A mandatory curbside recycling collection program may be closer to reality after next Monday’s council meeting.

That’s when council will vote on whether to move forward with the program that would see those on the city’s garbage and compost collection program pay an added fee – estimated at around $15 per month – to have most of their recyclables collected.

Shannon Clohosey, the city’s sustainability manager, told council last night that glass and styrofoam would not be included in the recyclables to be collected.

That’s due to safety concerns, the potential for styrofoam to “blow around,” and, given the territory’s distance from market, they are not seen as viable.

Most other recycling materials that residents can currently take to processors would be collected under the city program.

Residents could also continue to take the refundables and glass or styrofoam to local processors themselves.

Those not on the city’s collection system would also continue to drop off their recyclables at local processors’ facilities.

If council votes to move ahead next week, the city would put out a request for proposals to offer the service, which would determine the exact costs ratepayers would see added to their utility bills. The $15 per month estimate came out of a previous study done on the issue.

As Clohosey described in her report to council: “The service would be operated as a contact that ensures the contractor provides the service at a guaranteed set price for the duration of the contract.

“This service would provide dedicated funding for recycling from the residential sector and therefore help ensure the continuity of recycling in Whitehorse.

“Additionally, by using a competitive bidding process for the service, the city should obtain the best price possible for collection and processing.”

The city anticipates using federal gasoline tax funding or other capital funding to purchase the blue collection carts for the 5,800 homes that would be on the system, anticipated to cost about $550,000.

Education about the new program is estimated to be about $15,000 per year.

There could be additional city staff time required for contract management, billing and customer service, Clohosey said in her report.

“After responses to an RFP are received, administration will have a better indication of operating and capital expenses, and those will come forward for council review at that time,” she noted.

Clohosey then cited a number of impacts if the city opts not to implement the service.

“The Yukon government has completed public consultation on proposed amendments to the beverage container regulation that may increase funding available for recycling of beverage containers,” she said.

“The upcoming territorial election may lead to new programs or funding for waste management. Delaying a curbside recycling service would mean pressure on diversion credits would continue, as it is expected that the city’s diversion credits will be over-subscribed for 2015.

“The Yukon government has not announced their plans for diversion credits for 2016.”

Under the diversion credit programs offered by both the city and territory, recycling processors are offered financial compensation for the non-refundable recycling they ship out in recognition that they are keeping waste out of local landfills.

With that, Clohosey brought forward the recommendation that council move ahead with the program, garnering a mix of responses and questions from council members.

Some, like Mayor Dan Curtis and councillors Roslyn Woodcock and Jocelyn Curteanu, had questions and comments focused on the more positive aspects of the proposed program.

They noted the potential for the program to expand in future years and defended it as a way to help make recycling sustainable in the city.

Councillors Dan Boyd and Betty Irwin, however, raised questions and concerns over whether it should be pursued any further. They pointed to the high cost and impact on lower-income residents forced to pay more on their utility bills.

Meanwhile Coun. Samson Hartland offered a more middle-of-the-road view.

While he supports recycling efforts in the city, he said, he has concerns about how the new program would be done.

“We want to do it right,” Hartland said.

He later confirmed that the private sector has been consulted and that the plans fit with the city’s Solid Waste Action Plan.

Through much of the discussion, Boyd and Hartland led the questioning.

Boyd first noted that residential waste contributes to just 10 per cent of what goes in the landfill while the other 90 per cent is made up of commercial and industrial waste.

Clohosey responded by noting a number of initiatives that are underway or being planned to deal with commercial and industrial waste.

She said the residential program is just one part of a larger approach aimed at keeping waste out of the landfill.

It was also not lost on council members that bringing in the program would have a major impact on Whitehorse Blue Bin Recycling. It offers a voluntary curbside recycling program in the city for $20 plus the GST each month, along with a commercial pickup program with rates tailored to businesses.

Boyd raised the possibility that the city’s program could put Whitehorse Blue Bin Recycling out of business. Curtis later noted the company could submit a proposal for the contract.

The mayor and Woodcock each noted they are customers with the company and don’t hesitate to pay the bill each month to have their recyclables picked up.

As Woodcock noted, if the program is able to go ahead at the $15 per month fee, it would end up being less than what voluntary customers are paying now.

Woodcock was also quick to point out that the city’s compost collection program began in much the same way – collected from residential homes already on the city’s waste collection schedule – before being expanded to multi-family and commercial sites as it is now.

Responding to the possibility of existing businesses submitting proposals on the recycling contract, Boyd pointed out there is nothing to preclude other companies – potentially from outside the territory – from putting in proposals as well.

Boyd also raised issues with the estimated $1.2-million cost of the program. More funding could be put into raising diversion credits for less than the recycling program would cost, he added.

Clohosey explained part of the reason for the program is also about making sure recycling is sustainable.

She pointed to the closure of the Raven Recycling Society’s drop-off for non-refundables from October 2014 to May 2015 (the other processor in town remained open during that period).

Raven suspended its service because it couldn’t afford to process the material.

Clohosey noted the city’s proposed program is in part a response to Raven’s closure, and would help ensure recycling remains sustainable. Changes were also made to the diversion credit system in response.

As Curtis argued last night on the proposed recycling collection program: “We have no choice, or we’re going to lose our recycling processors.”

Also on hand at last night’s meeting was Raven president Jacqueline Bedard.

She made a presentation reviewing Raven’s history, noting the uncertainty faced in the recycling industry and voicing support for the proposed program. As Bedard argued, once a contract is awarded, “one piece of the puzzle will be solved.”

Boyd continued to bring up issues around the overall cost of the program and so on. Irwin argued the need to more aggressively target other sectors that contribute a larger amount of waste in the landfill.

She noted a $15-per-month increase on utility bills could have a significant impact on lower-income residents. She then compared targeting the residential waste sector to shooting sparrows with an anti-aircraft gun. The sparrows will be shot, Irwin said, but you’re not looking at the big picture.

Coun. Rob Fendrick was absent from last night’s meeting.