County Report Leaves Questions Unanswered

Rutherford County Manager Steve Garrison’s 2025 year-end highlights report presents a long list of meetings, projects, and ribbon cuttings, but offers little assessment of unresolved problems facing the county as he prepares to step down from the post.

The 42-page report, released as Garrison’s resignation approaches on Feb. 3, catalogs departmental activity across county government — from public safety and elections to tourism and transit — but largely avoids discussion of outcomes, costs, delays, or continuing challenges tied to those initiatives.

While public safety agencies reported increased workloads and training milestones, the document does not address response-time benchmarks, staffing shortages, employee turnover, or long-term sustainability as call volumes rise. Emergency Medical Services logged more than 16,600 patient care records in 2025, a 5% increase over the prior year, yet the report offers no analysis of whether staffing levels, funding, or equipment are keeping pace with demand.

Similarly, the sheriff’s office and detention center are referenced primarily through approved contracts and renovation plans. The report notes authorization for a new sheriff’s office facility and detention center upgrades but omits projected costs, timelines, funding sources beyond initial approvals, or how disruptions to operations will be managed during construction — all issues typically scrutinized by taxpayers and commissioners.

Disaster recovery following Hurricane Helene is cited repeatedly, including participation in a state cash-flow loan program and anticipated reimbursements from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. However, the report does not provide a clear accounting of total storm-related costs, how much funding remains outstanding, or the potential risk to county finances if reimbursements are delayed or reduced.

Economic development updates reference proposed job creation projects and industrial grants, but do not revisit past incentives to evaluate whether promised jobs and wages materialized, nor do they quantify the county’s return on investment for previous agreements.

The report also highlights the county’s handling of opioid settlement funds and public forums, yet stops short of detailing how much money has been spent, what programs have been funded, or whether measurable reductions in overdose deaths or substance-use impacts have occurred.

In tone, the document reads more as a promotional summary than a management audit. There is no section addressing missed goals, internal disputes, budget overruns, audit findings, or policy disagreements with the Board of Commissioners — elements that could provide the public with a fuller picture of county governance during Garrison’s tenure.

As Rutherford County prepares to transition to new leadership, the absence of such analysis leaves residents and policymakers with unanswered questions: Which initiatives fell short, which costs escalated, and what structural issues will the next county manager inherit?

Those gaps, critics say, may matter more than the accomplishments listed, particularly as commissioners look ahead to setting priorities — and accountability standards — for the next chapter of county administration.