Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
County contractors and commissioners debate role of Public Building Authority after steering committee hearing
Loading...
Summary
PBA chair said volunteer oversight saved Rutherford County millions, while some commissioners cautioned PBA review can slow large projects and add costs; committee discussed involving PBA in upcoming jail project but made no binding change.
Members of Rutherford County's steering committee spent a lengthy portion of the meeting on the role of the Public Building Authority (PBA), weighing its potential to produce savings and improve project outcomes against concerns that PBA review can slow large, time-sensitive projects.
Gary, identified in the discussion as the PBA chair, described the PBA as a volunteer oversight body that examines county construction projects and argued it returns more value than it costs. He cited the firm's legal fee of $5,274 for oversight on projects and said one project with an original value of about $8.2 million returned roughly $537,000 under PBA oversight. "Last year alone with our projects, we returned back to Rutherford County citizens over $2,000,000," he said, urging broader use of the PBA on the front end of projects to avoid costly change orders.
Other commissioners and participants raised contrary concerns: some said they had heard that projects run faster and are more cost-effective when a specialized engineering firm or project manager is used instead of bringing items to a monthly volunteer board that meets less frequently. One commissioner warned that PBA review "could slow the process down by weeks or even months" on large projects where timing is critical and recommended careful vetting for projects with significant state involvement.
The committee discussed the upcoming jail project specifically; several speakers said the PBA should be considered to provide oversight, but there was no vote to require PBA involvement. Commissioners requested that staff and the mayor's office clarify the PBA's role and whether state oversight or project managers would supersede its authority on particular projects before formalizing uses for the authority.
The session included exchanges about whether the PBA should be used on school projects (members noted legal limits) and whether the county should instead pay for a full-time project manager. Supporters pointed to past instances where PBA involvement identified avoidable change orders and returned savings to the county treasury.
There was no formal committee action to change PBA authority; the discussion was recorded for follow-up as staff compiles recommendations for when and how the PBA should be used.
