Council discusses Waste Connections settlement and public criticism on social media

A resident told the Indian Trail Town Council on Feb. 25 she was “sick of it” after reading recurring social media posts blaming individual council members and the mayor for a dispute with the town’s garbage contractor, Waste Connections. The public commenter asked why citizens had been prevented from directing questions to individual council members during public comment and called the social media posts “silliness.”

Lynn Cole told the council that she believed the initial contract and the settlement had been approved by the full board and asked why the divisions and online accusations continued. “I’m sick of it, I’m over it, I’d like it to stop,” she said.

In response, the town’s attorney, Melanie, explained the legal and financial rationale behind the town’s approach to the contract dispute and subsequent settlement. Melanie said the original contract was a five-year agreement and that the vendor had sought a payment that the vendor described as $140,000; the town ultimately settled for $70,000. “It was a 5 year contract. So every month that the contract went on that we didn't dispute it, right, the amount that we were in dispute continued to grow,” Melanie told the council. She added that the town’s biggest success in the litigation was changing the contract’s fuel-price floor so the town “pretty much eliminated having to pay any fuel surcharge whatsoever.”

Council members said the town had pursued mediation and a settlement to avoid an escalating liability. One councilmember described mediation as a process in which both sides compromise and observed that the outcome — lower cash payment and amended contract terms — was a beneficial resolution for the town.

Council discussion did not include a formal vote or change to policy. Council members also acknowledged the political tensions surfacing on social media and public comment, but no formal disciplinary or procedural changes were adopted during the meeting.

The public comments and council answers were recorded during the meeting’s public-comment and council-comment sections, and the town attorney’s explanation focused on the legal exposure posed by the unamended contract and the risk of fuel-surcharge liability had the town not raised the contractual pricing floor.

Council members encouraged communication through normal channels and reiterated that substantive questions about pending or closed legal matters are bound by the town’s advice from counsel and limited public disclosure where appropriate.