A proposed curbside recycling collection program will not be making its way to a sidewalk near you after all.

City council voted 5-2 Monday evening to cancel the contract that would have seen a mandatory curbside recycling program for those on the city’s waste collection program.

Mayor Dan Curtis and Coun. Roslyn Woodcock were the only members of council to vote against cancelling the program. They argued the city should be taking the opportunity to address an important issue now.

“I’m very concerned about the future,” Curtis said. He pointed to the need to divert waste from the landfill and take steps toward a larger shift in that direction.

“We have an opportunity right now to be a leader,” Woodcock said.

If the city misses this chance, she added, it will be a “bumpy road” ahead for recycling and waste diversion.

Both she and Curtis argued the current model for recycling, which includes diversion credits to processors for keeping waste out of the landfill, is not sustainable.

Other council members cited potential changes that could come after the territorial election, along with impending changes in the fall to beverage container regulations as well as surcharges on certain recyclable waste like tires and electronics.

Woodcock, however, countered that by pointing out the city “can only control what we can control.” Even if the next territorial government makes recycling a priority, she added, it would still take at least a year for any significant moves to be made on that front.

She also argued though, that the move to a residential collection program would not immediately address the larger issue of commercial and industrial waste – which makes up 90 per cent of the waste coming into the landfill.

It would be a much-needed move to help make the greater shift in the city toward greater recycling, Woodcock said.

She also pointed to the significant work that has gone into researching the issue, then putting out the request for proposals for the program.

General Waste Contractors submitted what would have been the winning proposal.

It would have seen those Whitehorse residents who are already on the city’s compost and waste collection program charged $17 per month for biweekly recycling pickup and processing.

The bill for the service to 5,850 households would be $16.75, and an extra 25 cents would be tacked on for administrative costs. It would bring monthly garbage bills up to $28 a month.

That’s on top of the $73 per month for water and sewer services also included in residential utility bills issued by the city.

In total, the program would have cost more than $1.17 million to run annually.

That’s in addition to the start-up costs – $50,000 for initial implementation, $15,000 for waste diversion education on the program, and another $496,00 for the blue carts that would go to each household, though funding for the carts would come out of the city’s portion of federal gas tax funding.

The only other proposal came from Whitehorse Blue Bin Recycling, a private company that currently offers voluntary residential curbside recycling pickup throughout the city every other week at a rate of $20 per month.

Those living in country residential areas, in trailer parks or in larger multi-family residences would not have been included in the city’s system.

Under the request for proposals, the program would have begun April 1, 2017.

City staff had recommended the program not move forward in light of the high cost, noting that the budget had not outlined any spending on it.

City manager Christine Smith had described it as a “catch-22” situation. Staff cannot recommend moving forward with something without a plan in place for funding it, she noted.

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

The administrative report presented to council did outline a process should council choose to move ahead with it. That would include amendments to bylaws around fees and waste management along with budget amendments to make it happen.

Before voting on whether to cancel the contract, Coun. Jocelyn Curteanu put forward an amendment that the city instead undergo a public consultation on it now that the program’s costs and details are better known.

Curtis was the only other member of council to vote with Curteanu in favour of the consultation.

Other councillors argued that:

• there could be legal issues with putting a contract out for consultation;

• timing could be an issue, given the contractual obligations of an RFP;

• little consultation can be done during the summer, with many residents out of town; and

• the work to get to this stage has gone on long enough without the need to prolong it further.

Once Curteanu’s motion was defeated, council was back to considering the recommendation the contract be cancelled, with Coun. Samson Hartland being the first to voice his issues with it.

He pointed to the variables of the upcoming territorial election and the new waste regulations.

He added the proposal would put the recycling solution on the backs of one group of residents: those already on the city’s waste collection program.

Coun. Betty Irwin, meanwhile, cited the earlier report that suggested the curbside program, saying there were no other solutions proposed for dealing with recycling.

She argued the city should be looking for unique solutions to the issue.

“Let’s put administration to work and council to work,” she said. “Let’s put on our big girl panties.”

Coun. Rob Fendrick was among those voting in favour of cancelling the contract, in light of the many variables at play, including the territorial election.

He also vowed that if nothing changes after the election, he may bring the matter back to council chambers to be reconsidered.

Coun. Dan Boyd said the proposed contract would only have affected about half of the dwellings in Whitehorse, given its limitations to only those on the city’s current waste collection program.

Boyd also took issue with comments made by Curtis last week criticizing the staff recommendation to cancel the contract. He asked if Curtis had made those remarks individually, or if he had made them representing council.

He went on to suggest the comments went against council’s code of conduct in publicly criticizing staff and lobbying the press before a decision is made.

“We work here as a team,” he said.

In response, Curtis made it clear he had been speaking as an individual, “one of seven.”

He added his criticism was with the process that had led staff to make the recommendation, rather than with city staff members themselves.

As the discussion ended and it was clear the vote would favour cancelling the contract, Woodcock was left with one question.

“What is next?” she wondered. “Where do we go from here?”

Irwin was quick to answer: “We can go anywhere we want to now.”

See related coverage.