Osage Beach Board Faces Backlash After City Starts Enforcing PRV Ordinance; Staff to Return With Options

City water staff notified the board on Jan. 16 that, under Ordinance 705.09, the city will follow the code and stop maintaining private pressure‑reducing valves (PRVs) that had been serviced as a courtesy for many customers. Public Works Operations Manager Zach Wilbur said the program shift has included loaner PRVs offered for 60 days and that, to date, 18 loaners were used with three follow‑up issues.

Wilbur provided financial context: parts‑only spending tied to PRVs totaled about $51,500 in 2023 and roughly $21,000 in 2024; in 2023 the department recorded 56 PRV‑related pressure callouts and 40 in 2024. He estimated roughly 75 percent of the city’s meter pits contain PRVs and, after a brief numerical misstatement that was corrected in discussion, clarified that the working estimate is approximately 1,900 individual meter pits with PRVs.

Several aldermen criticized the way the change was implemented. Alderman Ross said he would not support reducing service while simultaneously raising rates, and said he would prefer a phased, transparent approach. Alderman Hoffman called the communication a "complete breakdown" and urged restitution to the roughly 17 customers who had received PRV service historically. Alderman Recker and others raised technical and equity issues for homeowners who cannot easily install PRVs indoors and noted that some meter pits sit on private property or lack clear easements.

Board members debated policy options the city could adopt: 1) continue to replace existing PRVs as they fail while studying a long‑term policy; 2) create a monthly surcharge or line‑item in the rate structure to cover ongoing PRV maintenance; 3) allow private PRVs but only on the owner side of the meter after inspection; or 4) change the ordinance’s language to clarify city versus homeowner responsibility. City staff and the city attorney emphasized that taking on formal responsibility for PRVs could increase the city’s liability and that ordinance changes would need careful legal review.

For immediate operations, staff was directed to continue short‑term service so customers are not abruptly left without pressure control while the board evaluates policy changes. Members asked staff to return with ordinance language options, cost estimates for a surcharge or maintenance program, and recommendations for how to provide restitution or credits to those customers who had been receiving city maintenance previously.

The discussion closed with direction to work offline on detailed proposals and to bring concrete options back to the board for a decision in the coming months.