Administration would strongly recommend the harmonizing of lighting fixtures and matching to the established municipal street lighting standard. This would support ongoing maintenance, parts and labour involved with maintaining the system and lower overall costs.
The Council Question referenced investigating sourcing solar lighting as a prospect. Administration has researched this issue and is not recommending proceeding with a solar light as a policy direction.
The cost of a solar light fixture can vary depending on style, expected life of battery and LED components. The approximate self-contained costs range from $2,600 to $7,100. The battery replacement required after 7 years of service would range from $300 to $500 plus cost of labour. If affixed to existing poles and using a single fixture installation, expected costs would be at the low part of this range (~$3,000).
Use of solar lights in a widespread manner in Canada and particularly in northern climates has not occurred outside of pilot projects. One such installation in the Kawartha region illuminating a parking lot was useful for that application. Others have been unable to sustain the required winter season longevity to last throughout the night. Another limiting fact of solar fixtures is the need for exposure to needed sun light through the day. Buildings and trees can hinder the fixture's battery ability to charge to adequately provide light throughout the nighttime hours.
Administration would not recommend solar light fixtures for alley lighting because of the noted limitations.
Risk Analysis:
A perceived risk relates to access to this program. The Council Resolution envisions a strategy for potential exceptions to assessing property owners for the improvement.
City Council may waive this policy at its discretion and fund works outside of it, however a funding program separate and distinct from maintenance works would be required to be created. Withdrawal of funding from the maintenance program in order to fund new works would compromise asset management planning and replacement cycles.
In addition, a recommendation to fund works outside of the described policy would be from criteria that are subjective in nature. Development of an applied science-based approach would be of a significant resourcing risk, while a high degree of subjectivity would inevitably inform the process and is therefore not recommended.
In the event the annual operating and maintenance fee is in arrears, the financial risk would be mitigated by powering off the fixture. The local improvement charge, if not paid, would become a priority lien on the property. Otherwise, maintenance of these assets would be considered on a similar priority basis to the existing street lighting network.
Questions regarding the Local Improvement process would be handled through the Engineering Department while maintenance and operating concerns would be reported through 311, consistent with present day procedure.