Weyburn's rural residents can now dump their garbage in the city landfill free of controversy or fear of rejection - but with a bigger hit to the pocketbook.

An agreement was signed last Wednesday putting an end to almost a year of haggling between the city and RM councils, during which time RM residents and business owners were left out in the cold.

The agreement states that the RM will pay an annual fee of $6,500 for the next five years in order for its residents to access the landfill. Rural users will have to obtain a numbered sticker from the RM.

At the gate rural residents will pay the same tipping fees as urban users. But the cost to rural residents doesn't end there.

The city will provide the RM with copies of all receipts issued to rural residents on a monthly basis. The RM will then take those statistics and figure out who the biggest users are. They'll recoup their annual $6,500 payment by charging rural users a percentage of that fee, in proportion to their level of use.

This way the city is assured a minimum yearly payment for letting the RM use its landfill, and the RM is able to implement a user-pay system, so only those who haul to the dump will be affected.

The user-pay system was a crucial element for the RM. Back in January they refused to pay a newly-imposed per capita fee of $7.50 per RM resident (which would amount to around $6,000), because they disagreed with this method of charging.

They said the majority of RM residents recycled or burned garbage on their own property rather than using the landfill. The RM council was opposed to the idea that the city wanted to impose a fee on RM residents for a service most didn't use.

From the city's perspective, rural residents had been allowed for years to bring their garbage to the landfill and pay the same tipping fees urban residents did; it was now time for the RM to pay for access to the city dump as refuse management costs were steadily rising. In order to create a fair payment system and make Weyburn's landfill accessible for all RMs in the area, a per capita fee was set.

Those divergent views finally found common ground in the recent agreement, says Ross McMurtry, the man appointed mediator in the dispute between the two sides.

Rather than continuing to negotiate as two full councils, airing their disputes in a public setting, two-person committees were struck from each side to bargain with McMurtry at the table. The talks were closed to the public and the media.

Now that the issue is settled, RM Reeve Dan Sidloski says he's happy to have a deal in place, but admits he's not entirely satisfied with the outcome.

"The city could've made it very easy if they would've set a different rate for rural users and collected it at the gate. It could've been much less bureaucratic than taking the information from the gate back to our office, which will send out bills - all which could've been done with 100 per cent efficiency by the man who takes the fee to get in," Sidloski said.

"I'm certainly happy to have a deal," he continued. "There are people who need it and now these people will have the opportunity to dispose of their garbage somewhere local. A couple of big users that are businesses were very concerned. They wanted to make sure we were going to sign and going to get a deal. I'm sure they're relieved."

As for the strained relationship between the two councils, Sidloski isn't convinced this latest dispute made it any worse.

"This isn't the only issue that's kind of a problem with the RM and City. I'm just hoping, with a little bit of a fresh attitude on city council, maybe we can resolve some of the old issues."

City councillor Ray Hamm says both sides should be satisfied with the agreement. "The city can recoup its costs and the RM has a user-pay system," he said.

He says one of the sticky points during negotiations was whether the bill to rural residents would come from the RM or the city.

"That was the critical point. The RM has taken on that responsibility and that's just great with the city," he said.

"I'm always optimistic we'd have a good working relationship," Hamm said of the effect of this dispute on Weyburn's urban and rural local governments. "We had one a couple of years ago and I'd like to get back to that."