Create an Account - Increase your productivity, customize your experience, and engage in information you care about.
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
JANUARY 31, 2006
A Budget Meeting of the Township Council of the Township of Roxbury
was held on January 31, 2006 at 1715 Route #46, Ledgewood, New Jersey at 7:30 PM.
Notice is hereby given that a Special Meeting of the
Township of Council of the Township of Roxbury will be held on Tuesday, January
17, 2006 at 7:30 PM and Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 7:30 PM at 1715 Route 46,
Ledgewood, New Jersey. This meeting is being held for the purpose of discussing
the 2006 Municipal Budget.
Adequate notice of this meeting of the Township Council of
the Township of Roxbury was given as required by the Open public Meetings Act
Notice was faxed to the Daily Record, the Newark Star Ledge
and the Roxbury Register on January 12, 2006; notice was posted on the bulletin
board in the main hallway of the Municipal Building on January 12, 2006.
ROLL CALL: (PRESENT) Councilmen Fred Hall, Jim Rilee,
Tim Smith, John Ciaramella, and Mayor Schmidt.
Councilwoman Kathy DeFillippo was absent due to illness.
Councilman Richard Zoschak was absent as he was out of the
ALSO PRESENT: Christopher Raths, Township Manager;
BettyLou DeCroce, Township Clerk and Lisa Palmieri, Chief Financial Officer.
REPORTS OF COUNCIL LIAISON REPRESENTATIVES, COUNCIL,
COMMITTEES AND NEW /OLD BUSINESS
Christopher Raths, Township Manager handed out a memorandum
from Rob Kuncken, IT Director referring to the 2006 Capital Item Explanation.
This memorandum was a follow up to earlier discussion regarding the procurement
of replacement Panasonic Toughbook laptops for the police department. Mr.
Kuncken’s memo detailed the purchase cycle, which was outlined to replace 4
units annually. That allows for a 3-year life cycle of each unit, as there are
a total of 12 units in operation. Stretching the life of these units is not
entirely feasible as they take continual wear by the simple nature of being
used 24/7/365. Between the combination of continual use, by at least 2 different
people with potentially different levels of care, and the fact that they are
vehicle mounted and subjected to road vibration, bumps, extremes of temperature
and so forth, these units are really no longer reliable after 35 or 36 months
of use. Keeping in mind that the budget process that covers these units is for
the upcoming year, the units may not be in place until the later months of
In discussion with the leasing and sales representative from
the state contract reseller (CDW-G), it was determined that to procure the
units we have requested with the specs that we need to run our systems, we
would be looking at a monthly lease payment of approximately $284 or a
quarterly lease payment of $835 for all units combined for a 36 month term with
a $1 buyout at lease end. In addition the lease program includes a 36-month no
questions asked warranty over and above the manufactures factory warranty,
which only covers defective units but not damage. This warranty would cover
dropped units or units damaged in vehicle accidents which have happened in
Roxbury due to car vs. deer accidents causing airbag deployment into the screen
In comparison, a straight purchase of these 4 units with
extra warranty and shipping is a total capital cost of $7, 975.81 vs. a lease
program which puts total cost of ownership at $10,224 plus $4 at lease end to
buy the units back. As explained these numbers, reflects a drop in per unit
price from the budget request due to the continual fluctuation of technology
pricing and includes the extended, ‘no questions asked’ warranty.
With the leasing program there is also an option of selling
back our existing equipment for a credit towards the replacement units; however
that amount cannot be calculated accurately due to it being based on the dollar
value/useful life status on the day of buyback. In conclusion Mr. Kunken, IT
Director recommended that the best cost effective way to go with this is the
outright purchase with extended warranty as it is a lower total cost of ownership
over the lifetime of the unit.
Discussion ensued pertaining to this subject by Council. It
was agreed that the purchase of the units makes it fiscally smarter.
Also, under Capital Budget request discussion took place on
the purchase and upgrade of personal computers. The cost would include Fifteen
(15) computer workstations with a breakdown as follows: Ten (10) desktop
workstations to continue a replacement cycle for the township and police. Five
(5) laptop workstations to continue replacement cycle for the patrol cars with
a total cost of $18,185.
Mr. Raths, Township Manager and Michael Kobylarz, Township
Engineer discussed Off Tract Improvements. At the last capital budget meeting
with Council on January 17, 2006, we discussed available off-tract funds for Righter
Road/Mary Louise Drive and Dell Avenue. Ms. Palmieri had discussed
previously with Mr. Kobylarz that her records reflect that $4,050 was received
from Acadia Realty for Righter Road/Mary Louise Drive and $0 for Dell Avenue.
The Council also, questioned the status of the Crimi (Gallo Tract) funds.
Mr. Kobylarz reported back to Ms. Palmieri and Council that
the review of the “Analysis of Offsite Improvements” as of December 31, 2005, there are 12 accounts, which refer to the Ledgewood Mall, which total approximately
$120,000. The $120,000 is proposed to be utilized for road improvements for Mary
Louise Avenue and Righter Road to Commerce Boulevard. In addition there is 1
account for the Roxbury Mall with a balance of $150,000, which is also proposed
to be used for Righter Road improvements between Commerce Boulevard and Hillside
Avenue. There is also a Willow Walk account in the amount of $10,000. In
addition, the Engineering Department has calculated a pro rata share of $36,000
for the Renaissance project and $9,250 for the Dellamo project for road
improvements to Mary Louise Avenue and Righter Road. The proposed schedule for
improvements to Righter Road is as follows: Phase 1 – Eyland Avenue to Hillside
Avenue year 2006, Phase II – Hillside Avenue to Commerce Boulevard year 2007
and Phase III – Commerce Boulevard to Route #10 year 2007 or 2008 depending on
completion of Renaissance and Dellamo projects.
Further discussion with DPW took place pertaining to the
Chipper. After the Council’s discussion of January 17th in regards
to reducing the total number of Township chippers, a review of the existing
equipment was conducted. Originally the idea was to replace the older chipper,
thereby supplementing the Township’s main chipper. The type of the chipper selected
is a disk type chipper capable of chipping up to a 12” limbs. In considering a
single chipper for the Township, it is recommended that a larger chipper with a
15” capacity be purchased. This would increase the Road Department’s ability
to chip larger logs, thereby reducing the time and effort required to cut and
trim limbs in order to fit within a 12” opening. This larger style chipper
utilizes a drum system rather than a disk. This eliminates clogs common with
the disk type chippers and provides for easier blade changes. This larger
chipper is also fitted with a “Bottom Feed Stop Bar” which provides increased
user safety by stopping the rollers if anyone comes in contact with the
leading edge of the feed table. The breakdown of cost is as follows: Vermer
1230 Capacity 12” X 12” HP 84, Weight (lbs) 5660, Price $28,500. The Vermeer,
1400 Capacity 15” by 20” HP 122, Weight (lbs) 6580, Price $30,000. Mr. Blood,
Assistant DPW Director, stated that the 2 trade options with the dealer, a 1968
Brush Bandit and a 1990 Vermeer 1250, the dealer would not accept the Brush
Bandit as a trade and offered $4,000 for the Vermeer. This reduces the net
price of the machines to $24,500 and $26,000 respectively. The Road Department
has not had the opportunity to use the larger machine as there has been a
severe shortage of the machines due to hurricane Katrina, but will be reviewing
both machines in the coming weeks. It was recommended by Mr. Blood that the
Manager and Council consider the larger unit for the reason stated.
Council did not comment and will refer to this at the next
Mr. Blood discussed his memo dated January 20, 2006 pertaining to the wide area mower comparison. The Parks Department presently
maintains 9 parks totaling approximately 50 acres of turf. Three of these
parks, total 38 acres, can be maintained through the use of a wide area mower.
Mr. Blood provided a productivity comparison:
6’mower 10’mower 11’mower
Acres per hr* 3.36_____7.68 9.5 ___
*Acres per hour assume 1’, 1.5’ and 2’ overlap respectively.
Mr. Blood further reminded Council that the productivity of
the mower does not take into account travel time or trimming required. This
mower will not replace the need for a smaller mower but will greatly reduce the
total time spent mowing. The real savings/benefit of a large area mower is the
time it allows for other tasks. By reducing mowing times by as much as 2/3,
existing staff will be able to accomplish other needed maintenance task.
In a time of increasing demands on existing staff, the
question becomes how can we do more while minimizing the staffing required?
The answer is to increase each individual’s output. The 16’ mower increases
productivity by 370%, and the 11’ by 280%. The table below summarizes the cost
in 2006 of a single employee operating a wide area mower as compared to 6’
mower being replaced:
Mowing hours (38 acres )
Labor Rate/Hr (2006)___$
7 Months4 X Months____x28_____________x28___________
20 Yr Mower Life
Purchase $/20yrs+_____$ 650__________
Council agreed to revisit this issue at the Budget Meeting
scheduled for January 31, 2006.
Council also agreed to have the Township Clerk advertise a
Special Budget Meeting for February 7, 2006 at 7:30 PM.
MATTERS REQUESTED/REFERRED BY COUNCILMEMBERS, MANAGER,
ATTORNEY OR CLERK.
Councilman Hall discussed the Shared Services with the Board
of Education. This discussion pertained to the shared use of Buses, Mowers, Fields
etc. At this time the Board of Education is not agreeable to shared services
in those particular areas.
Discussion also took place pertaining to the increases for
the Morris County JIF and the North Jersey Health Insurance Fund. Ms. DeCroce,
Commissioner for both funds stated that the amounts in the budget needed to be
looked at because the actual percentage increase for the JIF was .024,
$1,476.00 increase. Also the MJHIF increase was at 9.22%. Ms. DeCroce will
send the information to Council with regard to the amount of increase in the
274 Emmans Road
Mr. Kluska questioned how much does the Township loose in
this year’s budget (revenue) with the Hercules tax settlement. Mr. Raths
Mr. Church questioned the accuracy of Chief Lang when he
addressed the Council pertaining to response time. Mr. Raths stated that it is
documented and his comments were accurate.
DRAFT RESOLUTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
January 20, 2006
Mr. Hall made a motion at 8:55 PM to adjourn the Budget
Meeting. Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Roll Call: All In Favor – Yes
Motion Carried 5 to 0
MINUTES APPROVED BY COUNCIL:
DATE: March 28, 2006
ROLL CALL: Mr. Ciaramella – yes Mr.
Smith – yes
Mrs. DeFillippo – abstain
Mr. Zoschak – abstain
Mayor Schmidt - yes