Savings track set for rural water expansion projects
Turkey Creek, Highway 82, County Line projects’ cost to be captured outside regular operating budget
9:29 a.m. May 13, 2026
DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor
The Metro Utility Department board voted Tuesday to pay for three planned water line expansion projects – Turkey Creek, Highway 82, and County Line Road – from department savings and track the costs separately from MUD’s regular operating budget.
The vote does not set a final construction price or start date. It does something more basic but still important: it creates a separate financial lane for projects that could eventually bring public water service to rural homes where access has been limited or unavailable.
The decision is the latest step in a service-expansion discussion that has been building for months, especially for rural residents who have asked the utility for access to public water where private wells and limited infrastructure remain part of daily life.
In July 2025, a group of Turkey Creek Loop residents appeared before the MUD board and asked whether there was “any way, shape, form, or fashion” to get city water extended through the area. Tracy Rose, who lives on Turkey Creek Loop, told board members at least three homes along the stretch had no access to public water, with others potentially interested in service.
Board members acknowledged at the time that the Turkey Creek work would be expensive. Earlier estimates placed the cost in the tens of thousands of dollars per customer. The rural terrain adds another wrinkle: how to avoid crossing a nearby bridge, which could bring more permitting, more delay, and more cost.
The same service-expansion question soon widened to Highway 82 and County Line Road.
In October, the board discussed whether small booster pumps could help serve homes along Highway 82 and Anderson Road. The setup was modeled after a system used in Bedford County. At the time, officials discussed two smaller booster pumps costing roughly $75,000 each, a less expensive alternative than a larger pump station.
By November, engineer Bryant Griffin had presented preliminary figures for two pump stations – one on Highway 82 and one along County Line Road. Each would use a five-horsepower pump capable of moving 50 gallons per minute, enough to serve 25 homes under current Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation guidelines. The pump stations were estimated at roughly $100,000 each, not including the water pipe.
The design would also leave room for growth. If demand increases, officials said the system could handle larger 10- or 15-horsepower pumps without major structural changes.
By December, the board had also put a customer-cost structure in place for the Highway 82 extension. That Highway 82 plan allows up to 25 taps, each carrying a $1,500 surcharge on top of the regular tap fee.
Under that structure, a standard three-quarter-inch tap would cost $3,000, while a one-inch tap would cost $4,000. Customers could also pay the $1,500 surcharge up front to reserve taps for future use, even if meters are not installed immediately.
Tuesday’s vote focused less on engineering and more on how to pay for the work without muddying MUD’s operating budget.
Board member Glen Thomas raised the issue near the end of the budget discussion, saying the board had never formally settled how the Turkey Creek, Highway 82, and County Line Road projects would be funded. He was advised that MUD could pay for the projects from savings and track the spending on a separate spreadsheet.
That spreadsheet would include engineering, supplies, assessments, and other project costs, while labor would remain in the regular labor budget.
Board Chair Barry Posluszny asked whether the spreadsheet should also include what residents are expected to pay through assessment fees. Thomas said it should, so the department can show the full cost of the work and where the money came from.
Thomas then made the motion to track the costs of the Highway 82, County Line Road, and Turkey Creek projects in a spreadsheet and pay them from savings. Darrel Richards seconded it. Posluszny, Richards, Thomas, and Charles Johnston voted yes. Board member Greg Guinn was absent.
Thomas said separating the costs matters because a prior budget showed $275,000 in engineering charges tied to the expansion work, making the operating budget look heavier on paper. Tracking the projects separately, he said, will give the board a clearer picture of their actual costs without burying one-time capital spending in day-to-day operations.
The work is not expected to happen quickly. Utility Manager Ronnie Cunningham said the department still needs engineering drawings and is also working through water leaks. Asked whether the projects would be finished this year, Cunningham said no. The full timeline could be close to a year and a half.
For residents along Turkey Creek Loop, Highway 82, and County Line Road, Tuesday’s vote does not put more pipe in the ground yet.
But after months of discussion about need, terrain, pump stations, easements, tap fees, and customer surcharges, the board has now created the first real financial framework for getting water service to those areas.