The longest-serving Bartholomew County commissioner says he doesn’t anticipate much resistance to Sheriff Matt Myers’ request to purchase body cameras for his deputies.
But not everybody shares Larry Kleinhenz’s assessment.
While Myers describes his request for body cameras as a “non-negotiable priority,” commissioners Chairman Carl Lienhoop said he’s certain Bartholomew County Council members will want some give-and-take.
“In the end, this non-negotiable item will be negotiated between the sheriff and the council. Period,” Lienhoop said.
[sc:text-divider text-divider-title=”Story continues below gallery” ]
Myers said last week he will be making a strong case for purchasing body cameras to both the county commissioners and the county council, mostly likely when the council begins its 2021 budget talks later this summer.
Kleinhenz said he believes the sheriff did the right thing after easing off from his demands for body cameras in late 2017. That’s because body camera technology was undependable and too costly at that time, Kleinhenz said.
Today, the devices are likely more reliable and less expensive, said Kleinhenz, who is currently unopposed as he seeks his eighth consecutive term this fall.
“Now, the sheriff has determined it’s time to get that project back on board,” Kleinhenz said. “I think the taxpayers will feel good that we avoided mistakes other governmental entities made back then. They were the guinea pigs who figured out what works and what doesn’t.”
Lienhoop said he sees two components as factors in the potential purchase of body cameras, with the first being cost.
“The other, which is probably an even more important issue, is the demands for our (Information Technology) department to manage all of that data,” Lienhoop said.
While the county has a robust storage platform in place for systems in use today, a body camera system that uses on-site storage will require purchasing dedicated storage systems to hold the video data, Bartholomew County Director of Information Technology Scott Mayes said.
“As with all technology purchases, these systems have to be maintained and replaced as they depreciate over time, thus adding to the ongoing annual cost,” Mayes said.
While cloud-based (off-site) storage is available for video data, they also require annual fees, and transmitting the data to cloud storage requires additional network and internet bandwidth, Mayes said.
“All of these items contribute to the overall cost of ownership and have to be engineered and accounted for, so the total cost of ownership and ongoing annual service fees are discovered and planned for the project,” the county’s IT director said.
Last week, the council showed little desire for increased spending next year. Members said next year’s budget will be financially tight because, among other things, they won’t know the exact amount of local income tax revenue the county will receive during budget talks. That amount won’t be available until later, due to extended deadlines on income tax payments, county auditor Pia O’Connor said.
While the council does have the ultimate decision-power regarding fiscal affairs, Kleinhenz said the commissioners did become involved in the body camera issue in late 2017. That’s when the council asked the commissioners to invest money from their telecommunications fund into the devices, Kleinhenz said. While the commissioners agreed, the request for body cameras was pulled before the purchases could be made.
This year’s proposal to purchase body cameras has the support of every deputy, as well as several citizens and community leaders, Myers said.
