The plug has been pulled on the Huntsville Soccer club’s request to light Conroy Park, as the estimated $250,000 – $295,000 cost cast a dark shadow on councillors.
The idea to light the Conroy Sports’ Field was initially brought to General Committee by the soccer club last April as a solution to the club’s growing need for more field hours. At that time the club said it was willing to fully fund the initiative to the tune of $100,000 and asked for first rights in booking field time.
Since then a public meeting was held and Town staff issued a request for proposals (RFP) to gather specific lighting and cost information.
The results of the RFP were revealed to council last week.
Two proposals were received but one company was disqualified. Pricing in the lone proposal listed High Intensity Discharge lighting (HID) at $249,150.68 and Light Emitting Diode lighting (LED) at $294,150.68, substantially more than was initially forecast. Along with the capital cost, the Town would also be responsible for an increase in hydro costs and on-going maintenance of the lights.
Funding for the project also took a hit. The soccer club dropped their commitment to the project from $100,000 to $50,000. Staff identified further funding of $40,000 in the development charges reserve marked for outdoor recreation, and the possibility of receiving a Trillium Fund grant in the amount of $150,000.
The math didn’t sit well with Deputy Mayor Karin Terziano.
It will cost at least $250,000 for 10 additional hours a week. The capital recovery on that is so bad, I can’t even do the math. It’s like a kazillion years.
Huntsville Councillor Karin Terziano
Terziano also wasn’t impressed by the soccer club’s desire to avoid weekend play. “If you add to that the fact that they are not using three days of the week, that raises a red flag for me. This initiative flies directly in the face of what we just said, which is that we need to spend our money on roads.”
In a 5-3 vote, councillors decided not to consider the lighting of the Conroy Sports’ Field in their 2016 budget deliberations.
Thanks for your reply. I had a look at the story and here are quotes/comments:
Town says they are: “considering the economic, environmental, and social impacts”
I’ve lived on Brunel near South Portage Road for thirty years. For the first time, I cannot discern the Milky Way. This is very recent. I have used a dark sky meter; it’s not just my eyes. The light pollution is unquestionably greater. I suggest this is both an “environmental and social impact”, not just to me but to the greater good, and that it falls under the town’s “considerations” that they may have missed, because I take it to be a result of brighter, more far-reaching street light in/from town.
Town says: “With lighting we are always concerned about dark skies”
Well, they missed asking how the town lights affect out of town skies; because, they are changed.
Town says they are: “not getting as much light shining upward into the night sky”
I don’t see that in the photos, nor in my passing by the lights. I find them shockingly bright and distracting. Are they over 3000 degrees Kelvin? My estimate is, yes. Lower colour temperature is better for dark skies and passers-by.
Town says: “500 lights are being changed in the town’s cobra-head style streetlights”
What do you, Dawn, say when you see these lights from the side? Do you perceive they point down and not out?
Town says: “decorative lights downtown and in a few neighbourhoods won’t be changed yet. “They are as much for ambiance as for lighting the way. Replacing them would be more expensive and we know there is emerging technology that may make them cheaper”
Distinct contexts are raised here: ambiance is an old idea. We don’t need to add ambient light. Ambient light comes from natural sources.
Lighting the way can be done by car headlights. We don’t need street lights on full all the time. The modern way is dimmers and consideration for darkness.
Cheaper… ahh; cheaper.
Sandy McLennan
Hi Sandy, If you haven’t read our story on the town’s sustainability efforts it may shed some light (heh) on the rationale for the streetlight switch. You can read it here: https://doppleronline.ca/huntsville/sustainability-choices-are-a-balancing-act-for-town-of-huntsville/
I’m ok with a pause on more bright lights in town and I’m very concerned with the new street lights that are being installed. To my eye they are like the shockingly blue/white bright headlights I see coming at me down the road more and more frequently. There’s a trend that brighter is better, and lower cost is everything, yet there are variables to consider. Do we want to retain the relatively dark skies around here? I say, emphatically, of course! Can we not do a test of new lights to see if the neighbourhood and traveling people affected by them have an opinion? Mine is I see more harsh black shadows, blinding spots in your eyes when you look at them, a strange “eerie” feel to the light. And I am certain out near South Portage Road I now see fewer stars and The Milky Way is no longer distinct. This change is recent.
The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada @RASC_LPA (promotes responsible lighting to protect the natural dark sky from light pollution as part of a healthy environment) has much to say on the topic. If you have noticed these new lights, consider speaking to council about them and informing yourself about alternatives (lower colour-temperature bulbs, for example).
I think “we” need to be more careful in considering what we have here, what’s good about it, and make sure we keep it that way. This concept was a part of the public survey for the official plan review, but I don’t think I saw anything in there about street and town (and dark sky) lighting. It ought to be considered because these lights never dim or turn off overnight when not needed, so they are going to have a big impact for a long time.