Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dark Sky Designation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cottonwood presenters outline steps to retain Dark Sky designation and boost lighting compliance
Summary
A presenter told council that Cottonwood’s 2018 ordinance aligned local rules with international lighting standards but compliance gaps — including missing community signage and nonconforming fixtures allowed for a 10-year period — mean the city must boost outreach, consider funding partnerships and dedicate staff to meet reporting deadlines.
A presenter at the meeting said Cottonwood adopted an ordinance in October 2018 to align local lighting rules with an international model and that the city must now show ongoing compliance to retain its Dark Sky designation. The presenter said the ordinance went into effect in November 2018 and recalled council work starting in 2016.
The presenter told the council that the ordinance contains a provision allowing existing (nonconforming) lighting fixtures to remain for up to 10 years, after which fixtures must meet the city’s lighting requirements to maintain designation. The presenter said, “nonconforming it can remain for a period of 10 years,” and emphasized that the city must demonstrate brightness measurements and submit required reports to the designation authority.
The presenter acknowledged practical gaps in Cottonwood’s implementation: “We haven’t done that. We do have a symbol on our development website but we have not installed in the community,” referring to required signage identifying the designated area. They proposed stepped outreach measures — quarterly informational campaigns, partnerships with local hardware stores, large community posters and targeted outreach to homeowners and business associations — to encourage voluntary fixture conversions.
To reduce the city’s direct costs, the presenter suggested partnering with a nonprofit to manage funding assistance for property owners and cited Sedona as an example where the city oversees annual reporting while other organizations help property owners with upgrades. The presenter said meeting the deadline would likely require dedicating one municipal employee to coordinate education, reporting and outreach, and framed the initiative as balancing community quality of life, tourism benefits and fiscal responsibility.
Council members questioned how other jurisdictions enforce compliance and whether enforcement officers are required. The presenter and a staff member said many jurisdictions pursue multi-year, cooperative approaches with property owners and may allow a grace period while the city demonstrates measurable progress; staff noted the city would need to show it was actively working toward compliance to avoid losing the designation.
On costs and complaints, presenters acknowledged uncertainty. One remark referred to an implementation cost figure in the discussion (approximately $35,000), but the presenter said specific funding sources and the exact financial impact on property owners were not specified. Staff reported very few recent complaints had been filed.
Next steps discussed included preparing clearer measurement tables and on-screen snapshots for future presentations, continuing outreach to homeowners and businesses, exploring nonprofit partnerships for funding assistance, and considering dedicating staff time to ensure timely reporting. The presenter asked council for direction on whether to pursue maintaining the designation and to authorize the outreach and staffing steps needed to meet reporting requirements.
