OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Framingham City Council Meeting - September 3, 2025

City Council — Wednesday, September 3, 2025
BodyFramingham, Massachusetts
SessionCity Council
DateWednesday, September 3, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:19:30

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

The City Council is the sole legislative body of the city of Framingham and is therefore responsible for passing city ordinances.

0:07

The City Council is made up of 11 members who exercise the legislative powers of Framingham.

0:12

Two of these members are known as counselors at large, and nine members are known as district counselors.

0:16

The city council serves as a link between the citizens of Framingham and their municipal government.

0:21

Counselors help constituents by connecting them to resources, services, and city departments.

0:25

And also serve as advocates for all Framingham residents.

0:28

The following City Council coverage is brought to you by the government channel, a service of the City of Framingham, we'll come to order.

0:57

September 2nd, 2025, at 7 p.m.

1:00

in the Blumber Room of the Moore building at 150 Conker Street, Framingham.

1:04

First call to order is public participation.

1:07

Miss Kelly, do we have a list?

1:09

And we'll go out to Zoom land.

1:11

I'm sure Mr.

1:12

Bloomfield's hand is up.

1:13

No.

1:14

Umrew, you've got three minutes.

1:16

You're the first speaker on public participation.

1:20

I've unmuted you.

1:22

Okay, cool.

1:23

Uh is my sound okay?

1:24

Yeah, we can hear you.

1:25

Three minutes.

1:27

All right, perfect.

1:28

Uh good evening, Chairman, counselors, fellow residents.

1:30

My name's Andrew, I'm from District 2.

1:32

Hope everyone had a great Labor Day weekend.

1:34

Um, today I wanted to talk about the numerous readers that form a near complete perimeter around downtown.

1:41

If you drove to City Hall tonight, unless you are already within downtown Framingham, odds are at least one photographed your license plate and added it to a database.

1:50

That has this happens even if you're not suspected of a crime.

1:54

It happens without notifying you, and as long as the cameras are there, it'll keep happening.

1:58

These cameras are owned and operated by a company called Flock Group, doing business as Flock Safety, which claims to have a network of tens of thousands of cameras across several thousand communities and 49 states.

2:10

And it is controversial for many reasons.

2:13

In some communities, flock contracts were passed in shady ways, seemingly to avoid public scrutiny.

2:19

In one case this summer, a county legislature voted to approve a contract, but rescinded it in the following meeting after uh hearing some feedback.

2:27

However, since between those two votes, the sheriff had already signed the multi-year contract in question.

2:32

He and the county prosecutor both opined that the legislature's vote to rescind the approval was void.

2:39

So, how is this nationwide network of cameras used once they're installed?

2:43

According to the cam the company's talking points, uh when the uh the cameras are used, uh they are helpful to track down stolen vehicles and solve other kinds of crimes.

2:55

However, that is far from their only use.

2:58

For example, a police officer in Texas where abortion is illegal, use the cameras to track a woman through other states where it is legal.

3:06

And whenever a flock customer, such as a police agency, but also a private uh customer shares uh their data with a federal government agency, including ICE, that gives the agency access to the entire network and database.

3:25

Notably, uh two major customers of Flock are the Home Depot and Lowe's, both of which have a presence in our community, and both of which, according to reporting uh a month ago, have been sharing data with ICE.

3:39

In 2012, the U.S.

3:40

Supreme Court ruled that installing GPS trackers on vehicles without a warrant was unconstitutional.

3:47

Today, uh a police officer only needs to log in to a system on their computer and access the same benefits as a GPS tracker would allow.

3:58

Now, you may believe that none of this affects you, and maybe it doesn't.

4:02

Uh normally this becomes controversial only when it does affect people.

4:08

But let's piece together a few facts from recent years and slightly speculate a tiny bit.

4:17

Sure.

4:17

Uh car manufacturers have faced lawsuits over sharing data with insurance companies without a driver knowing in order to charge higher premiums.

4:24

Target was caught charging higher prices through their app if the mobile device was in the parking lot of the store.

4:30

Uh if uh with these cameras, there is no need for all of this intermediary.

4:35

They can just grab this information on their own.

4:38

Perhaps we can't stop this seemingly endless tsunami of intrusions into our lives.

4:43

However, the city can at least do its part and not punch holes in the levee.

4:47

It's time to get flock out of the city.

4:49

Thank you.

4:49

Thank you.

4:50

Uh members of the audience, nobody signed up for public participation, but if you're here for an agenda item, you didn't can't talk about it in public participation.

4:57

But if there's anybody in the audience that wants to talk about something on the public participation, please raise your hand.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Public Health████████████████████████████28%
Procedural████████████████████20%
Community Engagement███████████11%
Public Safety██████████10%
Public Works██████6%
Public Engagement██████6%
Land Use Planning████4%
Economic Development███3%
Homelessness███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Framingham City Council Meeting - September 3, 2025

The Framingham City Council convened on September 3, 2025, at 7 p.m. in the Blumber Room of the Moore Building. The meeting included public participation, a moment of silence, the mayor's report, a public hearing on road acceptance, discussion on the needle exchange program, multiple appointments, and numerous finance subcommittee items. All votes were unanimous unless otherwise noted.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Andrew, District 2 resident: Opposed the use of Flock Safety cameras in Framingham, describing them as a "nationwide network" that collects license plate data without warrant or notification. He cited concerns about data sharing with federal agencies and potential misuse, and urged the city to end its involvement with Flock.

Mayor's Report

  • Mayor reported on events: Friends of Callahan 50th anniversary, dedication of the Mark Goldman Memorial Conference Room at Callahan Center, grand opening of Cluck & Crispy Chicken restaurant, compost bin availability, and an ice cream social at Lake Washakum where residents expressed satisfaction with the beach's near-daily opening due to improved water quality from stormwater diversion efforts.
  • The mayor noted CFO Jen Pratt and Citizen Participation Officer Nicole would attend via Zoom for appointments.
  • Responding to Councilor Steiner, the mayor stated he would wait for the public hearing before taking a position on the opt-in specialized code.
  • Councilor Leslie White-Harvey raised pothole issues on Hollis Street near train tracks; the mayor said the city is working with CSX and MBTA on responsibility and may have DPW do interim repairs.

Public Hearing: Acceptance of Candlestick Lane, Gaslight Lane, and Lantern Road as Public Ways

  • Order 2025-063: City Engineer Eric Johnson explained the roads were built under subdivision control but never accepted, limiting city maintenance. Accepting them would allow improvements with approved capital funds.
  • Public speakers: Paula Valentine (6 Candlestick Lane) expressed frustration about unresolved easement issues; Glenn Sidolski (2 Candlestick Lane) supported acceptance, noting the roads have not met standards for decades; Bill Hughes (17 Lantern Road) asked about timeline; Bill Habalo (5 Lantern Road) said residents always assumed roads were public.
  • Key Outcome: Council voted unanimously (10-0) to accept the roads and refer the layouts to the Planning Board for review, with the hearing set for September 18, 2025.

Discussion: Needle Exchange Program

  • Background: Board of Health Director Bill Murphy provided history: in 2019, the Board of Health approved a publicly funded syringe service program (SSP) operated by JRI, responding to high hepatitis C rates. JRI recently discontinued the program without notice, directing syringe reports to the health department. Murphy emphasized SSP benefits (reduced disease, increased treatment entry) and said the city is not equipped to replace the service. He noted a $75,000 proposal in the opioid stabilization fund budget for a response system.
  • Council Positions: Councilor Steiner asked about JRI's motives; Councilor King expressed dismay at JRI's departure and stressed the need for the service; Councilor Cannon called for public notification and community input before any new program; Councilor Bryant noted JRI faced pressure and that a comprehensive plan is needed; Councilor Long questioned the process; Councilor Wood noted the program's value; Councilor Leslie White-Harvey emphasized messaging and careful siting; Councilor Liam Bruno said the service is needed but location must be suitable.
  • Public Testimony:
    • David DePetri (1065 Grove Street, landlord): Described the JRI program as a "nightmare" for tenants, with syringes littered and no public notice. He called for mandatory public hearings before any future program.
    • Kathy Miles (Framingham Force board chair): Clarified that Framingham Force was not asked to fund the program; the state funds such programs. She argued that stopping syringe distribution will not eliminate syringes but will increase disease and death.
    • Ms. Fleming (Misfits Mutual Aid LLC): Explained the name refers to an 80s cartoon, not a derogatory term. She urged dialogue and said harm reduction is a principle, not just a program.
    • Andrea Henaberry (1 Elder Street): Supported harm reduction, stressed need for comprehensive services and partnerships, and offered professional insights.
  • Key Outcomes: No formal vote. The council agreed to continue discussions and seek improved oversight and public notice for future programs.

Appointments (Orders 055-064)

All appointments recommended by the Appointment Subcommittee (chaired by Councilor Liam Bruno) were approved by votes ranging from 8-0 to 9-0. Appointments include:

  • Steve Kiviat to Council on Aging (through June 30, 2026)
  • Ash Nemicola to Cultural Council (through 2028)
  • Tyler Tarossi and Cheryl Goldstein to Disability Commission (through 2028)
  • Thomas Schwetz and Lewis Colton to Historic District/Historic Commission (through 2028)
  • Four members to Historic District Commission (James Kubat, Andrew Habermale, Paul Silva, Paul Charbonneau) with varying terms
  • Michelle Burns to Key Check (through 2028)
  • Tony Tolson to Park & Rec Commission (through 2028)
  • Michael Bauer and Jeff Rouse to Team Framingham Steering Committee (through 2028)
  • Barbie Downing, William Blumsack, and Nick Paganella to Veterans Council (through 2028)
  • Leonard Levy to Zoning Board of Appeals as associate member (term corrected to 2026)

Finance Subcommittee Items (Orders 055-062)

All recommended by Finance Subcommittee (chaired by Councilor King) and approved unanimously (9-0 or 10-0):

  • Order 2025-05501: Transfer $5,550,327.79 from stabilization fund for the Mary Denison project.
  • Order 2025-02803: Reduce FY26 Keefe Tech assessment from $10,519,810 to $10,217,010.
  • Order 2025-05601: Appropriate $207,750 from opioid stabilization fund for the FY26 opioid task force budget, including $75,000 for syringe litter response.
  • Order 2025-05701: Appropriate $75,000 from CPA funds for accessible dock at Washakum Beach.
  • Order 2025-05801: Extend auditing services contract (CliftonLarsonAllen) to include FY2025 audit.
  • Order 2025-05901: Transfer $50,000 from salary reserve to treasurer's budget for temporary help due to vacancies.
  • Order 2025-06101: Accept and appropriate $49,699 from the state Sustainable Materials Recovery Program grant for recycling improvements.

Additional Items

  • Clarification to Demolition Delay Ordinance: Council approved a clarification to Section 284-11, ensuring written updates are required at specified intervals, without needing a new public hearing. Vote: unanimous.
  • Referral: Order 2025-062 on police superiors union contract referred to Finance Subcommittee without objection.

Key Outcomes

  • All agenda items requiring votes passed unanimously (8-0, 9-0, or 10-0).
  • The needle exchange program discussion resulted in no action but a commitment to further dialogue and potential ordinance changes for public notification.
  • Multiple appointments and financial approvals were confirmed.
  • The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. (estimated).

Meeting Transcript

The City Council is the sole legislative body of the city of Framingham and is therefore responsible for passing city ordinances. The City Council is made up of 11 members who exercise the legislative powers of Framingham. Two of these members are known as counselors at large, and nine members are known as district counselors. The city council serves as a link between the citizens of Framingham and their municipal government. Counselors help constituents by connecting them to resources, services, and city departments. And also serve as advocates for all Framingham residents. The following City Council coverage is brought to you by the government channel, a service of the City of Framingham, we'll come to order. September 2nd, 2025, at 7 p.m. in the Blumber Room of the Moore building at 150 Conker Street, Framingham. First call to order is public participation. Miss Kelly, do we have a list? And we'll go out to Zoom land. I'm sure Mr. Bloomfield's hand is up. No. Umrew, you've got three minutes. You're the first speaker on public participation. I've unmuted you. Okay, cool. Uh is my sound okay? Yeah, we can hear you. Three minutes. All right, perfect. Uh good evening, Chairman, counselors, fellow residents. My name's Andrew, I'm from District 2. Hope everyone had a great Labor Day weekend. Um, today I wanted to talk about the numerous readers that form a near complete perimeter around downtown. If you drove to City Hall tonight, unless you are already within downtown Framingham, odds are at least one photographed your license plate and added it to a database. That has this happens even if you're not suspected of a crime. It happens without notifying you, and as long as the cameras are there, it'll keep happening. These cameras are owned and operated by a company called Flock Group, doing business as Flock Safety, which claims to have a network of tens of thousands of cameras across several thousand communities and 49 states. And it is controversial for many reasons. In some communities, flock contracts were passed in shady ways, seemingly to avoid public scrutiny. In one case this summer, a county legislature voted to approve a contract, but rescinded it in the following meeting after uh hearing some feedback. However, since between those two votes, the sheriff had already signed the multi-year contract in question. He and the county prosecutor both opined that the legislature's vote to rescind the approval was void. So, how is this nationwide network of cameras used once they're installed? According to the cam the company's talking points, uh when the uh the cameras are used, uh they are helpful to track down stolen vehicles and solve other kinds of crimes. However, that is far from their only use. For example, a police officer in Texas where abortion is illegal, use the cameras to track a woman through other states where it is legal. And whenever a flock customer, such as a police agency, but also a private uh customer shares uh their data with a federal government agency, including ICE, that gives the agency access to the entire network and database. Notably, uh two major customers of Flock are the Home Depot and Lowe's, both of which have a presence in our community, and both of which, according to reporting uh a month ago, have been sharing data with ICE. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that installing GPS trackers on vehicles without a warrant was unconstitutional. Today, uh a police officer only needs to log in to a system on their computer and access the same benefits as a GPS tracker would allow. Now, you may believe that none of this affects you, and maybe it doesn't. Uh normally this becomes controversial only when it does affect people. But let's piece together a few facts from recent years and slightly speculate a tiny bit. Sure. Uh car manufacturers have faced lawsuits over sharing data with insurance companies without a driver knowing in order to charge higher premiums.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com