Cities require election on drainage fees

Summary#

SF-116, “Surface water drainage utilities,” would amend Wyoming’s law on city and town public improvements. Its stated goal is to clarify that cities and towns must follow rules for surface-water drainage utilities, including election requirements. The supplied status says it has passed the Wyoming Senate; it is not yet law on that information.

• Cities and towns could set and regulate rates for diverting or managing surface-water runoff only in compliance with the Surface Water Drainage Utility Act and after an election required by that Act.
• A city or town that adopted an ordinance or resolution before July 1, 2026, to collect fees, costs or taxes for surface-water management without the required election must hold an election by July 1, 2027.
• If voters reject the proposal, the city or town must stop collecting those fees, costs or taxes within 60 days after the election results.
• The bill would take effect July 1, 2026.

What it means for you#

• Residents and voters: If your city or town is covered by the election requirement, voters would decide whether the proposed way of financing its surface-water system can continue. The bill does not itself set a rate or require a new charge.
• Cities and towns: Covered municipalities must hold the required election by the deadline. If voters reject the proposal, they must stop collecting the specified fees, costs or taxes within 60 days.
• People paying existing charges: The bill does not automatically end existing collections. Ending them depends on voters rejecting the proposal. It does not say what financing would replace those collections.

Money#

No publicly available information on estimated costs.

• The bill requires covered municipalities to hold elections, but gives no estimate of election costs or says how they would be paid.
• It does not set new rates or require new charges. Some existing collections could end if voters reject the proposal.

What is unclear#

• The bill refers to the Surface Water Drainage Utility Act and its election requirements, but that law was not supplied. I could not verify the election process or all applicable rules against current law.
• The bill does not specify what happens if a municipality fails to hold the required election by July 1, 2027.
• It does not explain what financing options would be available if voters reject a proposal.
• The bill does not define “fees, costs or taxes” or explain which existing municipal financing measures fall within that phrase.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that people would get a vote on financing systems already supported by fees, costs or taxes when no required election was held.
• Requiring cities and towns to follow the same election rules for surface-water drainage rates could make the approval process clearer.
• The bill preserves municipal authority to set and regulate rates, subject to the election and other requirements in the Surface Water Drainage Utility Act.

Case against#

• One concern is that rejecting a proposal would require the municipality to stop collecting the specified money within 60 days, but the bill does not provide a replacement funding plan.
• The bill requires elections but does not state the consequences if a municipality misses the deadline.
• Because the referenced Act was not supplied, the election rules and how they apply to particular municipal charges are unclear from the available material.