County staff weigh taking electrical inspections from state; state inspector warns of job impacts

Rutherford County commissioners on June 2 discussed a proposal to take local electrical inspection authority back from the state’s contractual system and perform inspections through county staff if funded. Tanya Bale, the county’s building codes director, said the initiative is driven by administrative oversight concerns and that staff will not act until after the county budget process determines whether the department can train or hire inspectors.

"This is driven 100% administratively," Bale said, urging that better local oversight of electrical permitting and inspections is the goal. She also explained current limits: the power company will set a meter after a service‑release electrical inspection and staff cannot withhold a meter set solely because a final building inspection is pending.

Mike Floyd, one of two subcontracted state electrical inspectors who currently perform inspections in Rutherford County, spoke after the committee temporarily suspended rules to allow his input. Floyd described how the state contracts inspections and said the county receives only $5 per permit issued via the state system; inspectors are paid through the state’s arrangement. He warned that if Rutherford County hires full‑time inspectors, current subcontracted inspectors could lose their positions and questioned whether two full‑time inspectors would be fully utilized.

Bale said the county previously hosted issue agents and that the change is intended to capture activity the county does not currently see because contractors can obtain electrical permits directly through the state CORE website. She emphasized the department’s intent is oversight and public safety rather than a personnel decision about the current state inspectors’ performance.

No formal action was taken; Bale said the department will proceed only if the budget supports hiring or training staff and that commissioners requested continued communication and a meeting among the parties to examine oversight gaps.