Daggett County commissioners debate ‘dark skies’ designation as meeting moves into closed session on property

Daggett County commissioners on Monday heard a lengthy public discussion about whether the county should pursue a formal "dark skies" designation and then moved the meeting into a closed session to discuss a real‑property matter.

Kathy, a public commenter, opened the discussion on the dark‑skies topic, saying she had residents asking her to draft an ordinance to adopt dark‑sky standards. "When I see what you're gonna do about dark skies designation, I have a couple of people who want me to write an ordinance to use dark skies," she said, urging the commission to consider the designation rather than simply tabling it.

Supporters argued the designation could boost off‑season tourism and reduce county advertising costs because the designation itself includes promotional outreach. "If we could make that designation, that does 90% of our advertising for us," an attendee said, also describing ecological concerns tied to bright lights — moths and pollinators drawn to facility lighting — and asserting much of the county already meets lighting criteria.

Several commissioners and participants pushed back on the idea that designation should be applied countywide without more study. One commissioner described the designation as potentially "very heavy handed," raising enforcement concerns for agricultural operations that rely on nighttime lighting for livestock and rodeo activities. That speaker questioned who would bear enforcement burdens and asked how the designation would affect existing community uses such as rodeos or calving lights.

Commissioners and staff suggested a fact‑finding step: invite a consultant who has worked on dark‑skies programs to brief the commission and explain the practical implications. A staff member noted the packet included program guidelines and that, in many cases, existing installations would not need immediate change; commissioners nonetheless asked for more detail on specific regulations, potential costs, and enforcement thresholds before making any decision.

The meeting later shifted to a procedural motion. The presiding speaker moved to go into a closed session "for the purposes of purchase, exchange, or lease of real property." After a motion and second, the record captured Matt Tippett saying "aye," and the commission transitioned to closed session at 10:06.

The commission did not make a final decision on pursuing a dark‑skies designation during the open meeting. Commissioners said they were generally open to additional information and a future presentation but expressed concern about potential unintended consequences for agricultural operations and local events. The closed session concerned a separate real‑property matter and took place immediately after the discussion.