At a special called meeting of the Crossville City Council, officials focused significant attention on matters surrounding an upcoming referendum on the potential transfer of the city’s water assets.

During public comment, resident Randall Kidwell highlighted broader statewide challenges with municipal water systems. He described the situation in Columbia, Tennessee, where the city is seeking to expand capacity by moving its water intake further down the Duck River and upgrading treatment facilities amid operation near 92–93% capacity. Kidwell noted that despite approvals from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and support from a Duck River committee, requests for financing through the State Revolving Fund and related sources have been deferred multiple times by the Tennessee Local Development Authority. He framed the delays as part of a larger pattern of regionalism that he said leaves cities “held hostage” and urged Crossville leaders to take note of similar dynamics.

Under other business, the council took up discussion of the water assets transfer referendum. One council member proposed that, if the referendum passes and grants the council authority to transfer assets, no action should occur until after three publicly posted hearings allowing community input and exchange of information. The member stressed the referendum’s wording does not directly ask voters whether the city should join a water authority but instead seeks permission for the council to transfer assets if it deems the move appropriate.

Discussion clarified that a majority “no” vote against granting transfer authority would end the matter with no further council action required. Concerns focused on the scenario in which the referendum succeeds and decision-making rests with the council. Legal advice indicated that current members cannot bind a future council—new members are expected to be sworn in around December 5—through a resolution requiring hearings. Similar past actions, such as a temporary pause on dam-related matters, were described as advisory only.

The proposing member withdrew the motion after this clarification and indicated the issue of public hearings could be raised again after the new council is seated. No formal action was taken on the water assets item beyond the discussion.

The referendum’s outcome and any subsequent council decisions remain pending as the vote approaches.