Monarch Pet Spa facility at Hendry's Beach

Monarch Pet Spa facility at Hendry's Beach

Pet Wash Stations To Be Removed

Monarch Pet Spa Owner Reportedly Failed to Make Payments to County

Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Dog owners will no longer be able to scrub the sand off their pups at Monarch Pet Spa locations in Santa Barbara, Summerland, and Santa Maria. According to county Community Services director Herman Parker, the self-service pet wash company’s contract with the county expires October 31, and the owner will have a period of time to “remove his equipment” from his three locations at Hendry’s Beach, Lookout Park, and Waller Park.

Per their contract, Monarch Pet Spa owner Ed Bertling is expected to pay the county 20 percent of his gross earnings. “There have been concerns about his ability to meet the obligations of his agreement,” Parker said, explaining that it was difficult to get proper information from Bertling.

Bertling claimed his wash facility at Waller Park in Santa Maria was broken into on seven occasions, which forced him to close that location for a period of time and prevented him from making some payments. “We feel that the park didn’t guarantee enough security,” he said, adding credit card machines have since been installed at the Waller Park facility.

“Herman Parker has taken a hard line,” Bertling said, adding that the county must be strapped for funds and is cutting back. Bertling said he had an agreement with the county — the details of that agreement are not clear — and claimed Parker was on vacation when he sent in his payments. After an initial conversation with The Independent, Bertling did not respond to requests for additional comments.

Parker said Bertling was notified over a month and a half ago that he would have to remove his facilities. He said how the three spaces will now be used is still being determined.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

That is really, really too bad about the one at Hendry's. It's a great service. As for Waller Park, it has a wonderful dog park there, much better than any of the two in Goleta — why doesn't Santa Barbara have an offleash, fenced dog park? — but why would it need a washing station?

at_large (anonymous profile)
October 30, 2013 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What a waste, it sounds like somebody at the County needs to be demoted for not handling this situation better if the owner is having difficulties with criminals at one of the locations and has been trying to get everything resolved. Now what, we just have an empty space of concrete? How does that benefit everybody?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 30, 2013 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bummer. These were there for around 3-4 years at least. Loved it at Hendrys! Sounds like this could have been handled better all around. Too bad the County can't keep the units and take over the operations themselves. They are a great asset. Well, at least the one's at Hendry's and Summerland.

BeachFan (anonymous profile)
October 30, 2013 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think you want the County to take them over, they would probably raise the prices, fail to maintain the machines properly and close it off at weird times. They have no incentive to keep customers.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 30, 2013 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another example of overreaching government in the People's Republic of California.

Another business doing a good thing being destroyed by bureaucratic government hacks.

Any wonder businesses leave California?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 30, 2013 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lol......people must not be reading the article clearly.....a private vendor didn't comply with contract. Vendor was asked for more info by reporter and didn't naturally the astute commenters blame California?! I guess all noncompliance by private vendors should be overlooked when public agencies do business with them. Bizarre logic. Not even sure why this is a news article since.

whosecityisthis2012 (anonymous profile)
October 30, 2013 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I met the owner of these dog wash facilities, a couple years back. A nicer man never walked the face of this earth. A truly lovely man.

This is a sad state of affairs. These dog washes served a good purpose and a lot of dog owners will be sorry to see these units removed.

Couldn't the Parks Dept have handled this better? I thought it was County Parks that was overseeing all of this. The County Parks Dept had a big ribbon cutting type ceremony, when the one facility opened at Hendry's.

This is just a crying shame.

chilldrinfthenight (anonymous profile)
October 30, 2013 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@2012: No, I read the article clearly. When someone has to fork over 20% of their earnings to the county in protection money its pretty obscene. Not only did I read the article, but I read between the lines and dared to point out how hostile the political climate is toward those who try to earn a living.

I think your handle is interesting because the question truly beckons "whose city IS this?" and it sure doesn't belong to the small business owners nor the working-class, but as the local adage goes, "if you don't like it, move to Bakersfield". Yep, good 'ol "progressive" S.B. at its finest.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 31, 2013 at 12:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is not the whole story.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
October 31, 2013 at 1:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First they tried to CHARGE us for parking at OUR beaches, when that didn't work they took OUR dog wash stations to try and make us miserable! Next they'll be taking OUR GUNS and making us give our first born children to CHINA for SLAVE LABOR to cover the debt. God is Dog backwards, WAKE UP all starts with the dog wash stations! We are living in the dawn of the Zodiac, when will the suffering stop???!?!?

BIGGUBMINT (anonymous profile)
October 31, 2013 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, Kelsey: "conservation" -> "conversation" The Indy editors fail yet again.

Hey, Bill: Feeling cranky today, are we? If 20% is too much, then Bertling shouldn't have signed the contract. Or he should have included a better security clause. In any case, extrapolating to "overreaching" government reveals a disconnect from reality.

SezMe (anonymous profile)
November 1, 2013 at 1 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The guy operates a business on public property that is failing and government is to blame if it doesn't work out? Really?
I am sorry that it didn't work out for him, but y'all shouting about how governerment overreach is keeping the little guy down are kind of off-base. Small business startups don't all work out, regardless of who your landlord is. There is probably a whole lot more going on than you are reading from this article.

ProudRINO (anonymous profile)
November 1, 2013 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again the government defenders aren't reading the facts correctly and they are being unreasonable. It says that he attempted to make payments and resolve the issue before the deadline and the county was non responsive...

Then you have the gal to assume that it is in the best interest of residents to shut down this valuable service on property that the county has no better use for and throw away all of the equipment, a complete WASTE of materials and resources if you happen to care about the environment, for a ONE TIME supposed breach of contract. Do you work in private industry? If one of your clients or vendors makes a late payment or shipment is it always in your best interest to drop the vendor/client or do you weigh the pros and cons and decide if it is in the best interest of your company to drop them or possibly consider an alternative? You seem to think that all of these things are cut and dry in the private sector, but they are NOT. All it takes is a little bit of logic, and it just amazes people the lack of logic that comes from so many government programs.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 1, 2013 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill - It's not "protection money". It's called "rent". Do you actually believe that the county should provide buildings to private businesses without charging any rent?

tucky (anonymous profile)
November 2, 2013 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: