The government of Flagler County is attempting to combine its animal control services with Palm Coast’s. The county presently receives those services from the Flagler Humane Society, and that contract, worth $300,000, would be terminated.
In a combined meeting on Wednesday, the Palm Coast City Council and the Flagler County Commission decided to draft a joint agreement (also known as an interlocal agreement, or ILA) that would specify the extent and cost of the services Palm Coast would offer, but they did not reach a conclusion on that matter.
The county’s discomfort with the Humane Society is reflected in the direction. It would not terminate the city’s or county’s sheltering service contracts with the society. Plans to create a shelter apart from the Humane Society are also being discussed by the two governments, although that is still a ways off.
Although there was little concrete evidence, the county had been debating hiring Palm Coast to provide animal services for months. That information was presented at the joint meeting by Barbara Grossman, the manager of Palm Coast Code Enforcement, whose 27 staff members include three animal control officers.
Officers in Palm Coast patrol three areas among the city’s almost 100 square miles. Providing county animal control services is expected to cost $529,000 in the first year, $377,000 in the second, and then 5% annually after that, reaching $477,000 by 2031. More than $80,000 of that in the first year is attributed to legal fees, which may be out of balance with the county’s present legal expenses. According to Deputy County Attorney Sean Moylan, the expense is very low. There aren’t enough cases.
These figures are predicated on purchasing two vehicles, each lasting roughly seven years, hiring two animal control officers and an animal control technician, and paying extra overhead.
According to data from the Humane Society, just 1,063 animals were turned in from unincorporated Flagler County between October 2024 and March 2025, compared to 6,819 animals that were hauled in from Palm Coast for a half-dozen reasons (surrendered, seized, wandered, etc.).
Council member Theresa Pontieri stated that if the city’s demands were combined with those of the county, it doesn’t appear that two additional animal control officers would be required. In addition to a technician, I can absolutely envision one more. More employees could be added later if the numbers warrant it, she said.
By itemizing the costs, the ILA would allow the city to send periodic bills to the county. The city would certainly have what authorities referred to as residual benefits from expanding its animal control section, but it would be actual costs rather than a split of services. For instance, it may reduce the frequency of calls for its animal control personnel.
In my opinion, having a single animal control group is the best course of action since it requires a lot of resources, expertise, and training, said Council member Dave Sullivan. “All the cities and the county, including Flagler Beach and Bunnell, should be involved in the operation,” he said. However, County Administrator Heidi Petito stated that the city managers of Bunnell and Flagler Beach, with whom we spoke, were satisfied with the service they were getting.
None of the county commissioners objected to the presentation or brought up the subject of costs: Compared to her county colleagues, Pontieri asked more inquiries. She wanted to cover some of the expenses. Fines and licensing provide some revenue, but not much. According to Grossman, raising licensing fees might be enough to cover the Flagler Humane Society’s sheltering expenses, which the city spends $90,000 for annually. It wouldn’t cover the cost of animal control. The council would decide whether to increase license fees. According to Grossman, the licensing charge has never increased. Your spay or neuter has always cost $5, and if it isn’t altered, it costs $10.
In Grossman’s summary, the next step would be a joint agreement between Palm Coast and the county that would, among other things, formalize the cost-sharing model, terms, and performance expectations; identify legal representation for county-related enforcement cases; plan for staffing and resources; hire and onboard additional animal control officers; and define the scope of services and response responsibilities between the city and the county.
According to Commission Chair Andy Dance, we will reconvene as a full board to discuss our alternatives and make a decision. However, based on the more constrained scope—one animal control officer, one technician, and one vehicle—start-up expenses would be reduced by more than $150,000.
