Still waiting for verification of cost figures from the county, the Kaysville City Council on Tuesday once again postponed renewing its agreement with Davis County for animal-control services.

Mayor Brit Howard urged the council to renew the contract, saying the county has been providing the service to Kaysville for more than a month without a contract and could cut it off at any time.Kaysville is the only city in the county that hasn't renewed its contract, Howard said.

But the council, led by members Doug Stanger and Craig Taylor, refused to renew the annual contract, preferring to wait until the county can verify its service cost estimates to their satisfaction.

The county provides shelter and field officer services to the cities, billing them annually on the basis of the number of calls generated by each city in the previous year.

Kaysville's cost in 1990 was $14,000, which the county is proposing as the city's 1991 fee.

Howard said he met for more than two hours with County Commissioner J. Dell Holbrook last Friday, touring the animal shelter and reviewing the county's level of service. The commissioner promised to get the cost estimates and budget figures for the city, Howard said.

Howard urged the council to approve the contract, saying members could add conditions or statements that the city wants the animal control funding problem resolved within the next year.

The county has continued to supply the service and respond to calls in Kaysville through January and February without a contract, even though it is not legally required, Howard said.

The mayor said he believes the county is acting in good faith, but if the council continues to table the contract, the service may be stopped, leaving the city with no animal-control service.

And, he said, there's no way the city could provide the same level of service for $14,000 a year by operating its own animal-control service.

Stanger and Taylor agreed the cost is moderate, and they praised the quality of the service but said they won't renew the contract without the cost analysis figures. They are also concerned the city is paying for a service but has no input in how the department is operated.

There should be some accountability and responsibility, Stanger said, for the city's $14,000 payment.

The council also agreed the concept of the county providing a service and billing cities for it should be reviewed, saying it amounts to double taxation because city residents already pay county property taxes.

Until 1989, the county funded all animal control shelter and field service operations. But that year, citing its own budget woes, the County Commission opted to begin billing cities for the service.

If the county is unwilling to resume providing the service, the council agreed, the cities and county should negotiate either an interlocal agreement or a special service district to provide it.