Daggett County commissioners debate dark‑sky designation, weigh tourism gains against enforcement concerns

Kathy (Speaker 4), a resident who asked to speak during public comment, told the Daggett County Commission that several constituents asked her to draft "an ordinance to use dark skies," opening a broad discussion of whether the county should pursue an International Dark Sky designation.

Proponents told the commission the designation could draw visitors in fall, winter and spring and would reduce the county's advertising burden. "If we could make that designation, that does 90% of our advertising for us," Speaker 7 said, arguing the status would bring more off‑season tourism and help local businesses. Supporters also described volunteer‑led programs and past Forest Service outreach at Red Canyon.

Opponents and some commissioners pressed for caution, saying a formal designation could add layers of planning and enforcement that would fall to county staff. "We're roughly 89% public land," Speaker 2 said, arguing that much of the county is already dark and questioning why the county should adopt extra regulatory requirements for a small portion that is lighted. Speaker 2 added, "I don't feel that special about it, personally," and expressed worry about imposing new rules on ranchers and small businesses whose nighttime lights serve agricultural or safety needs.

Commissioners discussed specific concerns: whether rodeo grounds and other community events would need curfews or adaptive lighting controls; how beacons and airport safety lighting would be treated; and who would cover enforcement. Speaker 6 noted that some technical restrictions could be written with exemptions — for example, limiting certain event lighting after a set hour — but commissioners emphasized the need to avoid unintended consequences for livelihoods and public safety.

Officials clarified that much of the designation work is volunteer driven and that the designation itself does not necessarily require county spending. "There's no cost to this," Speaker 3 said when asked about funding, noting that outreach and advertising often come through volunteer groups or state tourism partners. Still, Speaker 2 countered that even if advertising is covered externally, enforcement duties would remain a county responsibility.

Because commissioners had mixed views, the panel did not decide to pursue the designation at the meeting. Several members said they were open to receiving more information from a consultant who had briefed the county previously; Speaker 3 suggested inviting that consultant to a future meeting to explain technical requirements and potential exemptions. The commission did not vote on an ordinance or formal designation during the session.

The discussion also touched on local examples and previous outreach; speakers noted that some volunteer programs at sites such as Red Canyon have ended and that information sessions could help clarify both benefits and regulatory obligations. Commissioners directed staff to follow up and schedule an informational briefing rather than take immediate action.

The public discussion on this item began during the public comment portion and continued as an agenda discussion. No ordinance or zoning change was adopted; the item will return for further consideration after staff and interested parties provide more detailed information.