OCR Text |
Show In Our Opinion Kaysville Council acted proper on animal control Kaysville's city council acted properly when they chose not to sign an agreement with the Davis County Animal Control Department until some answers were received from the Davis County Commission. Tuesday evening, after three months of discussion, the sketchy sket-chy answers to these questions were given to the council, and the animal control contract was at last signed. This problem has been a sore spot among all city government govern-ment officials for two years when the county passed part of the cost for animal control on to the cities. Cities are at the bottom of the government pecking order. The "buck," or the responsibility of taxing for services, can go nowhere else. The federal government abrogates responsibility respon-sibility to states who in turn look to counties. The counties then say it is the responsibility of the cities. Some services, like animal control, are necessary. The cities must take final, although al-though unwanted, responsibility. Kaysville's elected officials said they would continue working work-ing with the county commission until a plan was developed I that would ensure no further animal control costs would be placed on the cities. The options are: 1. The county would take full responsibility for animal control funding. Kaysville officials feel this must be reflected in a specific tax levy item on county accounting records. 2. The funding would be shared between the cities and I the county under an agreement similar to the one used for the past two years. . -r; 1 If the second plan is adopted, an interlocal agreement should I be developed like the ones used by sewer and fire districts. I Cities leaders would become part of the governing board and help determine how the program would be funded and how the department would function. It would be wise for all cities served by the animal control department to work together so that a definite plan can be developed de-veloped before the county budget is finalized and before the cities are once again asked to contribute funds for animal control con-trol under a 1992 contract. The image of the Davis County Animal Control Department has greatly improved in recent years. It is too bad to have a funding controversy overshadow the good that has been accomplished ac-complished by this department of county government. i |