By LORI A. CARTER

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Caltrans will be obliged to meet with state and federal wildlife agencies and local bird advocates next year before resuming highway work in Petaluma, assuming Gov. Jerry Brown signs the state budget package on his desk.

The language in a broader bill prevents the state transportation agency from working on the Marin-Sonoma Narrows

Veronica Bowers, director and founder of Native Songbird Care & Conservation advocacy group, looks for swallows caught and dead or dying in the nets under the Highway 101 bridge over the Petaluma River in Petaluma on Wednesday, April 10, 2013. (SCOTT MANCHESTER/ PD)

Highway 101 project during next year’s bird migration season before its representatives discuss “exclusionary measures” to protect birds.

Tenth District Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, pushed the language to protect migratory cliff swallows, many of which were killed this spring in nets Caltrans applied under Highway 101 to keep them from building their mud nests on bridge supports.

Either because of the type of net or problems with their installation, birds were being trapped as they built or accessed their mud nests on the concrete.

Levine said Tuesday the budget package includes language assuring that, before work resumes during the spring 2014 migratory season, Caltrans will meet with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and local conservation and community organizations that have expertise in migratory birds.

“It requires Caltrans to report back to the budget chairs of the Assembly and Senate how they complied with the law,” he said. “And they have to stay what steps they took.”

Caltrans must also discuss with the wildlife agencies and conservationists “ongoing operational plans for bird protection.”

“For Caltrans not to sit down with these groups is ridiculous,” Levine said.

Meanwhile, a coalition of environmental groups has asked a federal judge in San Francisco to halt work on the highway over the Petaluma River while the court considers their lawsuits arguing that the work endangers the federally protected birds.

The groups filed for an injunction last month and have a hearing June 28.

The groups say that netting designed to keep migratory birds away from the $130 million bridge project, which will widen Highway 101 over the river, instead entangled and killed dozens of them. The groups are asking the court to force the agency to do more extensive environmental review before resuming work.

Caltrans has said problems with the netting were inadvertent and were corrected.

Animal Legal Defense Fund attorney Danny Lutz said he hopes the language will encourage Caltrans to cooperate with conservationists before initiating work in environmentally sensitive areas.

“We would hope that the wording ‘shall meet with and update’ is not just an information download and is actually a conversation that enables public comment to affect the way the project is implemented,” he said.

You can reach Staff Writer Lori A. Carter at 762-7297 or lori.carter@pressdemocrat.com.

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Sonoma County government’s largest group of rank-and-file public safety workers narrowly approved a proposed labor contract Monday, voting 143 to 117 in favor of the tentative agreement.

The deal covers the 470-member Sonoma County Law Enforcement Association, representing correctional deputies and counselors, probation officers, park rangers, emergency dispatchers, fire inspectors and some investigative posts.

It does not include deputy sheriffs or managers.

It offers some short-term salary savings for taxpayers while seeking to curb rising employee pension costs. In exchange, employees are set to receive salary boosts, starting in late 2014 and extending through late 2015, totaling 3 percent.

The county also is set to contribute more to employee health care costs through a new set of payments into health reimbursement accounts.

The deal, which extends to December 2015, is the first reached with rank-and-file public safety workers under the county’s recent bid to curb pension costs and reduce total employee compensation.

Projected taxpayer savings from the agreement have not been disclosed because county officials said they did not want to interfere with the group’s vote. Generally, the county has sought a permanent 3 percent reduction in compensation from rank-and-file workers.

County personnel officials said they would make a summary of the deal available this week in advance of the Board of Supervisors ratification vote Tuesday.

Kimber Williams, president of the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Association, announced the voting results Tuesday in an email to members and the county. The two sides began negotiation in July and the group’s previous contract expired in November.

Williams did not respond to calls requesting comment Tuesday.

By KEVIN McCALLUM

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Big Lots won’t be able to sell cheap booze in Santa Rosa.

The City Council on Tuesday rejected the discount retailer’s request to sell beer and wine over fears that the sale of inexpensive alcohol was unnecessary and might create problems in the high-crime area north of Santa Rosa Junior College.

“I’m in that area a lot, and unfortunately public intoxication is all too common,” Councilman Gary Wysocky said. “We don’t need another outlet there.”

State alcohol laws require the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to deny a license to sell alcohol “if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses.”

The department can still issue a license if the local jurisdiction concludes that the “public convenience or necessity would be served” by the license. In this case, there isn’t an overconcentration of licenses in the area, but there is a crime problem, according to Santa Rosa police.

The store is at Mendocino Avenue and Steele Lane, and crime statistics from that area make it a “high- crime reporting district,” according to police. That’s defined by the state as an area where crime reports are 20 percent higher than other districts. The district had 225 crimes reported in 2012, or 57 percent higher than average.

Calls for service in 2011 showed public intoxication to be the No. 1 problem reported in the area, according to police.

Big Lots is what is known as a closeout retailer, meaning it sells products discounted by the manufacturer or retailer in an effort to reduce inventory.

The company is based in Columbus, Ohio, and has more than 1,500 stores in the United States and Canada, including 170 in California.

The Police Department stressed that Big Lots would get its beer and wine from other retailers and would sell it at a discount.

“The Police Department believes that allowing another off-sale alcohol establishment in this area would serve to perpetuate the already criminal and nuisance type of behavior taking place in this area,” Lt. Jerry Soares wrote.

Company officials argued that most of its other stores in California sell beer and wine; it would only display alcohol in a 20-foot-long area of its 22,500-square-foot store, and that it would sell popular beer and wine brands and not fortified wine.

Additionally, while its prices would be low, they would not be “overly discounted” in an effort to create a “separate demand” for alcohol purchases, but rather for the convenience of its existing customers, the company said.

But city staff remained unconvinced, and said they noted that “the lower-cost beer and wine would be sold in an area that is already stricken with alcohol-related problems.”

The company appealed to the council, which rejected the request 7-0.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @citybeater.

By BRETT WILKISON

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday gave its formal support to an ordinance that would ban carryout plastic bags at checkout lines countywide and add a 10-cent fee for each paper bag.

The 4-1 vote, with Supervisor David Rabbitt dissenting, constitutes the county’s direction to its appointee on the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency, the joint county-city body that has been studying and developing the ban for two years and would adopt and enforce the ordinance.

Supervisors said it was long overdue. Similar measures have now been implemented in more than 75 cities and counties across the state. That list now includes Los Angeles, where councilmembers approved a bag ban Tuesday, making it the largest U.S. city to do so.

“In many ways as a county we are really behind the curve here,” said Supervisor Shirlee Zane, who represents the county on the waste management agency board.

The ordinance needs unanimous support from all 10 voting members on the board. Three cities — Sonoma, Windsor and Sebastopol — have given their support so far.

Rohnert Park, where council members have voiced concerns about impacts on businesses, could represent a hurdle. The city council is set to take up the measure June 25.

The regulation is meant to shift consumers to reusable bags to reduce litter and address other environmental impacts. An estimated 260 million plastic bags and 46 million paper bags are used in Sonoma County every year.

American shoppers have favored plastic bags in checkout lines since the late 1970s. But many end up in landfills after a single use or end up cluttering the landscape and water bodies.

“Plastic bags have choked our local streams since their introduction,” said Supervisor Mike McGuire. “Moving forward with this ordinance will improve our local environmental conditions for years to come.”

Rabbitt, the board chairman, said he was not opposed to a ban on plastic bags, but he voiced opposition to the fee on paper bags, calling it a tax.

“An involuntary fee is a tax. You can’t get a bag unless you pay the fee,” said Rabbitt. “I just have a philosophical objection to that charge.”

The collected paper-bag fees would remain with vendors. Supporters said the charge was needed to push consumers more quickly toward reusable bags.

“I see it as an incentive, an incentive not only to get folks to change their mindset but to learn,” said Supervisor Efren Carrillo. “At some point in the future, I think this (shift to reusable bags) will be a really simple thing for folks to do.”

The paper bag charge also has helped local governments avoid lawsuits from the plastic bag industry which has argued successfully in past cases that unilateral plastic bag bans simply shift environmental impacts to paper bag production and use. Ordinances with the combined plastic bag ban and paper bag fee have either withstood or sidestepped such court battles.

The ordinance would cover local cities and the unincorporated county. It would affect a wide range of outlets, including grocery, clothing, hardware and drug stores, electronics vendors, convenience and liquor stores.

It would not extend to bags used to hold meat, vegetables or prescriptions, or apply to restaurants or stand-alone delicatessens, thrift stores or other nonprofit charitable operations. It would also not restrict the sale of plastic bags for trash and other uses.

The California Grocers Association has backed countywide measures on carryout bags over patchwork policies by different municipalities. Legislation targeting plastic bags was defeated last month in the state Senate.

In Sonoma County, local governments have clashed over the issue. In 2008, Santa Rosa officials put the brakes on a ban, calling instead for greater recycling of plastic bags.

A 2007 state law requires large supermarkets and drug stores to accept the bags for recycling. The range of bags recycled at those stores is 2 percent to 7 percent, state studies show. No reliable data exists for bag recycling through curbside service, according to a spokesman for CalRecycle, the state solid waste agency.

The county Waste Management Agency has set July 17 as a tentative date for its board vote, though agency officials said meetings with cities could push that schedule back to August.

In addition to Rohnert Park, city councils awaiting their say include Healdsburg, Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Cloverdale and Cotati.

If approved, the ordinance could go into effect in January. County waste management officials said the agency would look to alert businesses and shoppers of the change and assist low-income shoppers with free reusable bags distributed through social service agencies.

“This is the way for the county to have a unified approach in moving this forward,” said Supervisor Susan Gorin.

You can reach Staff Writer Brett Wilkison at 521-5295 or brett.wilkison@pressdemocrat.com.

By DEREK MOORE

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously rejected the state’s plan to increase the number of

Goat Rock Beach (PD FILE, 2010)

beaches on the Sonoma Coast where visitors would be charged for parking.

The outcome likely sets up a showdown at the California Coastal Commission, which on Friday approved new day-use fees at several beaches in Orange County.

Matt Fuzie, deputy director of operations for California State Parks, said Tuesday he assumed the agency will appeal the action taken by county supervisors.

Tuesday’s public hearing in Santa Rosa was marked by emotional testimony about the potential impacts of the proposed fees.

The state is seeking permission to install 15 self-pay machines at beaches on the Sonoma Coast and charge visitors $7 for parking.

The areas where the new fees would apply are Stump Beach, Russian Gulch, Goat Rock, Shell Beach, Portuguese Beach, Schoolhouse Beach, North and South Salmon Creek, Campbell Cove and Bodega Head. The state for decades has been charging a day-use fee at several Sonoma Coast parks, including Fort Ross, Bodega Dunes and Wrights Beach.

Darris Nelson of Bodega Bay recounted fond memories of taking her son to the beach. He’s 17 now and drives there himself.

“I hate to think of all the families that won’t have that because they can’t afford that,” Nelson told supervisors.

Nelson was one of 20 people who addressed supervisors, all of whom expressed opposition to the proposed fees.

Speakers included veterans of the “Free Our Beaches” campaign of the early 1990s that was sparked by a similar plan to charge new fees at the coast.

Bev Burton, a Bodega Bay resident who helped lead that effort, told supervisors Tuesday the opposition group back then collected 30,000 signatures in three months.

“We could do that again, but I don’t believe that we have to go that far,” she said.

Fuzie, who gave the state’s presentation, recalled serving as a lifeguard on the Sonoma Coast from 1994-96 and participating in several rescues.

“I’ve been called a hero in this community and no doubt today I run the risk of being called a goat,” he told supervisors.

He said the fees are necessary to offset cuts in the state parks’ budget and to restore services on the coast. He said state parks receives just 29 percent of its budget from the general fund and that lawmakers have ordered the agency to develop new sources of revenue.

He said this year’s budget for the Russian River District, which includes state parks west of Highway 101 to and along the Sonoma Coast, is $4.7 million. He said the district is expected to generate about $900,000 in revenue.

“We are simply asking to put iron rangers in where we provide services,” he said.

Supervisors rejected the argument, mainly on the grounds that they felt the new fees would restrict access to the coast, in particular for the low-income and seniors.

“From our children, to our seniors, to everybody in between, we absolutely have to protect our right to access the coast,” Supervisor Susan Gorin said.

Supervisor Shirlee Zane said that Sonoma County stepped up to keep several state parks open in the face of threatened closure and that residents have “already paid enough.”

Supervisors also acknowledged public criticism of their stance opposing the beach fees, while at the same time the county charges fees at several regional parks and trailheads on the coast.

“there is an argument to be made to remove those fees and provide some consistencies,” said Supervisor Efren Carrillo, whose district includes the coast.

Caryl Hart, director of regional parks, identified the areas where the county could consider removing the $7 day-use fees as five trailheads at Sea Ranch and at Pinnacle Gulch and Bird Walk, both in Bodega Bay.

She said those areas include no services, only parking, and do not really generate “a lot” of revenue for the county.

She said other coastal parks run by the county, such as Doran Beach and Stillwater Cove, offer services such as campgrounds and rangers.

County staff contend that the decision to charge fees at several regional parks was made prior to the county’s adoption of a local coastal plan, which states that the county must take “all necessary steps to protect and defend” those rights “to and along the shoreline.”

California’s Constitution and the state’s 1976 Coastal Act encourage “maximum access” to beaches and make no exceptions for financial hardship on the state’s part.

State parks officials, however, argue that a 1994 case — Surfrider Foundation v. California Coastal Commission — found that installing iron rangers for fee collection did not did not have an effect on coastal access.

Spencer Nilson, chairman of Sonoma Coast Surfrider, told supervisors Tuesday that the legal case was dated and did not set a legal precedent, and that state parks has no baseline data to compare the impact of instituting fees on the Sonoma Coast.

By DEREK MOORE

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Sonoma will be sending a letter to President Obama urging him to oppose a controversial oil pipeline, an action authorized by the City Council Monday night.

By DEREK MOORE

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Sonoma appears to be the latest city on track to reject joining the Sonoma County Clean Power Authority after a divided City Council on Monday all but turned out the lights on the idea.

Sonoma still could become the second city, along with Windsor, to support the county’s vision of supplanting PG&E as the county’s chief supplier of electricity and provide a greener energy portfolio.

But that would require Sonoma Mayor Ken Brown to have a change of heart and fall in with Councilman Steve Barbose and Tom Rouse, who Monday supported the city joining the power authority.

“I’m ready to vote no,” Brown said.

County officials on Monday again lobbied the city to join the power plan, touting it as a greener option than what PG&E currently offers and another energy choice for residents.

So far only the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, representing the unincorporated areas, and the Windsor Town Council have voted to join the launch of the agency. Together, they account for about 40 percent of the power sold by PG&E in Sonoma County.

Deputy County Counsel Steve Shupe, speaking to the Sonoma council Monday, attributed the lukewarm reception to a variety of factors, including that people are making “it more complicated than it really is” and “ongoing hostility and tension between the cities and the county.”

Rouse said Sonoma could “be skeptical and play the safe route” or do as he advocated and join the power authority.

Councilman David Cook, however, expressed concerns about the county’s opt-out plan for customers who don’t like the program and government getting into private enterprise. He voted against the resolution to join the power authority. Councilwoman Laurie Gallian recused herself because her husband works for PG&E.

Under the county’s energy plan, new customers will be able to opt out of the program without a fee two months before their accounts are switched and two months after. If they choose to go back to PG&E after two months, there will be a $5 fee for residential customers, $25 for commercial accounts.

Under both plans PG&E would continue to handle transmission, billing, metering, customer service and grid repair.

Brown, who touted his environmental record, told county officials Monday they had not done enough outreach on the power program. He said he wanted to wait and see what Santa Rosa does before he finalized his decision and also hear from Sonoma County Conservation Action.

“I would like to have a vote of confidence from conservation action,” the mayor said.

The council on Monday initially failed to muster the three votes necessary to take action on the resolution to join the power authority after Brown abstained on the measure.

On a revote at Barbose’s request, the mayor joined clean power supporters on the council to introduce the ordinance, which theoretically keeps the city on track to meet the county’s deadline for initially joining the power authority.

Brown demurred after Monday’s meeting when he was asked if his comments were to be construed that he will not support the power resolution when presumably it comes up for a final vote at the council’s July 1 meeting.

He said only that people “are going to try to convince” him to change his mind.

Sonoma’s consideration came three days after county and Santa Rosa city officials struck a deal to allow Santa Rosa to make its decision on July 9. City leaders had asked for more time to independently study the proposal.

That extension, in turn, has led to a change of plans by at least one other city. Sebastopol city administrators Tuesday are set to propose delaying their city council’s decision, initially set for June 25.

Santa Rosa’s revised timeline and ongoing revisions to the power agency’s joint-powers agreement were the chief reasons for the recommended postponement, said Larry McGlaughlin, Sebastopol’s city manager and attorney. “It’s hard to say we don’t have enough information on something and then vote on it,” McGlaughlin said. A new date is likely to be set for early July, McLaughlin said.

Geof Syphers, a county consultant for the power plan, said county officials discussed the reshuffling of decision dates Monday and decided that all other cities would have the same leeway as Santa Rosa, making July 9 “the real deadline.”

The date is tied to a July 15 delivery of power supply data to contractors for their final bids.

“All the cities certainly have access to that extension that Santa Rosa was granted,” Syphers said. “But it was also decided that no further extensions make sense.”

Windsor is the only other city to have joined the county power agency. It was formed for customers in the unincorporated area by the Board of Supervisors in April.

Of the remaining cities, besides Santa Rosa, only Cotati is yet to make its decision. Cloverdale and Rohnert Park voted to hold off on joining in the first year while Petaluma has postponed any vote until at least September to allow city staff to study the proposal.

Cotati city leaders said Monday they intend to stick to their plans for a June 26 vote. Cotati Mayor Mark Landman, however, suggested support could rest on a key change that smaller cities have requested on a voting issue related to governance of the power authority’s board.

The change smaller cities have sought would prevent the county and Santa Rosa — representing the largest areas of power use and more than two-thirds of the potential weighted voting shares — from changing the agency’s joint powers agreement without also having the support of a simple majority of cities.

“We were very clear that was a big concern to us,” said Landman.

Syphers, the county consultant, said the requested change has been put on the power authority’s agenda for its first general meeting, next Tuesday, at the Board of Supervisors chambers.

Staff Writer Brett Wilkison contributed to this story.

By LORI A. CARTER

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Nonprofit agencies asked the city to allow a fifth day of fireworks sales leading up to July Fourth, saying they are at a competitive disadvantage because Rohnert Park allows one more day of sales.

Richard Sharke of the nonprofit McDowell Drug Task Force said his group makes $36,000 annually with a fireworks booth, less than it would with another day.

But Petaluman Sheri Cardo urged the council to pay attention to the danger demonstrated by Monday’s fire that edged precipitously close to several homes and pastures northwest of city limits.

“This region is bone dry right now — bone dry,” she said.

Around 3:30 p.m., fire blackened about 19 acres along Thompson Lane between Skillman Lane and Magnolia Avenue. Several ranch buildings were destroyed, and nervous residents packed up their vehicles with pets and treasured possessions to evacuate.

In 2009, in response to fire officials’ concerns, the city reduced the number of days state-mandated “safe and sane” fireworks could be sold, from 6½ to 4. The city also reduced the number of days they can be used to one day, only on the holiday.

Nonprofit agencies in Petaluma and other cities operate fireworks booths to raise money, often as the main fundraiser.

If the council wanted to allow an extra day for this year’s sales, it would have had to pass an emergency ordinance, which would have required a special meeting next week, and a unanimous vote that the move was necessary to preserve the “public peace, health or safety.”

Mayor David Glass said he wouldn’t support an additional day of sales, which nixed any need for a formal vote.

Other council members said they would support allowing another day of sales, done in conjunction with other changes to city ordinances governing their sales. Those issues are expected to return in time for next year’s holiday.

You can reach Staff Writer Lori A. Carter at 762-7297 or lori.carter@pressdemocrat.com

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

The Santa Rosa City Council, enjoying slightly improved revenues from a modest economic recovery, this week will consider a budget representing the largest boost in city spending since the recession-era slashing began.

City Manager Kathy Millison’s proposed $340 million budget would be a 9 percent increase over the current year and would include hiring the equivalent of 22 new full-time positions, including police officers, fire fighters, wastewater workers and financial analysts.

In her letter to the council, Millison said the $29 million in additional spending is needed to invest in infrastructure and fill “critical needs” the city faces as a result of years of cuts. She also stressed that while budget had stabilized, rising costs made it necessary for the city to find ways to provide “service levels that are more acceptable to the community’s needs and expectations.”

When the nearly $50 million in capital improvement projects are removed — many of them funded by water and sewer ratepayers — Millison said the operating expenditures increase would be 4 percent over current year.

“It’s good to be in an era of stability in terms of our budget,” Mayor Scott Bartley said. “We’re not on fire, but we’re modestly up.”

Bartley said the new positions have been “pretty carefully considered.”

“We’re adding them back in where we cut too far before,” Bartley said.

The police and fire departments, which benefit from a dedicated ¼-percent sales tax known as Measure O, are set to receive the majority of the new staffing, though not all of it will increase their budgets.

The Police Department budget woukld increase 2.4 percent next year, to $45.5 million. The department is proposing to spend an additional $700,000 for 6.5 new fulltime positions, including sworn officers and civilians, to bring it closer to the baseline established by Measure O.

That increase was hotly debated in a previous budget session and likely will be so again this week.

The Fire Department budget is decreasing by 3 percent to $33.3 million, but only because a two-year $2.5 million federal grant to fund nine firefighters was accounted for in the current fiscal year. The new budget adds six new firefighters, but their costs are to be covered by a resulting reduction in overtime. Other factors include an increase in health insurance costs due to the expiration of employee contributions and $300,000 toward the construction of the future Fountaingrove fire station.

One of the main drivers of the cost increases is that city employees, who in prior years agreed to concessions such as unpaid furloughs and higher pension contributions, have not agreed to continue such reductions, increasing the city’s salary and benefit costs next year by $1.6 million.

The Parks and Recreation Department budget is going up 3.4 percent to $19.8 million. The increases includes $212,000 to manage new facilities such as the Pearson Senior Wing of the Finley Community Center and $200,000 to more accurately reflect the parks irrigation budget.

That budget likely will get continued scrutiny. Councilman Gary Wysocky noted that he and his colleagues have yet to receive a report on the operations of the Bennett Valley Golf Course, which is on track to lose $262,000 next year.

“How can we provide guidance if we don’t know if that’s a viable operation?” Wysocky said.

The budget does not include an increase in park maintenance staff, which some council members have said they would like to see.

The budget calls for a 2 percent increase in Transportation and Public Works Department spending, to $48 million. That reflects a 5 percent reduction in bus routes, completion of the revamped transit mall, reorganization of the engineering teams and $3 million more toward street improvement projects.

The Utilities Department budget would climb 17 percent to $143.5 million, due largely to the increasing cost of water, large capital improvement needs and the addition of seven new positions, including a lab analyst, maintenance worker and communications coordinator.

Though on a smaller scale, many administrative departments are seeing increases, as well.The Community Development Department is planning for a 12 percent budget increase, to $4.3 million. Increases include a new employee in the code enforcement department and reclassification of a city planner.

The City Manager’s budget is increasing by 67 percent, to $2.8 million, largely due to the movement of the gang prevention and intervention services staff into the department and out of parks and recreation.

The Information Technology Department is increasing 18 percent to $5.9 million, mostly from the addition of three new employees and a new computer replacement program.

The Housing Authority budget is tacking on 5 percent because of an increase in the number of people who qualify for housing-voucher programs.

The Finance Department is also ringing up a 5 percent increase to $9 million, due in part to the additional of a financial analyst and reclassification of three other employees.

Not all departments will see increases, however.

The budget for the city’s former Redevelopment Agency continues to shrink, losing 21 percent to $4.7 million as the state continues to restrict the former agency to repaying debt.

The City Council budget is decreasing by 31 percent to $694,000, largely because 2013-14 is a non-election year.

Budgets for the City Attorney and Economic Development and Housing and are basically unchanged at $2.1 million and $7.7 million respectively.

The hearing starts after the regular 4 p.m. council meeting Tuesday and is set to continue at 9 a.m. Wednesday and Thursday if necessary.

By CLARK MASON

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

The Healdsburg City Council on Monday approved a temporary contract with Sonoma County to take over responsibility for animal control, prompted by

Healdsburg Animal Shelter office manager Caroline Marker, left, and volunteers Sandra Dunn, Sue Archer and James Backus, check out Backus’ dog, Sergio, who was adopted from the shelter two years ago, in Healdsburg on Monday, June 17, 2013. (CHRISTOPHER CHUNG/ PD)

the imminent closure of the independently-run Healdsburg Animal Shelter.

The six-month agreement with Sonoma County Animal Care and Control was hurriedly put together in the face of the sudden announcement last week of the closing of the 53-year-old, non- profit shelter, which experienced a drop in contributions after a myriad of controversies that included the inability to complete a partially built $3.5 million facility.

The council heard from about a dozen speakers Monday night including shelter volunteers who said they were saddened, angered and worried for the fate of the animals in Healdsburg as a result of the loss of the local shelter.

“It’s gone. We are fools to let it go,” said longtime volunteer Robin See. “I feel shame for Healdsburg.”

She said the animal shelter “was a very special place. We should all feel responsible.”

Others worried that unwanted dogs and cats will be abandoned by people who won’t drive to the county shelter in Santa Rosa to drop them off.

“Animals will be left by the side of the road,” said Jennifer Cadd, a volunteer at the shelter who has fostered more than two dozen kittens and adopted a dog from the shelter.

But city officials praised the county for its willingness to step into the gap until the city can craft requests for proposals from other animal welfare groups to possibly take over animal services in Healdsburg.

And council members held out hope that a local shelter of some kind will be re-established even though the current building, which is owned by the city, is considered obsolete and in poor condition.

Councilman Jim Wood said the community should be able to maintain its own shelter, but acknowledged he doesn’t know how that will happen. “I hope from the ashes of this meltdown a new group arises to take it on,” he said.

“It’s just a matter of time before people in Healdsburg come together and find a solution for a new animal shelter,” said Councilman Shaun McCaffery.

“It’s going to be difficult moving forward but we will,” said Mayor Susan Jones, who adopted a dog from the shelter. “This short term contract will get us to the next step.”

Under the $58,000, six-month contract approved 3-0 Monday, the county will be responsible for animal control, handling strays, vicious, injured and unwanted animals.

The Healdsburg Police Department will take over the annual licensing of animals.

“We want to ensure a seamless transition. We want to give animals coming into Animal Care and Control the highest care possible,” North County Supervisor Mike McGuire told the council.

He said the county also welcomed participation from various groups that have offered to help, including the Sonoma Humane Society, which will take in animals on Sundays and Mondays when the county shelter is closed.

Rita Scardaci, who oversees animal control services for the county, noted the county recently struck an agreement with the Humane Society to help ease overcrowding and handle adoptions to avoid healthy animals being euthanized.

The Healdsburg shelter technically remains open through Saturday, but all the animals that were there have been taken to other shelters or rescue organizations.

“We are here. We no longer have animals,” office manager Caroline Marker said Monday.

About 40 dogs and cats were parceled out last week to the Humane Society, Rohnert Park and Petaluma shelters, and Green Dog Rescue Project, according to Marker.

She said the staff at Healdsburg Animal Shelter was packing and cleaning, “getting ready to turn the building over to the city.”

She said other non-profit animal welfare groups were invited to help themselves to supplies, crate kennels, cat cages, blankets and remaining animal food.

Marker said the shelter was also open in case any strays or owner-surrendered animals were brought in. She said they would be transferred to the Humane Society.

The closing of the Healdsburg Animal Shelter comes following a series of setbacks that resulted in a loss of community confidence and a drop-off in large donations that it depends on for survival.

The organization with nine full time employees, had an approximate $500,000 annual budget, with less than a quarter of that derived from its contract with the city for animal control services.

A new 7,500-square-foot building sits nearly complete on Westside Road across from the existing facility, mired in an extensive lawsuit over design and construction defects and complicated by the bankruptcy of the general contractor.

There was also rapid turnover on the board staff, with four executive directors serving over five years.

What will happen to the squat cinder block structure that has served as a shelter since 1960 is also uncertain.

City Manager Marjie Pettus said the building is in extremely poor condition, but it is too soon to say what will happen to it. She said its fate could be determined following an evaluation of the adjacent city corporation yard and facility issues that need to be addressed.