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 as follows:

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 State.


ALSO PRESENT:  Christopher Raths, Township Manager; BettyLou DeCroce, Township Clerk and Lisa Palmieri, Chief Financial Officer.




Capital Budget


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 2006.


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 unit.


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 meeting.


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:


                                    Existing Equipment                    Proposed Equipment

                                    6’mower 10’mower                  11’mower 16’mower

Acres per hr*               3.36_____7.68                        9.5       ___ 12.68____

Area___38 acres        11.4 hrs     4.9hrs                     4.0 hrs         3.0 hrs___


*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:


 __________________  6’Mower_______11’Mower________16’Mower_____________

Mowing hours (38 acres ) 11.4____________9.5_____________3.0_________________

Labor Rate/Hr (2006)___$ 20____________$20_____________$20_________________

___Labor Cost/Mowing_$228____________$190___________ $60_________________


7 Months4 X Months____x28_____________x28___________ x28_________________

Labor Cost/Year          __$6,384___________$5,320_________$1,680_______________

20 Yr Mower Life

Purchase $/20yrs+_____$    650__________ $2,750_________$3,750_______________


MOWING COST/YR__$7,034___________$6,070_________$5,430_______________


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.




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 2006 budget.





Mr. Kluska

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 stated $75,000.


Mr. Church

Eyland Avenue


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.
























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






BettyLou DeCroce

Township Clerk


DATE:                        March 28, 2006

ROLL CALL:            Mr. Ciaramella – yes    Mr. Smith – yes

                                    Mrs. DeFillippo – abstain  Mr. Zoschak – abstain

                                    Mayor Schmidt - yes