Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-29 Council Minutes - Work SessionKENAI CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF MARCH 29, 1993 KENAI COMMUNITY LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM 7:00 P.M. The work session began at approximately 7:05 p.m. in the Kenai Community Library Conference Room. Council present were Williams, Smalley, Monfor, Bookey, Swarner, and Measles. Councilman McComsey was absent. Staff present were Freas, Howard, and Graves. There wars no one present from the public. Williams began by suggesting the Council review the names he had chosen from the remaining 53 applicants. Williams added that if anyone had other names that they wished to discuss, they would be reviewed. Council objected and decided to review the complete list of the 53 applicants. Measles suggested that the list be reviewed, name by name, and if councilmembers thought them worthy of staying on the list, they would remain. If council felt they should be removed, they would be removed. If there was need of discussion, the applicant would be discussed at that time. 1. Adams - In 2. Bechtel - In 3. Bishop - Out 4. Bixby - In 5. Booth - out 6. Chinault - In 7. DeMarie - Out 8. Dhein - out 9. Gardner - In 10. Garr - Out 11. Gasaway - Out 12. Golnar - Out 13. Gramentz - Out 14. Granfield - Out 15. Graper - In 16. Griest - In 17. Gruber - Out 18. Hahn - Out 19. Herlofsky - In 20. Herman - In 21. Herriman - Out 22. Jensen - Out Measles suggested to take more time with each and discuss each as they are reviewed. Measles added to discuss why they are cutting them from the list. • WORK SESSION NOTES MARCH 29, 1993 PAGE 2 Bishop - Williams stated he graded this applicant extremely low. The applicant wanted confidentiality and was a manager in a village for only two years. Booth - Williams stated he graded him with 15 points. Swarner stated she did not like the cover letter. Another comment was that the applicant did not have enough experience. Chinault - Some graded high, some low. DeMarie - Williams stated the applicant had one degree. Monfor stated the applicant did not have enough experience. The applicant was low in community interest. Dhein - No experience. Garr - No knowledge of Alaska. The resume was difficult to read. Gasaway - Most of experience is in planning. Golnar - Not enough experience. Graments - Lacked details. Williams stated he would like to see more information on this applicant. Williams added the applicant did not make high enough of a grade. Granfield - The applicant's work dates did not match. Not enough experience. Gruber - No college. Listed degrees but not from where they were received. The applicant did not say when he was the administrator. The applicant had airport experience. Hahn - An attorney. Smalley stated he was impressed of how much the applicant had done by the age of 36. Kerriman - Not on the final list. Jensen - An attorney. Swarner stated she had the applicant on her list for further review. The applicant is working in a small town. Swarner was curious as to why the applicant would move from a big town to a little one. The applicant does not state what work his is in now. No community interest or economic development. WORK SESSION NOTES MARCH 29, 1993 PAGE 3 been in his Jilk - Worked in mostly small communities. Has Has. Williams stated present position for a long time -- very the applicant did not have much legislative xradeencehim w Some a 3 information on community interest.Williams added he could give one more th on economic development. point for graduating with honors. Macdonald - No. Manninen - Remaip on the list. MoDuffie - Ten years as city manager in California. Monfo& stated the applicant worked in that has P orto ParksRecreation Department and a Sewer Treatment Plant. Willia s stated he did not feel the applicant wouldb Kenai as the area where the applicant comes from is very expensive, up -scale place. Removed. Nelson - City manager for one year. The application was familiar to Councilman Measles. Williams added that things did not match up -- the applicant was a CEO and a management consultant at the same time. Removed. Oedekoven - Removed. Pefferman - Swarner stated the applicant states he has been in ested Alaska seven years, but she counted tolschool and not wsix. it was orking. the applicant could have been going Remains. Powers - Removed. Rainey - The applicant is knowledgeable of hand guns. A real short -timer. Holes in the years. Remove d. Randall - Removed. Rogers - Removed. Romig - No municipal experience. city manager. Removed. Doubling as a consultant and Rose - Removed. eRudd - Remains. Liked the information sent. Has been at places at good times. Stable person. No holes. . WORK SESSION NOTES MARCH 291 1993 PAGE 4 Sanders - All of city manager time done as a consultant. The applicant difficult to read. Should have done a better job. ReMoVe. Bohaelermeyer - Remain. Meets all the qualifications. Smalley stated he looked at the information without looking at the name. ehimun - Remove. Smith - Remove. St.Cyr - Remove Too many things. Tungate - Is a superintendent. Budget and financial person. Remove. Vernon - Is an attorney. Experience in law and budget. g Question about dates. Mostly law. Has done lots of things in community. Good in economic development. Williams stated he scored him high but he would remove the applicant if council wished. Williams added he gave him a lot of points for tenacity. Remove. Wansley - Remove. R.L. Weaver - Remove. Mostly planning experience. R.B. Weaver - Remove. Weiler - Remove. The applicant did not state where he was city manager or assistant city manager. Weitzel - Remain. All -America City person. Graduated from the University of Colorado in Boulder. Short time - climbing from job to job. Wellman - Remove. Not enough experience. Widow - Remain. Six jobs with one year or less. Measles stated the applicant worked in fairly small remote areas. Wilson - No management, just assistant manger. Sent three pages of what a city manager should be doing. Remove. Witt Remove. C WORK SESSION NOTES MARCH 29, 1993 PAGE 5 Senor - Remain. Sixteen applicants remained. Williams asked if there were any applicants removed that a councilmember thought should remain. If so, discuss at this time. Smalley stated he liked McDuffie (#26). Smalley added though the applicant comes from an affluent community, he doesn't think it's a distraction to his experience. Swarner stated she agreed to a point. Swarner added it depends on what kind of community he is coming from. Monfor stated the applicant did not state why he wants to come to this community. Monfor added she liked the part that he has experience with airports, water and sewer, etc. Swarner added that the applicant no longer works in municipal government. The applicant now works for a 53 county farm bureau. Williams asked if thew were objections to placing McDuffie back in the list. Monfor stated she did not have an opinion. Swarner stated she did not feel strongly enough to put the applicant back on the list. Hookey suggested that if the applicant was not felt that strongly about, why put him back in the list just to remove him later. Smalley stated the applicant would not be in his top five. Williams asked for a show of hands whether to put McDuffie back on the list. No hands for putting him back. Williams asked council if they all felt confident with the 16 applicants. Answer was yes. Williams asked how many applicants council wished to have after the final cut. Monfor stated three to five. Smalley stated the scoring system will pull the number down for them. Williams asked if council wished to use the scoring system to review the remaining 16 applicants. Smalley stated the scoring should be kept now. Williams asked if council wished to review each applicant collectively for each score or individually. Monfor and Smalley stated they wanted to review the applicants by themselves. Monfor was concerned if they discuss the applicants collectively, they will not have the criteria to make the final selection. iWORK SESSION NOTES MARCH 29, 1993 PAGE 6 Williams suggested they now go to a Rubik's system, i.e. review each candidate and score that applicant individually on the merits (0-5 point basis). No comparison would be made to the other applicants. When done, they look at the top scores. What one council person gives for a 25, someone else may give a ten. Williams suggested they do the review as a group. When they make a final cut, they will be down to five applicants and they will all be agreed they are the five finalists. Williams asked for other suggestions. Monfor suggested that some who have been cut should be re- evaluated. Smalley suggested they do one more individual scoring. Williams suggested they score one or two and see how it goes. No. 1 - Bruce Adams - 6 Experience = (514,303) Degrees - did not say pts. average score, 3 pts. from where he received the degrees - 2 Related fields - (313,3,4,4,4) Knowledge of Alaska - 0 Legislative - Monfor stated she political. Measles stated the whole information. (0,4,312) average -- 2. Community Interest - (2,3,4,2) Ec. Development - (3,4,2.58302) TOTAL - 15.6 average, 3 pts.- was looking at it as resume has unexplained average 3 pts. average, 2.6 Monfor stated she did not like reviewing the applicants in this way. Monfor added she would be more comfortable going through them individual and score. Smalley stated they will have to thrash the applications out after they get down to three to six applicants. Smalley stated he agreed with Monfor. There is duplicity. Williams stated that if needed, they can bring an applicant back to the table and review again. Swarner stated that some of the applicants are better than others. Is it good to compare the list now? Williams stated he did not think they should be compared at this time. Smalley and Measles agreed. Monfor stated she would be gone next week and asked Measles his opinion as he has done hiring. No. 2 - "Vern" Bechtel - Experience - Monfor stated the applicant has a lot of experience. (5,5,5) average 5 pts. 0 WORK SESSION NOTES MARCH 29, 1993 PAGE 7 Degrees - (4,3,5) Monfor stated they were no grading this the same. Monfor stated the applicant has a Master's degree in exactly what the council is looking for and a B.S. in Business Administration. Monfor stated the applicant should receive a 5. The applicant has all the experience in related fields. Measles stated the applicant did not state from where the degrees were received. 5 pts. Related Fields - (3,3,4,3,3) average, 3 pts. Knowledge of AK - 0 Legislative - 0 Community Interests - (3,1,2) average 1 Ec. Development - 0 TOTAL SCORE - 14 No. 4 - William D. Bixby - Experience - 9 years, 2 pts. Degrees - B.S. in management and course work, 1 pt. Related fields - 1 pt. for parks Knowledge of AK - 0 Legislative - In California, last paragraph. 1 pt. Community - 2 pts. Ec. Development - 1 pt. TOTAL SCORE - S No. 6 - Christopher A. Chinault - Experience - 13 years, 2 jobs - 5 pts. Degrees - B.S. in education - 1 pt. Related Fields - Monfor suggested 2 pts. - 2.2 pts. Knowledge of AK - 0 Legislative - 1 pt. Community Interest - Pretty active - 3 pts. Ec. Development - library, jail - 3 pts. TOTAL SCORE - 15.2 No. 9 - Peter T. Gardner - Experience - Small communities - 12 years - 5 pts. Degrees - 4.5 pts. Related Fields - 1 pt. Knowledge of AK - 0 Legislative - 0 Community Interests - 0 Ec. Development - 0 TOTAL SCORE - 10.5 • WORK SESSION NOTES MARCH 29, 1993 PAGE 8 No. is - Henry $. draper - Experience - 20 years - 5 pts. Degrees - 3 pts. Related Fields - 4.5 pts. Knowledge of AK - 3 pts. Legislative - Applicant states legislative - average, 2.7 pts. Community Interests - 2.7 pts. Ec. Development - 4 pts. TOTAL SCORE - 24.9 legislation committee - is No. 16 - Ray Grieet - Experience - 3 pts. Discussion followed. Council decided to.remove this applicant due to lack of experience. No. 19 - Peter J. Herlofsky - Experience - 5 pts. Degree - 5 pts. Related Fields - 3.4 pts. Knowledge of AK - 0 Legislative - 1 Community Interests - 0 Ec. Development - (3,3,30,2120,2) TOTAL SCORE - 16.9 No. 20 - William 1. Herman - Experience - 1 pt. Degrees - 5 pts. Related Fields - 3 pts. Knowledge of AK - 0 Legislative - 0 Community Interests - 0 Ec. Development - 4 TOTAL SCORE - 13 After a short break, Council meet again on Thursday, April Chambers of Kenai City Hall. average, 1.5 decided to break for the evening and 11 1993 at 7:45 p.m. in the Council At the April 1 work session, Council is hoping the number will be out to five. At that point, Administrative Assistant Howard is to contact the remaining five by phone.to find out if they are still interested in the position. Reject letters are to be sent • wonx sEsssox xarEs MARCH 29 j 1993 PAGE 9 out to those' not making the final out after knowing whether the five are still interested. if some are not interested, their names will be replaced from the list of 15 finalists. Williams requested that Freas bring new scoring sheets for council's use at the work session. The work session ended at approximately 9:20 p.m.