Virgin Council debates lighting ordinance, members press for grant or assistance program

Virgin Town Council members spent the largest portion of their meeting discussing a proposed outdoor lighting ordinance that would create an inventory period followed by an amortization schedule for nonconforming lights.

The ordinance, drafted as amendments to Virgin Municipal Land Use Code Title 16 (chapter and section references discussed in the meeting), would begin with a one-year period for the town to inventory existing lighting and then start a seven-year amortization period for required changes, effectively an eight-year horizon from ordinance adoption to full amortization, council members said.

Council members said they broadly support reducing light pollution and protecting night skies but raised concerns about the ordinance’s financial impact on residents. One council member urged the council to include a grant program or assistance alongside any low-interest loan program so lower-income residents would not bear the up-front cost of mitigation. Another council member said small, low-cost mitigation measures (for example, shields or simple bulb changes) could address many complaints, while some properties might require more expensive work such as recessed fixtures.

Council members asked staff to develop more explicit temporary‑use exemptions (for emergency lighting, law‑enforcement direction, or short‑term construction-related needs) because the ordinance draft does not currently define “temporary.” Members discussed possible language used by other towns and asked that temporary exemptions and construction‑hour exceptions be clarified or referred back to the planning commission for a recommendation.

Members also raised a legal concern over ordinance language about illuminated flags. The draft limited or conditioned illumination for flags other than a U.S. flag and certain service flags; a council member said that approach could raise First Amendment issues because it appears content‑based. The council asked staff to consult the town attorney and produce revised language that avoids content‑based restrictions while allowing reasonable limits on illumination levels.

Several members asked staff to prepare a formal assistance program—either grants or grants paired with low‑interest loans—and said they would only support the ordinance if an assistance mechanism for low‑income or vulnerable residents is defined. Members discussed a possible program administered through the town budget (a noninterest fund or loan program) and asked for specifics on eligibility, outreach, and the size of any annual appropriation.

The council directed staff to (1) add or clarify a definition of “temporary lighting,” (2) return with options for a grant/assistance program and administrative terms, and (3) consult with the town attorney about flag‑illumination language and any First Amendment concerns. Staff also was asked to draft mitigation examples (minor changes such as bulb replacement or shielding) so the public can see lower‑cost options.

The council indicated it expects additional iterations of the ordinance and suggested the planning commission review temporary‑use exemptions and construction‑related lighting language before final adoption.