Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Safe Routes topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee does not make recommendation on $2,317 amendment to add outlets to Lowell safe‑routes median; item moves to council

2557167 · February 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee considered a $2,317 amendment to add pop‑up electrical outlets to a new median in the Lowell Safe Routes to School project but, after a motion to deny failed for lack of a second, made no committee recommendation and forwarded the item to the full city council.

The Safety and Public Works Committee reviewed a staff request to amend the WSB contract for the Lowell Safe Routes to School project to add pop‑up electrical outlets in the new median for seasonal or decorative lighting at a cost of $2,317.

Public Works staff explained that the city previously approved the Safe Routes infrastructure project and that staff had not included outlets in the original scope; the amendment would add outlets at the base of seven newly planted trees to allow for seasonal lighting. “For a low cost of $2,300, we could actually add some outlets to this area to really just liven it up,” staff said.

Committee members asked whether the outlet work was an eligible grant expense under the Safe Routes grant. Staff replied that the application treated the outlets generically as an eligible expense unless told otherwise. Some councilmembers characterized the outlets as decorative/seasonal rather than safety lighting and expressed concern about adding cost without clear long‑term use. One councilmember moved to deny the $2,317 amendment; the motion received no second and therefore the committee recorded no formal recommendation, and the item will appear on the full city council agenda for final action.

Notes: committee discussion included whether the outlets are an eligible Safe Routes expense and whether the additional cost is warranted; staff said the outlets are currently being treated as grant‑eligible pending any contrary guidance from the grantor.