Bethlehem Township Commissioners deadlocked at their Feb. 16 meeting on changes to their paid time off (PTO) plan for its 17 non-union workers.

Tom Nolan and Phil Barnard favored a slight adjustment upward, to bring them into line with the unions. But Mike Hudak and Marty Zaworski were opposed. Pat Breslin was absent, and commissioners vowed to explore the policy again at the next meeting. Breslin, a conservative, voted against the 2015 budget over minor pay raises.

Former Commissioner Paul Weiss questioned the board about the policy change, noting that it was just voted on in December 2013, after hours of consultation with staff and labor lawyers. He indicated that an increase was unfair to the people sitting in that room - some of the 17 non-union emplyees who would like to see an increase.

"I took a pay cut to come here for the benefits," said one worker. He stated that under the plan only one employee with 40 years of seniority would be entitled to 39 days off a year.

Barnard advocated for the increase, noting that the township had no manager when the current plan was adopted in 2013. He felt it was important to revisit the issue after getting the perspective of manager Melissa Shafer. Nolan added,

"Parity is important," he said. "Non union workers should not be too far out of sync."

But Hudak had a completely different view.

"To bring any non-union employee in parity with the union is just unheard of," he argued. "They might as well all be union."

That might happen. One person said after last night's meeting that code inspectors may unionize.

"The taxpayers bear the burden of this cost," Hudak noted, though he did say he had a compromise solution. That compromise was never explored.

Zaworski sided with Hudak, He stated that, according to his research, the PTO plan for nonunion employees is 20 percent higher than the national average.

In other business, the commissioners pondered whether to get involved in the repair of a collapsed culvert across the street from the Keystone Pub parking lot on Easton Avenue. Though that is a state highway, PennDOT insists it does not own the culvert. Nor does the Township. Shafer referred to it as being in "no man's land."

The first and perhaps most important question is whether to do anything at all.

"Once you undertake repairs, it is the township's responsibility," advised solicitor Wendy Nicolosi. But she added that if there were an accident at the site, it would come as no surprise to her if the township and PennDOT were sued.

"I'm leery to even touch it," Hudak said. "PennDOT's just sitting on their hands, not willing to do a damn thing about it."

Shafer told Hudak that PennDOT has offered to provide stones and piping for repairs and would waive the required highway occupancy permit. This would reduce the township's cost to less than $10,000, she predicted.

"I would only want to go out there and fix it once," Zaworski said.

The commissioners took no action.