Town staff briefed the board on a grant-funded project to install pedestrian crossing signals on the rail trail and Matthews Road and the board reached consensus to add a fourth crossing after a vendor discount created room in the grant budget.

At the meeting, staff said New England Signal Systems submitted a later “top” quote near $74,320 and that an earlier written quote had been about $69,000. Staff told the board the vendor had given a municipal discount that altered the project numbers submitted with the grant application; the discount complicates grant reporting because the grant requires sticking to the originally submitted cost and scope, staff said.

Board member Bill proposed using the savings to add a fourth crossing on Sawyer’s Crossing Road in addition to the three crossings originally planned for Matthews Road and the rail trail. Staff said the gap created by the lower-than-expected quote could be covered by the Rail Trail Expendable Trust Fund and that the board could either ask the vendor to remove the discount or formally change the project scope to include the extra crossing.

Officials discussed timing and permitting. Staff said New Hampshire Department of Transportation approval will be required and that Sawyer’s Crossing will likely need a short sidewalk landing so a person using a wheelchair can reach the pushbutton. Board members noted freezing ground could delay installation this year and staff suggested completing the original three crossings in the current grant year and requesting an extension to install the fourth in spring if necessary.

The board reached consensus to proceed with ordering and to change the project scope to include the fourth unit. Allocation of the additional approximately $4,900–$5,000 in local funds to cover new foundations and labor will be placed on the next meeting agenda for formal allocation from the Rail Trail Expendable Trust Fund. Staff also said they will pursue the DOT right-of-way permit and confirm whether engineering is required for the sidewalk landing.

The board did not take a formal roll-call vote on the scope change at the meeting; members indicated consensus and asked staff to bring a formal funding allocation for approval at the next meeting.