►
From YouTube: City Council Sub Committee of 4-6-22
Description
City of Chelsea, Discuss Home Rule Petition regarding establishing a program allowing any owner-occupant of a condominium unit, single family, two family, three family, four family home to receive a reduction on the water and sewer bill for the entire premises equal to 20% of the entire bill (A copy of the Home Rule Petition can be found at the Chelsea City Council Office, 500 Broadway #306 Chelsea, MA 02150 or email fmelara@chelseama.gov for electronic copy)
A
Okay,
good
evening,
everyone
we
are
now
going
to
call
the
subcommittee
on
conference.
The
following
matter
will
be
discussed
to
discuss
the
home
rule
petition
regarding
establishing
a
program
allowing
any
owner
occupant
of
a
condominium
unit,
single-family
two-family,
three-family
four-family
home,
to
receive
a
reduction.
A
It
was
the
very
first
thing
I
said,
sir,
so
hold
on
to
receive
a
reduction
on
the
water
and
soar
bill
for
the
entire
premises,
equal
to
20
of
the
entire
bill.
A
copy
of
the
home
rule
petition
can
be
found
at
the
chelsea
city
council
office,
500,
broadway,
room
306,
or
you
can
email
f
molera
at
chelseama.gov
officials
invited
to
attend
all
honorable
members
of
the
city
council,
the
city
manager,
tom
memberzino
and
members
of
the
public.
At
this
time,
I'll
ask
the
city
clerk
to
read
the
role.
B
Castle,
tenery,
garcia,
absent
council,
robertson,
absent
counselor
taylor,
absent
council
lopez,
councillor
vega,
maldonado,
absent
council
absentee
president
councillor
brown,
absent
council
of
vedau
absent
councillor
de
jesus,
absent
and
council
judy
garcia
absent.
You
don't
have
a
call,
mr
jimmy.
I
have
three
members.
A
Okay,
seeing
that
we
do
not
have
a
forum,
but
I
mean
rather
a
quorum
but
we'll
still
go
forward
as
an
unofficial
meeting.
This
is
being
recorded
and
I'll.
Allow
the
maker
of
the
homeroom
petition
to
open
up
make
his
opening
statement
we'll
allow
the
city
manager
to
reply
and
and
and
make
his
statement
and
then
we'll
see
if
any
of
the
colleagues
myself
or
council
enyo
lopez,
have
any
questions
and
then
we'll
wrap
this
up
so
castle.
Recupera,
you
have
the
floor.
C
Good
evening,
president
and
good
evening,
city
manager
and
good
evening,
my
fellow
councilor
and
mr
casino
today
we're
here
for
a
very
important
thing.
It
doesn't
matter
what
us
counsellors
decide
because
it
doesn't
really
matter.
We
can
only
bring
this
forth
to
ask
the
state
to
act
upon
this,
because
if
we've,
the
only
thing
we
can
do
is
send
it
to
them
and
let
them
make
a
decision,
so
it
doesn't
really
matter
what
we
want
to
do.
It's
what
the
state
decides
it
wants
to
do.
C
C
I
don't
know
if
it's
your
way
of
thinking,
but
I'm
a
homeowner.
I
know
that
you
say
you
can
say
oh
well,
why
should
everybody
else
make
up
the
difference?
Well,
when
you
really
think
about
it,
the
whole
difference
is,
if
you
own
a
condo,
a
single
family.
Your
savings
is
between
ten
dollars
or
less
a
month,
if
you
own
a
tree
family
up
to
a
two
three
and
four
you're
saving
a
steady
dollars.
They'll
come
to
about
three
hundred
and
some
odd
dollars
a
year.
C
C
So
if
we're
giving
someone
that
lives
here
at
ten
dollars
off
a
month
or
140
a
year
for
a
single
family
and
300,
we're
not
really
doing
a
lot
we're
trying
to,
even
though
some
people
might
say
that
you're
going
to
shift
it
onto
the
next
person,
we
do
that
with
everything
in
this
city.
We
shift
everything
over
to
somebody
else.
How
do
you
think
the
city
survives?
Does
it
just
take
everything
from
one?
It
goes
all
over
the
place.
C
We
shift
everything
everything
is
shifted,
so
you're
saying:
why
should
you
punish
the
people
that
don't
own
homes
you're
not
punishing
them
they're
just
going
to
make
up?
Maybe
one
percent
difference
there's
nothing,
that's
actually
nothing
to
give
somebody
besides,
they
always
say
well,
the
stakeholders
are
important.
Well,
who's,
the
biggest
stakeholders
in
our
city.
When
you
really
think
about
it.
The
biggest
stakeholder
is
the
person
that
owns
a
home
here
that
lives
here
and
puts
all
his
money
in
this
city.
So
why
shouldn't
they
get
something
in
return,
and
that's
not
just
one.
C
That's
everybody
that
lives
here,
everybody
that
owns
anything
a
condo,
maybe
not
businesses,
businesses,
but
by
law,
heavy
things
we
can
decide
who
gets
the
money.
We
can't
even
give
it
to
them,
because
we
cannot
that's
why
we're
doing
a
home
rule
petition
the
only
thing
this
does
it
sends
it
to
the
state
legislators
and
they
determine
if
it's
going
to
happen,
and
I
very
much
doubtful
that
they
will
let
it
happen
because
it's
a
first
time
ever
being
done
something
like
this.
C
You
know
I'm
it's
not
I'm
trying
to
do
it
for
myself,
because
I'm
a
homeowner
and
every
other
homeowner,
and
even
that's
the
thing
I'm
trying
to
we're
not
getting
when
you
really
think
about
it.
What
are
you
getting
as
a
single
family,
homeowner
you're
getting
ten
dollars
a
month?
You
can't
even
buy
two
gallons
of
gasoline.
C
For
that
you
know.
What
are
you
really
getting?
The
point
is
going
to
be
like
it's
going
to
be
said.
Well,
why
should
somebody
else
pay
for
it?
I
know
I
just
said
that.
But
if
that's
the
case,
why
should
homeowners
pay
for
everybody
else
and
everything
else?
The
homeowners
are
the
biggest
they
get
taxed
the
most
out
of
everybody
here,
the
city
taxes
them
more
than
anything
else.
Okay,
maybe
accept
businesses.
C
I
believe
that,
through
the
years
that
I've
been
here,
I
only
lived
in
this
city
for
40
years.
Water
used
to
be
a
commodity
that
wasn't
worth
nothing
well
more
or
less.
They
didn't
charge
you
now.
Your
water
bill
is
a
mortgage
bill.
It's
a
mortgage!
It's
the
same
as
your
tax
average
tree
family
pays
between
300
to
600
a
month
for
water
that
the
city
gets,
and
in
return
you
try
to
give
them
30
dollars,
so
they
pay
between
300
and
600
and
you're,
giving
them
back
30
dollars.
C
So
what
are
you
giving
them
100
of
a
tenth
of
their
own
money
back?
What
are
you
giving
them?
You're,
not
really
giving
them
anything,
and
then
you
say
well
what
you're
doing
is
you're
trying.
What
I'm
trying
to
do
is
try
to
tell
the
people
of
the
city
that
the
city
cares
for
you.
It
does
care,
even
though
we
can't
give
you
a
whole
bunch,
but
we
can
try
to
give
you
something
something
to
make.
C
You
understand
that
we
as
me
as
a
city
councilor,
thinks
of
that,
and
I
hope
many
of
my
fellow
city
councilors
think
the
same
way
that
it's
you
know,
killing
people
you're
not
saying:
okay,
you're
charging,
someone
else,
but
that's
okay.
We
shift
every
day.
We
shift
we
shift
when
we
do
the
maximum
shift
for
the
taxations.
C
We
shift
all
the
time
the
money
gets
juggled
all
around.
So
I
could
understand
if
you
were
spending
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars,
but
when
you
given
a
poor,
homeowner
ten
dollars,
ten
dollars
a
single
family
home
a
month,
what
are
you
giving
them
you?
What
you've
given
them
is
the
gesture
to
make
them
understand
that
we,
the
elected
officials
and
the
city
cares,
is
trying
to
do
something
trying
to
give
you
something
a
little
bit
of
something.
I
don't
know
how
it's
going
to
end
up.
C
I
understand,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
bring
that
home
to
the
people
that
they
understand.
I
know
I'm
redundant
and
going
back
to
the
same
thing,
but
I
want
to
because
I
want
them
to
understand
that
we
cannot
make
this
decision.
The
only
decision
we
can
make
is
to
send
it
to
the
state
and
the
state
decides.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
president,
so
let
me
say
I'll
answer
all
those
questions,
but
let
me
say
first,
I'm
agnostic
on
this,
because
it's
revenue
neutral
for
the
city,
whether
you
pass
this
or
not,
the
city
is
still
going
to
collect
the
same
amount
of
water
and
sewer
revenue
to
run
our
system.
What
this
would
do
is
exactly
what
would
happen
in
the
tax
situation,
where
you're
simply
shifting
the
burden
from
owner
occupants
in
the
city
to
non-owner
occupants.
D
B
D
Look
at
this
as
a
pure
policy
decision
for
the
city
council
to
make
you
asked
me
if
I
looked
at
it,
I
did
do
ran
some
numbers
just
to
see
how
much
it
would
sort
of
save
or
cost
the
average
annual
bill
for
this
year
is
a
little
over
eighteen
hundred
dollars.
Now
this
is
a
family
of
four
using
a
hundred
and
twenty
hundred
cubic
feet,
which
is
what
the
mwra
claims
an
average
family
of
four
uses.
C
D
367
dollars
per
unit
and
if
every
annually
annually
yes
based
on
this
year's
bill,
obviously
that
would
go
up
as
rates
rise
and
they
always
are
going
to
rise.
If
every
owner
occupant,
who
currently
receives
a
residential
exemption,
were
to
take
advantage
of
this,
as
councilor
cupro
said,
we
think
the
total
savings
a
cost
of
this
would
be
about
1.4
million
dollars.
D
Now
there
is
some
assumption
built
into
that,
and
that
is
that
assumes
only
half
the
condominium
owner
occupants
would
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
this,
because
we
could
only
give
a
condo
owner
a
break
if
they
were
paying
a
separate
water
and
sewer
bill.
There's
no
way
for
us
to
give
us
to
make
this
work
for
a
high.
You
know
large
condominium
unit
where
there's
one
water
bill
for
the
whole
entity.
D
D
D
Your
final
question
to
me
was:
what
do
I
think
the
prospects
are
at
the
legislative
level?
I
think,
honestly,
they
are
slim.
No
one
else
is
doing
this.
This
would
be
kind
of
a
very
unique
program.
My
sense
is
that
when
the
legislature
sent
this
to
the
department
of
revenue
to
take
a
look
at,
they
would
not
look
kindly
on
this.
It's
just
not
something
they
typically
would
do,
and
it
is
so
unique
that
you
know
these
kinds
of
unique
programs.
D
Are
difficult
to
get
past
the
department
of
revenue,
so
I
don't
think
it
has
a
high
prospect
of
success,
but
I
you
know:
that's
just
my
guess
at
it.
The
only
discount
that
is
out
there
in
this
water
and
sewer
world
is
the
senior
discount
which
we
have
as
do
many
other
communities.
Quite
frankly,
the
legality
of
the
senior
discount
is
somewhat
suspect.
There's
nothing
in
the
statutes
that
actually
allows
it,
but
lots
of
communities
do
it.
Dor's,
never,
really
pressed
anyone.
D
C
You
just
say
that
it's
very
hard
for
us
to
do.
That's,
even
if
we
send
it
to
the
legislator,
it
probably
won't
pass,
but
why
shouldn't
the
city
of
chelsea
at
least
make
an
effort
to
send
it
to
show
to
people
that
you,
the
manager
us
the
elected
officials,
do
care
in
some
way
and
we
shift
everything
all
the
time
but,
like
you
said,
the
odds
are
99.1
percent
that
they
won't
pass.
C
So
why
am
I
trying
it?
Because
maybe
it
doesn't
pass,
but
maybe
one
day
it
will
maybe
one
day
the
people
can
say:
okay,
the
cities
and
towns.
They
don't
want
to
kill
us
all
the
time
at
least
they're
trying
that's
the
whole
thing.
The
savings
is
not
a
a
whole
bunch.
If
you
give
everybody
something,
it's
not
what
what
it
does
average
out
for
a
single
family
home
a
month,
ten
dollars.
C
C
C
C
A
Won't
rain
again:
it's
revenue
neutral,
it's
not
going
to
cost
the
city
anything
because
you're,
just
asking,
as
it
stated
all
you're
doing,
is
asking
the
non-owner
occupied
accounts
to
pay
extra.
So
it's
not
this,
where
no
one's
getting
a
break
or
anything
you're
given
a
break.
But
the
city
is
independent
of
this
and
is
just.
C
A
A
And
as
far
as
the
likelihood
or
passage
of
this,
I
won't
let
the
city
manager
answer
this,
because
it's
not
his
decision.
It's
a
city
council.
He
stated
that
it's
a
city
decision.
He
just
made
his
opinion
based
on
past
experience
of
matters
like
this
going
in
there.
He
declared
it,
but,
as
he
stated
earlier,
he
has
no
opinion.
He's
agnostic,
meaning
doesn't
have
an
opinion
in
favor
or
against
this,
but
gave
you
his
opinion
of
the
likelihood
of
passing.
A
He
does
not
have
to
weigh
in
on
whether
or
not
we
should
do
this.
That
is
a
that
decision
is
or
the
opinion
should
only
matter
of
the
city
council.
So
they're
not
here.
If
you
want
to
talk
to
them,
that's
fine,
but
if
you
have
any
other
question
direct
question
about
it,
the
administration
of
this
university.
C
A
I
will
argue
that
anything
that
we
send
to
the
legislature
is
a
statement
of
not
saying
to
them.
Please
please
pass
this
you're
asking
them
that
it
has
wide
support
from
this
community
wide
support
from
its
council
and
if
it
does
have
it,
so
it's
not
to
let,
let's
not
mistake
that
what
we
send
to
the
state
legislature
is
asking
them
to
prove
something
that
is
vehemently
supported
so
and
not
that
it's
decided
upon
them,
you're,
basically
asking
them
simply
for
a
rubber
stamp.
That's
it!
A
That's
all
that
happens,
you're
asking
them
to
have
a
rubber
stamp,
because
we
don't
have
the
authority
to
do
it.
No,
we
have
to
ask
them
to
have
the
authority
to
do
so
and
they
don't
opine
too
much
whether
or
not
a
community
does
this
unless
it
has
vmware's
support.
So
when
you
pass
something
up
there,
such
as
a
charter
review
any
amendments
and
any
home
rule
petitions
they're
going
with
the
idea,
because
they're
not
they're,
not
present-
that
there's
wide
support
of
this.
So
it's
not
really
there
it's.
A
C
A
C
C
A
C
That's
not
my
point.
Okay,
my
point
is
a
simple
one.
Why
not
give
the
biggest
stakeholders
of
our
city
a
break?
That's
the
whole
point
I'm
trying
to
make.
That's
it.
I'm
not
saying
that
we're
not
important
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
a
simple
one.
I
know
we're
going
back
to
the
same
thing.
We
decide
to
send
it
to
the
state
house.
C
A
C
C
C
A
A
I
don't
want
you
to
forget
and
take
notice
that
we're
one
of
the
very
few
communities
that
don't
charge
a
trash
fee
in
this.
Where
and
and
homeowners
do
not
pay
a
trash
fee.
We
subsidize
that
okay,
many
communities
charge
a
trash
fee
for
owner
for
owners.
This
community
has
always
picked
up
the
tab
that
they
get
that
do
not
and
don't
shake
your
head,
but
acknowledge
that
that
gets
picked
up.
Okay,
that's
a
service
that
many
communities
do
charge.
A
That's
a
service
that
many
communities
do
charge
so
recognize
that
chelsea
is
one
of
the
very
few
communities
or
not
one
of
the
very
few,
but
is
one
of
the
communities
that
does
not
charge
owner
occupants.
A
trash
free
recognize
that
that's
all
I'm
saying
recognize
that
that
if
you
lived
in
another
community,
you
may
end
up
getting
a
trash
fee
recognize
the
difference.
A
A
Also,
okay-
and
I
know
you
don't
like
to
hear
it
and
I'll
repeat
it-
for
the
people
at
home,
who
didn't
hear
this
earlier,
the
taxes
and
my
you
know,
and
I've
had
conversation
with
the
city
manager.
I
look
at
large
buildings
such
as
one
north,
the
chelsea
clock
buildings
and
such
they
are
businesses.
A
A
We
as
a
city
cannot
treat
them
in
our
tax
code
as
a
business.
We
can't
charge
them
the
same
rate
that
we
charge
the
mueller's
or
km
or
any
of
the
warehouse.
Our
tax
rate
is
split.
It's
28
dollars
for
on.
If
you
look
at
assessments
for
when
you're
on
a
value
for
a
tax,
a
commercial
building,
it's
only
12
or
13
dollars
for
residential,
so
those
large
apartment
buildings,
because
they
cata
in
the
category
residential,
only
paying
they're
paying
the
lower
rate
and
the
city
manager.
I
agree.
A
I
wish
there
was
a
way
for
these
buildings
that
are
actually
businesses
to
be
charged
like
a
business.
So
what
do
we
do
to
rectify?
The
best
thing
that
we
can
do
is
a
we
give
the
maximum
shift
of
our
tax
rate
from
residential
to
commercial
and
that's.
Why
there's
that
large
difference
of
of
1.75
percent-
and
we
gave
a
residential
exemption,
there's
the
argument
of
why
we
do
it,
because,
if
you're
acting
like
a
business,
that's
number
one
number
two.
A
I
can't
dictate
how
much
water
a
building
uses
or
a
homeowner
uses.
I
can't
I
say
they
pay
what
they
use.
I
have
no
way
of
knowing
that
you're
asking
this
city
council
to
subsidize
a
homeowner's
water
bill,
yet
I
don't
know,
does
he
has
he
is?
Does
he
try
to
save
water?
Does
he
have
that
or
does
that
home
have
the
the
toilets
with
the
option,
one
and
two
to
make
sure
they're
not
over
using
water?
Do
they
have
shower
heads
that
don't
spray
as
much
water?
A
Are
they
doing
the
best
they
can
to
lower
the
rates,
so
that
they're,
not
you
know
the
other
people
aren't
paying
for
their
high
water
use
you
we
don't
have
no
guarantee
of
that.
So
I
say
you
know
what
it's
unfair
in
that
way
of
you,
you
pay
for
what
you
use
now,
if
you
want
to
work
at
the
budget
and
try
to
figure
a
way
of
cutting
the
budget
or
what
the
rates
are
in
this
community
and
see.
If
we
can't
do
a
better
job
of
that,
I
will
support
that.
A
That's
a
way
of
doing
it,
but
to
make
people
get
sub
or
pay
for
someone
else's
use
of
water
and
shore
when
it's
a
utility,
not
a
tax.
I
say
I
can't
be
on
board.
I
think
it's
unfair
and
when
this
council
previously
tried
to
pass
something
similar,
it
was
deemed
illegal,
even
though
it
passed
it
never
got
into
the
books
and
never
got
never
got
put
into
place
because
it
was
deemed
illegal,
and
I
was
one
of
only
two
counselors
who
said
that
day.
This
is
wrong.
A
C
A
C
C
C
C
So
if
you
try
to
save
your
landlord
ten
dollars,
he's
not
going
to
charge
the
tenant
that
much
so,
in
other
words
who
benefits
it's,
not
just
the
homeowners,
it's
the
tenants
that
benefit
the
same
way,
because
from
what
I
understand
now,
when
you
rent
an
apartment,
even
in
any
building
any
building
in
this
city,
they
charge
you
for
water.
It's
incorporated
inside
your
amount,
because
people
have
come
up
to
me
and
told
me
that
they
rent,
as
incorporated
they
pay
an
additional
hundred
to
two
hundred
dollars
each
month
to
put
their
water.
C
So
in
another
words
that
it's
being
passed
automatic
to
each
tenant,
each
tenant
is
being
passed
that
cost
no
matter
what
it
is,
so
in
other
words
you're,
not
shifting
anything
you're
it
somebody
else,
the
people
that
own
these
buildings
that
developers
that
own
these
buildings
are
still
charging
the
tenants
to
pay
for
the
water,
because
the
water
ain't
free.
So
if
you
give
a
homeowner
that
lives
in
his
own
house-
and
let's
say
he
rents
a
ten
dollar
even
30
dollars
a
month,
he's
not
gonna
raise
your
tenant
thirty
dollars
a
month.
C
He
doesn't
have
to
so
in
another
words
is
beneficial
to
not
only
the
homeowners
but
to
the
tenants.
Those
are
the
ones
that
will
get
the
benefits.
It's
the
tenants,
maybe
the
big
developers
won't
they,
but
it
doesn't
matter
to
them,
because
they're
gonna
pay
anyways
they're
going
to
give
it
to
the
tenants
they
do
that
now.
I
know
plenty
of
buildings
that
are
incorporating
their
water
rates
inside
the
rent,
and
I
did
for
somebody
to
come
up
to
eat
me
and
tell
me
they
don't
do
that
practice
right
now.
C
So,
in
other
words,
you
say
we'll
shift
it
to
this
person.
It's
being
shifted
already,
it's
already
being
shifted.
People
that
are
not
home
owners
are
still
making
other
people
pay
for
the
water.
So
that's
the
argument.
I'm
making
that
no
matter
what
it
is,
the
water
is
still
being
subsidized
by
the
owners.
The
owners
of
these
big
buildings
are
subsidizing
their
own
they're
charging,
the
people
for
the
water.