High-School Athletic Lighting Planning Guide

Direct answer

High-school athletic lighting planning starts with three decisions that drive everything else: which sports and levels of play the facility must support, whether existing poles and electrical service can be reused, and which procurement route the district must follow. Illuminance targets, pole and fixture counts, and budget all follow from those decisions. Every performance figure produced during planning is calculated, not measured, until the installation is commissioned.

Who this is for

Athletic directors, facilities directors, business officials, superintendents, school board members, and district engineers planning a new athletic lighting installation or a replacement of an existing one.

Inputs required before a conclusion can be reached

1.  Surfaces in scope — football or multi-use field, baseball or softball diamonds, tennis or pickleball courts, track, practice fields. List each, with dimensions.

2.  Level of play per surface — practice, junior varsity, varsity, district or state playoff hosting. Different levels carry different targets.

3.  Broadcast or streaming requirements — video streaming of games changes the design basis, since vertical illuminance and flicker performance matter for cameras.

4.  Existing infrastructure — pole locations, heights, condition, foundation records, conduit, panel capacity, and available service.

5.  Governing standard and adopted edition — confirm with the state athletic association and the authority having jurisdiction.

6.  Site constraints — neighbouring residential property, local ordinance on spill and pole height, curfew requirements, airport proximity.

7.  Procurement route — competitive bid, cooperative purchasing contract, design-build, or a state-approved vehicle. This determines what documentation is required and when.

8.  Funding source — general fund, bond, state grant, federal pass-through, or booster contribution. Federal money can attach domestic-content requirements.

9.  Operating and maintenance capacity — who will clean, service, and access fixtures, and with what equipment. This determines a defensible light-loss factor.

How the decisions cascade

Level of play sets the target. A practice field and a varsity stadium do not share an illuminance target or a uniformity requirement. Designing everything to the highest level on the campus is a common and expensive default. Decide per surface.

Reuse decides the project type. If existing poles can be verified for the new fixture loading, the project is a retrofit and the cost profile is dominated by fixtures, mounting hardware, and electrical work. If poles cannot be verified, or the layout requires different positions, the project includes structures and foundations and the cost profile changes substantially. Do not assume reuse; verify it.

Streaming changes the brief. If the district streams games, say so at planning stage. Camera performance depends on vertical illuminance and on how the luminaires behave at the frame rates in use. Retrofitting that requirement after award is expensive.

Neighbours shape the layout. Where a field abuts residential property, spill and glare treatment at named boundary points should be part of the brief, not a late addition. State the points. Avoid any absolute promise about spill; what can be produced is a calculated value at defined points, plus optical and aiming measures to reduce light beyond the surface.

Funding shapes eligibility. If federal funds are involved, domestic-content requirements may narrow the product field before any technical comparison. See the Buy American Act and BABA article in this series.

What gets evaluated, and how each figure is labelled

Budget structure

A district budget that lists only fixture cost will be wrong. Build the estimate in these lines:

•  Luminaires and mounting hardware

•  Poles, foundations, and structural engineering, where new or modified

•  Structural verification of existing poles, where reused

•  Electrical distribution, panel work, conductors, and service upgrades if required

•  Controls, and any recurring licence or subscription cost

•  Trenching, restoration, and site work

•  Crane or lift access for installation and for future service

•  Photometric design and submittal preparation

•  Commissioning and field measurement

•  Permits and inspection

•  Contingency sized to the level of unknowns in the existing infrastructure

The contingency line should be larger on retrofits than on new construction, because the unknowns live underground and inside the existing poles.

Procurement sequence

1.  Define scope per surface, with level of play and any streaming requirement.

2.  Survey existing infrastructure and obtain foundation records if they exist.

3.  Obtain a structural opinion on reuse feasibility before writing the solicitation.

4.  Fix the design assumptions — grid, maintained target, light-loss factor, mounting heights, spill points — and issue them identically to all bidders.

5.  State the documentation deliverables required with the proposal and with the shipment.

6.  Evaluate on normalised assumptions, then on technical merit, then on commercial terms. See the proposal comparison article in this series.

7.  Require structural verification and stamped drawings where the route calls for them.

8.  Commission against pre-agreed acceptance criteria, with tolerance defined in advance.

9.  File the complete record: submittals, product documentation, aiming report, commissioning readings.

Retrofit versus new construction

Retrofit onto existing poles is often the fastest and least disruptive route, and it is only available if the structure supports the new fixture EPA and weight, and if the existing pole positions and heights can meet the target for the level of play. Both must be established before the route is chosen. The existing-pole retrofit checklist in this series covers the verification steps.

New construction allows optimal pole placement and mounting heights, and therefore usually better uniformity and better spill control, at higher cost and longer schedule. On a campus with residential neighbours, the ability to place poles well is sometimes worth more than the fixture specification.

Evidence example

[EVIDENCE REQUIRED — a de-identified high-school project summary showing scope per surface, route chosen, documentation delivered, and the labelled figures at each stage; published with district permission.]

What can change the answer

•  Adding playoff hosting or streaming to the requirement changes targets and design basis.

•  Discovering that existing poles cannot carry the new load converts a retrofit into a structural project.

•  A local ordinance on pole height or spill can eliminate a layout that meets the athletic standard.

•  A change in adopted standard edition changes targets.

•  Federal or state funding conditions can narrow eligible products.

•  Utility rebate eligibility may require DLC-qualified products.

•  Available maintenance capacity changes the defensible light-loss factor and therefore the fixture count.

Verification checklist

1.  Scope defined surface by surface, with dimensions and level of play.

2.  Streaming or broadcast requirement stated explicitly, or explicitly excluded.

3.  Existing pole positions, heights, and condition surveyed rather than assumed.

4.  Foundation records located, or their absence documented.

5.  Structural feasibility of reuse assessed by a licensed engineer before route selection.

6.  Governing standard and adopted edition confirmed with the athletic association and the AHJ.

7.  Local ordinance requirements on spill, glare, height, and curfew reviewed.

8.  Design assumptions fixed and issued identically to all bidders.

9.  Documentation deliverables listed in the solicitation.

10.  Electrical service capacity confirmed for the proposed connected load.

11.  Acceptance criteria and measurement tolerance agreed before installation.

12.  Funding-source compliance requirements identified before product selection.

Duvon's role and limits

Duvon Lighting supplies sports lighting products for high-school athletic facilities and provides the product documentation a district and its engineer need: photometric data files, certification and qualification records, and EPA and weight figures for structural review. We prepare calculated layouts for our own products with the assumptions stated.

We do not perform structural engineering, we do not certify photometric results, and we do not act as the engineer of record. Structural verification of existing or new poles is performed by a licensed engineer engaged by the district or the contractor.

Next step

Send us your surface list with dimensions, level of play per surface, and any existing pole information. We will return calculated layouts for our products and the documentation package your engineer and business office will need.