Trails committee drops planned boardwalk, will seek culvert/turnpike alternative and hold savings as contingency

The trails committee voted June 2 to omit a planned boardwalk in favor of culverts and turnpiking in one wet stretch and to hold any contractor savings as a contingency for future fixes or rework. Committee member Kent made the motion to remove the boardwalk, ask the contractor how much would be saved, and add that amount to the project's contingency (subject to approval by the grant administrator). The motion was seconded and advanced toward a voice approval; the transcript did not record a roll-call tally.

The change follows a field walk and debate over whether a boardwalk was a needed 'feature' or an expensive long-term maintenance item. Members said culverts are easier to maintain than a wooden boardwalk, which can rot and require replacement (committee participants estimated an informal savings figure of about $10,000 if the boardwalk is dropped). The committee discussed moving a boardwalk to a wetter section (the orchard area) if a boardwalk remained desirable and possible, but the consensus was to pursue the simpler culvert/turnpike option unless a better site is identified.

Why this matters: the project is funded through a state grant with a reimbursement window (committee members cited a two-year spending/reimbursement timeline). Members repeatedly expressed concern about cash flow and whether the town or a TIF/other local fund could bridge expenses if reimbursements lagged. The committee agreed holding some funds in contingency would reduce the risk of being unable to fix unexpected wet-area problems once the trail is in use.

Contract and schedule: committee members reported that the contractor's (John) contract packet had been signed by John but the contractor's signature page had not yet been executed by the party named Justin. Staff said they would follow up to obtain the missing signature and get the signed page to the MTP administrator so work could begin. A potential forward start date discussed in the meeting was "possibly June 20," contingent on final signatures and delivery of materials.

Wetlands and inspector: the committee also discussed hiring a construction monitor/inspector. A proposed inspector scope discussed weekly inspections at an estimated rate of $250'$300 per visit; Steve's oversight estimate of 5'10% equated to roughly $8,500'$17,000 for the project oversight line. However, the committee read a letter from IFNW that warned vernal pools can be missed during dry conditions and recommended "verification by a qualified wetland scientist" and, where necessary, rerouting or elevating boardwalks to avoid impacts. Given that recommendation and the potential for a conflict if a single inspector also performed wetland verification, the committee agreed not to finalize inspector hiring at this meeting. Instead, the consultant Evan (referenced in the discussion as someone who could review the RSU2 site study) will look at the available site-review materials and wetland delineations; the committee will reconvene or follow up after Evan reports his findings and after consulting Doug or the town's code-enforcement staff.

Additional operational items: members also flagged utility wiring near dugouts and the scoreboard that must be located before excavation, and they reviewed summer meeting dates (the committee set a June 17 meeting at 7 p.m. and discussed further summer dates).

What happens next: staff will follow up to secure the outstanding signature page and contact John and Doug about schedule and materials; the committee will share the RSU2 wetland delineation materials with Evan and await his review before deciding whether to hire him as inspector or seek an alternative. The committee left the contract otherwise intact and intends to move forward with construction preparations once signatures and the outstanding site-review questions are resolved.