The PAYT program, intended to generate much-needed revenue for city services, faced significant scrutiny from both council members and the public. One council member noted the need for the program, stating that without it, the city could face financial difficulties in meeting its fiscal obligations. This individual argued that the PAYT program was a necessary step to manage increasing trash disposal costs, especially after the closure of the landfill, which had previously provided tipping fee relief. They emphasized the urgency of the situation.

Despite these arguments, there was skepticism about the program’s effectiveness and fairness. Another council member countered that the PAYT initiative had missed its financial projections and that the compliance rate of 80% did not reflect resident satisfaction. They advocated for alternative solutions, such as establishing a transfer facility or privatizing waste services, to address the city’s waste management challenges more effectively.

Public comments further highlighted the contentious nature of the PAYT program. Critics argued that the program was politically motivated and unfairly burdened low-income families. One speaker questioned the legality of the PAYT program. Another resident, identified as Don Seret, argued in favor of the PAYT initiative, noting that it had already improved compliance rates and provided necessary revenue for essential services like police and fire departments.

The meeting also addressed broader governance issues, including the selection process for energy consultants related to the municipal aggregation plan. Concerns were raised about the transparency and inclusiveness of the consultant selection process, with allegations that the current consultant was “handpicked” by the previous administration, leading to calls for a reevaluation of the process.

The municipal electrical aggregation plan, which promises electricity savings for residents, was another focal point of the meeting. Fall River aims to leverage bulk purchasing power in collaboration with other communities to achieve these savings. The plan includes an opt-out mechanism for residents. A representative from Good Energy reassured attendees that there would be no termination fees for opting out after the initial 30-day period, and a public awareness campaign was planned to educate residents about their options and the benefits of the program.

Residents expressed frustration over missed yard waste pickups, inadequate support for those struggling with addiction, and the perceived favoritism in financial decisions by the council. One speaker emphasized the need for a comprehensive approach to address the drug problem, advocating for increased investment in prevention programs and support structures for affected youth.

The meeting concluded with the council addressing several routine matters, including financial orders related to appropriations for the water enterprise fund and waterfront improvement projects, all of which were approved without opposition. The council also discussed the appointment of a new commissioner, which received positive feedback and unanimous confirmation.