organization would like to examine that particular issue in much more detail.
Thank you. Commissioner and Mr. Campbell and Mr. Schlosser, if you could you just remain. I may be -- maybe we're reading the bill differently. I suspected that the amendments that we were offered today eliminated the professional architect from the provisions of this bill. Am I 103 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 reading it wrong? COMMISSIONER EGAN: What it does, Councilman, is it eliminates them from the provision of having to apply for a license of expediter.
Right. COMMISSIONER EGAN: But it doesn't eliminate them from not -- not being able to -- in other words, they would not be able to represent. They can present before the boards, the Zoning Board and other boards, but they would not be able to represent a client before the Zoning Board.
Do you read this legislation as having any impact on architects whatsoever, on their insurance requirements? COMMISSIONER EGAN: On architects' insurance requirements?
And, Mr. Schlosser, you had indicated that you were concerned about an increase on cost of your insurance based on this bill.
No, what I'm saying is 104 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 that in my discussion with my agent today --
-- who is a professional liability agent. No, not an expediter.
-- believes that you would have an increase -- a potential increase in your cost of errors and omissions insurance based on the passage of this bill which would regulate expediters?
He's my -- what he's saying is the insurance I have in place now, errors and omissions professional liability that architects carry such as mine, which was one of the major ones in the field, would not cover our 105 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 activities when we're construed as an agent as is described under this bill.
See, that's what I -- what I need to know from the Law Department, Mr. Campbell, Commissioner, are architects exempted from the provisions of this bill or not? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes, they are.
I respectfully disagree with that. I mean, it says we can apply for permits and stuff, but we cannot, unless we are an agent, appear before the boards.
No, unless you're a lawyer. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Unless you're a lawyer, you cannot represent a client before a board.
That's two issues. The first issue is, you are correct in your belief that this bill would eliminate your ability to, quote/unquote, represent someone before a board of record.
But your contention also is that somehow this bill would potentially increase your errors and omissions insurance, and I think you're exempted from the provisions of this bill as it relates to that issue.
I don't think that's clear whether we're exempt from that in this bill.
If I'm representing, quote, as it's described here "an agent" --
I have seen a copy that was sent to me by John Campbell about a week ago, I guess it was, which, I think, includes amendments and 2.
Well, I don't -- Mr. Chairman, I don't see -- I agree with the architect testifying. I believe he has to be licensed in order to represent --
But we're limited under 107 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 this bill to applying for permits. Our service is traditionally of going way beyond that.
Your effort in obtaining permits or any of the activities, I guess, in the concourse of the Municipal Services Building, you would be exempted from the provisions of this bill, okay?
That is correct. (Unintelligible -- parties speaking over each other at the same time.)
And Mr. Pollack has described the appeal board issue --
But you're not prohibited from appearing as an expert witness and offering testimony. 108 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
You're not exempted from that. So that if an individual represented by an attorney wanted to hire you to present expert testimony to the Zoning Board, you would be permitted to do that.
But you wouldn't be permitted to go to the Zoning Board without a lawyer.
Let me tell you about my last case. We do work for School District of Philadelphia. As you know, almost any large project requires some kind of variances and appearances before all these boards. I asked the School Board, do you want to have an attorney, you know, represented here, you know? And the answer came back no, we think you're fully competent to answer for us in all of these questions.
I mean, I wasn't a 109 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 witness; I presented the case.
But the converse of that example would be that if the School District was required to send an attorney, they would have sent a staff attorney with you, you would have still testified to the ability of the expertise, and been a -- they would have still been your client.
Okay. So it wouldn't have caught you any more money to have a lawyer from the School District to accompany you to the Zoning Board.
It's one more cost, you know, that the School District would have to bear.
Under this proposed ordinance, you wouldn't be able to be there by yours.
Is that agreed, Commissioner? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Councilman, if I could.
I'm Eric Auerbach, Senior Attorney, with the Law Department. I think your reading of the bill is correct. The bill states that no one other than a licensed attorney may represent a person before the boards or otherwise engage in the practice of law. The intent of that provision was simply to restate the provision of state law -- that's a criminal statute -- that says that no person other than a licensed attorney may engage in the practice of law. The definition of practice of law is not always entirely clear, but representing a 111 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 client before a court or before an administrative agency, such as the L&I Review Board, the Zoning Board, is within the core of practice of law.
These can get very sticky. There are zoning boards -- (Unintelligible -- parties speaking over each other at the same time.)
I think the important point is that while the line drawn may be difficult, this bill is not drawing the line. This bill says you may not engage in the practice of law. It leaves the definition of "practice of law" to the State criminal statute, which the courts have interpreted.
But in front of -- in this bill, in front of specific boards or -- 112 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
Well, it says it. It says the Board of Building Standards, the Board of Licenses and Inspections Review, the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Board of Safety and Fire Prevention, the Accessibility Advisory Board. It does not include the Historic Commission in this bill or any other entity that's not mentioned in this bill.
No, I understand that. What I'm just trying to demonstrate is if you continue this logic that only a lawyer can represent anyone in some -- in an agency or a board that has control over things that might have legal implications. That would then eliminate even other boards where, you know, you never take a lawyer, you know.
You know, let me tell you something. If there -- I always ask my client, you know, in advance, and I think that's an important decision that maybe should be left to 113 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 the client, you know, who should represent them at these things.
If we ever think there are major issues of law, we would certainly feel as though we're disqualified. Many cases aren't tried on the basis of the legal arguments.
Yes. It's the impact on the neighborhood, whether it's legally or not legally involved, you know. And it's -- frankly, it's the architectural arguments and the presentation of how good this is going to be for the community or for your neighbor, you know, that's going to win the argument. It's not the legal decision.
But that's an issue of the finding of facts of the particular board, not what we're really discussing here, which is the appropriateness or the eligibility of an individual to appear to represent someone before 114 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 that board. What the Zoning Board decides or determines is a matter of their reading of the facts as presented to them. We didn't get to that point yet, we're just talking about the presenters of the facts and who's eligible to be a presenter.
I understand what you're saying but I, at least personally -- I don't know whether it represents the AIA's position now because we -- the amendments came late.
And I think it definitely needs further examination before the AIA wants to make its last formal statement about where they stand on this bill.
With -- this also refreshes my memory. In recent days, there have been questions raised sometime by the board, the Zoning Board particularly, when a community 115 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 organization has appeared in protest. I think on some occasions, it's been very difficult to permit the community organization to testify because if any member or officer went forward, they were not attorneys and were not regarded as appropriate representatives. And so I'm very concerned about that area. In other words, if only attorneys are going to be permitted to represent before the Zoning Board, then the president, say, of an association could not represent or a zoning chairman of a neighborhood association who's not an attorney wouldn't be able to represent. Now, is there anything Commissioner, as far as you know, or, Mr. Auerbach, as far as you know, is there anything that deals with that situation? What happens when an unincorporated association --
Right. I don't think this bill addresses that issue, the issue of how an association --
Is there anything -- well, if only attorneys can represent -- 116 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
My understanding -- I'm not an expert in this area. Mr. Pollack might be able to assist us, but my understanding is that a Pennsylvania corporation can only appear through an attorney.
Well, first of all, Council, if I may -- Steven Pollack. And again, an agent is defined as any person employed -- employed or compensated. So if you talk about -- if you're a representative from a community group, I don't think you're employed or compensated.
The other thought is, I've used Mr. Schlosser as an expert witness, and I will gladly use him again no matter what he says. It's clear that I cannot submit an architectural drawing and put a seal on it, okay. I am not allowed to do that. Now, what we are saying -- and again, everybody says lawyers are expensive. I think you'll find that lawyers are just as economically competitive as anybody else out there. The notion 117 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 that attorneys are only for the rich, you know, may be permeated or magnified by Johnny Cochran and O.J. Simpson, but I don't think that's the case with what goes on here. I think what you have is -- people can represent themselves or people can have an attorney who's going to call Mr. Schlosser as the expert witness within his area of expertise but, as Mr. Auerbach has pointed out, there is a criminal statute that's been on the books for years and years and years about the unauthorized practice of law. This Council can, under the Letag case, can say you can't expand or you can't contract what is the practice of law or anything like that. But I think for your question is, I think you have somebody who's not compensated or employed.
Well, you haven't answered my question at all, or even come close to it. My question was: An unincorporated 118 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 community association, who could speak for it?
They can come up and they can represent -- I think they could represent themselves.
Well, who is "themselves"? They're members of a corporate association --
-- and they want to express the views of the association?
I'm going to not answer that question as well. I apologize I don't know the answer to that question. But I think the important thing is this bill is not addressing that question. Who can or cannot appear for a community group at the Zoning Board is a question for interpreting the unauthorized practice of law statute, the Zoning Board's practices. This bill is to require a license to be an expediter. And I think, as Mr. Pollack pointed out, you would not need a license -- an expediter's license to appear --
I'm raising another 119 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 question, Mr. Auerbach. If we're going to be regulating who appears, then I think we have to be ready to deal with every question that exists. And one of the questions to the extent that this bill adds further the limitation to attorneys to appear before the Zoning Board, it raises even more severe questions for community associations in the neighborhood.
But, again, this bill is not what prohibits non-attorneys from appearing. It's the State law that prohibits non-attorneys from appearing.
But let me on expand on Councilmember Cohen's question for a moment. I, as a citizen, have the option under State law to represent myself before.
As then acting as my own attorney, do I then have the opportunity, acting as own attorney, to hire Mr. Schlosser as 120 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 an expert witness?
So where is -- I don't understand what the limitation is. It doesn't require me to hire a lawyer.
So I -- I mean, I as an individual, wanting to build a third story on my house can represent myself, or the president of the community association can represent themself without attorney and call expert witnesses.
They can represent themselves. Whether they can represent in the sense that a lawyer represents a big organization, I don't think so, but I'm not certain.
But the other question, then, is: If I want to represent myself, I'm an individual homeowner who wants to build a third story on my house, and I don't want to hire a lawyer, I want to go in and give my own case, I then also have the opportunity to hire a 121 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 licensed expediter to make -- to represent me there to. If the person's licensed under this law, if the individual is licensed by the City, I can call that person in as an expert witness to come in and to assist me representing myself as a witness.
The limitation is you're adding the -- as an expert witness to it, you know, the cases that I've talked about where I have personally experienced it is where I was the only one presenting the case before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The School District had no 19 representative. They were fully aware of that, and I had, you know, their permission to do that.
Well, I think, when it comes to agencies like the School District of Philadelphia and others, they, under the provisions of this bill, would send a lawyer with you. I mean, I don't see that that -- they have a 122 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 lot of lawyers over there. I think they could find one to send with you. But the issue is, I -- I, as a citizen, am not precluded from representing myself and hiring you.
Mr. Chairman, the Zoning Board -- and I always speak of that one 'cause it's the one board that I've had a lot of experience with. The Zoning Board may very well feel -- and I personally feel that an architect is fully authorized to represent a case before the Zoning Board in a case that involves architectural problems. Many of the cases only involve that.
And I think it would be wrong to require in such a case that an expediter or an attorney be added. I think Mr. Schlosser's problem is that the role of the architect as a profession may be limited if the architect is not recognized as an architect but 123 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 must be become an expediter in order to represent a client
No, I don't read -- we don't read it that way. I mean, the expert --
Well, he can't represent; he has to have a lawyer with him.
No, he can have a citizen who is appearing, who is applying for a variance, come in and represent themselves before the board and hire Mr. Schlosser as an expert witness.
Yeah, but many citizens are not -- they don't feel comfortable doing that.
And I don't think we ought to impose that burden on them.
But the same effect is there. Because whether Mr. Schlosser comes in ahead of the client, or the client comes in ahead of Mr. Schlosser, they're both still in the room 23 together. And he is still providing the same services at the client's request. I don't see how the client's limited. 124 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
He -- under your ruling, he would only be able to testify as an architect. And if Mr. Kelly, the Chairman of the Board, wanted to raise a general question, Mr. Schlosser couldn't answer it because it's not an architectural problem.
Yeah. And the citizen might not feel qualified to answer the question.
Well, what we're saying is we don't want to increase the burden of expenditure on a citizen, and we don't want to increase the burden on the board. They're a very busy board.
I just want to make -- we're going around the block on this and all the different scenarios. But, again, as an individual citizen applicant representing him or herself could represent Mr. Smith, the expediter, to assist them 125 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 in that effort as an expert witness. They're going to pay that person anyway, they're not coming in for free, 'cause if they were coming in for free, they'd be exempted from all of the provisions of this bill, from what I understand, . So I don't see how people are limited in their access to expert information through this legislation.
No, it's not just expert information. They want a representative at the Zoning Board. Many people feel very, very uncomfortable and inadequate. They get intimidated when they come into the hearing room 15 and see sitting behind desks. This is an unusual experience for them. So they're entitled to have somebody speak for them. Under these provisions, Mr. Schlosser is concerned, and I happen to, after listening to this agree with him, that he, as an architect, is going to be limited as a witness on architectural problems and will not be able to serve in a representative capacity, which he currently can serve on.
Well, the question 126 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 I have --
Isn't that true, Mr. Schlosser? Can't you serve currently?
Before you answer, what else are you qualified to talk about but architectural issues? I mean, not that you don't know anything else, but what else are you qualified professionally to do?
-- to answer many zoning issues because we have -- we know and read the zoning codes and are expected to comply to the zoning codes, our State licensure says you will know everything about every code.
And so in these 127 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 particular arenas, you know, such as zoning, I think we're pretty qualified, in most of instances. It's the one where there's huge opposition or something, or there are going to be later appeals or stuff, I would never even, you know, really want to engage in that kind of procedural or legal kinds of things. But certainly, I can express an opinion on what the legal codes --
But even through this whole dialogue, I still don't understand -- I still don't see where you're limited or the expediter licensed under this bill is limited or the lawyer's limited or the citizen's limited from appropriate representation under the terms of this bill.
What this bill says is that -- the exceptions is licensed contractors, architects, engineers, and other persons may apply for permits under which such they will perform and 128 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 supervise work -- da-da-da. It's limited to permits. I mean, basically, just carrying a zoning application form over to L&I.
Not if Jim Kenney wants to build something on his house and has to hire you as an expert witness. Then you will be in the same Zoning Board, giving the same information to the same board that you would be if you were there by yourself.
I mean, I've seen people -- when I've been at the Zoning Board, I've seen who have gone in there by themselves, with very uncomplicated issues, have taken their pictures in and the proof of their posting and have given their case to the board, and the board said approved, we agree. They didn't need a lawyer, they didn't 129 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 need an expediter, didn't need an architect.
I think many of those same people would be more comfortable with an architect than an attorney. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Councilman, if I could add to the discussion. (Unintelligible -- parties speaking over each other at the same time.) COMMISSIONER EGAN: If I could add. The issue really is here -- I'm sorry, what's your name?
Neil Schlosser. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Mr. Schlosser, what he's really saying is -- well, he is totally exempted from having to apply for a license as an expediter, that's what he's exempted from. But what his concern is, that he, according to this bill, he will no longer be able to, on his own, represent a client before any of these board of records. That's what his concern is, he couldn't go by himself anymore. But this is the point. This is already in State law. And what's already in state law is now being reiterated in this bill. 130 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
What is already in State law? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Now --
What is already in state law? I don't understand that. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Okay, I'm being told it's already a part of a City Council's code.
Would the Law Department -- Mr. Auerbach, could you offer testimony as to what your interpretation of the State law is, as representing the Law Department?
Just if I may, Mr. Pollack is pointing out that the current zoning code also says that any party may appear in person or by his attorney. So the current zoning code also is consistent with the notion that the State law says to act as an attorney, to represent someone is -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: Okay, but can I just add this? 'Cause this was my point.
I'm going to be advocating a change in that. COMMISSIONER EGAN: But this is the point. The practice, however, of the board has 131 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 not been to enforce that provision.
Enforce that, but now that it's been raised, we can't go on the basis of what the practice is, and we've got to clarify the law.
See, I would argue that the multiple, multiple times I've been to the board, in that room, two-thirds or more of the people who come before that board on minor issues come before that board without attorneys. There were very, very few times that I've seen where there was a lawyer representing someone. So if the vast majority of people in Philadelphia that come before that board are representing themselves, they're in complete compliance with State law, correct? COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's my opinion, too.
To get off to the other issue (reading) architects, engineers, and other persons may apply for permits under which such they will perform or supervise work and take other action necessary to obtain permits. 132 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 Supervision is not what architects generally do. Supervision is something that's generally done by a superintendent hired by the contractor. We do periodic inspections of work. Under the normal AIA contract modifications -- common modifications of the standard AIA contract is that you can hire for full-time observation. You can also eliminate the construction administration fees, which is the period during which do these inspections. We don't think that either should disqualify you in order to apply for permits.
Okay, okay. Is that the conclusion of your testimony, Mr. Schlosser?
That will do it for this panel right now. And what I'd like to do is to move forward. If you could, Commissioner and Mr. Auerbach, could remain, I'd like to call -- is there a Jody -- I'm sorry, hold on a second. Jody Pessolano and Mr. Beller. Mr. Beller, do you still want to testify? 133 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
Well, what we'll do is have Ms. Pessolano come up, and you can take the seat next to her. If you could identify yourself for the record, and proceed.
My name is Jody Pessolano. I'm a professional engineer. I practice independently in the City of Philadelphia.
Sorry, could you pull the microphone closer to you because we can't hear you.
My name is Jody Pessolano. I practice structural engineering in the City of Philadelphia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And I just want to say that I expedite my own projects through L&I. I walk engineering or architecturally-related projects through L&I, deal with the people there as far as the technical problems, code requirements. I act as a liaison 134 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 between the owner and the L&I people. If they have problems with the plans, I can speak with them and find alternatives to codes or find a way for the owner to resolve a problem L&I may have with it. Now, of course, I, and most engineers, I believe, I'm not speaking for any engineers association, we're opposed to the former bill, which made no mention of architects and engineers, no provision for them to walk before a board, walk plans through a board unless they were a licensed agent. And I'm happy -- from the amendment I just heard, it sounds like something in the right direction, although I'm surprised why we were given no notice. The Association of Expediters was given no notice of this amendment.
And the City's taking advantage of the public hearing to introduce amendments to the bill which they want the committee to consider. The amendments don't 135 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 become technical amendments unless this committee accepts them.
These are merely proposals made by the City to the committee of Council to consider these as amendments, but we have not acted on that proposal.
I understand. I don't want to beat a dead horse here. I know we've spent a lot of time discussing whether architects and engineers can appear by themselves before the Zoning Board and other boards.
I believe we should be allowed to because there's often instances where an architect or engineer has to discuss the technical problems or the considerations in putting a building at a certain place or zoning at a certain usage or whatever. And --
Well, I happen to agree with you. I never understood that it was intended by this bill to denigrate the professions 136 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 of architecture or engineering and to take away from them rights they have historically performed.
Well, with all due respect, I think that would be rather presumptuous for the City of Philadelphia to make restrictions on architects and engineers that the rest of the nation doesn't do.
Well, I'm not -- I can't comment on that because I don't know what's happening in any other areas, you know, what other states, how they treat them.
But both architectures and engineers are recognized professions. And in Philadelphia, those recognized professions, together with the profession of law, have historically been permitted to represent clients before the Zoning Board.
And it just seems to me that to take away rights from them doesn't add anything to the solution of the other problems we're talking about, which is the question of 137 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 expediters. I understood we were going to consider the regulation of expediters because it was felt there may be an untrained group of people who are handling things, and that's what we were looking into. But I would think both your professions ought to object very strenuously to any effort by anybody to indicate that professionals that are, you know, members of the engineering and architectural professions be denied any basic rights.
And I would not support any legislation that took away any of your rights. And I don't know what you two really having to be here. I never thought it was ever contemplated to change the status of engineers and architects.
Well, the original bill, I just found out, whatever, 20 minutes ago, that apparently, there's good moves in the direction of not doing that. 138 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713
Well, bills -- you know, bills are prepared by a Councilmember who accepts responsibility. They don't represent the final view of City Council until they go through the Council process and get voted on. So it represents the work of one, maybe two or three Councilmembers, if they work together. And this hearing process is aimed at doing what doing we're doing here today -- testing these bills to see whether they actually accomplish the purpose for which they were intended.
Very well. May I say that even assuming that we will not be restricted in any way by this bill, we architects and engineers, I would still object to the kind of severe restrictions you're placing on expediters because --
I have used the in the past. And want to say that, to be frank, when I first heard the word "expediter," I kind of cringed. I thought, Well, here's somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody, or pays money 139 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 under the table, and it didn't sound good to me. But with the experience I've had over the years and recently with this organization, I found them to be people who just know the codes, know the process, good people that just walk plans through, help people fill out the forms in the best way they know how because they've been experienced in doing it. And that's all they do. And they help expedite development in the City of Philadelphia. And in my opinion, if you're going to just shut them out of the process, which I think you'll effectively do by requiring some onerous insurance requirements, you're going to slow down development in the City of Philadelphia. And that's not a good thing.
That's the kind of evidence, pro or con, that we'd like to hear. So your testimony is that the system, as it currently exists, is working well.
And working in the 140 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 interest of the public?
I believe so. Now, nobody seems to know exactly how many expediters there are. Again, there were 6 to 18 that showed up to our meetings. Some of 7 those were architects and engineers. Perhaps 10 8 or 12 were purely expediters. 9 But I'm no expert in this area. I 10 would just think that there's a good percentage of 11 work that they move through the City, half maybe? 12 Something approaching that. A great deal of work 13 that they help expedite through L&I. 14 And if you shut them out of the 15 process, you're really slowing down development in the City of Philadelphia and gumming up the works for owners and contractors and developers.
Well, I've been in City Council for about and a half years 20 covering service that covers a 30-year period. 21 And I have to state for the record that I have yet to receive my first complaint about an expediter.
I never had a complaint. 141 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 (Applause.)
And I'm trying to find out, is there a problem, or is there no 5 problem?
And if there's no 8 problem, we shouldn't try to fix something that doesn't need fixing.
But if there is a problem, I'd like to know what that problem is, and that's my search -- to see if there is a problem.
I have not been aware of a problem. I've heard some rumors about a particular individual or two recently, but I've heard of no problems since then.
Commissioner, could we have you and Mr. Campbell back for --
My testimony is not in joint -- Mr. Kenney asked me to sit down. I'm separate, and I'm going to talk about the problem and answer some of the questions that you've asked 142 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 that you said that you haven't had answered.
I just want you to understand I'm not sitting here idly by. I'm an attorney, and I'm going to answer those questions.
I'm sorry. I don't know whether you were in the room, but the Councilman called the Commissioner up to the table so that --
What is the problem that exists, Commissioner, that we're trying to correct? COMMISSIONER EGAN: The problem is we have a business activity that's gone on unregulated and unlicensed for all time, and it's about time we regulated it.
Well, except for the conclusion that it's about time we regulated it, what is the history that indicates the need for 143 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 regulation? COMMISSIONER EGAN: The consumer who is making use of this type of business has no 5 recourse if there is some kind of problem with the type of service performed for that consumer.
Do we have any record of complaints from consumers? COMMISSIONER EGAN: I can't present you with documents -- you know, with specific documents. However, even just since the time I've been a there, which is, you know, a little less than two years now, Councilpeople have complained to me about problems they've had with citizen complaints that they've received regarding dealings with expediters. We've received complaints at the Department about dealings of expediters. And they're of the nature exorbitant costs for a service that then was not performed.
I just stated -- you may have been out room -- that in the 21 and a half years -- I think I'm accurate, I may be off a little bit -- that I've served in City Council, I 144 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 have never received a complaint about an expediter. I've heard these vague rumors like the engineer, a moment before, testified, the word "expediter" does not have a nice connotation because people think it's a form of fixing something or other. But I've never had a complaint in my office from anyone with respect to the dealing. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't complaints, but I've never run into any of them. And trying to find out before we fix something, we ought to know the nature of the problems. The complaints that you get in your department, are any of them in writing? You know, if there are complaints, I think they ought to be dealt with whether -- sometimes they don't have to be dealt with necessarily by legislation unless they are large in number and indicate the need for regulation. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Councilman, I --
I mean, it sounds strange. I'm usually accused of being -- 145 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 COMMISSIONER EGAN: I don't know how to say this --
-- one of those folks who think government is always good. COMMISSIONER EGAN: The problem is --
I think the government does a lot of good things, but I've never heard of regulating something that -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: The problem is not documenting the complaints; the problem is that we have a business activity in Philadelphia that's unregulated.
May I ask, why is that we must regulate simply for the sake -- because someone's unregulated? Shouldn't there be a reason to regulate? COMMISSIONER EGAN: What does --
First of all, understand the process of the hearing. All questions need to be asked through the Chair and then we will ask the individual to respond. 146 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 Sir, I'm sorry (addressing Mr. Morley), we can't keep coming -- I mean, you've had your testimony and if you want additional testimony, you can give it to me in writing, but we can't have this. It's not a debate; it's testimony. I'm sorry. Councilmember, did you have a question for Commissioner Egan?
Well, I think she's answered it. Apparently, there is no specific written documentation of any complaints but she does testify that from time to time, there have been complaints that she has received. And she understands that various Council offices have communicated complaints to her. Is that about right, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER EGAN: And the Department has received complaints too. I don't have that specific documentation in front of me.
Well, I'll tell you, I would like, if it's possible, to see if there could be any compilation, you know, of complaints, if that exists or if it doesn't, because regulating -- you know, we're under the 147 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 responsibility, I think, to regulate where regulations are required, and I think we're under an equal responsibility not to regulate if there's no need to do so. The engineer, Mr. Chairman, you may have been out of the room. The witness in the middle is a licensed engineer, and she testified that she does, you know, processes things all the way through the Department, has represented people, and that on occasions, there she uses expediters. And she spoke very strongly that her experience is that expediters serve a very useful purpose. Is that accurate?
Give me an example of what would you, as an engineer, would hire expediter to do.
Well, I don't hire them in particular. I put a plan together, an engineering plan or an architecturally-related 148 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 engineering plan, and my client may want it done quickly or done by somebody who's more familiar with the process than I am; I'm not an expert on licenses and inspections. And so they hire an expediter, and the expediter would work with me on the plan.
Well, I. . . I have been asked by good friends not to answer that question, and I'm going to honor that request.
Well, Mr. Beller, can you tell me what you charge an hour?
Identify yourself for the record. 'Cause I understand -- where I'm going 149 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 in --
If this is -- hold it. If this is an absolutely necessary service, okay, I want to know exactly what the service is and then what people get paid to perform the service. I don't think that's something that would be necessarily secret. Are there varying fees?
Are there specific fees for permit-obtaining? Is there a specific fee to stand in line, is there a specific fee to get a plan exam? I mean, architects charge specific fees, engineers charge by the hours, lawyers charge by the hour. How much does it cost?.
Well, generally, I and other expediters charge a flat fee or an hourly fee, depending on whether the job is complex or not.
I am an engineer, and I 150 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 expedite my own plans when the client allows me to.
Okay, all right. Mr. Beller, could you identify yourself for the record?
I'll identify myself. For the record, my name is Joseph Beller, B-E-L-L-E-R. I'm a practicing attorney in the City of Philadelphia and have been so since 1960 and had the privilege to serve as an assistant in this very Council chamber for two and a half years, in the early sixties. I got my break in on legislation. And so today's melee is not a surprise to me. I sat as a secretary to the Law and Government Committee. And I must tell you that I honor all of the questions coming from the panel, but I think we're getting far afield. As a practicing lawyer who specializes in zoning cases, I am very happy to tell this 151 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 panel that I do use expediters and will continue to use expediters but I don't use them to replace me in the areas where I should be involved. And you've had heard a lot of testimony. I have used architects, and will continue to use architects. I have used engineers, and I will continue to use engineers. Because I'm not going to build a house and I'm not going to design a house. And I hope to God that Mr. Schlosser doesn't take my appeal to the Supreme Court when I get in trouble, 'cause although he seems like a very intelligent man, he appeared for the School Board. If the issues before the Zoning Board were strictly questions of architecture, God bless him, there is no question he's a better witness than I could ever be -- I have trouble drawing straight lines. But the problem that you have, and let's start and face it now, the Zoning Board of Adjustment and many of the other boards are boards of record. And Councilman Cohen, I've seen you, Councilman Kenney, Councilwoman Verna, and I 152 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 appreciate your input on behalf of citizens, and you come in. And you know quite well, Councilman Cohen, because this very Council passed legislation that gave civic groups, civic associations particular privileges before the board, including free copies of notes of testimony. I don't always love civic groups when I'm there for the applicant, but God knows, they get to testify. Now, let's come back to where we have to be. The Zoning Board of Adjustment in particular and the L&I Review Board are boards of record. And as an attorney for those in the audience who don't know this, if you lose before the Zoning Board, you appeal to the Common Pleas Court. The Common Pleas Court does not take additional testimony. So if somebody who presented the case, including a lawyer who may have forgotten, if he didn't present an issue of vested rights, if he didn't distinguish between the need for a certificate or a need for a variance, that judge could be the most sympathetic, wonderful person in the world. And I dare say, if you, ladies and 153 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 gentlemen, appeared in support of that poor person who lost, he still couldn't overturn the Zoning Board. And you have to wait a year to go back. Now, I am not -- I am telling you, I use expediters. The process is complicated, the wait is complicated. My hourly rate is too much for me to sit downstairs in the Municipal Services Building and wait two or three hours or an hour, or whatever the wait is, to obtain a permit or to even file an application which is going to subsequently be refused and then addressed to the Zoning Board. And my expediters do the following for me: They check the record, and they're competent to do that, the ones I use. They bring me back the information that's the history of the zoning. They check such things such as what this very body does. You have zoning legislation in which the Italian Market -- and you're all familiar with that -- in which every corner in South Philadelphia, just about was C2 when I was first practicing law. Today, because of Council, it's now C1. 154 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 C1 and C2 are very different, and you can't put a restaurant in a C1, but you can in C2.
Now, my expediters, who are efficient and competent and bright and honorable bring me that information. And they save four or five hours of time for my client. And I pay them their hourly or whatever bill they charge me. Now, I don't want to see expediters done away with, but I don't want to see non-lawyers practice law. And the reason is the same thing you're worried about, Councilman Cohen, protection of the public. If somebody presents a case who is not familiar with the law and the requirements of the Zoning Board, and that when you say to them 14-1605 and they don't know what you're talking about -- and well they shouldn't. Or if they think they know it and they don't know the distinction between a certificate and a zoning, a refusal or a referral, that case is not in a posture, and that poor person will have to go to the court and back to the Zoning Board a second time. And I don't care how cheaply somebody works, it's double or triple. 155 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 Now, what you have to keep in mind what Councilman Kenney said. It is absolutely true that the average citizen can bring someone in to advise him, to help him to write notes for him, to help him prepare his case, and I have no 7 objection. And my expediters often, the ones that I am privileged to use, and I use that word sincerely, 'cause I have worked with some very nice people, some of whom are in this room today. And they come with me very often to the Zoning Board and they help me get petitions and they help me set up meetings with the Councilperson who then sets up civic meetings. There is an absolute need for that. And the dollars that they charge generally are less than what a lawyer and what an architect charges and what an engineer charges. But let's focus on this bill the way it should be. L&I wants people who appear before them to be regulated. As a citizen, I think that's wonderful idea. I don't think that it should be onerous. I'm with you, Councilman Cohen. A 156 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 person shouldn't spend 50 percent of his income to be insured, but I'll bet you that the City division that looks into that can come up with either private insurance or bonding, the way you do now, for various things like newsstands and so forth. I like the competent people that work with me, and I want them to continue to work with me. And I hope I don't offend them today, but I don't want them standing up before the Board and arguing legal issues. They can testify as my witness to some area of the plumbing code which, to me, is arcane but, to them, is understandable, and they can be my witness. And I can win the case, I can win the case with their help. But if I have an expediter who doesn't know the law -- and I'm not saying some do or don't. But if I have an expediter who does not know the law and does not build that record, that citizen loses. And that's where the problem is. I'm not going to perform an operation and I'm not going to build a building. I'm licensed to practice law, and I hope, please God, 157 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 that I'll be able to do it for many more years. I'm not going to become an expediter tomorrow and I'm not going to become an architect tomorrow. Each of us has our own place. " You had some testimony. I'm sorry he walked out 'cause I don't like to call names when they're not here, but Councilman Tayoun -- former Councilman Tayoun sat here and said he's a courier, and then he said he goes to the Zoning Board. And he talked about a case, Well, we would have lost the case anyway because the City Councilman was there against us and the neighborhood was against us. Well, I'd like to think --'cause I've won some of those cases and, by the way, with the help by very nice expediters back there. I have lost cases before the Zoning Board where the Right Honorables have been there, and we took it to court and we won. And we won because the legal basis for that grant was there.
And the fact that the Zoning Board was swayed by 40 people and 2 to the 158 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 contrary, respectfully notwithstanding, we won in the courts. And the reason we won in the courts is because I had a damn good expediter who got me my petitions and who got me the background and who got the parking problems fixed up that I couldn't have done myself. And two or three of them are sitting back there now. So let's narrow that issue down. Let there be expediters. Let them be properly regulated. Let them continue to do their jobs and do their jobs well and assist me, an I hope that I can assist them sometime. But let me practice before the Board. Don't have a record before the Board that can't be appealed.
Thank you. I just want to divert for one moment. We have some business to do. We're going to recess the public hearing of the Rules Committee, we're going to convene our public meeting. - - - (Public meeting convenes.) 159 RULES COMMITTEE - PUBLIC MEETING
And the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill 4 No. 970092.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 970092 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. Also a recommendation that the rule of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. There are none opposed. Bill No. 970092 is reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. Just so you know what we're doing, we are voting out of committee the non-controversial bills that we discussed in the earlier part of the hearing, and then we'll come back to the public hearing. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna 160 RULES COMMITTEE - PUBLIC MEETING for a motion on Bill 970395.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 970395 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. Also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. There are none opposed. Bill No. 970395 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill No. 970778.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 970778 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. Also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our 161 RULES COMMITTEE - PUBLIC MEETING next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. There are none opposed. Bill No. 970778 will be reported out of this committee with favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion to approve Resolution No. 980251.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution No. 980251 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. There are none opposed. Resolution No. 980251 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. We will now recess the public meeting and reconvene the public hearing. 162 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 - - - (Public hearing reconvened.)
Mr. Beller, I think -- Councilmember Cohen -- Councilman Cohen.
The way it works now, are there activities engaged in by expediters that you think are wrongful?
Appearing before boards of record and acting as legal counsel to people who - when they are, in fact, not lawyers and not trained in the law -- irrespective of knowledge that they may have since some of them may have superior knowledge to many lawyers who don't do this kind of work, there's no question. But the point is that a lawyer who is a lawyer who is a good lawyer is trained to be able to learn those issues and to argue the cases. The Zoning Board has very, very precise requirements for the approving of a variance, for instance. And that's a legal matter. The factual 163 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 situation, it can be done by the expediter. So that's the problem I have. I have no problem with expediters in general. And, as I say, they perform a fine function.
But your position is that an expediter ought not to have the right to present the whole case to the Zoning Board or to any board of record.
Now, what is your position with respect to the professional engineer and/or the professional architect?
It is exactly the same. Unless the engineer is trained in the law, unless the architect is trained in the law, they should not conduct the hearing. They should be given the 100 percent credit that they deserve if they're good architects and good engineers, and the attorney ought to question them. Or, as Councilman Kenney said, the homeowner says, Listen, members of the board, I brought with me my architect, I brought with me my engineer, I brought with me my sprinkler guy. I 164 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 don't know how the hell you put on a sprinkler -- pardon my French. So I'm going to let her tell you exactly how this is designed. And she has a right to do that. What she doesn't have a right to do and probably -- and I say this respectfully -- isn't trained to do is to cross-examine the protestant who may be very well talking about issues of hardship, saying, Listen, we don't care how well you designed that wonderful sprinkler system, I don't want a warehouse there. I think that should be a candy store, I think that should be a residence, and you haven't proved hardship. Now, hardship, as far as I know, is a very technical zoning legal term. It is not an engineering term. And that's -- And so, I don't see why you, Mr. Cohen, would question whether an architect or an engineer should expose themselves to violating the criminal law of practicing law without a license anymore than you would want me to practice architecture, which would be in violation of the law and I could go to jail for.
Well, for one thing, 165 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 the courts have recognized that zoning is a very special function, that the Municipal Authority, meaning the government of the City of Philadelphia, has a right to regulate, even to the extent of setting forth the rules for appeal from the Zoning Board to the courts. There's a court decision making that very, very clear.
If you'll please permit me to finish. Secondly, we're in a situation where there are many, many cases where many people have simple matters to present in which they cannot afford attorneys or believe they cannot afford attorneys, and the expediter has served the useful role in the past. I think in those cases what may be important is not preparing the record for appeal because most zoning cases never get appealed; most zoning cases are decided right at the board level. So secondly. I think the professions of architecture and engineering are not qualified cases in general before a court. In the cases where there are special areas of architectural law 166 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 or engineering law, I think they're very well qualified to present their cases. Now is that the reason you asked why I do that?
I'm going to answer you, Councilman Cohen. We've worked on cases where you've been helpful and other cases where you came in and protested.
Let me say this, Councilman. I have persuaded you -- well, maybe I'll put it the other way. You've persuaded me that in those cases, I thought to do things like put a fence and some trees and a different exit and entrance, and then you've changed your opinion, and I thank you for that, thank you for working with me. 167 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 But you're making a grave error, sir, and I say this with all due respect, because I know you care about people. What makes you think that the architect or the engineer is in there for free? 'Cause you talked about money, number one. And, number two, I represent many, what you and I would call, "average citizens," the neighborhood beauty parlor, the neighborhood candy store, the neighborhood restaurant. I don't represent the Pyramid Club every day. And I want to tell you something, that the truth of the matter is that an architect or an engineer who knows the architecture and engineering requirements still is not trained in the issue or variance certificate, vested rights. Now, they may have picked it up along the way, but how do you suppose they're in there for free? The last time --
-- I paid an architecture bill, it was pretty heavy. Suppose you hire a lawyer just for the 168 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 hearing and that lawyer presents the case properly, using the architect and the engineer as his witness or her witness. And then on the legal issues, convinces the Board that it is a proper place for variance. That's his proper function. I don't want to usurp the function of the engineer or the architect, but they have no 9 right to usurp mine. And, with due respect, this Council doesn't have the right to give them right to practice law. You can't give me right to right to practice engineering, and you can't give them the right to practice law. And I'm being as respectful as I can. You're mixing the issue. Engineers and architects belong there, but when it comes to the law -- and I'm just going to say one instance. I appeared before L&I Review on a case, and I don't want to tell war stories, but I'm going to tell you this -- that that case turned not on the code, not on the City Solicitor's interpretation of the code, but it turned on a little piece of paper called the Constitution of the United States. That was the issue, due process. And 169 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 you tell me how many architects and engineers are trained to argue a due process case. And that case was won on that basis and that basis alone. And sometimes, although very rarely, even Council can make a mistake and pass an unconstitutional act.
That can happen. And there are also gradations of lawyers, and people have to who lawyers based upon their economic ability to pay. So that just having a lawyer doesn't mean you're going to get full protection.
There are levels of quality of. What I'm saying is we're dealing service with a board that, together with the Traffic Court, probably is one of those most used by ordinary people on a day-to-day basis, and we're trying to make those services available to people. Now if they can afford lawyers, wonderful. We're talking about groups that may not be able to afford lawyers or may not have had 170 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 enough experience with lawyers to believe that they can find a lawyer that's both competent and affordable.
Okay. And Councilman Kenney, a half hour ago, answered that question beautifully. If a man named Kenny wants to build third floor, he can hire this lady or he can hire Mr. Schlosser, and he takes them into the Board, and he says, Members of the board, I really want to put a third floor in. My family is growing, I need the extra space, and now I'm going to have my architect, Mr. Schlosser, explain to you why it's good, why it doesn't hurt anybody else, why there's enough air and light, why I don't block the next door neighborhood, why I won't block fire engines from getting in. Mr. Schlosser, go get 'em.
But it might be a citizen who's not prepared to just go through what you've just said. It might be a citizen who, when he or enters the room, or she enters the room, 171 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 becomes intimidated just by the solemnity. They're not used to it in their life, and they need somebody with them that they feel knows something about the process. And it's in that kind of situation that I'm raising the issue. I haven't finally resolved in my own mind, you know, the specific items.
But you're raising it the wrong way. What you're saying is they don't have -- why should they pay for attorney when they can pay for an architect. So how have you solved the average citizen's problem?
No, they may hire an expediter who's neither an engineer, nor an --
And the expediter -- and the expediter can get them ready for the hearing and he could tell him everything he has to tell him and he could sit by their side.
But he can't get up there and argue the case. And he shouldn't be allowed to. And now let's talk about the 172 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 (unintelligible).
I mean, we don't need to repeat those. We understand your position.
Let me make a suggestion as Chairman of the committee. It is now 5 after 4.
Councilman Cohen has to leave. We're obviously not going to move this bill out of committee today. I have a suggested date to reconvene the hearing on this bill, which is Thursday, at 1 o'clock, June 4th. And if that's okay, we'll have a couple weeks to talk about. We don't have the members here to vote it out anyway. And the amendments have been offered, we can continue to discuss this. I'm sure we'll have contact from various sources discussing this. And then we can come back on the 4th and finish up testimony and go one way or the other. 173 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 Is that okay?
Is that all right with everybody? Thank you very much for your attendance. It's been very interesting, and we will recess. So it's clear for the record, I'm going to recess this hearing to a date certain of June 4th, Thursday, at 1 o'clock.
Thank you. (Adjourned at 4:02 p.m.) - - - 174 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, May 14, 1998, were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO.'S 970092, 970395, 970778, 970713 RESOLUTION NO. 980251 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, RPR