Kat, representing the town Trails project, told the Community Preservation Committee that the Phase 2 bid process returned two bids substantially higher than the CPC’s budget. She said vendors reported a roughly 25% price increase since 2023 and that one bid came in about double the earlier estimate (figures discussed in the meeting compared an estimated $211,000 baseline and ~ $427,000 bids). Kat explained the original choice of a fiberglass modular bridge was to avoid large cranes and to secure a 75‑year lifespan, but the higher bids prompted the Trails team to propose alternatives.

What was proposed: Kat outlined three options: (1) pivot to a timber bridge (she estimated timber could be 30–60% less expensive, with a shorter expected lifespan and different engineering requirements), (2) prioritize building the bridge first and defer or phase the boardwalk to avoid a ‘boardwalk to nowhere’ outcome, and (3) prepare a Town Meeting warrant article to transfer unused contingency from Phase 1 into Phase 2 or to ask voters for additional funds in a later warrant.

Committee concerns and guidance: CPC members asked about bid‑splitting risk and legal exposure; Freddie advised seeking legal opinion but said the bridge and the boardwalk can be presented as separate projects if necessary. Members cautioned against releasing all contingency funds at once; several said the committee should retain a safety net for cost overruns. The committee asked Kat to return in January with: (a) a simple comparison table (phase 1 vs. phase 2; original scope vs. potential scope changes; money spent; money remaining), (b) schematic layouts showing both the combined and bridge‑only options and what a bridge‑only alignment would mean for trail continuity, (c) refined cost estimates for timber vs. fiberglass options, and (d) a recommended contingency amount to retain.

Decision point: Rather than a final vote, the CPC agreed to prepare placeholder warrant articles (one to move available Phase 1 contingency toward Phase 2 and a second placeholder in case additional Phase‑2 funding is needed) and to revisit the issue in January when more detailed cost breakdowns and alternative schematics are available.

Ending: Kat will seek a cost breakdown from bidders, prepare alternative renderings and a concise one‑page comparison for CPC review, and return in January; the CPC signaled preliminary support for placeholders but withheld final funding decisions pending the updated materials.