City rejects $10 million flood fund plan

Cheyenne City Council rejected a proposal on Monday to amend the city’s General Fund policy. The vote blocked a mechanism that would have allowed the city to transfer up to $10 million annually from surplus reserves into a dedicated stormwater runoff management account.

The General Fund holds money for daily city operations. Current city policy requires the fund to keep at least 120 days of operating reserves. Cheyenne currently holds approximately 365 days of reserves. The proposed amendment would trigger a review whenever reserves exceed 365 days. If the city approved the transfer, it would move up to $10 million to address drainage infrastructure.

The proposal failed earlier in the Finance Committee, which reviews financial decisions before the full council. Committee members did not support the resolution because they felt the city could already transfer excess reserves if needed. They found the specific purpose of the new account unclear.

Councilor Michelle Aldrich, who advocated for the policy, was not on the Finance Committee. She did not attend the committee meeting last week to explain her position. Aldrich stated that the city is roughly $60 million behind on deferred infrastructure improvements. She argued these upgrades are necessary to prevent a repeat of the deadly flood that struck Cheyenne on Aug. 1, 1985.

Aldrich noted that drainage issues in the community have been challenging since that storm. She said reports indicate the city remains at risk if a similar weather event occurs.

On Aug. 1, 1985, a late-summer thunderstorm caused major damage in Cheyenne. More than 7 inches of rain fell in three hours in parts of the city. Hailstones up to 2 inches in diameter formed walls and drifts up to 6 feet high. Winds reached 70 mph, and tornadoes touched down in the area. Twelve people died, 70 were injured, and the storm caused about $61 million in damages.

Aldrich compared the proposed account to a household emergency fund. She said the $10 million annual figure was a rounded number. The city would actually need about $6 million per year for a decade to fund the necessary work. She argued the move would show the city is sharing the financial burden rather than placing it solely on taxpayers.

Councilor Tom Segrave voted against the proposal, calling it a “coffee can” account. He said the public struggles to understand where specific funds go. Segrave said he would support legitimate projects if brought forward, but he did not think creating special accounts was transparent. Engineer Tom Cobb from the City Engineer’s Office also expressed concern. He said his office lacks the staffing to manage and spend that amount of money each year without hiring additional staff. All council members except Aldrich voted to reject the resolution.