Framingham City Council Approves Building Opt-In Code

FRAMINGHAM - The Framingham City Council voted to approve of the Massachusetts Municipal Opt-In Specialized Building Code during their meeting on Tuesday, December 2.

The code, which is now slated to go into effect on July 1, 2026, is set to apply to new buildings within Framingham. It would feature ways for eco-friendly utilities, such as solar pre-wiring, to be built in. The code does not require full electrification of those new buildings, and it does not apply to structures that are already existing.

Proponents have said the code is a proper step in reducing carbon emissions and air pollution locally, as they’ve also pointed to potential savings via green utilities along with possible state grants and tax credits that can be used in the future as new buildings are developed.

Others have expressed some hesitation about the code’s adoption, though. The Framingham Economic Development Corporation (FEDC) stressed a desire to have a study initiated prior to adopting the code to investigate potential development costs and the impact on industrial and commercial construction along with property values within the city. Others think the code could restrict owners from developing buildings however they'd like due to additional regulations.

The public hearing on the topic closed on November 18. After the motion to approve the code was unveiled by District 3 City Council member Adam Steiner during that meeting, Michael Cannon of District 4 invoked a part of the city's Home Rule Charter to delay the vote to December 2 in order to provide more time for a review of what the motion features.

During Tuesday’s meeting, Cannon reiterated his belief that local leaders have been rushing into making a decision on the opt-in code’s adoption. He and District 1 City Councilor Christine Long said they wanted to garner more community feedback and to learn how other Massachusetts municipalities have fared after adopting the code.

“I’m not supportive of this; I wish we had waited and taken our time with this…This would be one of things things that I would probably lump into the category of: we should honor the will of the voters and probably begin this conversation in January with a new council, the council of the day, to look at this thoughtfully,” Cannon said at the Memorial Building on December 2.

District 9 City Council member Tracey Bryant, meanwhile, thinks all of the points for and against adopting the measure have already been fleshed out in recent months. She told her colleagues her belief that the most recent meeting was the time for the group to make a decision.

“We have had the data, we’ve had people present,” Bryant continued.

“The process has had due process—plenty of due process…It is about the will of the people, and if (the code) really isn’t going to work, then the city will find that out or whatever.”

City Councilors-elect Mary Kate Feeney of District 3 and John Stefanini of District 8—the only two officials who will be different faces on the City Council in the upcoming term—have expressed support for the opt-in code.

Framingham’s Chief Operating Officer Michael Tusino told the City Council that additional feedback had been collected from “the construction community” through the FEDC. The feedback was shared with the Rules, Ordinances and Ethics Subcommittee—which is chaired by Bryant—back in September. The FEDC had requested a postponement of the adoption back in October, though the feedback mentioned on Tuesday is provided in a different document.

However, Cannon explained that the memo was not shared publicly with the full City Council beforehand and that he only learned about the construction feedback during the meeting prior to the vote to approve the opt-in code. He asked if that vote could be delayed to a later date in order to provide time for a review of the information; Cannon didn’t believe those details would change the eventual outcome of the City Council’s vote, but he said not sharing the information with the full body is “bad government.” At-Large City Council member George King mentioned he also hadn’t seen the document, adding that a delay of the vote by another week or two—with the same group of councilors present—could make sense.

Steiner, though, said the conversation on the code’s merits has already been deeply analyzed over the course of multiple meetings and a public hearing. He was able to read a copy of the new document during Tuesday’s meeting, but he still felt that this week as the proper time to vote.

“It’s the similar themes…It’s the same things we’ve heard for months that are valid. But for many of us, we feel, the environmental benefits and the other benefits of this are worth it,” Steiner said regarding the document’s contents.

Eventually, Bryant made a motion to call the question of adopting the opt-in code up; Steiner seconded the motion. The motion to present the question was approved by an 8-3 count, as At-Large City Council member Janet Leombruno joined Cannon and Long in the “no” vote there. Cannon called the decision to continue with the vote “shameful.”

The motion to adopt the opt-in code was then approved by the City Council by a 9-2 count, with Cannon and Long dissenting.

Mayor Charlie Sisitsky has expressed support for adopting the Massachusetts Municipal Opt-In Specialized Building Code.