Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rental Inspections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pottstown staff proposes allowing qualified third‑party inspectors after Commonwealth Court ruling
Summary
Following a Commonwealth Court decision on administrative search warrants for rental-unit inspections, borough staff proposed an ordinance amendment allowing landlords to use qualified third‑party inspectors for licensing where tenants refuse municipal inspections; the proposal includes qualification criteria, insurance and a borough checklist, and would be advertised for public consideration.
Solicitor Matt told council that a recent Commonwealth Court decision narrowed when administrative search warrants authorizing rental‑unit inspections can issue, and the borough has petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for allowance of appeal, temporarily staying the Commonwealth Court decision under Pa. R. App. P. 1736.
To address enforcement complications and tenant concerns, staff proposed an ordinance amendment that would let landlords use qualified third‑party inspectors for licensing inspections when municipal inspectors cannot access units. "Staff's proposal though will neutralize these issues and provide landlords with a path to obtaining a rental license without a routine inspection performed by LNI if that is an issue for them while providing the borough and, more importantly, tenants with assurances that rental units are safe and habitable," Matt said.
Under the draft, a qualified inspector must maintain a Pennsylvania office, be listed with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry as a certified third party or possess ICC property‑maintenance or ASHI credentials (or equivalent), and carry a minimum of $1 million in errors‑and‑omissions insurance. The inspector would follow a borough checklist and submit a certification to Licensing & Inspections under penalty of perjury; landlords would pay inspection and borough review fees. If tenants of an occupied unit refuse borough inspection, the ordinance would generally require a third‑party inspector rather than prompting routine use of an administrative warrant.
Councilors asked whether the borough can cap third‑party fees (staff said no), whether the process could lead to repeated inspection charges if reinspection is required (staff noted that third parties typically charge for reinspections), and whether the administrative‑warrant issue is comparable to federal immigration warrants (staff said he could not speak to ICE practices). Staff said the option aims to reduce situations requiring administrative warrants while preserving the borough's ability to enforce habitability standards.
Next steps: staff requested authorization on Monday to advertise the ordinance for public comment with possible adoption at the April council meeting, and asked councilors to submit comments before Monday.
