View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
guests Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Dec 17 2010, 9:39 pm EST Post subject: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
The agenda has listed Ordinance 12-10-19 amend Private Duty Service Chapter 5.8 Does anyone know what this is about or how we can find the descriptive version? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Dec 17 2010, 9:53 pm EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
From our code book:
http://www.ecode360.com/?custId=CR0758
Police officers of the Cranbury Township Police Department shall be available for private duty service for special events, road closings, traffic duties, security at private parties or events or similar functions. Payment for services shall be as follows:
(1)
The fee to be paid to the Township for such services shall be $60 per hour. Of this amount, $50 per hour shall be paid to the police officer providing the service and $10 per hour shall be retained by the Township.
(2)
The minimum amount of time for which police officers may be hired shall be four hours per officer, except that the minimum shall only be three hours per officer for services rendered on behalf of The Cranbury School.
B.
Any person who has requested private duty service and cancels the private duty three hours or less before the agreed upon start time shall be responsible for payment of the four-hour minimum per officer, except that The Cranbury School shall only be responsible for payment of the three-hour minimum per officer in such instances.
C.
The scheduling of officers for private duty shall be subject to the approval of the Chief, Captain or Lieutenant. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
guests Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Dec 17 2010, 10:59 pm EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
That is great to be able to find the code link. How is the code/ordinance being amended? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Dec 18 2010, 2:31 am EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
The fee is be raised to $60.00 an hour for the officer. The town is also going to charge an additional flat fee of $120.00 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guests Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Dec 18 2010, 10:04 am EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
The $60. per hour for the officer and $10. to the township for the use of the patrol car seems to be insufficient to cover the costs of the patrol car. There is no way we can operate that patrol car for $10. per hour. Based on $60. per hour rate the officer would receive $480. per day $2400. for a 40 hour week and $124,800. for an annual salary. This is pretty steep and the township is getting the short end of this agreement. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Dec 18 2010, 12:23 pm EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
The town charges $10.00 an hour plus $120.00 flat fee. Many of the jobs only lasts a few hours. It is not a bad deal for the town. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
quest Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Dec 22 2010, 6:40 am EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
How can I get a 20% raise? It is amazing |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
guests Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Dec 22 2010, 8:51 pm EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
If part of the Private Duty Service @ $60. per hour per police officer is mandated by the state it is just one more reason why we are in such bad financial straights. I'd love to know the logic of the township committee members in increasing the already exorbitant rate. The traffic directing duty for these construction jobs like old trenton road and plainsboro road can easily, and more professionaly be done by private contractors for considerably less. Its too bad we are coerced into having this burden placed on both the contractors and the township. Just one more reason to leave N. J.! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Wed, Dec 22 2010, 10:49 pm EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
zero tax dollars are used, the construction company pays the money. No tax dollars are used is my understanding. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
guests Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Dec 23 2010, 3:36 pm EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
The premise that the contractor pays for the "Service" and the town contribution is zero is incorrect. Each time a public road is repaired or improved the citizen taxpayers have provided that money for those repairs. The cumulative exorbitant costs i. e. [ $60. per hour for a police officer to read a newspaper or talk on a cell phone and not direct traffic] is a huge waste of tax dollars and precious resources. The contractor has no choice except to comply with the mandate and really could care less about the service provided. These mandates place a huge unnecessary burden on the taxpaying public. One other thing we need to realize is that GRANT money is not free money it is money paid by the taxpayers. Why should Cranbury taxpayers pay for goodies in New Brunswick or Woodbridge pay for goodies in Cranbury? The wasteful spending that is supposedly justified because "ITS GRANT MONEY" is ridiculous. The examples like the waste on the ballfield and the $100,000. well are prime examples of squandering GRANT MONEY. Lets hope the new committee and other municipalities as well see the light and start to really look at saving all the taxpayers some money so we can stay in N. J.. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Dec 23 2010, 4:00 pm EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
guests wrote: | The premise that the contractor pays for the "Service" and the town contribution is zero is incorrect. Each time a public road is repaired or improved the citizen taxpayers have provided that money for those repairs. The cumulative exorbitant costs i. e. [ $60. per hour for a police officer to read a newspaper or talk on a cell phone and not direct traffic] is a huge waste of tax dollars and precious resources. The contractor has no choice except to comply with the mandate and really could care less about the service provided. These mandates place a huge unnecessary burden on the taxpaying public. One other thing we need to realize is that GRANT money is not free money it is money paid by the taxpayers. Why should Cranbury taxpayers pay for goodies in New Brunswick or Woodbridge pay for goodies in Cranbury? The wasteful spending that is supposedly justified because "ITS GRANT MONEY" is ridiculous. The examples like the waste on the ballfield and the $100,000. well are prime examples of squandering GRANT MONEY. Lets hope the new committee and other municipalities as well see the light and start to really look at saving all the taxpayers some money so we can stay in N. J.. |
All true. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Dec 23 2010, 6:15 pm EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
guests wrote: | The premise that the contractor pays for the "Service" and the town contribution is zero is incorrect. Each time a public road is repaired or improved the citizen taxpayers have provided that money for those repairs. The cumulative exorbitant costs i. e. [ $60. per hour for a police officer to read a newspaper or talk on a cell phone and not direct traffic] is a huge waste of tax dollars and precious resources. The contractor has no choice except to comply with the mandate and really could care less about the service provided. These mandates place a huge unnecessary burden on the taxpaying public. One other thing we need to realize is that GRANT money is not free money it is money paid by the taxpayers. Why should Cranbury taxpayers pay for goodies in New Brunswick or Woodbridge pay for goodies in Cranbury? The wasteful spending that is supposedly justified because "ITS GRANT MONEY" is ridiculous. The examples like the waste on the ballfield and the $100,000. well are prime examples of squandering GRANT MONEY. Lets hope the new committee and other municipalities as well see the light and start to really look at saving all the taxpayers some money so we can stay in N. J.. |
The ball field is over 600k |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Dec 23 2010, 8:28 pm EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
guests wrote: | The premise that the contractor pays for the "Service" and the town contribution is zero is incorrect. Each time a public road is repaired or improved the citizen taxpayers have provided that money for those repairs. The cumulative exorbitant costs i. e. [ $60. per hour for a police officer to read a newspaper or talk on a cell phone and not direct traffic] is a huge waste of tax dollars and precious resources. The contractor has no choice except to comply with the mandate and really could care less about the service provided. These mandates place a huge unnecessary burden on the taxpaying public. One other thing we need to realize is that GRANT money is not free money it is money paid by the taxpayers. Why should Cranbury taxpayers pay for goodies in New Brunswick or Woodbridge pay for goodies in Cranbury? The wasteful spending that is supposedly justified because "ITS GRANT MONEY" is ridiculous. The examples like the waste on the ballfield and the $100,000. well are prime examples of squandering GRANT MONEY. Lets hope the new committee and other municipalities as well see the light and start to really look at saving all the taxpayers some money so we can stay in N. J.. |
Well said ! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Dec 24 2010, 12:14 am EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
Many times the contractor pays for the officer because they feel that their workers and equipment are better protected when a police officer is present. Even when the police officer is in his car on the side of the road his/her presence does cause people to slow down and use more caution. Flagmen or construction workers do not have the authority to enforce motor vehicle law. When equipment constantly needs to be moved on and off the road, having a police officer, who can lawfully stop and direct traffic, not only provides safety for workers as well as the motorists, but also allows the work to get done sooner. The fee of $60.00 an hour for police side work is about average not just in New Jersey but in many/or most other states. How much does a plumber, electrician, or appliance repair person charge an hour? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Dec 24 2010, 12:14 am EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
Many times the contractor pays for the officer because they feel that their workers and equipment are better protected when a police officer is present. Even when the police officer is in his car on the side of the road his/her presence does cause people to slow down and use more caution. Flagmen or construction workers do not have the authority to enforce motor vehicle law. When equipment constantly needs to be moved on and off the road, having a police officer, who can lawfully stop and direct traffic, not only provides safety for workers as well as the motorists, but also allows the work to get done sooner. The fee of $60.00 an hour for police side work is about average not just in New Jersey but in many/or most other states. How much does a plumber, electrician, or appliance repair person charge an hour? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Dec 24 2010, 12:22 am EST Post subject: Re: Dec,20 Committee Meeting Agenda--Amend "Private Duty Service"? |
|
|
$60.00 an hour is not mandated by the state. It is done per town. Monroe and South Brunswick both charge more. Most Middlesex towns charge more. Sworn Police Officers not private companies are the only ones who can enforce NJ title 39(Motor Vehicle Code) Do we really want private industry providing police services? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|