BLYTHE - The Blythe City Council rejected a proposed ordinance to mandate the micro-chipping of dogs and cats but did agree to raise the city license fees for unaltered dogs from $20 to $50 a year.
The vote against micro-chipping was 4-1, with Councilman Joey DeConinck fighting for the mandate, while the vote to increase the license fees was 3-2 with Council members Sam Patel and Richard Contreras voting against the increase.
Animal control officer John Bush told the council that micro-chipping was in the best interest of the city and pet owners in that he could scan pets he picks up and return them to the owner for the cost of a citation rather than taking them to the Riverside County Shelter where owners would be charged daily fees.
Bush said the cost to micro-chip a dog was $20 while shelter fees began at $105 for a one-day stay and rose $15 each day thereafter. State law mandates that the shelter hold the dog a minimum of five days if no one claims it.
Bush said costs could run considerably higher should the dog need medical aid while at the facility.
Mayor Joey DeConinck told of an employee whose dog was captured twice, the second time causing him to borrow money from DeConinck to bail the dog out. DeConinck said that he counseled the employee to micro-chip the dog and that there hasn't been a problem since.
"The guy spent a lot of unnecessary money," DeConinck said.
Vice-mayor Carie Covel said that with economic conditions the way they are, she was against mandating the micro-chipping of dogs and would instead prefer educating local residents about the availability of the procedure.
"It's one of those things where the pros don't outweigh the cons," she said. "We can make more strides by making people aware of the pros of doing it on their own without mandating it."
City Manager Dave Lane said that the city was charged for dogs that were not claimed at the shelter and that the city could possibly be billed $150,000 by the county next July for shelter service. Lane said that the charge would mean the city would have to lay off a police officer in order to pay it.
"Dogs will run wild in the city before we lay off a police officer," Lane said he told the county.
Referring to the poor economy, Contreras said he agreed that it was not the right time to mandate micro-chipping. Covel also stuck to her position against requiring the procedure and the ordinance failed.
The council then took up the task of license fees. Fees for unaltered animals were running at $20 a year, $40 for two years and $60 for three years. The new rates will be $50 a year, $100 for two years and $150 for three.
Fees for altered dogs stayed the same for one year at $8, increased by a dollar to $16 for two years, and were reduced to $20 from $24 for three years.
Fees for seniors, 60 and older, remained the same at $3, $6 and $9 for unaltered dogs. Late fees increased to $20 from $5.
Patel questioned city staff as to why the city was penalizing law-abiding dog owners who licensed their pets rather than going after those who didn't?
"The first thing you need to do is check people who don't have a license," he told Bush.
Questions were also raised concerning the break for altered dogs who had licenses purchased for three years and not for dogs that remained unaltered.
City Manager Dave Lane said that the city was trying to reward responsible dog owners, not "irresponsible" ones.
At one point during the discussion of the costs local resident would assume, Contreras snapped at Lane stating, "You and I have jobs. I'm trying to be sensitive to other people."
Covel said that the cost of living has increased since the last time the license fees were raised and so had the costs to the city. She said she supported the fee increase but "not as punishment."
Contreras then suggested the council increase the fees incrementally, at $5 per year over the course of the next three years.
"I don't have a problem with the increases as they are," Covel said.
She then told Bush she would like to see a staff report brought back to the council so that they could begin to license cats as well.
The council then went ahead with the changes.
Reader Comments
Posted: Friday, March 19, 2010
Article comment by:
no name
I can't believe the city council is actually dealing with this issue. Aren't there more pressing problems to solve before they infringe on people's rights? Periodically I see some homeless animal featured in the paper with a request that someone adopt it. Who the h--- wants a pet when the council makes pet ownership more difficult and expensive? Seems like the council is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face. Can they muster up some common sense and ingenuity please??? The exception is Mr. Contreras and Ms Covel appears to be a greedy B.rhymes with witch.
Posted: Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
Read the editor's blog on how much can be saved in police services by contracting to the sheriff's department. Real numbers from real contracts.
Posted: Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Article comment by:
cindy
Eubanks, are you willing to give up all your own socialist benefits that you hate so much? Could you stand on your own two feet without government help? Doubt it.
Posted: Monday, March 15, 2010
Article comment by:
James E. Eubanks
Government at all levels doesn't care anymore. All they see are ways to collect money because they go into fits if they have to cut back on socialist policies.
Posted: Monday, March 15, 2010
Article comment by:
Read this!! Dog gets arrested/picked up near Westside Park!
Speaking of dogs running wild in the streets as the article said reminded me of the day I saw a Blythe Police Officer (in the white SUV) stop and actually take into custody a dog!!! I couldn't believe my eyes, I thought gee isn't this weird, shouldn't animal control be doing this job? Not only that but the dog was in his own yard, reason I say this is I go by there very often and its always laying at the front door area! Now arresting a dog seems far-fetched but it happened in front of 4 eyes, my child was in the back seat asking me why the cops were taking him away and yanking his neck to pull him up. So this family has to go and pick up their pooch, and guess what? Yes, you guessed it- pay up. Another sucessful arrest for the dept! On our taxpayers money at that! Such a shame!
Posted: Saturday, March 13, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
Fee increase from $20 to $50 is ridiculous.If the dog catcher collects a dog with a license on, why is it transported to the county?They know who owns it,same as if its chiped.Return the pet along with a ticket.It seems its all about collecting money.
Posted: Friday, March 12, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
All these fees are being created because of the greedy upper and mid management within the city who refuse to take pay cuts but expect everyone else to bend over backwards and get crapped on! You could get rid of half the managment as they dont do crap and save the city a ton! As well as that (deleted) of one of the city mid management workers! Lord knows all he does is make his own schedule, sleep all day while his partner cruises him around or plays on his new computer!
Site Administrator's note: A portion of this comment has been removed because it violated our Terms of use Agreement.
Posted: Friday, March 12, 2010
Article comment by:
Tax Time
John Bush states that a 1 day stay at the pound starts at $105.00? Whats wrong with this picture?
Are they feeding them t-bones in there or what?
Posted: Friday, March 12, 2010
Article comment by:
KMA
pThis is absolutely insane! People are having hard times right now and all you people think about is finding more ways to steal out money. $20.00 was a good fee. All you are going to accomplish is making people hide their animals, or let them go because of your greed. We are in a resession people! Stop trying to figure out ways to take our money for crying out loud. You want us to live in this town stop trying to make it harder. You want people to"shop Blythe" yet you take away all the options, now you are taking money we could have spent on grocerys or utilities and punish us becasue we have an animal to care for? That is a real quick way to have the animal shelter start filling up and making it impossible for people who truely love their pets to keep or care for them properly. Not every one can pay the fees to have their pets spayed or neutered. What the heck happened to Blythe? Its going downhill, thats for sure. I am not an irrisponsible because I dont have the money to spay or neuter my pets. I have an "inside" pet, lap dog that is never outside, is current with all imunizations including Rabies, taken to the vet on a regular basis and is paper trained and clean too! Im not getting her lisensed. KMA
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
FairGo
The council is going to grab at anything to try to raise revenue for BLythe, dispite what hardship they hit the residents with. I agree with these other posts, are you ridiculously crazy?
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
Ridiculous
Are u serious about licensing cats??? Hasn't anyone ever heard the saying "no body owns cats"? If u really think you are going to enforce something like this - you are crazier than we've ever given you credit for. Do you really expect the citizen's of blythe to believe this will be effective? What are we going to have a "cat" officer who hunts down cat owners? Please. Bush is right - get the job right the 1st time and be done with it - licensing mandates have never worked, just a waste of paperwork and time; but the chips would force people to be held accountable for their dogs. Aren't there other more important things for this council to be doing? Use your imagination spend that money to fill in the holes in the roads.
Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010
Article comment by:
No name provided
That is crazy to raise the fee to $50 from $20. What happeneded to a slow rise in cost so that it doesn't seem like a big deal? This is ridiculous. What is this town coming to? All of these new rules, fees and increases are too much and this council needs to get a frickin grip! And Covel doesn't have a problem! At least Contreras suggested incremental increases. Sounds like he was the smartest one at this meeting. You guys are really going to get people to obey the law now!!!!
Copyright 2010 Western News&Info, Inc.® Palo Verde Valley Times is the information source for Blythe, California, Quartzsite, Arizona and surrounding area communities. Original content may not be reprinted or distributed without the written permission of Western News&Info, Inc.® Palo Verde Valley Times Online is a service of WNI. By using the site, you agree to abide and be bound by the site's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which prohibit commercial use of any information on the site. Click Here to email your questions or comments to the Webmaster. Palo Verde Valley Times Online is a proud publication of Western News&Info Inc.® All Rights Reserved.
