After tabling it repeatedly over the past three months, the Kaysville City Council has renewed its $14,000 contract with the county to supply animal-control services.
The council first tabled the contract renewal in January, asking for more information and verification of the number and types of calls answered by the animal-control officers last year.Council members tabled it again in March, saying they weren't satisfied that the city is paying to support the animal control department, which is administered by the county. The city has no input in how its money is spent or control over the department, the council complained.
An underlying complaint goes back 18 months to when the county commissioners, saying the county needed the money for other operations, announced the county would no longer support the animal-control operation financially.
Under a plan drawn up by department director DeeAnn Hess, cities were charged a fee based on the number of calls generated in the city for field officers. The county continued to operate the animal shelter in Fruit Heights.
The cities agreed, reluctantly, with several saying it amounts to double taxation. Others, like Kaysville, went along in the belief the 1990 fee was a one-time charge and that the county would assume the total cost of animal control - about $350,000 - in 1991.
Kaysville was the lone holdout on renewing its contract this year. Three other cities in the county - Clinton, North Salt Lake and West Bountiful - provide their own field officers but use the county's shelter facility.
Kaysville Mayor Brit Howard met over the past three months with County Commissioner J. Dell Holbrook to review the county's operational and budget figures.
They appear to be accurate, Howard said. But figures on what residents in the unincorporated area of the county pay for animal-control service aren't readily available, according to the mayor.
The council asked for those figures to determine if Kaysville residents are being charged twice for the service, once through their county property tax and again through the contract fee.
Howard urged the contract be accepted, telling the council there is no way the city could provide the same level of service as the county for $14,000, the fee charged in 1990 and requested again for the current year.
He also noted that although the contract expired in January, the county had acted in good faith and continued to provide the service for almost three months without a contract renewal.
The contract was approved, with Councilman Beck Sheffield dissenting.