Rutherford County mayor presents five‑year capital projects list, urges near‑term decision on county administration location

Mayor Carr presented a county capital projects list and asked the Property Management Committee to treat finding a replacement or renovation for county administrative space as an immediate priority.

The list, assembled by the mayor’s office with staff input, inventories completed projects, projects under construction and proposed projects over the next five years. "This is the capital projects list from the mayor's office. Having said that, it's not exhaustive nor complete," Mayor Carr said, asking commissioners to review, “beat it up,” and return feedback.

Why it matters: The mayor said one urgent need is moving 35–40 employees now housed in the Goldstein Building because the building’s roof, elevator and HVAC systems are deteriorating. "We're sitting on the clock with this building," Carr said, adding that replacement of the HVAC system alone was estimated "probably about a million dollars." He proposed finding a proximate downtown location that could house those departments and other county functions for the next 10–20 years rather than repeatedly addressing short‑term fixes.

Most important details: The mayor’s draft groups projects by timeframe and scale. Near‑term (0–1 year) items include a county administration facility (estimated $10 million–$12 million), relocation of Goldstein functions, and replacement of equipment. Other near‑term projects listed were a La Verne convenience center ($1.5 million–$2 million) and a juvenile court expansion ($1.5 million–$2 million). Midterm items include a first‑responders administration building (estimated $3 million–$4 million) and repurposing Goldstein as a cultural arts and history space with event space upstairs (estimated $5 million–$7 million). The mayor said larger projects such as a new adult detention center are being studied and could fall in a 4–6 year horizon; early, very rough estimates discussed at the meeting ranged up to tens or hundreds of millions of dollars depending on scope.

Funding and process: Mayor Carr said his preference is to fund large projects from fund balance rather than by borrowing or raising property taxes. He proposed keeping a single, merged capital‑projects spreadsheet in the mayor’s office that would include county and school board submissions so elected bodies could compare competing needs. Several commissioners and staff backed that approach and proposed quarterly reviews and a prioritization methodology that weights factors such as statutory compliance, public safety risk and financial impact.

Related operational items: Commissioners discussed the need to align county planning and school board timelines, and to overlay municipal planning and traffic studies to better forecast when services (roads, EMS, schools) will be needed in rapidly developing areas. Commissioner Wilson and others noted large permit volumes in parts of the county and urged earlier coordination so the county would not be surprised by near‑term land purchases or infrastructure demands.

What was not decided: The committee did not take a formal vote to fund or site a new administration building. Carr characterized the presentation as a starting point for committee deliberation and asked members to review the spreadsheet and return suggested edits and priorities.

Ending: Members agreed to continue refining the list, merge school and county capital plans, and return quarterly for updates so the county can sequence projects as growth and available funding dictate.