Habersham Staff-Reimbursement Deal With Development Authority Still Lacks Recorded Outcome

Habersham County commissioners moved a proposed agreement involving administrative assistant Patti McLarty out of the consent agenda and into new business at their May 20, 2024 meeting, opening discussion of an arrangement under which the county’s Development Authority would reimburse the county for her services. The drafted-minutes excerpt records the discussion but does not say whether the board ultimately approved, rejected or altered the proposal.

The question carries consequences beyond a personnel assignment. A reimbursement agreement would determine whether county-funded staff time could be used to support the Development Authority, the county’s development arm, and whether the authority would repay the county rather than employ its own administrative staff. Those choices affect responsibility for daily work and the public cost of providing it.

The proposal initially appeared among consent items, which are generally considered together with limited separate discussion. Commissioners instead pulled it into new business, turning the planned administrative arrangement into a distinct public debate. During that discussion, county staff said McLarty had already been performing related services, framing the proposal as a formal reimbursement arrangement for work already being done.

Commissioner Tench objected to using county staff for the Development Authority’s work and pointed to a 2023 report showing $1.2 million in Development Authority accounts, according to the minutes excerpt. Staff responded that McLarty had already handled related duties. The excerpt does not provide a fuller account of other commissioners’ positions or identify a final consensus on whether the authority should reimburse the county or hire its own staff.

What is established is that commissioners considered and discussed a proposed agreement for McLarty’s administrative-assistant services. What remains unestablished is more consequential: the excerpt does not record a vote result, final disposition, executed agreement, implementation date, reimbursement amount or duration. It therefore cannot show whether county staff time was formally leased to the Development Authority or whether any payment arrangement took effect.

The next public step is to locate completed May 20 meeting minutes or a later county record that states whether the agreement was approved, revised or abandoned. Until one of those records resolves the matter, residents cannot determine whether the Development Authority reimbursed Habersham County for McLarty’s work, what the authority would have paid, or how long any arrangement was meant to last.