Branson staff propose lower, phased water and sewer increases; aldermen favor middle option

Kendall Powell, a city staff member, outlined the City of Branson’s proposed water and sewer rate plans at a board meeting, saying the city faces a substantial capital workload and needs to balance rate impacts on residents with infrastructure funding. “I appreciate your time in discussing our water sewer rates, proposals for 2026,” Powell said as he opened the presentation.

Powell reviewed rate changes dating back to 1991, summarized findings of a 2010 HDR Engineering study that identified nonregistering commercial meters and recommended a phased meter change-out, and described a 2015 study that established the current rate model. He told aldermen that a 2025 review by HDR flagged the local practice of splitting residential and commercial increases as unusual nationally and reiterated the original policy goal: transition toward funding capital replacements through rates while using tourism tax for major infrastructure.

Using a 2023–2030 capital projection, Powell said the city has pushed capital into 2026 and 2027 to hold rates lower in the near term and that some large projects — including treatment-plant and lift-station expansions — may require bonding. He illustrated two options: an “original model” with larger, front-loaded increases and a second, lower-impact option that reduces some capital in early years and spreads certain study costs.

Under Powell’s figures, the original water model would have required a roughly 20% residential water increase in 2026 (with follow-up increases in later years), producing about $1.1 million in additional rate revenue in the near term. Option 2 reduces the 2026 water increase to about 10% and lowers the additional near-term revenue to just over $500,000; Powell said Option 1 left a modeled water funding deficiency of about $1.2 million and Option 2 a deficiency just over $1.0 million. For sewer, Powell presented a proposed 15% increase in the original model and a reduced 9% increase under Option 2; he showed modeled additional revenue and projected reserve impacts under each scenario.

Powell described specific adjustments in Option 2: cutting the annual spending on a wastewater conveyance/inflow & infiltration study from $500,000 per year to $250,000 and extending that work across ten years to collect flow-meter data more slowly; reducing the estimated cost for carbon equipment at the Meadows treatment process (Powell noted a mistyped figure and said it should be $225,000 and that trial equipment is currently performing well at a much lower cost); and postponing several capital items into 2027 and later years. He cautioned that postponing capital carries risk: “Those items could fail,” he said, noting the city would be taking on the risk of deferred replacements.

Aldermen pressed staff on revenue recognition, meter accuracy and collection assumptions. Glenn asked why a six-month comparison showed water collections 24% over budget; Allison, a city staff member, explained the figures are accrual-based (billed amounts) and that billed dollars do not equal cash collected, noting adjustments such as leak adjustments and other billing corrections. On bad debt and uncollectibles, staff estimated a range “anywhere from 5–10%” depending on meter reads and prior adjustments; Powell said the city is implementing a collection program and meter change-outs to improve billing accuracy.

Powell confirmed the meter replacement program is starting: crews have received inventory and plan replacements beginning in November with base-station setups on water towers, measures he said should reduce unregistered usage and improve revenue accuracy. Aldermen and others praised staff for creating adjustment policies for large leak bills and noted those relief policies have reduced shutoff lists.

Several aldermen and the mayor expressed support for the lower-impact Option 2 as a more palatable short-term approach that remains adjustable. An alderman commented that five-year plans are not commitments but working plans subject to annual budget adjustments; the mayor suggested separating reserve accounting into a mandatory minimum (20%) and a prefunded capital balance so the public could see which dollars are committed. Powell said staff will incorporate feedback and return a formal proposal for a future Board of Aldermen vote.

The meeting concluded with staff agreeing to share slides with aldermen and to present a formal ordinance or resolution for consideration at a subsequent meeting. There were no formal rate increases adopted at this session; the board did not take a final vote on rates during the meeting.