Residents and carriage operators clash over horse-drawn carriages; city urged to enforce vet and licensing rules

Residents and business owners exchanged sharply different accounts of horse-drawn carriage operations during public comment at a City Commission meeting in St. Augustine.

The core of the dispute centers on whether carriage companies are meeting St. Augustine municipal-code requirements for twice-yearly veterinary exams and for carrying franchise or other required permits. Several speakers urged the commission to place the matter on an agenda for formal review and enforcement.

Why it matters: The carriage industry operates in the city’s most congested, tourist-heavy streets. Residents raised both animal-welfare concerns (heat, lack of water, infrequent veterinary inspections) and public-safety risks (drivers allegedly distracted while animals navigate traffic). Operators said they follow city temperature rules, provide veterinary care and hold required driver and hack licenses.

At the podium, carriage driver Jesse Sabo said he and other drivers follow a schedule designed to protect horses’ welfare and avoid daytime heat, and asked the commission to consider the work carriage operators provide to the tourism economy. “If it’s too hot, we just don’t go out,” Sabo said. “Most of the providers are very small and have only a small number of animals, and we have to keep them in the best health possible.”

Resident Heather Wilson cited the municipal code—identified during her remarks as Article 5, “Transportation by animal drawn vehicles for purposes of touring”—and told commissioners that she had reviewed veterinary records. “When looking at the vet records from 2020 to 2025, the majority of these carriage companies are out of compliance,” Wilson said, adding that her review showed only a small number of animals had the two required examinations in a year. Wilson told the commission she had found five veterinary exam records for Country Carriages dated June 26 and asked where the other animals’ exams were.

Several other residents described safety incidents and what they called reckless handling. Catherine Zoda said she has seen drivers turn away from the road while animals continued down congested streets, and called the practice “blatant disregard for public safety.” Lena Russell and other speakers described horses working in high heat, standing long periods without visible water, or being exposed to loud traffic and construction.

Operators and industry representatives contested those descriptions. Carriage company owner Jennifer Cushion said all her horses were inspected and that five animals shown in a packet were new to the company, which explained examinations in June rather than May. “We inspected all 16 of our working horses on May 8,” Cushion said. She said horses are offered water and that buckets outside a barn do not prove neglect.

Aaron Jockers, who described himself as a 16-year tour-industry professional, told the commission that drivers hold required hack and tour-guide licenses and that most horses used for carriage work are purchased because they are already trained for traffic. “These are not horses that are just taken somewhere. They are purchased because they can drive,” Jockers said, adding that companies do not use painful bits and that the industry’s safety record is strong.

Other speakers complained about unlicensed companies advertising rides. Patricia Ramos said she contacted a business called Celebration Carriage and was told the company planned to return for the city’s Nights of Lights events despite not holding a city franchise agreement; Ramos said Celebration Carriage did not appear on the city clerk’s list of franchise holders. Ramos asked the commission to “place the horse carriages on the agenda.”

City staff and commissioners responded that records and licensing are maintained by city regulatory staff. During the meeting, an audience member also raised a procedural concern about whether the star-circulator route change (a separate agenda item) had followed a 30-day notice requirement for public-transit changes; the procedural question underscored callers’ broader requests that staff confirm regulatory compliance.

What commissioners and staff said they will do: Commissioners asked staff to review the specific compliance claims raised at the meeting and return with a report about whether companies are meeting the code’s veterinary-inspection and licensing requirements and about complaints of unlicensed operators advertising in the city. The commission did not adopt an ordinance or a citywide ban during the meeting; it approved the consent agenda and other business later in the session.

Context and immediate next steps: Public speakers repeatedly asked the commission to put the carriage issue on a future agenda for formal consideration. Owners and industry representatives asked for the record to include the industry’s view that horses are well cared for and that drivers are licensed; residents asked for more enforcement and transparency. Commissioners agreed to ask staff to review the records and report back, and multiple speakers signaled they would provide documentary evidence to the clerk for the public record.

Ending: The city commission did not vote on new rules for carriage operators at the meeting. It asked staff to follow up with a factual, itemized report on licensing, veterinary compliance and any evidence of unpermitted operators so the commission can consider whether enforcement, ordinance changes or an agenda hearing are warranted.