Fall River council presses administration after surprise increases to trash contract; several transfers rejected

Fall River councilors on the finance committee sharply questioned city officials this week after a series of contract amendments and disposal changes produced significant unbudgeted solid-waste costs.

Councilors said they learned only after costs rose that the city had amended contracts with EZ Disposal and arranged temporary disposal with Crapo Hill and other facilities; the finance team told councilors higher recycling disposal fees and changes in disposal vendors drove a faster-than-expected rise in the city’s trash budget.

The dispute centered on an amendment to EZ Disposal’s contract signed in September–October of the prior year. Matthew Thomas, a special counsel who advised the city on the contracts, told the committee the city negotiated stopgap disposal arrangements and an amendment “to avoid defaults” after vendors threatened to stop service. He said the amendment increased collection costs by about $173,000 a month for the remainder of fiscal 2025 and by roughly $278,000 in fiscal 2026 compared with the original contract terms. “We were actually looking for vehicles to do it ourselves,” Thomas said, describing a scenario in which the administration judged a contract amendment the most practical way to keep trash collection running.

Councilors pushed back sharply, saying the amendment and its fiscal effects should have been presented sooner. “We knew in September and October that there was a deficit that was going to be at… You continue to circumvent this council,” one councilor said, calling for greater transparency. Council members repeatedly demanded lists of outstanding contracts, vendor communications and the auditor’s attestations so the council could see how and when funding would be required.

Director of City Operations Al Olivera and Thomas answered detailed questions about disposal routes, recycling contamination and the decision to direct some recyclables to a Rochester facility to avoid a $225-per-ton recycling disposal rate. Olivera said the city has piloted separate cardboard collection to preserve higher-value recyclables and that contract changes were made after the city tried several alternatives.

The debate had immediate budget consequences. At the committee and later at full council, members voted on several appropriation orders and transfers tied to solid-waste expenses: - A proposed emergency transfer of $400,000 (from facilities and community maintenance salaries to solid-waste expenses) was brought before the council; a motion to reject that appropriation passed on roll call. - A later full-council appropriation order for $1,000,000 from FY24 surplus revenue to solid-waste expenses likewise faced a motion to reject; the motion carried.

Councilors who pressed for the rejections said they wanted the administration to produce full estimates, a written trace of contract decisions and direct briefings from EZ Disposal and other vendors before releasing more funds. Several councilors said they would withhold approval until the administration provided a complete list of outstanding litigation, contract amendments and a plan for long-term disposal procurement.

Administration officials maintained that the near-term amendments were needed to prevent a public-health breakdown — in their view, vendors had threatened to stop service and the city lacked immediate in‑house capacity to replace the contractor. Thomas said alternatives such as litigation or sourcing ad hoc crews would have carried uncertain costs and risked service interruptions.

The committee directed staff to supply additional documentation, and members scheduled follow-up meetings. Councilors also asked that EZ Disposal and other affected contractors be invited to brief the finance committee; the council clerk said an invitation would be issued ahead of the next scheduled finance session.

The episode underscores a broader policy question the council repeatedly raised in the session: whether the city should bundle collection and disposal in future procurements, build more internal capacity, or revise contract language to avoid mid‑year cost shocks. Administration staff said a new RFP for collection and disposal will be drafted and issued ahead of the contract expiration in mid‑2026, with options for integrated collection/disposal, separate disposal, compost or food‑waste collection and a menu that would allow the city to choose the best mix after bids are returned.

As the council debated funding and oversight, members stressed they would weigh the practical risk to the city’s service levels against fiscal accountability — and they demanded clearer, earlier notice when agreements have material budget implications.