Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dark Sky Lighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears dark‑sky options for tennis‑court lighting contracts; staff says redesign now cheaper than retrofit later
Summary
Musco Lighting told Durham officials that making two park tennis‑court lighting projects dark‑sky certified typically requires redesign prior to installation (different pole locations, aiming and control systems) and may raise costs by a vendor‑estimated ~30% on some sites; staff suggested council could direct dark‑sky compliance for future projects and consider retrofit options for existing ones.
Durham City Council heard technical testimony about dark‑sky certification for two park tennis‑court lighting contracts and discussed whether to require dark‑sky design now or retrofit later.
Project manager Mike Boyd and Dina Neely, senior field consultant for Musco Lighting, explained that Musco’s fixtures used by Durham are photometrically shielded and can be adjusted for dark‑sky standards, but certification typically requires a design review (Phase 1) and sometimes a field verification (Phase 2). Neely said the technology has been used for county and city sports lighting and that adjustments often involve additional poles, changed aiming and Control Link controls to prevent unnecessary overnight operation.
Neely told council the incremental cost depends on site specifics and engineering: “It will always be less expensive to do it on the front side. Period,” and estimated design/retrofit adjustments could add material and labor costs (vendor estimated up to roughly 30% in some examples and possibly additional poles). General Services staff noted pricing is being held by the vendor now and that redesign could increase schedule and costs (staff estimated a 4–6 month timeline to redesign and re‑price and vendor suggested about 60–90 days to produce revised designs for staff review).
Council members asked whether adopting dark‑sky criteria should be a citywide policy or decided per project; staff suggested the Joint City‑County Planning Committee (JCCPC) and UDO amendment process would be a route to implement standards citywide and that staff would return with options. Several council members said they support moving toward dark‑sky standards but favored receiving firm cost estimates and staff analysis before changing requirements for contracts on the agenda.
Next steps: Staff proposed bringing options through the UDO/land‑use process (JCCPC and subsequent council consideration) and returning to council with projected cost and schedule implications for the two contracts on the agenda if council chooses to require dark‑sky certified designs prior to proceeding.
