Menu
🐶 PAWS abruptly canceled Mary Esther’s animal control contract, leaving the city without service since June 10.
💸 City officials criticized the higher rate PAWS offered compared to nearby municipalities and counties.
🔎 Leaders are exploring temporary solutions while continuing efforts to negotiate a fair, long-term agreement.
MARY ESTHER — City leaders remain at a standstill after the Panhandle Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) abruptly canceled its animal control services contract last month, leaving Mary Esther without coverage and residents demanding answers about fairness and transparency.
During the July 7 city council meeting, City Manager Jared Cobb informed officials that PAWS terminated the agreement on June 10 and has not responded to repeated follow-up inquiries.
“We don’t currently have service,” Cobb said. “The only thing would be, if there is an emergency, like any other threat to public safety, you would call 911. But I also don’t want to give the wrong impression — the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office is not set up to take animal calls.”
Cobb said he has reached out to nearby municipalities and counties — including Crestview, Santa Rosa County and Walton County — in search of temporary animal control options, but so far none have been able to assist.
“It’s doubtful that they’re going to be coming down from Crestview and picking up animals,” he said.
The dispute stems from a proposed PAWS contract earlier this year that would have charged Mary Esther $6.50 per resident — totaling roughly $26,546 annually for the city’s population of 4,084 — plus an additional $700 per animal for pickup and boarding. That rate exceeds Okaloosa County’s rate of $5.50 per person.
“The concern from staff was not necessarily the proposed cost,” Cobb told the council at a prior meeting on June 16. “The issue has been rate disparities. Other municipalities are paying less for the same services.”
Cobb added that while Mary Esther historically received favorable rates, the new proposal placed a higher financial burden on the city despite its close proximity to PAWS’ facility.
Councilwoman April Sutton was among those who criticized the pricing.
“I don’t want to be held over a barrel,” Sutton said during the June meeting. “I think they’re trying to price gouge the city.”
Council members have also raised concerns about fairness, transparency, and the lack of communication from PAWS during negotiations.
“I’m a little concerned about the contract and the fact that we’re not hearing back from PAWS, nor is there a rep here to negotiate,” Sutton said during the July 7 meeting. “Why is our city special? Why do we need to pay extra for the same service?”
City Attorney Hayward Dykes explained that cities across Okaloosa County have long flagged concerns about “double taxation,” where municipalities are asked to pay separately for services already partially funded through county taxes.
“This is kind of a same song, same dance type of deal when it comes to PAWS and renegotiating the contract,” Dykes said.
Dykes also noted that while PAWS is a nonprofit, it must comply with public records laws when contracting with governments.
“They have to keep records of animals they brought in, those they euthanized. We can, and have, asked for those records,” Dykes said.
Councilman Larry Carter questioned whether the city could request PAWS’ financial records to justify its pricing.
Dykes said the city could ask, but warned it may not change much.
“They could just say, ‘Hey, we decided for XYZ reason you’re going to be charged $2 more per person,’” Dykes said.
Councilman Bernie Oder suggested that a personal approach from city leadership might help.
“Would it help if one of us, i.e., the mayor, would go see PAWS and try to get her to come talk with us?” Oder asked. “I’m dumbfounded that she won’t at least come talk to us.”
Cobb said PAWS appears focused on its negotiations with Okaloosa County, which holds the largest contract, and that cities like Mary Esther had hoped to “piggyback” on the county’s eventual deal.
Mayor Chris Stein noted that, technically, double taxation may not apply in this case because the county’s contract excludes municipal populations.
“So it really isn’t double taxation, because the county isn’t paying out of our taxes,” Stein said.
During public comment, resident Marilyn Host criticized PAWS Executive Director Tracey Kinsley for not attending meetings or explaining the sudden cancellation.
“She just went ahead and canceled this on June 10th and didn’t give us any notification prior to that,” Host said. “So can we not do something legally about her doing that?”
Dykes explained that the contract included a 90-day termination clause, meaning PAWS was within its rights to cancel without advance notice. Legal action would only apply if the city had paid for unrendered services.
In the short term, officials acknowledged that the lack of a contract leaves the city vulnerable.
“Without that contract, there is nobody to respond when there’s a dog at large, or when veterinary care or euthanasia is required,” Cobb said.
The city is exploring a short-term deal with PAWS or other providers, but Cobb warned no quick solution appears likely.
Council members agreed the city must resolve the issue soon.
“All we’re asking for is a contract that’s fair and equitable amongst all the municipalities and the county,” Sutton said.
For now, the city is left waiting.
“We’re at a standstill,” Sutton said. “We just wait and see.”
Pro Communi Bono
