[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6616938,"mediaKeyId","2847292-521d9dc91131e14e8649ae6e408cc398","parentId",2847292,"title","Crossville work session: standing‑rules changes, grants, contracts and other items moved toward consent","audioSeconds",397,"startMs",1448000,"endMs",1845000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2847292-521d9dc91131e14e8649ae6e408cc398&start=1448&end=1845","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2847292-521d9dc91131e14e8649ae6e408cc398/thumbnail_1448000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6616938/Crossville/Cumberland-County/Tennessee/Crossville-work-session-standingrules-changes-grants-contracts-and-other-items-moved-toward-consent","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616938-b03ac8469006b3479d10072aaad78bef/orig.mp4?Expires=1776704860&Signature=JsdqK7jsnQyc5zyRW3rrKl3tm4e2jFbpGsd-83SOreFO1CWfrG924Vd~zJoBGxH8KJ6r8dixi0kucvEiKi6nBx3O8bNRZUg5P84TlCDe1UfA9mMk3sL0Nm-nHxQzkFToXAsp~xlEGYVj8SNXHfJdL~sK9iALmjczrXVjS2n2qkMdBfXsVFdOY1mC71TxsRk8gdqhG3WdBj2stUYx4JCBEK1k6UzJhJDy1aZIag4kSPck~LsACa0ZtE7f3KVhIWhgsT3ff2DHyrz0AkbVu7TV05lqCkTTPfrfB8ieXMM-CibKW2BzAR5ieGYTdQN7kKOqcl7Ptj~fhE4xSE0rq-pc6A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Crossville","date","2025-04-01T00:00:00Z","article","At its April 1 work session, the Crossville City Council directed staff to place multiple routine, contract and grant items on next week’s consent agenda.

Key items moved toward consent included:
- Authorization to continue negotiating with an attorney respondent to an RFQ for review of a contract with Crab Orchard Utility District (staff said Joe Wyatt was the sole respondent; staff noted his submission missed the advertised deadline because of a court commitment and recommended continuing negotiations).
- A standing‑rules clarification: staff proposed clarifying executive‑session procedures so that the city attorney provides information to council in executive session (not to be used for deliberative decision‑making) and adding a requirement that any item agreed in work session to move to full council must appear on the following council meeting agenda for consideration.
- Pedestrian bridge for the Greenway project: a low bid of $75,900 was reported; staff said the county received a $50,000 grant reimbursement and the remainder would come from grant funds tied to the Greenway program.
- TDOT contract approval to relocate water and sewer utilities along State Route 70 (North/State Route 24) ahead of a bridge project; staff said the project will be bid out in May pending documentation and recommended approval of the TDOT contract.
- Brownfield redevelopment grant application to remove underground fuel tanks near Social Brew; staff said one tank in TDOT right‑of‑way is slated for TDOT removal and two remaining tanks are city responsibility, so staff asked council to approve applying for a cleanup grant through the Upper Cumberland Development District.
- Main Street program resolution and other grant resolutions (Project Diabetes, Healthy Built Environment) needed for applications to downtown and park improvement grants.
- An ordinance amendment aligning local weeds and grass enforcement with state law (Tennessee Code Annotated), clarifying that enforcement authority reads “city manager or their designee,” and shortening some compliance timelines to match state statute as presented by staff.
- Administrative and event items: temporary street closing approvals for Duongame (Oct. 25) and Friday evening street closures tied to DCI and business requests; appointment authority during a temporary city manager absence (staff said a submitted letter nominates Nathan Klaus as acting in the city manager’s absence and council agreed to add that item to consent); release of a financial guarantee for East Ridge Drive (planning commission recommendation); annexation and resolution items (Palmetto Drive; other small annexation requests); and several miscellaneous event/temporary street closures supporting downtown programming.

Staff recommended placing the items on the consent agenda and returning contracts and draft resolutions for formal approval at the council meeting. No final votes were taken on these items at the April 1 work session; council members asked for draft documents and additional clarification before consent‑agenda approval.

Ending: Staff will return draft contracts, resolution language and detailed budget attachments for the items above at the next regular meeting for formal action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Crossville - Work Session - Apr 01, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At its April 1 work session, the Crossville City Council directed staff to place multiple routine, contract and grant items on next week’s consent agenda.","taxTitle","Crossville, Cumberland County, Tennessee","taxId",71189,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6616942,"City to propose selling Snodgrass building and amphitheater back to county; council to consider leasing and paving new public parking lot",420,1940000,2360000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2847292-521d9dc91131e14e8649ae6e408cc398&start=1940&end=2360","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2847292-521d9dc91131e14e8649ae6e408cc398/thumbnail_1940000.jpg","/articles/6616942/Crossville/Cumberland-County/Tennessee/City-to-propose-selling-Snodgrass-building-and-amphitheater-back-to-county-council-to-consider-leasing-and-paving-new-public-parking-lot","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616942-fa354fd3b1b0574f441b0a9bedf73b4c/orig.mp4?Expires=1776704860&Signature=PEhxDCCy82EXclHm4VcOBg7PuQWrYtOUrx6cmFTS0qVnX25vUXivP2l9B7MGiDiaSRXD3wVU9dZJj1QnXU2skhGBgX3c9sDMEZEBmrjWRf5ZSPaYDKL9nnmADHCv8~LRjqp5Ofk-MDRRc3iH5~i18IcDQdy~1EglK1k6n9clwayYU0cZVGxH5YYzM1xKx6BA9DfBc6GgbDNxTyQFnMQV15obaIlZgepB7HUM0lmkocX1KooVEBCdRTVWmj40pccKcpazk0Zuc~FQJlKKbEe8qd4eJkxM2CeA4chAOoeuQ2IyqmYq9zA4Tq5G4j0c4NOZGmqwqCpP6I9fvxBP8ZlMcA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff told the council on April 1 that the county has asked to buy back the Snodgrass building and the adjacent amphitheater and that staff recommends selling the assets for the city’s recorded investment.

Staff said the amphitheater is underused because of weather constraints but is a good venue the county wants to program more actively. Under the proposal discussed, the county would pay what the city has invested (staff said the city’s cost basis was about $51,900) and would enter an agreement with DCI to continue programming or to coordinate events. City staff said routine maintenance and incidental costs have been minimal and that the county already performs some maintenance and programming.

Council members also reviewed a separate but related proposal to partner with a private owner who purchased a parcel behind the county building for about $250,000 and asked the city to pave and stripe the lot for an initial estimated material cost of roughly $70,000 (staff said the $70,000 cited is materials only; city crew labor and equipment would add value). The work would create roughly 29 paved public parking spaces to offset a projected loss of about 12–15 on‑street spaces tied to a sidewalk project. Staff said the parcel is already lit and that the partnership would identify a nominal lease (staff referenced a $1‑per‑year sample lease, with a 5‑ to 15‑year term under discussion) under which the city would pay paving and maintenance in exchange for public parking access.

Both items — the Snodgrass building/amphitheater sale and the leased parking lot — were moved toward the consent agenda for the council’s regular meeting; staff indicated the sale price is essentially the city’s cost and that the final lease language and term will be returned to council for approval.

Ending: Council did not finalize sale or lease documents on April 1. Staff said both items will be placed on the consent agenda next week with draft agreements for council review.","Council supported placing on the consent agenda a proposal to sell the Snodgrass building and amphitheater to the county for the city’s recorded investment and to consider a lease/paving agreement that would add about 29 parking spaces behind the county building; no final sale or lease vote occurred at the work session.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6616947,"Crossville staff previews FY 2025–26 budget, flags interest‑income and depreciation risks",199,781000,980000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2847292-521d9dc91131e14e8649ae6e408cc398&start=781&end=980","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2847292-521d9dc91131e14e8649ae6e408cc398/thumbnail_781000.jpg","/articles/6616947/Crossville/Cumberland-County/Tennessee/Crossville-staff-previews-FY-202526-budget-flags-interestincome-and-depreciation-risks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616947-95c694f2c7298d5864245260e4256afe/orig.mp4?Expires=1776704860&Signature=HyMiHDKDNZ7FUVuDwWvHsIlIlpnuG~rEy48gwPCEbxSw1NYIzQYqhehQ0iZTOxYrY1-GfBsxw6978wC8UGA8ZXWDS~ArLtC53tDdUEtJluWmqvq5h22B62kjd0TJf3zpdTipGe~5hCxPPH7MC~u514QO4fnSZbHHhGs0MzydCoyJ9ieKFQFDuVpwvdXCHcRxwu8M6pLqbMRCnDv2up~MW7QTeEY0DIkLrkD5B1Lyna8xX82G~0NpcLunvFdneM5RiPB3n83IOQ3rpjgrEZ7vlR-DCNK--aNo2EsOOFZWmu5jOfHq6Oe9QHdDh~Oz~J3rtV2CwrW-46QtZcj9hphlNQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City finance staff presented a first draft of the fiscal year 2025–26 budget at the April 1 work session, saying the city currently projects modest surpluses in the general fund and utilities but cautioned that lower interest income and increased depreciation tied to forthcoming capital projects could reduce those margins.

The presentation said the general fund was showing about $245,000 in surplus on the first pass. The water/sewer and utility budgets were both forecasted to be in surplus as well, though the water/sewer fund’s margin is smaller. Staff emphasized that interest income — which had been unusually high in recent years — has fallen and further declines would reduce net revenue. The presenter said interest income for one utility line fell from $229,000 last year to an estimated $200,000 drop this year, and staff reduced budgeted interest income conservatively in the draft.

Staff also noted increased depreciation tied to capital projects. The budget includes a new SCADA system and other infrastructure that will increase depreciation expense; staff estimated roughly $500,000 of additional depreciation next year across projects and called out about $100,000 a year in depreciation tied to a SCADA installation. Large capital projects listed in the draft included a speculative building and drive project (roughly $4.5 million), a fire‑station remodel (approximately $750,000), a new building in the Catoosa area (roughly $2 million plus grading), and several water and sewer projects pushing the capital ledger into the millions; staff said total projects across funds were “noted in the packet” and remain under refinement.

The draft keeps outside‑agency contributions at current levels pending council review; staff listed outside requests totaling about $2.5 million, led by a new item identified as a Sports Authority payment tied to the authority’s bond obligations. The draft budget also assumes a 5% cost‑of‑living adjustment (COLA) and a 2% step/merit component (described in the meeting as “STAMP”) built into department budgets.

Staff cautioned that grant receipts are treated separately and cannot be counted to cover operating expenses; the draft therefore does not count grant income to make operating balances appear healthier. The presenter urged council members to review department tabs (the budget was reorganized to provide a tab per department) and said staff will circulate complete packets for detailed review ahead of future meetings.

Ending: Staff said most funds currently show surpluses on a preliminary basis but asked council to consider capital priorities and the exposure from falling interest income. Council did not take action on the draft and asked for detailed line‑item packets and further review before final adoption.","Finance staff gave a first look at the proposed FY 2025–26 budget, showing modest general‑fund and utility surpluses but warning that falling interest income and rising depreciation for planned capital projects could erode those projections.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6616952,"Crossville Council debates city-run EMS as fire department, council weigh costs and staffing",1110,3368000,4478000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2847292-521d9dc91131e14e8649ae6e408cc398&start=3368&end=4478","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2847292-521d9dc91131e14e8649ae6e408cc398/thumbnail_3368000.jpg","/articles/6616952/Crossville/Cumberland-County/Tennessee/Crossville-Council-debates-city-run-EMS-as-fire-department-council-weigh-costs-and-staffing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616952-d26b3f1ba81ac67496f3da83c0d8b46a/orig.mp4?Expires=1776704860&Signature=j4pLaTEtl8s~pgPMVbyAON02mco3-8KdhZRgHUuBkTT~2oPdEbKxl-vZToPQ08mqPmOd19WMfsq0KkVe0e4C7EQjxBe-0MNWmSOvLsSRMh2pPOj894~PElshwpFkCkDrC02wvusppr8L14beGzJY04KBSAtESNk8LrcUYWvGWeWnRHJvpCA6OeEOlAlJSFADFDA9ZQbJ3JPf1XNHkW9iy1lceF1LcVT3YYgk4uQi2sInC9fyepGCTYdYHrIz7359LwriPjx~TpumvwRSsfnf3zUOL21ScEppjq3f2iu-PzkKsYKA1Vv~V1lAVabwSnceZkLSY-i6dxHwvEgXyq30ug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Council members and city staff spent major portion of the April 1 work session discussing whether Crossville Fire Rescue should establish an emergency medical services (EMS) transport program and take primary responsibility for patient transports inside the city.

Supporters argued that local control would shorten ambulance response and transfer delays, keep transport revenue in the city and allow Crossville to set standards and staffing for the most densely populated portion of Cumberland County. Officials discussed an aggressive start-up timeline, options to buy used or lightly used ambulances immediately and purchase new ambulances already on a vendor’s lot at below-market prices to accelerate deployment.

The proposal’s nut graph is financial and operational feasibility. Proponents described potential revenue from transport billing and other recoveries; opponents emphasized start-up and recurring personnel costs, likely need to hire additional staff and the practical limits of billing yields after Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers adjust payments. Council members and staff repeatedly requested clearer, reconciled budget forecasts before considering next steps.

City staff and fire officials outlined a multistep path for a municipal EMS program: acquire state-inspected ambulances and state ambulance service certification; secure a DEA narcotics registration for advanced life‑support units; contract with a third‑party medical-billing firm; and stage ambulances into service (initially as squads and later for public transports). Speakers said an immediate option could be to buy a late‑model used, state‑equipped ambulance for roughly $30,000–$35,000 and outfit it for service, and that a known vendor had new, fire‑spec ambulances available in several months at prices under earlier estimates.

Council discussion focused on these trade-offs. Supporters said Crossville experiences frequent ambulance shortages and long waits when county resources are deployed elsewhere, and they want the city to have authority over quantity, training standards and supervision of EMS inside city limits. Critics said the county already covers the region and warned that the city might simply “inherit” the same staffing shortages; they also questioned whether projected transport revenue would be sufficient after third‑party collections and payer adjustments.

Several operational points were raised: how many ambulances would be required for reliable 24/7 coverage (discussion ranged from two front‑line units plus backups up to three or four frontline units), where to house units before new stations are completed (options included existing station bays or a maintenance garage bay), and how staffing and overtime would be addressed. Fire leadership said cross‑training of firefighters as advanced EMTs or paramedics occurs currently; critics noted that adding transport duties will require many more certified staff and recurring personnel dollars.

No formal motion or vote was recorded on April 1. Multiple council members asked staff to gather additional financial detail, clarify assumptions about billing recovery rates, and continue conversations with county officials, the hospital and fire‑service consultants. Staff said they would return with reconciled cost and revenue models and further operational options for council consideration.

Ending: Council members did not set a firm timeline for a decision. Several asked that the city follow up with Cumberland County leadership and produce a clearer fiscal pro forma, and staff agreed to return with more detailed budget scenarios, anticipated startup costs and staffing models for a future meeting.","Council members and fire officials discussed a proposal for Crossville Fire Rescue to operate ambulance transport services, citing local control and reduced wait times; finance and staffing concerns, county relations and billing realism were raised and no formal action was taken.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6616932,"Resident asks council to waive $20 returned‑check fee after account fraud disrupted water payment",107,43000,150000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2847292-521d9dc91131e14e8649ae6e408cc398&start=43&end=150","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2847292-521d9dc91131e14e8649ae6e408cc398/thumbnail_43000.jpg","/articles/6616932/Crossville/Cumberland-County/Tennessee/Resident-asks-council-to-waive-20-returnedcheck-fee-after-account-fraud-disrupted-water-payment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616932-83e31f731bdd7c6efd1e353cca1eebdb/orig.mp4?Expires=1776704860&Signature=X2r3L1GlL9ysR5bktnbMwMeiYW1txveQZyzhcdwMpdNNCyYd5cAgBwVMHxFZZXBHEfK5hBTRIkKrO2z-cb-PwcvzZmh7Ww4BvXvYOS262mCm19V~cR7tVWXTNmDV3GcNw8tasuJLP~INwdi~7EUJy7VO7-BEDZrZzFD5gAD4Ebj7iGhTQEVhPplXPZ-8ZNgi79n46ISL9Bq4R6cQD8FAq2lMs9viz5KBBN6KWM2y8p-YjjcNkMKoBpaPqM0ABCnikaxJ7KQ1CGmXBs8zwBRNdJI7E2J2YWvkGkRpOAgczdWbshJTHNFi7ExLzyODTBVnDXWcYRwmtVXYThJcWhKOwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the start of the April 1 work session public‑comment period, resident Debbie Seaton told the council that her checking account had been compromised and she was unable to complete a replacement water payment before the city deposited the first check. She said the bank closed the compromised account after she discovered fraudulent activity and that, although she delivered a replacement check on the next business day, the city had informed her a $20 returned‑check fee would be assessed.

Seaton asked council members to waive the fee, saying she had filed a claim with her bank and provided proof. Staff answered that the city applies a standard returned‑check policy and that staff could not unilaterally waive fees without city‑manager approval. Council members asked clarifying questions about whether the original check had already been deposited (staff said the water department had received notification from the bank the morning of April 1 that the account had been closed) and whether the bank offered any help; Seaton said the bank had provided documentation and she had opened a replacement account.

City staff said the policy is applied consistently and that situations such as deaths or fraud are handled case by case on managerial review. One council member suggested staff escalate the request to the city manager and law department; staff said the law department had received notification from the bank that morning and would review the matter.

Ending: The council did not vote; staff indicated the request would be taken to the city manager and law department for consideration and potential waiver under their existing authority.","During public comment, resident Debbie Seaton asked the council to waive a $20 fee assessed when a water payment from a checking account that had been compromised was returned; staff said policy is standard but will take the request to city manager/law department for review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Crossville work session: standing‑rules changes, grants, contracts and other items moved toward consent

City to propose selling Snodgrass building and amphitheater back to county; council to consider leasing and paving new public parking lot

Crossville staff previews FY 2025–26 budget, flags interest‑income and depreciation risks

Crossville Council debates city-run EMS as fire department, council weigh costs and staffing

Resident asks council to waive $20 returned‑check fee after account fraud disrupted water payment