DEERFIELD — About 450 residents packed into the Frontier Regional School auditorium Wednesday night for a lively debate regarding three articles designed to make Deerfield a Climate Leader Community.
If all three articles passed, the articles would have helped the town earn the designation of a Climate Leader Community, making it eligible for $150,000 to fund technical assistance through the Decarbonization Technical Support Grant and up to $1 million in state funding for climate resiliency projects through the Decarbonization Accelerator Grants.
The three articles earned a place on the warrant after a group of citizens collected about 250 signatures in support. However, only the last of the three articles, a municipal decarbonization pledge, received a majority vote at Wednesday’s Town Meeting.
Article 14, the first of the three articles, proposed replacing the town’s Stretch Energy Code with the Specialized Energy Code, “for the purpose of regulating the design and construction of new buildings for the effective use of energy and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,” the warrant reads. To explain the article, Deerfield resident Emily Gaylord, who helped lead the search for signatures, told attendees that the two codes share similar requirements, but the Specialized Energy Code requires those building new construction in Deerfield who also want to power their homes with fossil fuels to pre-wire their home for electrification and install solar panels “if possible.”
“It feels like a no-brainer opportunity,” Gaylord told attendees.
With 172 votes in favor and 221 against, the Specialized Energy Code article did not pass.
During public comment, residents expressed opinions praising and challenging the financial impacts of the Specialized Energy Code, with almost every comment sparking applause from the crowd.
Jon Ross said installing solar panels was a smart financial decision for his home.
“I’d like to think I live in a town where we do the smart thing and put our emotions and preconceptions aside and just do the math,” Ross said.
Planning Board Chair Denise Mason told attendees that the board unanimously endorsed the petitions for the three articles.
“We didn’t see any negative impact on business or development,” Mason said.
Lori Baronas claimed the code would pose financial burdens for the town, including the costs of installing power lines, substations, local transmission lines and high-tension lines, in addition to the expense of disposing of solar panels after their lifespans.
“How much will it cost to dispose of them at the end of their life as they have hazardous waste in them? This will be a cost to the taxpayers,” Baronas said.
Selectboard Chair Trevor McDaniel said the code poses financial hurdles for builders, hurting the town’s ability to construct new housing.
“I agree with a clean climate, I agree that we need to make changes, but there are a lot of unintended consequences and most people don’t even understand how it affects people when they’re building,” McDaniel said.
Speakers during public comment also disagreed on the code’s exact level of binding.
Charlene Galenski cited information from the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources on the code that states, “Please note, once the Specialized Code is adopted by a municipality, all future editions, amendments and modifications of the Specialized Code are automatically adopted unless the municipality rescinds adoption of the Specialized Code itself.” Galenski said she interpreted the language as, “Things can be added, and we have to suck it up and go with it. … That’s a dangerous statement to me.”
In response, Gaylord echoed Galenski’s point that the town can vote to rescind the code at an Annual Town Meeting.
“It reduces risk, which goes back to the non-binding,” Gaylord said. “We do maintain control here.”
“The key ingredient to this is local control,” said Selectboard member Tim Hilchey. “If we approve this, we find out it’s not working for us, we just go to an Annual Town Meeting — we don’t have to call a Special Town Meeting — and we rescind the vote.”
Hilchey added, “We are moving in this direction and the future will be more restrictive on burning fossil fuels.”
Several speakers in support of the code claimed Deerfield has a duty to build climate resiliency.
Laurie Boosahda, who has taught science to middle and high schoolers for 26 years, said, “It’s really hard to talk about this and have the kids ask, ‘If we’ve known all this, why haven’t we done anything?”
“I feel like we really owe it to the young people of our community to take actions that will affect a few new homeowners who are going to do the most efficient home anyway,” she continued. “And let them know that we care about their future.”
Finance Committee Secretary James Cambias mentioned China’s 12.6 gigatons of carbon emissions in 2023, according to the World Economic Forum, and Massachusetts’ statewide 67 million tons of carbon emissions in 2021, according to mass.gov. He said Deerfield’s emissions would only be a small drop in the bucket.
“What we decide here tonight will have absolutely no effect on the future of the planet,” Cambias said.
Gaylord responded, “It’s fine that this is just a drop in the bucket as far as climate impact, but this is our sphere of control and we should exercise it.”
The second climate resiliency article, Article 15, called for the adoption of the Zero-Emission First Vehicle Policy. This requires the town to purchase only zero-emission vehicles when “commercially available and practicable,” according to mass.gov.
After limited discussion, Moderator Daniel Graves counted 179 votes in favor of the article and 182 against, before the vote went to a paper ballot. Based on the paper ballot results, the article did not pass by only two votes, with 202 in favor and 204 against.
Unlike Articles 14 and 15, which did not win a majority, Article 16 passed by only three votes. The final article included a commitment to municipal decarbonization, or “the elimination of all on-site burning of fossil fuels in municipal buildings and vehicles,” a community pledge of support for the state’s climate goals. Graves counted 150 in favor of the article and 147 against before the last applause of the evening.
Among other business, residents also voted to transfer $638,000 for capital improvement projects for fiscal year 2026, including $325,000 to buy a new ambulance, $75,000 for an ambulance loader, $55,000 to repair a loader and $50,000 from free cash for a “Concrete Sidewalk Replacement Plan.”
To address the the 20% hike in health insurance costs, voters also agreed to transfer $75,550 to the town’s health insurance account, pulling $15,550 from free cash, $30,000 from general highway payroll and $30,000 from the recreation director’s salary line. For the bump to Deerfield Elementary School’s health insurance costs, attendees voted to transfer $105,384 from free cash to the town’s account for the school’s health insurance.
Authorizations for land easements to prepare for replacing the Stillwater Bridge and construction on Elm Street sidewalks also passed.
