Task Force Reviews Draft Moratorium Limits; Local officials warn against overbroad restrictions

The Regulatory Reduction Task Force reviewed a working draft (25LSO0345) that would limit when counties, cities and towns may adopt moratoriums on construction or land development and require findings, notice and time-limited extensions.

David Hopkinson (Legislative Service Office) presented a draft modeled after Arizona’s moratorium statute. The draft defines “moratorium on construction or land development,” limits eligible reasons (initially focused on shortages of “essential public facilities” such as water, sewer and streets), requires publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation not less than 30 days before a final hearing, and mandates written findings, a workplan and a showing that alternative measures are unsatisfactory. For moratoria tied to essential public‑facility shortages, the draft would limit an initial duration to 120 days with limited extensions following public hearings and written findings.

Why it matters: Supporters of limits said moratoria can in practice be used to stall development indefinitely; opponents said moratoria are a legitimate local tool to pause types of development while targeted regulations are drafted, and that Wyoming’s unique mix of rural and urban communities requires careful tailoring.

Public comment and legal history: Jeremiah Grama (County Commissioners Association) said existing Wyoming case law already limits multiyear moratoria; he cited Schoeller v. Park County (Wyoming Supreme Court) which found repeated long extensions improper. Local officials including Andy Schwartz (Town of Jackson) and Melissa Ruth (planner) said the draft’s urban/rural definitions and the scope of allowed moratoria need refinement. Town of Jackson officials noted a local moratorium aimed at very large buildings (e.g., over 35,000 square feet) and argued the tool was used to address a specific community character and land-use issue. Several speakers warned that adopting fixed numeric thresholds (for example a 2,900-person cutoff in the draft) without tailoring could create poor outcomes in small-state context.

Next steps: Members asked staff to review other states’ approaches (Arizona, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah were cited as references) and return redlines that reflect Wyoming’s rural/urban patterns, clarify permissible moratorium purposes (including narrowly targeted development types), and consider legal precedent on reasonable duration and vested‑rights waivers.