On September 14 the Chelsea City Council was asked to pay $26,546.88 in bills left over from past fiscal years. On September 21 it was asked to pay $12,505.14. The two lists are not the same list, and the bills that disappeared are the old ones.
Both orders went to the Committee on Ways and Means. Neither has been approved.
What was asked for on September 14
Order 26F40 covered five invoices and named four fiscal years:
- FY21, DPW Water, $4,636.01, Tufts Construction, lead replacement
- FY23, DPW Water, $13,030.00, Tufts Construction, lead replacement
- FY25, City Clerk, $50.00, Independent Newspaper, advertisement
- FY26, Human Resources, $8,288.87, Department of Unemployment Assistance, benefits
- FY21, Legislative, $542.00, Ricoh, May and June copier charges
The city manager’s cover letter for that request named four departments: Public Works, City Clerk, Human Resources and the Legislative department. At the meeting the clerk said the FY21 references were a typo for FY26. The order was referred to Ways and Means.
What was asked for on September 21
Order 26F50 covers three invoices and names two fiscal years:
- FY26, DPW Sewer, $4,863.46, Liro GIS, GIS services
- FY25, Structures and Grounds, $7,541.68, ATCO, HVAC maintenance
- FY25, City Clerk, $100.00, Independent Newspaper Group, advertisement
The cover letter for this one names two departments, Public Works and the City Clerk. The Human Resources and Legislative items are gone. So are both Tufts Construction lead replacement invoices, which together came to $17,666.01 and were the oldest items on the September 14 list.
One item is new: the $4,863.46 owed to Liro GIS for sewer mapping. One item changed amount: the City Clerk’s newspaper advertisement went from $50.00 to $100.00.
The one bill the packet explains
The packet contains a memorandum from DPW Commissioner Cate Fox-Lent dated September 10 explaining the ATCO charge. Chelsea DPW signed a contract with Ambient Temperature Corporation for preventive maintenance and repairs on city HVAC equipment beginning April 1, 2025. ATCO did not invoice for the April and May 2025 work. The work was done to contract requirements, so the money is owed.
The reason nobody noticed for a year is the interesting part. The contract is a fixed rate, and, as the memorandum puts it, prior companies had billed quarterly or semi-annually, so the business office did not initially notice the missing invoices. ATCO submitted the invoice in May 2026, 12 months after the work.
What we do not know
The packet does not say whether the Tufts Construction, unemployment and Ricoh bills were paid another way, disallowed, withdrawn for more documentation, or simply left in Ways and Means from the week before. The cover letter for the new order does not mention them. Both orders are technically live, which means the council could take up either one.
Under G.L. c. 44, section 64, a city cannot pay a prior year’s obligation out of the current year’s budget without a council vote, which is why these lists come to the council at all. The point of the statute is that somebody has to look at each one. That is the job in front of Ways and Means now. The $12,505.14 is the smaller question. The larger one is the $26,496.88 in bills that appeared on the council’s desk one week and were not asked for the next.
If you have documentation on the Tufts Construction lead replacement invoices, write to [email protected].