Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge caution on short‑term rental limits and ask city to consider ozone pool system

Livingston City Commission · November 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Public commenters pressed the commission on short‑term rental policy and urged staff to weigh economic data; another commenter urged the city to install an ozonation system for the new wellness‑center pool, citing potential annual savings of $6,500–$10,000 and a 2–4 year payback.

Several public commenters used the meeting to press the commission on issues coming to future agendas and to highlight local priorities.

Brooke Laird, a 23‑year Park County resident and owner of Key Montana Property Management, asked the commission to treat short‑term rentals as an important component of Livingston's tourism economy and to rely on data before changing STR policy. Laird said county figures show 1,346 advertised short‑term listings and just 231 licensed rentals, and she described the local economic ripple effects of STRs — housekeeping payments, food and retail spending, and lodging tax revenue.

Nut graf: Short‑term rental policy is scheduled for a future agenda; residents and business owners urged the commission to weigh the local economic benefits and to collect better data before imposing restrictions.

On a different topic, David Christopher Lewis, who lives just outside the city, urged the commission to consider an ozonation system instead of traditional chlorination for the planned wellness‑center pool. Lewis said an analysis he produced using AI estimated annual operating savings of $6,500–$10,000 with ozonation and a payback period of about two to four years; staff said the pool contractor is evaluating compatibility and staff will report back after the next construction‑progress meeting.

Other commenters raised concerns about transparency and the completeness of meeting minutes (a missing petition from a previous meeting) and objected to the publication of an unsigned threatening letter in the agenda packet. Commissioners and staff said they would review minutes with the city clerk and follow up on the petition question.

What happens next: short‑term rentals are on a future agenda for detailed discussion and staff will provide data; the pool contractor will confirm whether an ozonation system can be accommodated in the existing design and staff will report back to David Lewis and to the commission.