Bradford Township Police Chief Robb Shipman attended Monday’s meeting of the Bradford Township supervisors to provide perspective on enforcement of mask wearing at businesses in the township.

Shipman explained that his department has received an increase in complaints and queries from residents regarding the use of face coverings while out in public. Shipman said that individuals who are at a business in the township and are asked to leave because they are not wearing a mask are considered to be trespassing if they remain at the location after that point. While the police are taking an educational approach and encouraging residents to wear masks, there are no charges that can be issued against individuals who choose not to wear one.

“Stores are private property. If the store owners tell you to leave and you don’t, you are trespassing at that point,” Shipman said. “We can’t charge you for not wearing a mask, but there could be other criminal issues.”

Shipman said that while it is the right of the individual to refuse to wear a mask, “It doesn’t hurt to at least try to wear a mask.” He also noted that he does not know if wearing a mask hurts or helps, but it is worthwhile to “do the best we can.”

Township Zoning officer Mike Salerno reminded residents that the Bradford Township website, https://bradfordtwpmckeancnty.jimdofree.com/, offers guidance in regard to zoning permits.

Anyone with questions is welcome to reach out to Salerno by calling 368-3564.

“If you build or move something, contact the township or check the website. About 20 to 25% of the zoning permits I issue are issued after the fact. That costs double, which is good for the township and bad for the residents.”

Salerno stated that in numerous cases, residents have had to tear down completed projects that didn’t follow regulations and have them rebuilt, which can be a frustrating and costly process that could be easily avoided.

During the public comment portion of the meeting, Bradford Township resident Lorie Johnson, who is the Field Crew Manager for the Bradford Sanitary Authority, read a statement to the supervisors alleging that supervisors Jim Erwin and Mark Cline had made disparaging comments about her at the June meeting.

She claimed the statements were false, and noted she has invested both time and money into the community and has served on many boards.

“I care. I put myself out there,” she said.

The statement was in response to a comment made at the June meeting regarding Johnson’s interest in an open seat on the township planning commission. There was no mention of proposed action on the June agenda, which prompted a discussion and a statement from Cline and Erwin that the two had heard statements that made them hesitant to support Johnson’s appointment to that position.

During Monday’s meeting, Cline stated that interviews are typically conducted before people are named to the commission, which supervisor Steve Mascho disputed. Mascho suggested voting to name Johnson to the open seat, at which point Erwin suggested tabling the matter until the next meeting to allow the supervisors time to discuss the appointment. Cline seconded tabling the vote.

Concerns about the upcoming work on Browntown Bridge were also voiced, following an announcement at the meeting that the work will begin soon and the bridge is expected to be closed for three to four weeks.

Residents at the meeting, including Bob Burrell and Dave Geitner, voiced concerns about the bridge and the choice to complete work on that bridge prior to efforts to rehab the East Warren Road bridge, which has been closed for just over a year.

Mascho also read a letter from G. Randy Albert, Municipal Services Supervisor of PennDOT Engineering District 2, in regard to “bidding irregularities on the Browntown Bridge.”

Albert’s letter states Richard Rogovin from US Bridge contacted PennDOT. Based on a letter Rogovin wrote to the township and the township’s response, “We disagree with the awarding of the bid that (did) not appear to meet the specifications. If the specifications weren’t what the township was willing to accept they should have revisited them and rebid the project.”

Albert’s letter notes that materials were purchased with general funds, which means PennDOT does not have authority to intervene. However, Albert notes, “The bidding rules are not specific to Liquid Fuels or dependent on any type of funding. They are overall rules for all township purchases. If they are not properly followed, the township opens itself up to legal actions or repercussions by the residents of the township.”

Cline, who stated he has “kept his mouth shut for seven months” during his time as supervisor, also read a statement he had written. He touched on topics of mowing and the cost for the employee wages, compared to the bids received from a contractor for the job. He mentioned the purchase of a new garbage truck, which was done “a year too late,” as the cost of repairs for the trucks the township has is up to $40,000.

He cited a 2016 report that estimated maintenance to the Browntown Bridge would be more than $400,000 to extend the life of the bridge, while this year’s project will completely replace the bridge for $300,000-350,000.

“Mr. Mascho keeps stating that the East Warren Road bridge is more important, and I agree with him. But at this time, we don’t have the money for that. A 2016 bridge inspection report states that $538,000 were to be spent, that bridge would have been back in good condition and it still would be open to this day,” Cline said. “… Now that we are going to have to spend in the neighborhood of $2.5 million because nothing was done. If you go back 10 or 15 years, I’m sure that maintenance fee was a lot smaller. I know that is not his fault, but it just goes to show you what happens if you don’t spend money to keep things up.”