Laramie council weighs capped stormwater-fee options, staff to draft ordinance starting at $230 cap
November 13, 2025 | Laramie City Council, Laramie City, Albany County, Wyoming
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
LARAMIE, Wyo. — City staff told the Laramie City Council on Nov. 12 that two capped-fee options for a storm/surface water utility would sustain about $700,000 a year in operating costs while producing materially different 10-year capital totals, and recommended staff draft ordinance language reflecting council direction.
At a work session, Director Brooks Webb presented two scenarios the council requested: a lower-cap approach (roughly a $100 cap for larger nonresidential accounts and a $30 residential cap) and a higher-cap approach (roughly a $200 nonresidential cap and $30 residential). Webb said “the annual amount dedicated to operations under the cap scenarios is $700,000” and described recent staffing gains: the city hired two additional operators in July, who helped clean about 24,775 feet of storm lines since July 1 and saved roughly $50,000 on pipelining support this year.
Why it matters: Staff told council the caps change the city’s available capital for multi-year projects. Director Webb said a $200 nonresidential cap reduces capital investment by about 35% (roughly $21 million over 10 years) compared with the original plan; the $100 cap reduces projected capital by about 43%, yielding roughly $16 million over a decade and forcing the city to reprioritize projects and rely more on grants or special project funding.
Councilors split over equity and pace. Vice Mayor Richardson and several council members said they prefer a middle ground that evens the burden between residential and commercial accounts. “I have a hard time with residents paying more than businesses do when we know that we have some real big businesses,” Richardson said. Councilor Lockhart argued for starting smaller and putting a broader tax proposal on the ballot, saying voters could decide whether to increase funding later.
Technical and billing issues were raised as well. Webb warned the council that adopting caps will require ordinance edits to condominium billing processes because some parcels are still listed under developer names in county records; he also said billing-unit conversions mean a $200 cap would translate differently in the billing system unless staff adjusts the underlying unit definitions. Webb also said a capped model would likely eliminate the existing credit program, because combining caps and credits would lower capital revenue below what staff needs for a stable 10-year plan.
Public comments reflected concern about fairness and timing. Local resident Mr. Glass urged the council to consider graduated or scaled alternatives instead of simple caps and to keep credits for detention ponds so developers do not skimp on stormwater features. Jeremy Chatfield of the Wyoming Department of Transportation pointed out that state entities’ total monthly totals would not fall to literal “$100” or “$200” numbers because caps apply across multiple parcels. Eric Henderson of West Laramie urged repeal or an extended pause, citing affordability concerns.
Next steps: Assistant City Manager Feeser summarized staff actions the council requested. “From what we've heard tonight is we'll probably start at the $230 cap,” Feeser said, and added staff will return with drafted ordinance language, a budget amendment for fiscal year 2026, and an extension-of-pause resolution on the next council agenda so the full council can take formal action.
No formal ordinance vote was taken at the work session. Councilors frequently said they wanted a built-in review period (for example, two years) so future councils could reassess whether the chosen approach is meeting expectations.
Authorities and budget details mentioned during the session included the current $5 million general-fund contribution to the program (staff said they do not plan to claw that back) and staff estimates that ongoing general-fund pipelining spending runs about $150,000 a year. Staff emphasized that large projects will still depend on outside grants or matching funds.
The council moved next to routine city updates; staff will return with ordinance language and financial materials before a formal council vote.
At a work session, Director Brooks Webb presented two scenarios the council requested: a lower-cap approach (roughly a $100 cap for larger nonresidential accounts and a $30 residential cap) and a higher-cap approach (roughly a $200 nonresidential cap and $30 residential). Webb said “the annual amount dedicated to operations under the cap scenarios is $700,000” and described recent staffing gains: the city hired two additional operators in July, who helped clean about 24,775 feet of storm lines since July 1 and saved roughly $50,000 on pipelining support this year.
Why it matters: Staff told council the caps change the city’s available capital for multi-year projects. Director Webb said a $200 nonresidential cap reduces capital investment by about 35% (roughly $21 million over 10 years) compared with the original plan; the $100 cap reduces projected capital by about 43%, yielding roughly $16 million over a decade and forcing the city to reprioritize projects and rely more on grants or special project funding.
Councilors split over equity and pace. Vice Mayor Richardson and several council members said they prefer a middle ground that evens the burden between residential and commercial accounts. “I have a hard time with residents paying more than businesses do when we know that we have some real big businesses,” Richardson said. Councilor Lockhart argued for starting smaller and putting a broader tax proposal on the ballot, saying voters could decide whether to increase funding later.
Technical and billing issues were raised as well. Webb warned the council that adopting caps will require ordinance edits to condominium billing processes because some parcels are still listed under developer names in county records; he also said billing-unit conversions mean a $200 cap would translate differently in the billing system unless staff adjusts the underlying unit definitions. Webb also said a capped model would likely eliminate the existing credit program, because combining caps and credits would lower capital revenue below what staff needs for a stable 10-year plan.
Public comments reflected concern about fairness and timing. Local resident Mr. Glass urged the council to consider graduated or scaled alternatives instead of simple caps and to keep credits for detention ponds so developers do not skimp on stormwater features. Jeremy Chatfield of the Wyoming Department of Transportation pointed out that state entities’ total monthly totals would not fall to literal “$100” or “$200” numbers because caps apply across multiple parcels. Eric Henderson of West Laramie urged repeal or an extended pause, citing affordability concerns.
Next steps: Assistant City Manager Feeser summarized staff actions the council requested. “From what we've heard tonight is we'll probably start at the $230 cap,” Feeser said, and added staff will return with drafted ordinance language, a budget amendment for fiscal year 2026, and an extension-of-pause resolution on the next council agenda so the full council can take formal action.
No formal ordinance vote was taken at the work session. Councilors frequently said they wanted a built-in review period (for example, two years) so future councils could reassess whether the chosen approach is meeting expectations.
Authorities and budget details mentioned during the session included the current $5 million general-fund contribution to the program (staff said they do not plan to claw that back) and staff estimates that ongoing general-fund pipelining spending runs about $150,000 a year. Staff emphasized that large projects will still depend on outside grants or matching funds.
The council moved next to routine city updates; staff will return with ordinance language and financial materials before a formal council vote.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting