Council settles on 18-month moratorium as compromise

Committee members discussed a range of moratorium lengths, citing public comments and interjurisdictional examples. Several members said 6 months was too short and two years too long; an 18-month period was proposed and described by members as a practical compromise to allow time for study, stakeholder engagement and coordination with the state.

"18 is good compromise for me," Council Vice President Balcom said, summarizing that 18 months offers sufficient time for community engagement, review of water and energy impacts and coordination with state-level work. Council member Glass and guest council member William Wandos also supported 18 months as a workable period that fits between earlier proposals and existing executive actions.