Danvers Styrofoam Ban, Recalls, Trash Fee, Airport Fees On Town Meeting Warrant

DANVERS, MA — Danvers annual town meeting warrants involving a styrofoam ban, recall elections, airport oversight and fees, town meeting vote tabulators and another reconsideration of the soon-to-be-implemented trash fee were the topic of Select Board discussion — and significant disagreement — during Tuesday night's warrant review.

While the Select Board voted unanimously to support the styrofoam ban for food establishments preparing on-premise, the other citizen petitions received mixed reactions either from lack of support or the assertion that the subjects and language of the warrant articles were beyond the purview of town meeting authorization.

(Also on Patch: Danvers Petition To Strike Down Trash Fee Fails At Special Town Meeting)

The styrofoam ban would force all food establishments in town to remove styrofoam cups and containers from their to-go offerings. The ban would not apply to supermarkets and other stores that receive items — such as meat and fruit — pre-packaged using styrofoam containers.

Select Board member Daniel Bennett said the bylaw as written, with a warning, $50 fee for first offense and $100 for subsequent offenses, is too lenient and should begin with a fine similar to that of a recent statewide Rhode Island ban that he said includes a $100 fine on first offense.

Select Board member Matthew Duggan said he preferred there be state action against the styrofoam as well, and that the action include a ban affecting supermarkets and other pre-packaged foods.

Select Board member Gardner Trask noted that while there will be a financial burden placed on businesses with the ban — saying one business told him the styrofoam currently used is 12 cents per unit while the alternative is 42 cents per unit — he still supports the ban with an understanding that cost may be pushed onto consumers.

A bid to reintroduce the recall provision that stalled at last year's town meeting met with a 3-2 unfavorable recommendation from the Board. The proposed recall would include 350 signatures to get the process started, and a petition with 20 percent of certified registered voters (estimated at about 4,500 residents) to move the recall to a townwide vote.

While Trask referred to the high threshold as representing "a nuclear option and not just a knee-jerk reaction" a majority of Board members voiced concerns it could still be used to stifle the free speech of duly elected officials or to remove them because of a political disagreement.

Also receiving a mixed response were multiple attempts to expand the town's influence on Beverly Airport amid disputes over noise, pollution and lack of tax revenue in recent years. While Board members expressed support for the sentiments in the proposals the prevailing determination was that neither the town nor its town meeting members had the authority to impose these restrictions on the airport and that any changes had to be implemented through a change in state or federal law.

The request for the airport to conduct an updated environmental study — which the airport has previously declined to do — did pass the Board with a favorable recommendation amid questions about whether it would be enforceable if passed.

A move to provide handheld electronic tabulation machines to town meeting members was met unfavorably. It was proposed after a dispute about the vote against a recall of the $200 trash fee at the January special town meeting, which some in support of the reconsideration said was judged to be decisive by voice vote when, they believe, the voice was inconclusive, at best.

Finally, there was yet another attempt to bring the $200 trash fee before town meeting members that was voted unfavorably by the same 3-2 margin with which the Select Board has decided trash fee votes in recent months.

While opponents of the fee argue that the will of town meeting members should be respected and followed when it comes to the new annual fee, town legal counsel has advised that the power to impose the fee rests with the "executive branch" — the Select Board through the town manager — and that town meeting, aka the town's "legislative branch," has no standing to impose its collective will on that decision.

The Select Board will review the remainder of the warrant at its Thursday meeting.

The annual town meeting is set for May 20.

(Scott Souza is a Patch field editor covering Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead, Peabody, Salem and Swampscott. He can be reached at [email protected]. X/Twitter: @Scott_Souza.)