Commission hears plan to evaluate locations and funding options for grade-separated rail crossing

City Manager Mister Gager presented the Livingston City Commission with a proposed work plan to analyze locations and capital funding options for a grade-separated rail crossing, and urged the commission to seek public input before advancing a design or bond measure.

The conversation matters because a new grade-separated crossing would be a major infrastructure project with a multi-million dollar price tag, potential property tax or assessment impacts for residents, and effects on North Side accessibility and future land use.

Mister Gager summarized past efforts: a 2008 referendum approved a local share that later lost federal match funding, and a 2021 referendum to issue $20 million in general obligation bonds failed. He recommended a fresh, inclusive location-analysis study to identify a locally preferred alternative and to increase competitiveness for federal or state grants. "It seems prudent at this point for the city to engage in a location analysis and...the project was most recently rejected by voters," he said.

On funding, Gager described federal grant programs that cities typically pursue for grade separations — the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Rail Crossing Elimination program, the CRISI (Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements) program and BUILD (formerly RAISE/RAISE successor) — and the limited state funding available under MCA 15-70-102, which prioritizes higher-need crossings statewide. He also noted that BNSF Railroad runs a private grants program but generally ties financial participation to the elimination of an at-grade crossing.

Staff presented a rough planning-level cost estimate of about $25 million for design through construction. Using that figure, staff estimated roughly $2.2 million in annual debt service and a property tax impact of about $73 per $100,000 of assessed value; a $500,000 house would see about $365 per year in added property taxes if the city financed the full amount through bonds, staff said.

Gager recommended the city begin an alternatives/location analysis (an approximately eight-month technical process in the staff estimate) and to pair that study with early public engagement to determine whether voters want to proceed with a major tax-supported or assessment-funded project. "There is perhaps some value to opening a public comment period, and understanding really the desire of the community to proceed with this," he said.

Commissioners raised numerous questions about what an alternatives analysis would include, whether existing engineering work (for a Front Street/Star Road alignment) could be reused, and the consequences of eliminating an existing at-grade crossing if the city sought railroad or federal funds tied to elimination. Gager said engineering for the 2008 Star Road alternative still exists and that some review would be required, but a current alternatives study would compare all viable locations and the constructability, regulatory and cost implications at each.

Public commenters urged the commission to act sooner and noted past study expenditures; others urged expanded engagement and clarity about tradeoffs such as whether to invest in improving existing crossings (for example, Fifth Street) rather than building a new grade-separated crossing. Several commissioners and members of the public asked staff to include land-use and development impacts in any location analysis because a new crossing would change accessibility and could accelerate North Side development.

The commission gave staff direction to proceed with the proposed study concept and public outreach; no bond or construction action was taken at the meeting.