Sharon votes for joint transfer station program

Salisbury First Selectman Curtis Rand provided a brief history of the events that led the two towns to the current site of the transfer station, which is on Route 41 on land owned by The The Hotchkiss School. That transfer station was built in 1975. Trash and recyclables are collected there and then "transfered" to disposal sites and recycling centers.

Expenses at the station are shared, with Salisbury contributing about 60 percent of the costs and Sharon contributing about 40 percent. Salisbury manages the station.

The current lease at that site expires in 2020. Hotchkiss had originally asked the towns to vacate the site at the end of the lease. More recently, when Headmaster Malcolm Mackenzie came on board at the independent boarding school, the towns were invited to stay but were told they would have to pay rent. The towns currently pay $1 a year for use of the land.

The towns had been looking for many years for a site for a new transfer station. They were hoping to find a larger piece of land than the current space, so that more recycling options could be offered. They also had to find a piece of land that would be convenient to residents of both towns and a place where nearby property owners would not object.

In the past year, two parcels became available, both of them in Salisbury near the Millerton border. Salisbury now has an option to buy two parcels on Route 44 that total 14 acres and have two homes on them (owned by the Luke and Fitting families) for a total of $2 million. That option, which cost $18,000, expires in early May.

Rand explained that Salisbury would like to have a decision on whether or not to buy the Luke and Fitting properties before the option expires.

Before Salisbury proceeds, the town wants to know whether Sharon will remain in the partnership or go off on its own.

Sharon could try to partner with another area town or it could go to a collection system.

The Hotchkiss School’s proposal for a new 50-year lease agreement with the two towns was discussed but both Brown and Rand appeared to be in favor of building a new station.

Transfer Recycling Advisory Committee Chairman Paul Henrici of Salisbury gave a brief history of the committee, from the group’s inception eight years ago.

Henrici detailed the process that led the group (which started with a list of more than 55 sites) to the Luke and Fitting properties.

He put particular emphasis on the fact that a recent study, conducted by Anchor Engineering, had ranked both the Luke-Fitting and the Hotchkiss sites on several criteria. That study produced a grade no higher than a "C" for the Hotchkiss site while Luke Fitting scored no lower than a "B+".

Henrici described the Hotchkiss site as "minimally adequate for the next 50 years." He said that costly improvements would be needed at the Hotchkiss site. And Anchor has said changing state regulations on transfer stations could render the 2.8-acre Hotchkiss site too small within 20 years.

Hotchkiss would also charge substantial annual rent, starting at $15,000 and adjusted annually according to the consumer price index. Over the course of 50 years, assuming an inflation rate of 3.1 percent, the annual rent could rise to $31,210 by the 25th year and to almost $70,000 by the end of the lease in 2058.

The other site that Salisbury had considered was the Lee property (located near the New York border along Route 44). Bob Palmer, a member of the original transfer station search committee, said the Lee site has wetlands. A long access road would also have to be built.

He described the Luke-Fitting site as "clean cut and the proper choice."

Following the meeting both Rand and Brown seemed happy with the response they received from Sharon voters.

"Salisbury wanted to get a clearer sense of Sharon’s involvement and we are pleased that we got that," Rand said. "It was great to have had a discussion with the voters in Sharon. We realize the vote was non-binding and we are OK with that. Salisbury came to the meeting as a friend in the hopes of continuing our partnership." Brown was also happy with the Friday night’s result. "I was very pleased by Friday’s vote," Brown said. "I was bowled over by the response of our voters; I had expected a little more resistance than what we got."