DEMOREST — While Demorest Mayor Rick Austin agrees paying $8,100 per year to Habersham County for animal control services inside the city is a good deal, he disagrees with the county's assertion the city is delinquent on paying for several years of services.
At Tuesday night's city council meeting, Austin and others on the council heard from City Attorney Joey Homans, who said the animal control contract with the county was nullified by the county's failure to notify the city of updates in late 2013 and January of 2014.
County Manager Phil Sutton, who was in the audience, insisted the county provided services and that the contract remained in force.
"We again were fortunate to have the county manager and animal control individuals with us tonight," Austin said after the meeting. "We are discussing as a city on whether or not to adopt the county's animal control ordinance and have animal control accomplished by the county."
Austin said the county failed to follow the letter of the law, specifying in county commission minutes what projects are funded by the insurance premium tax.
"Animal control is said by the county to be paid for by the insurance premium tax, which can only be utilized for unincorporated services, however Georgia law certainly stipulates that those services that are paid for with the insurance premium tax must be laid out in the minutes of the meeting in which the county adopts the county budget," Austin said after the meeting. "They don't. It simply does not meet the standard of the law, so that's part of the question that we had tonight."
When Austin raised that issue during the meeting, Sutton insisted the county has met that requirement to the Georgia Department of Revenue's satisfaction by the submission of a letter laying out that information.
Council members and residents in the audience agreed that if the county provided services, whether within the contract or not, the city should pay its debts, but Austin was hesitant to commit.
But Austin stressed the council's reluctance to sign on to county animal control is no reflection on the services provided by personnel in that department, three of whom were seated in the audience.
"I don't think there's any disagreement that the city would like to do animal control and have Habersham County accomplish that for us," Austin said. "The heart of the question is that the county contends that there is a past due balance, and the city contends that the previous contract was broken. We're again balancing whether we spend $8,000 for animal control, which I think the council is ready to do, or in so doing do we obligate ourselves to pay another $24,000 the county says we owe that our attorney takes an opposite viewpoint."
Councilman Jerry Harkness asked to be able to study the difference between the city's animal control ordinance and the county's ordinance, which must be approved if Demorest agrees to contract with the county, before the council votes on the matter.
"There's some conversation that needs to occur," Austin said. "We're going to have that conversation. It's an ongoing issue to deal with animal control … and hopefully we'll move forward in a manner best to meet the needs of our citizens. We've got an adequate point to continue the conversation and look forward to seeing how it resolves itself."
The council could take up the issue at a called meeting later this month.
