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?