Town Meeting spent three long nights debating issues as prosaic as the utensils distributed with takeout food and as existential as nuclear war. It completed its work May 12, having voted to approve all of the nearly 60 combined articles on the Annual and Special Town Meeting warrants.
The members spent the bulk of their final night May 12 disposing of the 14 articles on the Special Town Meeting warrant, where getting to “yes” proved challenging on just a few.
PLASTICS
For the third consecutive year, Town Meeting was asked to consider townwide bans related to single-use plastics. In 2023, Town Meeting voted to phase out plastic shopping bags, which was followed in 2024 by a ban on the use of polystyrene (commonly known as Styrofoam) containers, plastic stirrers and plastic splash guards at food-service establishments.
As they did in the past, the proponents noted that plastics are difficult and sometimes impossible to recycle and often break into small particles that can enter food chains and water systems.
The 2023 and 2024 articles were brought as citizens petitions by two Green Needham members, Rob Fernandez and Kathy Raiz. This year, the pair worked on crafting two articles which were put forward by the Select Board. One passed with ease while the other may have benefited from a last-minute amendment made from the Town Meeting floor.
The first article advocated for the town to adopt a so-called “skip the stuff” policy which would prohibit food, beverage or retail sales establishments from automatically providing single-use accessories in takeout orders.
“This by-law does not ban anything,” Raiz told Town Meeting in advocating for passage. “All the accessories a patron may want are still available. The only change is they must be requested.”
Raiz and Fernandez noted that the ban will likely save restaurants money, and that similar bans have not been problems when implemented in other communities, including Newton.
The discussion drew just one comment, with Precinct D member Aaron Pressman speaking in favor. “We have ‘the drawer’,” he said of his own household. “I think all of you have ‘the drawer’.”
He said he examined that drawer and counted 72 plastic items left over from takeout orders. “We don’t need them in the drawer. I think this is a very common-sense solution. Let’s get rid of the drawer.”
Town Meeting agreed and the article passed on a near-unanimous voice vote.
The second plastic article called for a ban on black plastic kitchenware. It prohibits retail food establishments “from dispensing prepared food, condiments, sauces, or beverages to any person in single-use dishware and containers made from black plastic.”
It did not have a similarly smooth ride as “skip the stuff.” In fact, the Select Board had voted 3-2 to not support the article, but also felt Town Meeting should be the ultimate arbiter.
Select Board member Marianne Cooley noted that it would be an additional burden on small local businesses at a time when they were facing numerous other economic stresses, especially possible impacts from federal tariffs.
“In the tenor of the discussion around Envision Needham, you heard some of that stress from our business owners,” she said. “Why is the town doing this to us? Please don’t do this to us.”
The article even drew opposition from longtime Solid Waste Recycling Advisory Committee member Jeffrey Heller, a Town Meeting member from Precinct F, who said, “you can’t put the burden on the end user.”
“I support the banning of black plastics, but not at the town level,” he said, echoing the belief of Cooley and others that the issue would be better addressed by the state legislature.
Early drafts of the article had made mention of possible adverse health effects, but those concerns were not included in the final language of the article. Some black plastic products are derived from discarded consumer electronics. However a much-publicized research study which found traces of toxic flame retardants in black plastic consumer products contained a significant error in its calculations, leading to a 10-fold overestimation of the potential health risks. Precinct E member Ed Cosgrove, also a longtime member of the Board of Health, told Town Meeting that his board opted not to take a position based on health concerns.
“The science is still out,” he said.
Stephen Frail from Precinct G was among those who saw the merits of the ban but were concerned about over-burdening food establishments that operate on such slim profit margins with possible $100 per day fines for noncompliance. Frail proposed an amendment to the article to effectively make the program voluntary.
“Enforcement of this is going to be tough,” Frail said. “But we could pass this without enforcement and send a very strong signal to businesses that they should change their habits. Give them time to do so without punishing them.”
Frail’s amendment was approved. Still, when the amended article was then put to a vote, the voice vote was too close for Town Moderator Michael Fee to call.
The article was then passed by a subsequent hand count margin of 138-63.
The new “skip the stuff” and black plastic regulations will go into effect Jan. 1, 2026, but only the “skip the stuff” violations will carry the $100 per day fine.
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF PROGRAM EXPANDED
Town Meeting voted overwhelmingly to replace the current Senior Corp program with a new method for providing persons over the age of 60 an opportunity to participate in a “work-off” program to defray property tax payments.
Under the article, persons over the age of 60 who own the home in which they reside can provide the town with up to 125 hours of annual volunteer service in a variety of roles. This can include clerical help in town departments or customer service roles at the senior center or park and recreation office. The current program limits total hours to 100.
State law requires that participants’ hourly compensation equal the state minimum wage. The total earnings are deducted from fourth-quarter property tax bills with the town’s revenue loss being covered by the Overlay Reserve in the budget.
The program includes an income cap which currently restricts participation to those earning $45,000 or less. The article raises the income cap for those permitted to participate from $45,000 per year to 80% of AMI (area median income), which currently translates to $92,000 for a one-person household and $106,000 for a two-person household. This increase would open up participation to more residents.
During discussion of the article, Precinct F member Lawrence Cohen offered an amendment to remove the income cap altogether with the goal of expanding participation beyond the six residents who availed themselves of the program in the most recent fiscal year.
The amendment failed, but the Select Board agreed to revisit that provision within a year. The unamended article was then approved overwhelmingly.
Save as PDF