Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Branson aldermen postpone vote on proposed 2026 water and sewer rate increases after heated debate
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing and council debate over a proposed 2026 water and sewer rate package that would raise many residential and commercial bills, the Board of Aldermen voted 5-0 to postpone final action so staff can supply prioritized project detail and recalculations.
The Branson Board of Aldermen postponed consideration of ordinance bill 6,599 — a proposed amendment to Appendix A of the Branson Municipal Code that would adjust water and sewer rates — after an extended public hearing on Sept. 23.
Staff presentations and supporting slides outlined drivers for the change, including higher operating costs (electricity and chemicals), backlog of capital projects, and limits to tourism-fund support. Kendall Powell, the utilities director, said the package as modeled would raise residential water roughly 20% (about $4.42 monthly for a 5,000-gallon user) and residential sewer about 15% (about $3), generating an estimated $1.1 million in extra water revenue and roughly $1.2 million in sewer revenue for 2026.
The proposal prompted sharp questions from aldermen and members of the public over two central points: whether the city should spread the first-year increase primarily to commercial customers rather than residents, and how conservatively staff had modeled tourism-tax and other revenue assumptions. Alderman Marshall proposed an amendment to limit residential increases to 5% in 2026 and shift the remainder of the revenue burden to commercial customers (Kendall provided an immediate model example showing water at 5% residential / 25% commercial and sewer at 5% residential / 20% commercial). Several aldermen and speakers said the change felt abrupt to residents already facing rising electric bills.
Public commenters and Finance Committee members urged clearer documentation. Alex Williams and Jeff Reynolds, business representatives, stressed developer and business impacts; Representative Seitz and others asked staff for a prioritized list showing which capital projects would be cut if the increase did not pass. Powell said the model intentionally used conservative tourism-revenue projections and included an anticipated Liberty Utilities electric cost increase in operating assumptions.
After discussion, the board voted 5-0 to postpone the item to the next regular meeting and directed staff to provide a prioritized project list and revised revenue allocations so aldermen can consider alternative distributions of the required revenue.
The public hearing is closed; the item will return for further deliberation and a final vote after staff delivers the requested detail.
