Collegedale interviews three finalists for city manager; commission may vote Monday

The Collegedale City Commission interviewed three finalists for the city manager post at a special meeting on Nov. 20, pressing each candidate on management style, personnel decisions, budgeting and community engagement as the commission said it may vote at a special called meeting Monday.

Tim, one of the finalists, told commissioners he was drawn to Collegedale’s small‑town community feel amid regional growth and described a servant‑leadership style that emphasizes clear expectations and empowering staff. “Collegedale seems to be a very, special community,” Tim said, adding that he had overseen roughly 30 direct reports in a prior department and helped coordinate citywide programs serving thousands of employees. He described using concentrated cross‑department “hackathon” sessions to prototype solutions and said his largest departmental budget responsibility was about $3,000,000.

A second finalist (identified only in the record as the candidate speaking in the middle set of interviews) said the role felt like a natural fit after recent public‑service work and a sabbatical. That candidate described a “people first” approach to management, using a two‑step process for personnel problems — design meetings with subject‑matter experts followed by tactical implementation — and said they had been responsible for roughly 180 employees in a prior post. They also described holding town‑hall meetings and other engagement steps when proposing unpopular internal reforms.

John, the third finalist, said Collegedale appealed because of its scale and community attributes, including its college campus, parks and proximity to regional growth. He described a “first among equals” management approach, prioritizing listening to department heads and building collaborative personnel policies. In prior roles John said he worked with as many as a few hundred employees across departments and at times supported large municipal budgets and multi‑year capital planning.

Commissioners asked each finalist how they handle difficult personnel choices, sustain improvements such as faster hiring, and translate strategic plans into measurable near‑term actions. Candidates repeatedly returned to the themes of transparent communication with the public and the commission, setting clear expectations for staff, and ensuring that budget documents reflect policy priorities.

Staff told the commission that if the body wishes to make a selection Monday it should give direction about negotiations and use the city attorney for any contract work. The commission made a motion to adjourn at the end of the session and closed the special meeting. Staff said candidates would be contacted Tuesday with next steps or decisions.

The commission did not record a final selection in this meeting; members indicated a vote could occur at the special meeting Monday.