The following is the first of four questions asked of all candidates running for a position on the City Council.

All were provided the same questions.

Before September's primary, At-Large candidates answered questions pertaining to City issues. Some of the questions in this final round of Q&A were the same, but councilors were given the opportunity to modify their answers if desired. Some At-Large candidates did not send new answers or indicated their stance on the issue remains the same. In these cases, we have re-printed original answers and noted this below.

Answers have not been modified except where minor typographical errors were made. There have been no alterations that affect meaning.

Candidate answers are presented in alphabetical order by last name.

The presence of an asterisk (*) indicates a candidate is an incumbent.

What is your stance on the the transfer station and the Northside Carting proposal? How should we handle that site?

WARD 1

Robert McCarthy* (unopposed) — Currently the Board of Health decision to increase the tonnage from one hundred tons a day of construction debris to four hundred tons of municipal waste a day is being appealed in court. Northside Carting has recently proposed a phased in approach starting at two hundred tons and increasing incrementally by fifty tons every six months subject to approval by review. In addition the administration has just put out an expression of interest to see if there are any developers that may have interest in the site. There are lots of moving parts to this site with regards to decisions that need to be made. The neighbors are opposed to the four hundred ton decision and are just being informed of the compromise offered from Northside Carting. Until the court case is resolved and expressions of interests are received it is difficult to evaluate which direction this site will take. The City is responsible for contaminating this site and shortly the DEP will begin to impose fines. We need to plan to clean this site and work to resolve the issues around it and get it on the tax roles. 

WARD 2

Mike Sosnowski* (unopposed) — Did Not Answer

WARD 3

Jean Pelletier* — I am committed to making sure that the transfer station property is cleaned and capped to ensure compliance with the Administrative Consent Order from DEP. If we do not act soon, we could be at risk of receiving daily fines from DEP. There is a compromise position on the table that would allow the current operator of the facility to phase in the increase in tonnage to ensure that the impacts on the residents in the area do not exceed what is reasonable. The City also plans to issue a request for interest to determine if there is another potential use of this site which, up to this point the only proposals received by the City relate to the continuation of the transfer station use. I am concerned with the transfer station proposal but also understand that something needs to be done. The site needs to be remediated. But I also know that traffic, noise and other concerns are issues that need to be carefully examined and considered. To that end, I worked to ensure that the installation of a traffic light at First and Traders Way was one of the 42 conditions of the BOH permit if traffic counts warrant it.

Todd Siegel* — As a Ward 3 resident, I strongly oppose the Transfer Station proposal as I would if it were proposed in any other ward in the City.  I do not believe trucking in hundreds of tons of garbage from other cities and towns is beneficial to Salem and its residents.  The increased tonnage would certainly lead to more traffic, noise and odor. The City is also searching for a better alternative for the property as the Mayor has recently opened up the property to other proposals from potential investors.  If a suitable company wants to develop the property, it would be welcomed and if not, Salem should cap the property itself and keep the property as its own. I agree that something needs to be done with the property.  The current condition is unacceptable, but if we allow the Transfer Station to expand, we run the risk of ruining a neighborhood and the community. 

WARD 4

Jerry Ryan* (unopposed) — I believe the City should clean up the site because the City is responsible for the contamination. The Northside Carting proposal is asking for too much tonnage on the site. I believe the City should not be selling property. The City should clean up the site and keep it as a transfer station under the City's control or they could bid it out to have a company operate it for the City.

WARD 5

John H. Ronan* — The Transfer Station currently occupies 9.2 acres of land in Salem near the intersection of Swampscott Road and Highland Avenue. Salem originally “leased” this land to Northside Carting for five years from 2002 to 2007 for zero rent. Northside Carting’s principal obligation under the lease was to clean and cap the site. That lease had five one year extensions so Northside Carting has remained at the site since 2002. As everyone knows, the site has not been cleaned or capped. The current proposal is to now give away the site, in its entirety, to Northside Carting for $1 in exchange for another promise to clean and cap it. Northside then shall increase the amount and variety of waste it handles from up to 100 tons of dry construction debris up to 400 tons per day of mixed-refuse (including trash from city and out of town garbage-trucks). The administration has been critical of the original lease agreement but the sale agreement is far worse. I attended the public hearings regarding this matter. I heard the near unanimous public opposition from those who understood the details and I too oppose this plan.

Josh Turiel — I am not in favor of the deal with Northside Carting as it currently stands, but I would favor an arrangement that ensures that the city will not be on the hook for any traffic mitigation work that may be needed, and that the fees paid to the city increase over time. I would prefer to see a recreational or commercial use for the site, but the city has looked at solutions more than once and it appears some form of transfer station is the use that keeps being proposed. Regardless of the solution, the city needs to move forward soon — we have a DEP order we're ignoring and this site has been a contaminated plot of land at the head of the Forest River Watershed for far too many years.

WARD 6

Paul C. Prevey * — I am against the Northside Carting proposal for the transfer station.  Under this proposal, the increase in truck traffic would worsen an already failed traffic situation in the Highland Avenue area. Currently, the station is permitted for 100 tons per day of construction and demolition materials as well as yard waste. he proposal would quadruple the daily tonnage and would also include municipal solid waste (household garbage) to be trucked in and out of the station from roughly 15 surrounding communities. Salem can do better and her residents and businesses deserve better. We should examine other alternatives such as cleaning the site ourselves and then selling the property to a developer who would propose a more appropriate commercial use for that site. The City may also want to consider cleaning up the site and then taking over the operation of the facility since it clearly is a revenue generating enterprise.
 
Ken Sawicki — The sale of the transfer station would generate new tax revenue. It would save the city fees accessed by EPA. It would save the cost to clean up the site. Sell land at fair market value not for just one dollar. A guarantee the facility will be completed and by when. A penalty if delayed or not completed. The facility should process all types of disposable materials from the city of Salem. This will make removal easier and less expensive. If the facility is under utilized. Then increase daily tonnage slowly to include outside communities at an increased host fee to off-set our disposal cost. 

WARD 7

Joseph O'Keefe * (unopposed) — Did not Answer

AT-LARGE CANDIDATES

Darek Barcikowski — The transfer station proposal for NSC to acquire the site is a winning solution for the city from a strictly economical and financial perspective. I have had numerous meetings on this subject matter, many of which took place during the last two weeks. Based on my research, I did some math. Here are my findings and projections for a 10 year period based on three scenarios: A) City does not pursue deal with NSC, NSC walks away and site is left as is: 7,300,000 in fines plus loss of revenue of $8,399,400 = $15,699,400 in losses. B) NSC walks away, the city cleans up site itself and monitors ground wells as required by DEP, parcel left as is: $2,250,000 in costs and $8,399,400 in lost revenue = $10,649,400 in losses. C) NSC deal goes through: no cost for clean up or fines = $8,399,400 in revenue. (Revenue includes all fees and taxes paid to city as well as value of all services performed for city at no cost or at discounted rate where city would have to pay for without NSC agreement. Source of data estimates margin of error in values of services due to market conditions, volumes and contract specifications at 20%). Again, from a strictly financial perspective this is a wining deal for the city. However, we cannot dismiss abutters’ concerns, though I believe many can be mitigated. Although 15 developers looked at this site 5 years ago and none decided to pursue it, perhaps we can have better luck with generating interest in the site today. As such, I agree with the mayor’s proposal to put out a request for interest. In addition, I call for assessing the city’s ability to clean up the site on its own and cover the $75,000 annual ground well monitoring fees.

Kevin Carr Jr. — My position on the transfer station is that remaining stagnant, and in violation of MA DEP while fines accumulate is not an option. The site needs to be mitigated, and when elected to the Salem City Council I will work to ensure the mitigation occurs and that the site becomes compliant with the MA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) standards. While I am empathic to the concerns of neighbors concerning traffic, noise, odor, and quality of life, the current site is atrocious. The transfer station is not only an eyesore, but there is a current MA DEP enforcement act pending, as a result of the city of Salem failing to meet multiple DEP administrative consent order deadlines. If the site is not remediated, Salem will be liable for approximately $2 million in fines. The current plan that Northside Carting has put forth is a good option in that it is a solution to a serious financial problem, and mitigates an environmental risk. Before I make a decision to support the project, I want to ensure that the neighbor’s legitimate concerns are addressed. Also, I’m interested in determining what the overall costs would be for the city to retain ownership of the site, and to bond for the cost of the landfill and site improvements. Once elected, I will analyze all of the data, and work with my colleagues on the council to make an informed decision, so we can move forward with the site mitigation as soon as possible.  

Matthew Fraser (Same Answer Published on Sept. 1) — "With the revenue of Salem Harbor Station's days numbered, we might do well to take a more serious look at the proposed sale of the city trash facility. The city has a chance to get out of paying for an environmentally-mandated cleanup of the site and fines of thousands of dollars a day for failing to do so, by selling the Swampscott Road property to Northside Carting for use as a regional rubbish transfer station. The more than $250,000 the project would generate annually in taxes and other payments to the city — not to mention the almost $3 million Salem would save by not having to pay to cap the existing landfill on the property — is worth a long look by the council. Additionally, none of the 500 daily tons brought there every day will stay at the site. This is a deal that deserves serious consideration when the mayor puts forth her final proposal."

Thomas H. Furey* (Same Answer Published on Sept. 1) — "Clearly compromising and collaboration is needed as we address this citywide issue. It has been an albatross for the city since it was built and never lived up to expectations. We desperately need to get out of the business. I have attended numerous meetings on this heated, emotional and environmental issue. As of now there is not enough votes on the city council, so I sincerely hope for the city's sake we can come to conclusion and compromise to possibly phase in the increase of truckers. We need to end the gridlock and stalemate. Salem cannot afford the multimillion dollar cleanup that the state and the EPA will require us to do eventually. We have a positive and proven track record with Northside Carting over the years. This is a clear citywide issue with new developments like Lowes and Walmart on Highland Avenue. I hope to be a part of the solution by listening and learning from voters in this election. We need to engage and empower the city in divesting ourselves of this lemon and albatross and turn it into private hands."

Teasie Riley Goggin (Same Answer Published on Sept. 1) — "The Transfer Station would generate approximately $250,000. in taxes and channel other monies to our Salem School System, but at what cost to our every day environment (noise and smell) infrastructure (roads and traffic). The present owner, Northside Carting, has not lived up to its agreement to spend money each year to clean and improve the contaminated areas of the site. This has not been enforced by the city. Now, we are told we, the tax payers, will be fined (EPA) hundreds of thousands of dollars if we do not clean up the contaminated site. A threat should not force the city of Salem into a sale if the citizens of Salem (who are informed) feel it will be detrimental in future years to our city — (e.g. The Power Plant). A committee of interested parties, two from each ward should be appointed by the City Councillors of the whole.  Letters of interest should be submitted to the Council. This Committee should select their own Chair or Co-chair persons. Rules and time limits [need] to be established."

Joan B. Lovely* (Same Answer Published on Sept. 1) — "The transfer station property consists of approximately 9.2 acres currently zoned under Business Park Development which allows for a Planned Unit Development including but not limited to light manufacturing and commercial uses. Since approximately 3 acres of the front portion of the property is contaminated from ash deposits when it was an incinerator, the DEP is requiring it to be capped. As a result, the property may have an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) imposed which may limit what ultimately gets built. It is the city’s responsibility to cap the property however the current operator has agreed to as part of its contractual obligations to pay $500,000 towards the capping, or 1/3 of the approximately $1.5 million cost. Once the property is capped, it should be sold at market value for uses allowed under current zoning. Should it remain a transfer station and a new state of the art facility be built, the tonnage should not exceed 200 tons per day. The area is currently not equipped to handle an increase in truck traffic that would result from a 400 ton/day facility."

Steven A. Pinto* (Same Answer Published on Sept. 1) — "In the long term, the city would be better off to clean and hold on to this 9.2 acre parcel. It would be short sighted to turn over contaminated land to a rubbish company because we do not want to invest in the cleanup. The city should hire a real estate agency and come up with a plan as to what can be built there, how much is the land appraised at , and what type of business would be best there. The transfer station has never worked for the city." 

Matthew Richard — I support Northside’s proposal on the treatment and use of the transfer station. I appreciate their initiative to cap the site as part of the agreement of purchase. I feel that there does need to be a limit on how much material is processed there, and think that Northside’s business would be an asset to the city on a tax basis. The site has looked run-down all the years I’ve been driving by it, and I look forward to seeing an organized development there.

Arthur C. Sargent III* (Same Answer Published on Sept. 1) — "It should continue to be owned by the City of Salem and remain as a Transfer Station for construction waste, recycled products and yard waste. City Ordinance currently prohibits household trash and garbage from being accepted at the Transfer Station and that Ordinance should not be changed. The revenue received from the lease and any part of the receipts received per ton to the city should be used to clean up the site until the clean up is finished and/or the bond to pay for the clean up is paid off.  We have done an environmental clean up at the Witchcraft Heights School, we are currently cleaning up Furlong Park and we have just bonded for money to clean up hazardous waste at McGrath Park. We would not have considered and I would not have supported selling any of these three City owned properties under any circumstances to pay for cleaning them. None of these three properties generates revenue for the city to help pay for their cleaning and of course none of them should. The Transfer Station does generate revenue for the City and it can pay for its own cleaning with that revenue. After the clean up we have a clean site that generates revenue and we own it. Another reason for cleaning and owning  the Transfer Station is that it is situated at the source of The Forest River. We have three major Rivers in Salem. The North and South Rivers have been damaged considerably in the past. That is why it is so important that we learn from what happened to those two Rivers and protect the Forest River, its tributaries and its floodplain."