Fenton aldermen vote to remove proposed soccer-field lighting from budget after extended debate

The Fenton Board voted to remove a proposal to install permanent lighting on two soccer practice fields from the city budget after more than an hour of debate on Aug. 7 about costs, maintenance and how lights would affect park use. The motion to remove the project from the budget passed on a roll-call vote.

Alderman Hills, who moved the motion, framed his concerns around long-term operating costs and park character; Alderman Hills said the board should not add amenities that would fundamentally change how the park is used. Multiple aldermen raised questions about electricity costs, irrigation and field maintenance. One alderman said Ameren bills had risen significantly and warned of higher operating costs; another pointed out LED lights would be efficient but maintenance and irrigation are additional recurring costs.

Dan, a staff member handling parks and facilities, told the board the December 2019 estimate for lights was roughly $336,000 (as cited during discussion) and that irrigation and field restoration would be additional. He also noted that the sports complex and some existing fields are lit now, and the proposed lights were intended for practice fields rather than tournament fields.

Opponents argued the lights would invite outside leagues and commercial operators, increase wear on turf and require more staff time; supporters said lights would give local youth teams safe practice hours after school and provide low-cost fields for residents who cannot afford private facilities. Alderman Brian (commenting in favor) said expanded hours “give the residents that are here in the area… a field that’s got grass on it, not astroturf,” for families who cannot pay higher fees at private complexes.

The final motion — “we do not use soccer lights and remove [them] from the budget” — was moved by Alderman Hills and seconded by Alderman Jokers. Roll-call voting recorded five yes votes (Hills, Jokers, Lang, Breitscherft, Harrell), two no votes (Mazurang, Westbrack) and one abstention (Rogers). The chair declared the motion carried. The board also discussed collecting updated bids and cost estimates during the conversation, but the formal action removed the project from the budget pending any future board action.