SF City Council

Former Pizza Maker & Parks Board Member gets nod for new IT Director for city

Not since Paul appointed that FB cusser, TJ Nelson, as his deputy COS has he made a flub in an important appointment. Today that changed;

Mayor Paul TenHaken today announced the appointment of Jason Reisdorfer to the new position of Director of Innovation and Technology.

Where to begin with Jason? When he was appointed to the Parks Board, we decided to check his voting record. While he was registered to vote, he seemed skip the important part of that registration by voting. In anything.

You may also remember Jason’s very public attacks on FB towards councilor Stehly for trying to convert the Parks Board into districts and get their meetings video recorded. I guess I am not real keen on Jason’s disdain for government transparency and fairness when he will be running our secure data for the city.

But let’s move on to his stellar resume;

In 2012, Jason sold his restaurant business to go work with his long-time friend Eric Weisser.

I guess I am puzzled what business he sold? Or was it more like a liquidation? As I understand it the business he is referring to is a very successful pizza chain in the region that is still alive and well. I think Jason had a small ownership in a branch of the business that has since closed in Harrisburg.

Together, they built Weisser Distributing into one of the fastest growing companies in South Dakota. They recently earned their fourth consecutive selection to the Inc. 5000 list of fastest growing private companies in the United States. As the Director of Operations, Jason led Weisser Distributing’s growth from four employees and $1 million in sales to over 130 employees with warehouses in three cities and are on pace to record over $65 million sales in 2018.

So this part of his resume actually has me asking more questions than anything. If he was just an employee that helped build the business this much, why would they let him go? If he had actual ownership in the business, why isn’t he staying? Did he sell his part? Or will he still have ownership and involvement while working for the city? Is that a conflict? I don’t know.

Also, I find it curious that he wants to work for the city of Sioux Falls when this company decided to move to Tea, SD to grow and not stay in Sioux Falls. How can you have pride in working for Sioux Falls when you decided to grow your business in Tea?

There is a lot of questions the city council needs to ask before approving this appointment.

UPDATE: Sioux Falls City Council Meeting Agendas, Sep 11, 2018

City Council Working Session • 2 PM

They will be discussion unobligated funds and amendments.

There are some interesting proposals in the unobligated funds;

• A NEW Batallion Chief for ALS and EMS. It will be interesting to see what proposal the Mayor’s office has with public ambulances.

• SWAT armor for bomb techs. One city councilor asked me, “Don’t they have this already?” I would hope so.

• A new Full-Time Bike Trail Service worker. While this isn’t unusual in itself, at $64K a year, where do I apply for this job?

• A ‘community branding’ expenditure of $25,000. Not sure who they are giving this to and what for? I would think that the CVB would have this in their budget already with the BID Tax.

City Council Informational Meeting • 4 PM

They will be approving the CVB yearly budget and getting a presentation about the early renewal of the Paramedics Plus contract. Hopefully we will have more details about the Mayor’s proposal on EMS.

City Council Public Services Meeting • Around 5 PM (After Informational meeting)

They will get a presentation on updating the Landfill ordinances.

Councilors Neitzert and Erickson are also proposing new ‘community standards’ for outdoor natural gas fire pits at commercial/retail/public/hospitality locations. Apparently they met back in May with city officials to discuss it. Who knew?

City Council Regular Meeting • 7 PM

Item #1, Approval of Contracts. Another EXTRA $56K towards the DT Parking Ramp boondoggle.

Item #3, Approving a Parks and Rec consultant at $200K. I do know that some of the councilors are dissenting on this, so I am not sure if this will pass or not.

(FF: 1:31 to hear me discuss the parks study)

Item#4, 1st Reading. A 2.1% property tax increase by the city. This has never failed to pass by the council for a very long time. I would expect they have the votes to pass this on 2nd reading, but I would also guess there will be some dissenters. So much for the $2 a month tax increase? Right?

Item#5-7, 1st readings, ordinances dealing with Ash trees that are needed. I feel there will be 100% support on these items.

Item#9, Resolution to certify the City Council supports stopping demolition of historic homes. I still don’t know all the details on this and why they are voting on this again, I thought it was a done deal. I was told this was only to ‘certify’ the vote and decision already made by the city council, which I find odd. It will be interesting to see what kind of testimony comes from this and if this is some kind of trick to reverse the decision. Seriously, I am clueless on this one.

Item #10, Resolution adopting 2019 Budget and Capital Budget. I believe this is when the city council will debate the budget and amendments. I have NO idea what those amendments will be, but they will be revealed at the working session earlier in the afternoon. When Dr. Staggers was on the city council he propose several amendments. I miss those days 🙂

Item #11, Resolution approving the DT special assessment role. Not sure if any businesses will dissent paying this extra tax that helps to fund DTSF, but has been some in past years.

Item #13, A resolution approving the BID Tax budget for the CVB.

Item #14, A resolution asking for grant assistance from the state to help with the Emerald Ash Borer and equipment that needs to be purchased to remove trees.

Items #16-17, resolutions, An alley way and street vacation. I don’t know much about these items, I guess I will wait to see the presentations.

Charter Revision Meeting, 4 PM Wednesday, Sep 12

They will be discussing the mayor’s salary. I find it interesting that the Sioux Falls mayor is one of the highest paid in the region, even with much larger cities. Madison, WI and St. Paul, MN only pay more. Sioux Falls mayor makes $124K full time, Des Moines mayor only makes $52K, Lincoln, $80K and Omaha, $102K. These are all full-time positions. I’m wondering if Des Moines pay is so low because they may have a city administrator?

UPDATE: Is Paramedics Plus looking to renew 5 year contract early?

UPDATE: Please tell me that the TenHaken administration is looking at public ambulances;

It’s unclear if Mayor Paul TenHaken’s administration intends to support REMSA’s recommendation, though T.J. Nelson, deputy chief of staff in the mayor’s office, said TenHaken and the city health department will bring a recommendation of their own next month.

“We’re still formalizing what our recommendation will be,” he said.

Paramedics Plus executives could not be reached for comment.

Ultimately, the decision about extending Paramedics Plus’ contract lies with the City Council, which has members who have been critical of service in Sioux Falls.

I have heard from within the SFFD that many of the higher ups support a public ambulance service, and have for years, but have gotten resistance from the former mayor and chief. Maybe this will create a golden opportunity for TenHaken to achieve that goal. Maybe taxpayers will actually get something back from providing the service instead of just subsidizing a private service.

Rumor has it that the Sioux Falls city council was recently informed by the Health Department that PP was looking to renew their 5 year contract early. It isn’t scheduled to expire for another 2 years(?).

I find it a little suspicious with all the talk about public ambulance service and the SFFD training in ALS (Advanced Life Support) that PP is looking to renew 2 years early.

Could they be concerned the city may change it’s service to another company or better yet public ambulances within 2 years? The city could certainly fast-track and have a public ambulance service available within two years.

It will be interesting to see what the reasoning is behind the early renewal and if the city will allow it.