Lansford residents questioned the rental license application process during a recent borough council code and zoning committee meeting.

Resident Bob Silver said the rental license applications, which are due by the end the month, require proof that utility bills on the property are paid, such as a canceled check.

However, many people pay by other means, such as credit card, and there is no receipt or canceled check as proof that bills are paid, he said.

The application also has a portion of the fee going to Lansford Borough and a portion going to ARRO Consulting, he said.

Silver also didn’t believe he should pay any of the fee to the borough, because the borough isn’t doing anything, such as verifying the bills are paid, to earn its portion of the fee, he said.

“Lansford Borough always checked to see if the bills were paid,” Silver said. “It’s probably illegal to pay for something that they you don’t get a return on. They could at least do that portion of the application.”

Councilwoman Jennifer Staines said that this has come up before with the previous code officer, and believed the secretaries had access to all of the records and whether or not people were up to date on the bills.

Silver said the borough should get the entire amount of the rental license application, verify the bill status and notify ARRO, he said. The borough should then pay ARRO out the money it receives from the fees, rather than a property owner submit it directly, he added.

Resident Joe Genits asked Ray Swartz of ARRO, who attended the meeting to answer questions, how many property owners received letters refusing their applications due to not having all the documents that were requested.

Property owners have until May 31 until any letters go out or enforcement actions are taken, Swartz said.

Genits said he wasn’t asking when they’re due, but how many people received follow up letters stating they must comply by submitting all the bills. Swartz said he wasn’t aware of the letters, only the initial mass mailing.

Genits said that a second letter did go out to property owners from ARRO, and he didn’t believe that the borough’s ordinance states or intended to place the burden on the property owner to maintain the files or records.