Canonsburg Council Clarifies Rental Fee Rumors

landlords won’t be paying $100 for unit inspections, despite recent concerns that it would be the case.

 “That was in there in a draft months ago. But we’re considering something closer to $20,” borough Manager Terry Hazlett said at Monday’s council meeting.

According to the 2010 census, nearly 33 percent of Canonsburg’s residences are rental properties, higher than the state average. And Hazlett said the inspections are needed to keep up with tenant complaints, which are likely to grow.

“If there’s no fee, we can’t hire someone to do the inspections,” Hazlett added.

“The most recent version of the (rental) ordinance proposal will be up on the borough website Tuesday morning, council President John Bevec said. “The only thing that’s in there now is a fee for not registering. It says a district judge can impose a fine of no less than $100 and no more than $500,” Bevec added.

But the ordinance has yet to be advertised, which council will vote on at its meeting next week.

“I own rental properties here in Canonsburg as well as in Fairmont, West Virginia. They inspect them there and it’s $30 for an inspection every two years. I’m OK with that. I’m OK with another set of eyes checking on the safety of my tenants,” Richard Heiser, of West College Street, said during the public comment portion of the meeting.

Other issues addressed at Monday’s meeting was healthcare coverage for borough employees.

 “We’re back to square one. We’re continuing with Highmark’s health coverage. We couldn’t make amends on the contract where it said quality of care must be equal or better to the new coverage before our deadline,” Hazlett said.

Hazlett told council last month that UPMC had made the borough an offer on similar health care coverage, and that if a switch was made it could have saved the borough about $500,000 over three years.

In other business, Robert Stopperich had sent council a complaint letter in February saying that of the , his was the lowest and the only one that was accompanied with a bid bond.

Council put the contract out again on Feb. 6 after the complaint, according to a letter from council Solicitor Patrick Derrico dated Feb. 29.

After the second round of bids, Derrico said in the letter that Stopperich came in as the second lowest bidder. The contract was eventually awarded to Pittsburgh Lawn Care. In the letter, Derrico wrote that in the advertisement, council reserved the right to reject any bid on any grounds.