Over the last several years, Baldwin has pushed back on the cost of animal control. Habersham County provides the service under an intergovernmental agreement with the city, at a cost Baldwin has long maintained is too high.
Confusion over the numbers and how they are calculated has only led to more disagreement between the city and county.
Double taxation
Baldwin has claimed its residents and those of the five other county municipalities that use animal control services are being “double-taxed.” They pay county and city taxes, but their county taxes weren’t being applied to the cost of the service.
Baldwin officials urged the county to recalculate its formula.
“Whatever the cost, it needs to be fair and justifiable to our citizens and taxpayers,” said Baldwin Mayor Stephanie Almagno.
In December, the county acquiesced, changing the old formula to a new one based on the county tax digest. The new formula reduced Baldwin’s animal control cost by approximately $2,000. Cornelia and Clarkesville got animal control services for ‘free’ based on their oversized contributions to the county tax digest.
Faulty formulas
An error was discovered in the revised formula when it was determined that the county had based its numbers on the population of all seven cities in the county. Tallulah Falls was factored into the equation but should not have been since Habersham does not provide that municipality with animal control services.
Alamagno and Baldwin Chief Administrative Officer Emily Woodmaster challenged the revised calculation. The county again adjusted its formula, reducing Baldwin’s contribution by another $10,000.
In January, the county presented Baldwin with a new intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to sign, but city officials are withholding their signatures. They still contend the calculation is faulty because it’s based on the gross digest, not the net.
Woodmaster concedes significant progress has been made toward making the animal control costs fairer but insists more work needs to be done. Over the last year, the county appears to have “moved the goalpost” when it comes to reaching an agreement.
After reviewing county and city documents, she found that the county benefits from using the gross digest because it has a higher tax exemption percentage than the cities. She wants the formula revised again to reflect the net digest, on which millage rates are based.
Under that calculation, Baldwin’s overall contribution would drop nearly $9,000 more, reducing its overall cost for animal control services to $9,673 – an overall reduction of almost $21,000 from what the county initially proposed last year.
Call volumes and impact
Although Habersham’s other municipalities have all signed their IGAs for animal control services, they’re taking notice. Mt. Airy Mayor Ray McAllister questioned why the number of animal control calls in each city was not factored into the equation. Baldwin management questioned the call volumes too.
Habersham County Commission Chair Ty Akins emailed Woodmaster last month, saying animal control responded to 2,041 calls countywide between September 2022 and September 2023. Based on that call volume and a $956,989 budget, each intake cost the county around $469.
Thirty-one percent of the call volume (633 animals) came from the six cities. Cornelia accounted for 53% of those shelter intakes.
The county does not factor call volume into its charges to the cities, even though some use the service more than others.
Baldwin officials have not signed the animal control IGA. They hope to reach a satisfactory resolution with the county, but it remains unclear how long that might take.
In the meantime, the county is already facing a revenue reduction based on the new formula the other cities have signed off on. How that will impact animal control’s budget and services in the coming will become more evident as the county heads into budget talks this spring.
