Livingston staff recommend stormwater utility as residents question costs and timing
Loading...
Summary
City staff presented a stormwater‑utility feasibility study that would create a standalone fund to pay for maintenance and capital projects; staff proposed a mid‑range residential charge of about $7 per month to raise roughly $564,000 in year one. Commissioners heard more than an hour of public comment; no ordinance was adopted and the commission asked staff to continue outreach.
City staff told the Livingston City Commission on March 3 that years of studies, a 2024 feasibility report and recent mapping show the city’s stormwater system needs dedicated funding and staff to fix aging pipes, reduce flooding and protect downstream water quality.
The staff presentation, led by City Manager Grant Gager and Public Works Director Shannon Holmes, outlined three rate scenarios and a recommended mid‑level approach that would aim to raise roughly $564,000 in the first year. Under the mid‑range model the residential equivalent would be about $7 per month; commercial and large impervious parcels would be assessed higher amounts. Staff said the revenue would fund one dedicated stormwater position, routine maintenance and a five‑year capital program that planners estimated at about $1.7–$1.75 million for initial priority projects.
“Right now we have deferred maintenance and pipes that are undersized in places,” Public Works Director Shannon Holmes said in the presentation. Holmes pointed to the Main/B Street underpass as an example where 8‑inch inlets connect to much larger downtown mains and cause repeated flooding; he added that several downtown upgrades over the last years had already required replacing mains when streets were rebuilt.
The presentation described technical work performed with Headwaters Economics and consultants (AE2S): staff said they ran a 100% analysis of commercial and industrial impervious surfaces and used representative sampling for residential parcel types to derive a residential‑equivalent factor. The feasibility study staff included in the meeting packet modeled a spectrum of service levels; the $7 figure corresponds to a mid‑level service that staff said would be comparable to peer Montana cities and would allow both maintenance and capital work to proceed.
Many residents and local stakeholders supported moving forward but urged more public outreach and clarity on costs. Sarah Stans, Park County Environmental Council community resilience director, urged the commission not to delay. “We are a headwaters community and that means greater responsibility,” Stans said during public comment, arguing the city has an obligation to reduce pollutant loads into the Yellowstone and to address recurring flooding that disproportionately affects North Side and East Side residents.
Other residents raised affordability concerns and asked for clearer communications about who would pay and how much. Several speakers asked that the city focus on the most urgent, lower‑cost fixes first and to provide plain‑language examples of how different property types would be charged.
Commissioners asked technical questions about the rate model, the feasibility estimate and whether the city could progress with maintenance work while continuing the public engagement. Gager told commissioners that staff has already begun targeted maintenance and that creation of an enterprise utility would provide a dedicated revenue stream for predictable upkeep and capital projects.
The commission did not adopt an ordinance or set rates at the March 3 meeting. Commissioners directed staff to continue outreach and to bring more detailed rate options, data and an engagement plan back to a future meeting, with public comment and a town‑hall schedule to be refined before any formal vote.
Next steps: staff said they will proceed with community engagement, refine rates and present draft ordinance language and public hearing dates as part of the city’s upcoming budget process.
