The city may not pick up on a curbside recycling program after all.

Shannon Clohosey, the city’s acting director of development services, addressed Monday evening’s city council meeting.

She brought forward a recommendation that council not move forward with a proposed program, given the high costs it would carry.

The program, where a contractor collects and processes recycling from homes in Whitehorse, would be mandatory for all those already on the city’s residential curbside waste and compost collection program.

It would not include homes that are not on the curbside program already – many multifamily residences and country residential homes, for example.

It’s a program the city has been moving forward with for some time as part of the efforts to figure out how to fund recycling efforts into the future and work toward greater waste diversion.

As Clohosey stated in her report to council: “The benefit of a contract for recycling is that it will help ensure that Whitehorse residents can continue to recycle for the duration of the contract.

“However, the final price is higher than anticipated, and the cost increase to utility rates may be too significant for residents to bear.”

Clohosey’s report did not detail the price tag each of the two companies – General Waste Management (GWM) and Whitehorse Blue Bins – which submitted proposals had outlined for residents.

Whitehorse Blue Bins operates as a private recycling collection firm, with its residential customers paying $20 per month for the biweekly collection.

The RFP that went out based the service on a total of 5,850 households with an estimated total annual cost of more than $1.17 million. The contract would be for a total of five years.

Evaluating each proposal first on experience and approach, GWM earned more points, coming in with 81.9 compared to Whitehorse Blue Bins’ 76.8 out of a possible 100.

Both firms had enough points in the first round for the city to open up the price proposals.

While the city did not reveal the price each was suggesting customers be charged, Whitehorse Blue Bins came out with the full 80 points available on it, with GWM just half a point behind.

Both received the full 20 points available for affordability.

“The RFP was structured to negotiate with the higher-scoring proponent, and during that process, GWM lowered their price by 25 (cents per household per month),” it’s noted in the report.

“Their final price is $16.75 (per household per month). Currently, residents pay $11 (per month) for waste and organics collection and processing.”

Another $20,000 – or 25 cents per household per month – would be needed to cover the cost of administration each year.

All that means waste collection bills would go up to nearly $28 each month or almost $84 quarterly (with the city sending out bills on a quarterly basis).

Then there are the additional costs that come with starting the program: $50,000 “for initial implementation” along with another $15,000 coming out of landfill tipping fees “for waste diversion education starting in 2017.

“Tipping fees for all waste streams are currently $97/tonne; this would add 75 cents/tonne. For residents, this increase to tipping fees would equate to about two cents (per month per household) that would be added to residential utility.”

Finally, there would be the $496,000 cost of getting blue carts for all households on the system. The city had specified in the RFP it would be responsible for that purchase.

“There is sufficient unallocated federal gas tax funding available for this purchase, or the city could choose to use the general reserve to purchase carts and recover the cost from residents by adding an additional charge on the utility bill (approximately $80 spread over several years).”

With no money outlined in the budget to get the initiative going (outside of the gas tax funding to potentially pay for carts), administration was left with little choice but to recommend it not proceed.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting, city manager Christine Smith acknowledged the situation as a “catch-22”.

Without knowing the costs of a program, money can’t be allocated in the budget; without money allocated for a program, administration can’t recommend it move forward.

Two councillors remarked on their own confusion over the recommendation.

Coun. Roslyn Woodcock was the first to question whether it’s driven more by process than what may be the “right thing” to do.

Smith acknowledged the need for greater waste diversion if the city wants to pursue that, but noted staff cannot bring forward a recommendation if there is nothing in the budget for that.

“Now I’m really confused too,” Coun. Rob Fendrick said.

He confirmed that if council wants to move forward with the program, it would have to make a number of budget and bylaw amendments.

Clohosey’s report outlined the steps required for that to happen.

They include:

• an amendment to the fees and charges bylaw to increase the monthly waste collection bill to $28 beginning April 1, 2017 when the program would start;

• a change to the waste management bylaw to include recycling collection for residents that would come into effect next April 1;

• amending the capital budget to include funding for the recycling carts; and

• changing the policy for waste diversion credits – which are provided to recycling firms for keeping waste out of the landfill – to indicate materials collected via the curbside program are not eligible for the credit.

It was during a lengthy discussion among council that members weighed the program’s pros and the cons.

Coun. Dan Boyd was quick to point to recent changes announced by the Yukon government that will see more beverage containers covered under the regulations as well as upfront fees charged at the point of purchase on electronic waste and more types of tires than in the past.

“I think the landscape has changed significantly since we started this process,” he said.

Even if the program proceeded, Boyd added, a number of materials wouldn’t be included, such as styrofoam and non-refundable glass bottles and jars.

Styrofoam is accepted and sent out to be recycled, but non-refundable glass is not.

Processors currently accept glass but don’t recycle it due to the high cost of shipping it out. Instead, it’s crushed down and used as cover at the city’s landfill.

Boyd later pointed out that even with a curbside collection program in place, it would be extremely difficult to ensure residents are properly sorting their waste.

Just as it’s difficult to ensure residents keep compost out of their black waste collection cart, it would be the same when it comes to keeping recyclables out of the black bins.

Boyd also noted that just 10 per cent of the waste coming into the landfill is from the residential sector, suggesting that the city should be focused on other sectors.

Woodcock countered that by questioning Clohosey on the city’s compost program. She pointed out it began as a residential initiative that’s now expanding into the commercial sector.

Woodcock asked why the city begins such programs at the residential level.

Clohosey explained it’s easier to start such programs for households through existing initiatives like the curbside waste collection.

As people begin making changes at home, it becomes easier for those same residents to make changes at work and move ahead with similar modifications for businesses.

Council members will consider how they will vote on the matter next week.

Meanwhile, officials with the Raven Recycling Society, which is listed as a subcontractor in both proposals that came forward, say they will have to consider some changes to their operations if the program does not proceed.

“It was a surprise. I think everyone (at the council meting) was surprised,” Raven president Jaqueline Bedard told reporters last night of the recommendation.

Given the extensive work that has happened to get a curbside program established, Raven has been hopeful the initiative would proceed and provide some much-needed stable funding to ensure recycling can continue in the city.

Raven officials say they will be there next week when council votes on whether to proceed with the program.

Mayor Dan Curtis was absent from the meeting, as he was representing the city in Juneau, Alaska (Whitehorse’s sister city) during the Independence Day celebrations.

Coun. Jocelyn Curteanu was also absent from the meeting.