A dispute over strays and adoptable pets from Sutter Creek taking up residence at the county's animal shelter was deflated before it gathered too much steam Monday.

That was when Animal Control director John Vail told the Ledger Dispatch the shelter would resume accepting animals from the city and recording charges, though it was unclear whether Sutter Creek would have to pay them.

The relationship between the city and county's General Services Administration, which manages the animal shelter in Martell, became strained two months ago, when the department attempted to collect on a bill for services roughly two years after the fact.

Until then, Sutter Creek City Manager Rob Duke said he was under the impression that dog license fees from city residents were covering the costs of service. Then, shortly before Christmas, in the midst of what Duke characterized as "a really bad budget year," the county hit him with a bill totaling more than $2,000.

"In the worst economic recession of my lifetime, they want to come back after a few years and charge us," Duke said. "That seems like changing the rules a little bit."Duke's city wasn't the only one. Jackson was also back-billed for a couple of years of service, according to City Manager Mike Daly.

"We contacted them and have been working out a fair compensation agreement since that time," Daly told the Ledger Dispatch via e-mail. "The county has been very cooperative through our discussions."

While no meeting date has yet been set for cities and county officials to iron out further details, the shelter's current marching orders are to accept animals from all county residents. The rest is being worked out, according to County Administrative Officer Terri Daly. Since it was the county that fell behind on billing, Daly said the decision was to hold off on charges until a reasonable solution is found.

"As bad a time as we are having, does it make any sense to let it all roll downhill (to the cities)? No, it doesn't," she reasoned. "We don't want there to be any hurt feelings."

The cities of Jackson, Ione and Plymouth no longer have current contracts for animal control service with the county, though all continue to receive service and are billed for it. Both Sutter Creek and Amador City have automatically renewing agreements.

When the bill first made its way to Duke, he informed the GSA department not to accept any more animals without his approval. Instead, Duke, who doubles as Sutter Creek's police chief, started devoting police resources to checking out nuisance complaints and animal disturbance calls.

In reality, that's the way it's supposed to work, according to Vail. The protocol at his office is to contact the cities when there is a call for service. Animal Control only responds with prior approval or at the request of the cities, Vail said, unless it's an emergency.

"If we've got someone nearby, we're going to call them and have them start responding as we try to get approval from the city," Vail explained. "We're not going to wait for something worse to happen."

That's how it's been working for the city of Ione, said City Manager Kim Kerr.

But if that's the protocol, Duke believed it wasn't always followed. "Before then (late December), they responded every time someone complained," he said of Animal Control. "It was a bottomless pool with the way they were doing it."

Cities are charged for the mandated holding period for dropped off animals, which maxes out at six business days. While most animals stay longer, Vail said the cities aren't charged for the extra time. If an owner later claims an animal, the city doesn't get billed either.

Equity will be a focus of future agreements, said Daly. "We don't want fees that create an obstacle for cities using us."

In Duke's estimation, everything was working fine since the billing snafu until last week, when a Sutter Creek resident tried to drop off an animal and was turned away on his authority. It was the first time, the city manager believed, that someone tried to abandon a pet she regretted buying. Duke worried allowing residents to claim buyer's remorse as a reason for abandoning pets could open the floodgates.

That's when the controversy reached Susan Manning.

The Feed Barn owner and local animal advocate was planning the "Whiskers and Wine" fundraising event at her store with Vail when the pet owner in question called. Manning was concerned that, without a resolution between the city and animal shelter, Sutter Creek residents who could no longer care for their pets or those that found strays would be tempted to resort to careless or cruel means.

The recession and related foreclosure crisis have meant a spike in the number of people abandoning pets, she noted. If a local shelter is prohibited from taking them, Manning shuddered to think of the methods some might turn to.

"It's a sign of the economic times," Manning allowed. "But in the meantime, there are animals that are in trouble."

The shelter requires identification from anyone dropping off an animal to ensure only Amador County residents are making use of its services. That's why a resident of a prohibited city couldn't drop off an animal through approved channels, increasing the risk that people would leave animals on the shelter's doorstep locked in carriers, where they could be vulnerable to the elements or predators.

"We already have had people dropping off animals here because of (their) economic trouble and we don't want that," Manning said. All the animals that come to the A-PAL Humane Society to be adopted are received from the animal shelter, Manning explained. That's the centralized holding location for reuniting pets with owners and assuring that strays have been vaccinated and aren't too aggressive to adopt out.