Lee's Summit committee reviews expanded stormwater utility proposal; staff estimates just over $6 million annually

City Engineer George Binger told the Lee's Summit Public Works Committee that staff is seeking direction on an expanded level of service for the city's stormwater program and presented cost, staffing and equipment options that would move the city from a largely reactive maintenance posture toward a more preventive approach.

“This is the third or fourth in our series of presentations on the stormwater utility,” Binger said, describing ongoing work to define levels of service, maintenance priorities and capital planning. He told the committee that the city’s current maintenance approach is largely reactive — “I call it our orange fence level of service” — and that average completion time for work orders tied to sinkholes is about 190 days, with several taking more than a year.

Binger described the proposed additions: two new stormwater crews to allow both reactive repairs and preventive maintenance, a full-time public educator, a full-time environmental specialist, a full-time staff engineer dedicated to stormwater, and equipment including a jet truck, CCTV inspection truck and vacuum truck. He said adding preventive maintenance could yield “a 30 to 60% savings” compared with current reactive replacement costs and cited a prior consultant analysis (Black & Veatch, 2022) that estimated $5,700,000 per year for a higher level of service; adjusted for inflation in staff slides, Binger said the comparable figure is now “a little over $6,000,000 per year.”

Binger noted the city lacks a stormwater master plan comparable to its water and wastewater plans and said master planning could identify regional detention or watershed-based projects, inform capital budgeting and set policy for how and when the city would take responsibility for private stormwater infrastructure. He explained the city currently offers limited, reactive private assistance and that expanding assistance would require clear policy criteria; he suggested prioritization could be based on the likelihood and consequence of failure (for example, short private segments that connect two public systems and threaten structures).

Committee members asked about prior public engagement and funding approaches. A staff member said the city previously convened a stormwater task force and performed a rate study about two years ago and that the task force had recommended a user-fee rate based on impervious area. The staff member said a ballot measure for a utility fee had been considered and paused due to timing and other influences; he said property-tax funding was “clearly off the table” and that sales-tax funding had not been well supported but could be revisited.

Council members pressed staff on next steps. Binger said staff will return with updated budget estimates and funding options: staff requested confirmation that the committee supports the proposed level of service so they can finalize costs and present funding alternatives (user fee, sales tax, bond or a hybrid). Several committee members signaled support for the proposed level of service and asked staff to return next month with refined cost estimates and a more detailed funding discussion.

The discussion covered public education, permit compliance (including ongoing obligations under the city’s stormwater permit), the National Flood Insurance Program and FEMA flood mapping, and equity concerns for neighborhoods without homeowner associations. Binger said improved public outreach and a dedicated educator would help explain benefits to residents, including reduced emergency repairs, improved water quality and better prioritization of capital work.

No formal motion was taken to adopt a funding mechanism; staff left the meeting with direction to prepare updated budgets and funding options for the committee’s next meetings.