By Jennifer Sawhney

City council on Monday night sought to clarify language in its draft response to the latest Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury report that criticized the city’s past leadership of the Petaluma animal shelter, hoping to underscore ongoing corrective steps the city has been taking.

North Bay Animal Services operated the Petaluma animal shelter from 2018 until earlier this year, as well as several others across the county. It came under increased public scrutiny following reports of neglect and animal mistreatment at a Clear Lake shelter it ran, prompting a domino-effect of cities canceling their contracts with the Petaluma-based organization.

In March, the council voted to terminate that contract and bring in Marin Humane to temporarily oversee shelter operations – a move scrutinized by the grand jury for allegedly not following proper bidding and voting procedures. The city is accepting applications for a permanent shelter operator, which should be in place by the end of the year.

The city’s response is a requirement after the grand jury issued a report in May titled “A City Asleep at the Wheel.” The required response has specific guidelines on what language can be used, said Assistant City Manager Brian Cochran, who presented the item Monday night.

Over the course of nearly two and a half hours, council members asked staff to add details clarifying that the city is reviewing its own as well as other cities’ regulations, and to mention that the city requested North Bay Animal Service’s budget documents.

Council member John Shribbs was concerned that language accusing the grand jury of misunderstanding Petaluma’s city code was too negative, and asked staff to soften it.

The mayor will do a final review of the updates before he signs it, per the agreed changes.

City council voted 5-2 to accept the grand jury response pending those changes, with both council members Alex DeCarli and John Shribbs voting against it. DeCarli said he couldn’t “sweep this under the rug and move on.”

According to the draft response posted before the meeting, Petaluma will implement three of the eight recommendations listed in the grand jury report (there were nine recommendations, of which one was directed at the county). The city also says it disagrees with all eight of the findings listed in the report either in part or wholly.

At the meeting, however, council members agreed to the criticisms and sought more accountability and ongoing oversight of its shelter.

Council member Brian Barnacle apologized for not offering sufficient oversight, with others – council members Janice Cader Thompson and Frank Quint – asking to move forward with the changes.

Council members Karen Nau and Alex DeCarli called for more accountability to regain the public’s trust. DeCarli wanted a special meeting to hash out what went wrong, and Nau sought the return of an oversight committee.

This is the second Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury report related to the animal shelter issue in just over a year. In September 2025, the city responded to a previous grand jury report published in June 2025 about the shelter provider’s failings across the county.

The May report, issued before the city reached implementation deadlines from the first report, has made it “impossible to fairly evaluate the effectiveness of actions already underway,” according to the city’s draft response. “A more meaningful assessment would have occurred after those improvements had been fully implemented and their results measured.” 

The city asserts it has been working on improvements, such as performing building upgrades at the shelter, hiring a consultant to work with North Bay Animal Services, and updating plans for future services.

A Plate and a Bite

Several critics of North Bay Animal Services attended the meeting, with one, Mark Kimberly, claiming that the former head of the animal shelter still had a city-owned truck in his possession. Kimberly brought what he said was the vehicle’s license plate to the chambers.

Petaluma police took possession of the license plate that evening and will investigate the claims, said Deputy Chief Nick McGowan.

In response to a question from the mayor, Cochran said there was one vehicle that the city agreed to sell to North Bay Animal Services “because it was not in good shape. The city really couldn't use it and Marine Humane was unable to use it. So, we agreed on a value and then NBAS was able to … buy that truck from the city effectively.”

Reached by email Tuesday, North Bay Animal Services former head Mark Scott said, “I was not aware that the license plate was missing until after the city council meeting, when I checked the vehicle at my residence. At that time, I discovered the plate was no longer attached. Because I do not know when or how it was removed, I intend to report the missing license plate to law enforcement.”

Several speakers accused the city of continuing to not take full accountability for failing to address North Bay Animal Service’s missteps over the last eight years.

One bite victim who spoke found the city’s response “a bit disingenuous” as she recounted how long it took her to get documentation from North Bay Animal Services after her attack in October 2024. When Marin Humane came in, she found out it wouldn’t investigate her attack because too much time had passed and that the person assigned to it had worked for the former provider.

“It calls into question how other existing cases are being addressed and the need for a fully funded long-term solution. I'm far from the only bite victim in the city of Petaluma,” she said. She asked the city to be forthright in its response, to bring back a fully funded provider as well as an oversight committee, and to believe residents when they come forward with concerns.

Others criticized the lack of clear, straightforward language in the response.

The city, one speaker said, needs to take control and cannot entirely blame the former shelter operator.

Given that “the issue is the result of a civil grand jury investigation and a followup, it's not appropriate to be putting the onus of contract performance, financial stability, everything back on the contractor. It just doesn't fly.”

Looking forward, Mayor Kevin McDonnell pointed to budding concerns, just as he appreciates the changes the city has made.

“I am very concerned that we are now going to have a significant cost,” he said. “I can't identify where the cost is going to come from yet, but apparently we weren't paying the real cost of doing animal service previously.”