Those employees deserve the extra severance. They served the public and the animals through months and months of negotiations without knowing what was going to happen. We're not talking about a year's severance either. Most of them have been in their positions for more than 10 years. It's entirely appropriate that they should have those monies. They did a great job and deserve to be rewarded for their dedication.

While I'm all for helping folks whose jobs we just privatized, did anyone actually do the math on the totality of this Pets in Need thing? It all seems to hinge on bizarrely rosy-eyed assumption (foisted by departing City Manager and Deputy) that Pets in Need will raise and simply hand over gobs of fund-raising. An amazing new building at a fraction of the public cost

Call me skeptical. When they don't raise the money, or don't hand it over, then our contingency plan kicks in. Oh wait, we don't have one. Seventeen managers, yes, but a plan, no. [Our partner knows this, to be sure.] Meanwhile, this will be one of a dozen "bumps" in the way that will result in a big check being written. When all is said and done, this will turn out as well as the decade old-debacle around the Ross Building.


And yes, I do know it's a good organization and a needed service. But I am so hopeful that we can ALSO start operating with an understanding that money doesn't arrive in wheelbarrows and the spend spend spend days won't/can't last forever. And our dear leaders making $240k/year to negotiate deals like this need to be much, much better.

I take no issue with the exception in this instance for the reasons noted above by Ms.Snow.

I also think Sally makes good points. I think we should look skeptically at anything our former CM promoted on his way out the door. He was a very expensive person to have at the helm.

In general, I appreciate that Tanaka is a hawk on finances. This time around he based his no vote on an existing Memorandum of Agreement. I think it unfortunate that he didn't apply that same logic on Monday, respect the then existing Downtown Commercial Cap, and vote to retain it.

Can someone please explain how this yet another instance of outsourcing is saving us taxpayers money? Yes, I understand that city employees will cost the city money on their health insurance if and when they retire 40 years from now. Is that really what this is about? Why does the cost of employee/retiree health insurance have to trump all other management considerations?

QUOTE: The bonus severance will cost the city about $50,023.

A 'drop in the bucket' considering the inflated salaries some city administrators make.

Will the new proprietors of the Animal Shelter still loan out animal traps as did PA Animal Services?

We have an occasional feral cat problem & the PA Animal Services have always been very helpful in lending the traps to us. Once caught, we simply call PA Animal Services back & they take the cats away.

Temporary workers? This comment by Greg Tanaka is just clueless. Some of these workers have been at the Animal Shelter for decades. Bonnie Yoffe s a great vet who at the shelter took on spay and neuter of animals that other vets couldn't do well, such as exotic pets. Other vets referred these cases to her and spoke highly of her abilities. To call someone like her a "temporary worker" is just insulting.
Thanks you, PAAS employees. You have done a great job for years.