Despite a debate that has gone on for more than three years over increasing the city’s recycling volume, both the municipal offices and the school department lack a recycling program of their own.

And, after hearing from members of the recycling committee, the City Council’s Committee of the Whole decided Monday to go against the recommendation that the city move to a pay-per-bag trash pickup and curbside recycling program, instead asking the administration look into a voluntary recycling program with no changes to the current trash pickup.

Mike Miles of Methodist Road, who chaired the recycling committee, said the panel felt it was “urgent” that both the city offices and the school department begin a recycling program.

“With the city departments and the school department, we know that there is an immense amount of paper that is generated and discarded and there isn’t one reason we can think of why that shouldn’t all be recycled,” said Miles.

City Administrator Jerre Bryant said the city did have a recycling program in place for the municipal offices, but it was discontinued some time ago because it did not generate sufficient volume to be effective.

School Superintendent Stan Sawyer said Wednesday that, like the city, the school department also had a recycling program that has since been discontinued. “Apparently there was recycling done years ago throughout the system, and it got expensive,” Sawyer said.

Sawyer said that under the previous system, if the recycled material wasn’t sorted properly, and the wrong materials got into a bin, the entire bin was rejected. The additional cost to sort the recycling led to the end of the school’s program, Sawyer said.

Sawyer added that single-stream recycling, where material to be recycled is placed in one bin and sorted at the recycling facility, could eliminate the additional sorting cost and make a recycling program cost-effective. “I would very much like to see some recycling done on the school side,” Sawyer said.

Bryant said the city knows it should have a program, and intends to put one in place. He said that at first, the program would concentrate on recycling office paper, since that makes up most of the waste generated from the municipal offices.

As for the overall recycling and trash disposal program, the recycling and solid waste committee recommended to the Committee of the Whole that the city adopt a pay-per-bag trash program combined with a curbside recycling program, an option that has been rejected by the council in the past.

Miles called the current system, where the city has placed three recycling containers, commonly known as “silver bullets,” around the city, ineffective. Miles said the system should be changed.

“The overwhelming majority of the task force say one thing loudly and clearly: the city of Westbrook needs to implement an effective recycling program,” he said.

The city’s solid waste is currently picked up by Pine Tree Waste and the trash is taken to the Maine Energy Recovery Co. incinerator in Biddeford. According to the recycling committee’s report, in 2005, the city burned 13.8 million pounds of trash there.

The city has a long-term deal with Pine Tree for a discounted disposal fee of $91 per ton for trash. The discounted fee stems from an agreement made regarding a transfer station that the company was looking to build in Westbrook. Despite the fact that the station was never built, the city still benefits from the discounted disposal rate.

Since the city pays nothing for recycled material, the recycling committee argued that moving to a model where residents must pay for the trash they throw away would increase recycling, while reducing the amount of trash taken to the incinerator – and, as a result, save the city money.

According to the committee’s report, the pay-per-bag/curbside recycling model favored by the committee would reduce the trash pickup budget by just over $29,000 the first year and more than $93,000 the next year. The first year’s cost would be higher due to the fact that the city would be purchasing disposal bins, a cost that would be eliminated in the second year of the program.

While there would be less tax money devoted to trash pickup, some of that savings would be offset by the $1 per bag fee proposed by the committee, though the plan did call for each resident to get 26 free bags each year.

Some councilors, while acknowledging that it was imperative for the city to increase its recycling, were reluctant to embrace a pay-per-bag system that was similar to the one proposed by Mayor Bruce Chuluda as part of his budget in 2004, a plan that was rejected by the council.

Council President Brendan Rielly said he was leery about asking residents to pay for trash pickup. “There is a moral imperative to recycle,” Rielly said. “I think there is also a corresponding moral duty to take care that we don’t impose too great of a financial burden on the city.”

As an alternative, Rielly moved that the committee recommend the administration look into including a voluntary recycling program in the upcoming municipal budget, and as part of that program, the city include an educational element aimed at increasing recycling.

Miles disagreed with Rielly’s proposal. “Voluntary recycling doesn’t work,” he said.

Councilor John O’Hara, who has long been a proponent of the pay-per-bag/curbside recycling proposal, said he thought a voluntary recycling program was destined for failure as well. “I think it’s an exercise in futility,” he said.

“The volunteer system doesn’t work,” O’Hara continued. “If it did, we wouldn’t have to do anything but put silver bullets all over the city and walk away. That’s not going to work, it’s not going to happen.”

Despite O’Hara’s opposition, Rielly’s motion passed, 5-1, with only O’Hara dissenting.

Bryant said while the administration would take a look at the cost of the voluntary recycling program, he wasn’t sure if the administration would take the committee’s recommendation and include it in the budget, which will be released later next month.