The meeting saw debates over the specialized energy code, which seeks to regulate building design for improved energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions reduction, with an effective date set for July 1, 2026. Proponents of the code, like Ms. Gaylord, emphasized its potential to position Conway as a climate leader, accessing significant grant funding and ultimately lowering energy costs. They argued that the proposed code would not increase taxes or create new expenses and would require select board approval for any projects funded through grants.

However, opponents raised issues about the feasibility and practicality of the energy code, particularly concerning the capacity of local infrastructure to support increased electrification. Lori Baronis and others expressed doubts about the power grid’s ability to handle the demand, warning of the extensive time required for necessary improvements. Furthermore, Charlene Galinsky voiced apprehension about losing local control. She emphasized that the transition to all-electric systems might not be viable given the state’s current reliance on fossil fuels for electricity.

The debate reflected broader conversations about balancing environmental initiatives with practical considerations, such as existing capabilities and community needs.

Parallel to the energy code debate, the proposal for a zero-emission first vehicle policy also sparked considerable discussion. This policy sought to formalize the town’s inclination towards replacing municipal vehicles with the most fuel-efficient options available, while allowing for certain exemptions. Miss Gaylord clarified that cost and practical usage could exempt vehicles from the electric mandate when necessary. Despite these assurances, several residents, like Dwight Manley, shared personal experiences with electric vehicles, arguing that they are not yet practical for long trips or cold weather conditions. These concerns were echoed by Lori Baron, who recounted an incident where an electric vehicle’s limitations affected municipal operations.

Supporters like Ryan Kingston highlighted the long-term benefits of electric vehicles, including their cost-effectiveness and positive impact on local air quality. However, the proposal faced a narrow defeat, signaling the community’s reluctance to fully commit to such a transition without further consideration of its implications.

In addition to these primary topics, the meeting addressed several other issues, including the extinguishment of easement rights related to the Still Water Bridge mitigation parcel and the authorization for the select board to grant easements for agricultural purposes. These motions were part of ongoing efforts to manage local land and infrastructure strategically.

The town’s economic development plan also came under scrutiny, with concerns raised about outdated data and typographical errors within the document. This led to calls for updates before further decisions could be made. The chairman of the Deerfield Economic Development Industrial Corporation acknowledged these issues, emphasizing the necessity of periodic updates to meet statutory requirements.

Amidst the debates, the Selectboard also considered amendments to the town’s general bylaws, specifically regarding tax title negotiations. The proposed change from “shall” to “may” in the language of the bylaw aimed to provide flexibility in handling payment agreements for taxpayers in arrears. However, the legal counsel clarified that the original language aligned with statutory requirements, sparking a discussion about the potential consequences of altering the bylaw.