The Northfield Select Board directed the town manager to produce a cost‑benefit analysis comparing current camera equipment with lower-cost solar-powered systems for monitoring covered bridges and bridge damage.

Several Select Board members and residents discussed the difficulty of capturing clear identifying images of vehicles that hit covered bridges and the challenge of getting insurance payouts after such damage. A board member who had initially advocated for cameras said they wanted a written cost‑benefit comparison before approving further spending.

The manager was asked to compare the accuracy and costs of the town’s current camera installations with commercially available solar-powered “trail” or hunting cameras that can operate on battery/solar power and use cellular connections. Board members also asked staff to consider whether solar units could be a short-term alternative while the three covered bridges are scheduled for reconstruction in 2029.

Board members noted operational limits beyond camera selection: obtaining clear identification photos, successful claims with insurers, and whether devices would require removal and reinstallation during bridge reconstruction. One board member advised holding off on installing any permanent “headache bars” or other hardware before the 2029 rebuild to avoid extra removal and reinstallation costs.

The Select Board did not vote on procurement but asked the manager to return with a written cost‑benefit analysis and a technical comparison (solar-powered vs. hardwired) so the board can decide whether to pursue different camera technology or other mitigation measures at a future meeting.