2023-04-11: Climate Action Plan Community Meeting

Click timestamps in the text to watch that part of the meeting recording.

Resilient Swampscott: Community Meeting on the Draft Climate Action Plan

1. Agenda

  • 0:00:06 Welcome and Introduction
    • Opening remarks by Select Board Chair Neal Duffy, framing the urgency (IPCC reports) and opportunity (state/federal funding).
  • 0:04:12 Background and Plan Development
    • Presentation by Climate Action Plan Committee Chair Martha Schmidt on the plan’s origins (Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2021), Town Meeting mandate (May 2022), grant funding, consultant use, and plan structure.
  • 0:06:10 Climate Action Plan Committee Introductions
    • Members of the committee introduce themselves.
  • 0:07:52 Community Context and Climate Impacts
    • Survey results showing resident concern.
    • Examples of local climate change impacts (flooding, storms).
    • Overview of Swampscott’s greenhouse gas emissions sources (buildings, transportation).
    • Introduction to the plan’s framework: “Resilient Swampscott.”
  • 0:10:04 Plan Focus Areas Overview
    • Brief introduction to the five key focus areas: Buildings & Energy, Solid Waste, Natural Resources, Resilience & Vulnerability, Transportation.
    • Explanation of Goals, Strategies, and Actions structure within the plan.
  • 0:14:28 Outreach, Engagement, and Pathways Analysis
    • Review of previous town plans considered (Master Plan, OSRP, etc.).
    • Stakeholder engagement process overview.
    • Presentation of the greenhouse gas emissions reduction pathways analysis (to Net Zero by 2050).
  • 0:17:43 Detailed Plan Sections Presentation
    • 0:17:43 Buildings & Energy (Presented by Diana Eddowes)
    • 0:23:27 Transportation (Presented by Doug Thompson)
    • 0:28:41 Resilience & Vulnerability (Presented by Lily Werthling)
    • 0:32:42 Natural Resources (Presented by Sierra Munoz)
    • 0:36:53 Solid Waste & Recycling (Presented by Sam Stachowski)
  • 0:39:44 Community Questions and Answers / Discussion
    • Open forum for questions from attendees (in-person and online). Topics included plan distribution, confidence in data, relation to neighboring towns, accessibility of information/programs, implementation mechanisms, natural resource goal wording, financial footprint, progress tracking, the new school example, regional transportation, incentivizing vs. disincentivizing behavior, and the nature of the Town Meeting vote.
  • 1:13:17 Next Steps and Closing Remarks
    • Discussion on finalizing the plan for the Town Meeting warrant.
    • Future role of the Climate Action Plan Committee.
    • How to provide further feedback.
    • Closing thanks.

2. Speaking Attendees

  • Neal Duffy (Select Board Chair / Climate Action Plan Committee Member): [Speaker 2]
  • Martha Schmidt (Climate Action Plan Committee Chair): [Speaker 3]
  • Doug Thompson (Climate Action Plan Committee Vice Chair): [Speaker 1], [Speaker 8] (Briefly during intros before Sam Stachowski speaks)
  • Sam Stachowski (Student / Climate Action Plan Committee Member): [Speaker 8] (Primary speaker for this tag, esp. Solid Waste section)
  • Diana Eddowes (Climate Action Plan Committee Member / Renewable Energy Committee Member): [Speaker 6]
  • Sierra Munoz (Climate Action Plan Committee Member / Swampscott Conservancy / Open Space & Rec Plan Committee Member): [Speaker 4]
  • Lily Werthling (Climate Action Plan Committee Member): [Speaker 5]
  • Sharon Falco (Climate Action Plan Committee Member): (Introduced by name 0:07:03, but specific speaker tag unclear in later discussion)
  • Anita Farber-Robertson (Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 9]
  • Alan Von Arsdale (Town Staff): [Speaker 14]
  • Jim (Resident - Name stated): [Speaker 12]
  • Aaron Burdoff (Resident): [Speaker 13]
  • Colleen (Resident - Name stated): [Speaker 7]
  • Mark Martin (Resident): [Speaker 10]
  • Committee Member/Resident (Name not stated, context suggests Conservancy/Tree Committee involvement): [Speaker 11]
  • Attendee (Unidentified): [Speaker 15]
  • Attendee (Unidentified): [Speaker 16]

3. Meeting Minutes

Opening and Context: Select Board Chair Neal Duffy opened the community meeting 0:00:06, emphasizing the urgency of climate action citing IPCC reports and the opportunity presented by available federal and state resources. He noted that having a plan is often a requirement for accessing funding. He then handed off to Climate Action Plan Committee Chair Martha Schmidt.

Plan Background and Development: Chair Schmidt provided background 0:04:12, explaining the plan stemmed from a 2021 Greenhouse Gas Inventory and a unanimous Town Meeting vote in May 2022 authorizing its creation. A $50,000 grant funded a consultant to assist the volunteer committee in developing the ~15-page draft plan, tailored to Swampscott using local and stakeholder input. The committee members introduced themselves 0:06:10. Chair Schmidt shared survey results indicating high resident concern about climate change 0:07:52 and highlighted local impacts like flooding and storm damage. She outlined Swampscott’s primary emission sources (Buildings/Energy ~60%, Transportation ~35%) and introduced the plan’s dual approach: reducing emissions and adapting to impacts.

Plan Structure and Goals: The “Resilient Swampscott” plan is structured around five focus areas 0:10:04: Buildings & Energy, Transportation, Resilience & Vulnerability, Natural Resources, and Solid Waste. Each area includes vision statements, baseline data, metrics, goals, strategies, and specific actions. Chair Schmidt briefly outlined the goals for each area [0:10:50 - 0:13:30].

Outreach and Pathway Analysis: Committee Vice Chair Doug Thompson discussed the extensive outreach 0:14:28, noting the plan incorporates input from previous town planning efforts (Master Plan, OSRP, etc.) and various town-affiliated stakeholders. He presented the greenhouse gas emissions pathway analysis 0:15:46, showing the trajectory needed across sectors (buildings, renewable energy, transportation, waste) to reach Net Zero by 2050, aligning with state and federal goals.

Detailed Focus Area Presentations: Committee members presented details on each focus area:

  • Buildings & Energy 0:17:43: Diana Eddowes detailed goals around achieving 100% renewable energy supply (leveraging Community Power, solar, battery storage, fixing gas leaks) and transitioning buildings to zero emissions (efficiency, electrification via programs like Mass Save/Revise Energy, sustainable new construction). Pathways for solar adoption and building electrification were presented 0:21:21. Emphasis was placed on equity for homeowners, renters, and low-income residents 0:22:23.
  • Transportation 0:23:27: Doug Thompson discussed the low current EV adoption and high reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. Goals focus on promoting alternatives (walking, biking, public transit, carpooling) and electrifying vehicles 0:24:04. Strategies include improving infrastructure (bike paths, shuttles), ensuring safety, raising awareness of EV incentives, and expanding charging stations 0:25:09. Pathways showed ambitious targets for transit ridership and EV adoption 0:27:36.
  • Resilience & Vulnerability 0:28:41: Lily Werthling addressed adapting to climate impacts like increased heat and flooding. Metrics track properties/facilities at flood risk and heat-related ER visits 0:29:45. Goals involve making infrastructure resilient (protecting municipal assets, updating flood maps/hazard plan) and improving community preparedness (resources, information, emergency response, protecting vulnerable populations) 0:30:24.
  • Natural Resources 0:32:42: Sierra Munoz highlighted metrics on park access, tree canopy loss, and water consumption. Goals focus on enhancing community resilience via public green spaces (preserving/expanding, equitable access, tree canopy restoration) and promoting healthy ecosystems through infrastructure and landscapes (green infrastructure, zoning updates, regenerative landscape education) 0:34:25. The connection to existing plans like the OSRP and Master Plan was noted.
  • Solid Waste & Recycling 0:36:53: Sam Stachowski presented data showing low recycling rates (28% diversion) and significant waste generation. The goal is to reduce, reuse, divert (composting), and recycle 0:37:38. Strategies include reuse programs, zero-waste targets for municipal buildings/schools, mandatory municipal composting with town-wide outreach, and commercial waste diversion efforts 0:38:41. This area was noted as potentially easier to achieve progress in 0:39:38.

Community Questions & Discussion 0:39:44: A substantial Q&A session followed the presentations. Key points raised by residents and responses included:

  • Plan Availability: Town Meeting Member Anita Farber-Robertson asked about receiving the plan before Town Meeting 0:40:28. The committee confirmed the draft is online, the final version target date is April 19th, and it’s intended to be included in the Town Meeting warrant 0:41:33.
  • Confidence & Scope: Alan Von Arsdale (Town Staff) questioned confidence in the information and actions 0:42:52. Vice Chair Thompson and Chair Duffy acknowledged the field is evolving but stated the plan provides a necessary framework aligned with goals and other towns’ efforts [0:43:38, 0:44:33].
  • Information Accessibility: Resident Jim asked about making practical information (grants, weatherization) more accessible 0:46:30. Vice Chair Thompson mentioned the town’s grant-funded energy advocate role aimed at proactive outreach 0:47:38.
  • Implementation: Resident Aaron Burdoff questioned the mechanisms for ensuring execution, citing past plans 0:48:17. Chair Duffy acknowledged the challenge, suggesting the committee might oversee implementation but ultimately stated dedicated town staff would likely be needed for serious progress 0:49:06.
  • Natural Resources Goal Wording & Biodiversity: Resident Colleen suggested strengthening the Natural Resources goal to explicitly include increasing assets, promoting biodiversity (native species), and potentially using incentives/disincentives for landscaping (de-lawning) 0:50:31. She also asked if the town’s financial investments/banking were considered in the carbon footprint (they were not) 0:53:22.
  • Progress Tracking: Resident Mark Martin asked about periodic carbon footprint updates 0:53:50. Vice Chair Thompson confirmed data is available via MAPC, though lagged. Chair Duffy added the plan uses more easily trackable metrics (e.g., homes electrified) 0:54:44.
  • Town Leading by Example: Mark Martin asked if the new school project reflects the plan’s goals 0:56:20. Chair Duffy confirmed the school is all-electric, geothermal, and highly efficient 0:57:00. A committee member [Speaker 11] detailed the deliberate use of native plantings and ecological design in the landscaping 0:58:53. Sierra Munoz added committee members are involved in sustainability discussions for town projects to ensure alignment 1:00:11.
  • Regional Transportation: Town Meeting Member Farber-Robertson emphasized the need for regional/state collaboration for meaningful transportation changes (MBTA bus/rail) 1:01:47. Vice Chair Thompson acknowledged the point but noted the plan focuses on more locally controllable actions like shuttles, bike paths, and affordability measures 1:04:14. Lily Werthling added that many car trips are short and bikeable/walkable with proper infrastructure 1:05:17. Sam Stachowski noted student travel habits as an area for local improvement 1:07:00.
  • Incentives vs. Mandates: Resident Colleen asked about using disincentives (e.g., smaller trash cans, de-lawning incentives) alongside encouragement for behavior change 1:07:41. Chair Duffy agreed incentives alone are insufficient 1:09:04. Sam Stachowski linked safety improvements (e.g., for biking) as a way to discourage driving 1:09:40. Vice Chair Thompson noted the delicate balance of carrots and sticks 1:10:05.
  • Town Meeting Vote Implications: Chair Duffy clarified 1:10:21 that the upcoming Town Meeting vote is to endorse the plan as a framework and direction, not to enact specific binding changes immediately. However, he stressed that supporting the plan implies support for future implementation measures that will have teeth.

Next Steps and Closing: The committee discussed finalizing the plan for the April 19th target date 1:13:17. The future role of the committee coordinating implementation is likely but needs confirmation post-Town Meeting. Feedback can be sent via the email on the committee’s website 1:14:15. Chair Schmidt mentioned moving into identifying action owners and tracking progress 1:15:03. Sierra Munoz made a plea for continued community engagement and advocacy 1:15:59. The meeting concluded with thanks 1:17:14.

4. Executive Summary

This community meeting presented Swampscott’s draft Climate Action Plan, titled “Resilient Swampscott,” developed by a volunteer committee with consultant support following a 2022 Town Meeting mandate. The plan aims to guide the town toward Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and enhance resilience to climate change impacts.

Why This Plan Matters: Select Board Chair Neal Duffy framed the context 0:00:06, citing the urgency highlighted by international climate science (IPCC) and the significant opportunity presented by unprecedented federal and state funding for climate initiatives, for which having a plan is often prerequisite. The plan addresses local climate vulnerabilities already experienced, such as flooding and storm damage 0:08:31, and targets Swampscott’s primary emission sources: buildings (~60%) and transportation (~35%) 0:09:08.

Key Goals & Strategies: The plan focuses on five areas:

  • Buildings & Energy: Transitioning to 100% renewable electricity supply and zero-emission buildings through increased solar, energy efficiency (via programs like Mass Save/Revise Energy 0:20:33), electrification (heat pumps), fixing gas leaks, and sustainable new construction codes 0:18:58.
  • Transportation: Reducing vehicle emissions by promoting walking, biking, and public transit through safer infrastructure (bike paths 0:25:09), potential shuttle services 0:25:31, and accelerating electric vehicle (EV) adoption with better charging access and incentive awareness 0:26:33.
  • Resilience & Vulnerability: Protecting infrastructure and residents from climate impacts like flooding and extreme heat by updating hazard plans, improving infrastructure resilience, and enhancing community preparedness and emergency response, especially for vulnerable populations 0:30:24.
  • Natural Resources: Protecting and enhancing green spaces, tree canopy 0:35:10, water resources, and biodiversity through smart management, green infrastructure, potential zoning updates, and promoting sustainable landscaping practices 0:34:25.
  • Solid Waste: Reducing overall waste and increasing diversion from incineration/landfills through reuse programs, expanded composting (municipal mandate, residential/commercial outreach 0:38:58), and improved recycling 0:38:07.

Town Meeting Significance: The plan is scheduled for a vote at the upcoming Town Meeting. Select Board Chair Duffy clarified this vote serves as an endorsement of the plan’s framework and direction 1:10:21. While not enacting specific mandates immediately, approval signals Town Meeting’s support for the goals and the future implementation measures required to achieve them, which may involve policy changes and resource allocation down the line. The final plan is intended to be available by April 19th and included in the warrant 0:41:33.

Community Feedback & Next Steps: Attendees expressed broad support for climate action but raised critical questions about practical implementation. Key themes included ensuring access to information and programs 0:46:30, mechanisms for accountability and achieving goals beyond planning documents 0:48:17, the need for dedicated town resources (potentially staff) for execution 0:49:06, the importance of regional collaboration (especially for transportation 1:01:47), and balancing incentives with potential future mandates (“carrots vs. sticks” 1:07:41). The committee acknowledged these challenges, emphasizing the plan as a crucial starting framework and highlighting ongoing efforts like the town’s energy advocate 0:47:38 and sustainability considerations in projects like the new school 0:56:20. Continued community engagement was requested 1:15:59.

5. Analysis

This community meeting effectively showcased the “Resilient Swampscott” draft Climate Action Plan, representing a significant effort by the volunteer committee to create a comprehensive framework for addressing climate change locally. The presentation was well-structured, leveraging data (albeit with noted time lags, e.g., 0:55:44) and aligning with broader state and federal goals 0:16:04, lending credibility to the proposed pathways.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Arguments:

  • Committee: The presenters effectively argued for the plan’s necessity based on scientific consensus (IPCC 0:01:15), local impacts 0:08:31, and financial opportunity 0:02:30. They presented a logical structure covering key emission sources and resilience needs. Their responses to questions were generally open, acknowledging implementation challenges and the evolving nature of climate solutions 0:43:38. However, the reliance on the “framework” concept sometimes felt like a deferral of difficult implementation specifics. The argument for solid waste progress being “easier” 0:39:38 might underestimate behavioral change hurdles.
  • Residents: Questioners demonstrated strong engagement and a grasp of municipal realities. Arguments highlighting the gap between planning and execution (Aaron Burdoff 0:48:17), the need for practical accessibility (Jim 0:46:30), regional dependencies (Anita Farber-Robertson 1:01:47), and the desire for more aggressive goals/mechanisms (Colleen [0:50:31, 1:07:41]) were potent and reflected common challenges in municipal climate action. These points effectively grounded the ambitious plan in practical concerns about resources, political will, and behavioral change.

Dynamics and Context: The meeting revealed a town seemingly aligned on the need for climate action but grappling with the how. The committee (including the Select Board Chair) acted as proponents, framing the plan as a vital roadmap. Residents, while supportive, adopted a role of constructive scrutiny, probing the plan’s feasibility and long-term viability. Select Board Chair Duffy’s clarification regarding the Town Meeting vote’s nature 1:10:21 was strategically important; it aimed to secure broad endorsement for the framework without getting bogged down in immediate contentious mandates, while subtly preparing the ground for future, potentially more demanding, implementation votes. This highlights a key tension: the desire for consensus on the vision versus the eventual need for potentially divisive policy choices (e.g., mandates, funding allocations, shifts away from car-centric infrastructure). The discussion about incentives (“carrots”) versus mandates (“sticks”) [1:07:41 - 1:10:20] encapsulated this core challenge.

Effectiveness and Outlook: The committee successfully introduced the plan and built a case for its endorsement. They effectively leveraged prior town planning efforts 0:14:28 and demonstrated alignment with best practices by using a consultant and grant funding 0:04:50. The public engagement, as evidenced by the Q&A, suggests a community ready for climate discussions but demanding tangible progress and clear implementation pathways. The plan’s success hinges on translating the endorsed framework into action. As Select Board Chair Duffy alluded 0:49:06, this will likely require dedicated town resources (staffing, budget) beyond volunteer efforts and sustained political will from town leadership and Town Meeting to approve potentially challenging policies and investments in the coming years. The meeting laid the groundwork, but the crucial work of implementation and resource allocation remains ahead.