City attorney outlines fee schedule for law‑enforcement recordings; committee sends bill 43‑25 to committee of the whole with no recommendation

The Personal & Finance Committee heard a presentation on Bill 43‑25, which would update Section 2‑210 of the municipal code to add a fee schedule and procedural clarifications for requests for law‑enforcement recordings. City Attorney Jenna Throw said the changes are intended to help requesters get the specific video they need and to make the review process more efficient.

Throw told the committee that the total number of APRA requests for recordings since body cameras began in 2018 is 611 and that the annual number of requests has risen: "If you take the average per year since 2020, we received on average a 103 requests... If you take that average for 2023, 2024, and 2025, the average jumps up to 151." She said more than half of requests in each reviewed year come from business entities — media, law firms, insurance and investigation companies — and that only about 10–12 requests per year fall into categories the statute defines as victims.

Throw described the proposed fees as based on actual staff review time to perform legally required redactions, capped consistent with Indiana law so a high‑review item could reach $150. She explained that the ordinance follows guidance from the Indiana public access counselor and that only the first request for a copied recording would be charged for the review work; subsequent identical copy requests would not be double‑charged. She said fees recovered under state law "may be used for... to purchase cameras, for training, and to defray the expenses of storing, producing and copying those recordings" and that the city would direct recovered fees to the law‑enforcement training fund to support the body‑camera program.

Throw also described operational details: requesters may inspect recordings under state law without receiving a copy (and without the fee), entities such as prosecutors or family‑justice partners may obtain access outside APRA, and redaction work can be time consuming — in her office staff estimate about 18 hours per week are spent on recordings now and experienced reviewers can take up to three times a video's runtime to redact.

Committee members asked about fee uniformity across requester categories, the possibility of a lower flat fee used by other cities (Fort Wayne’s flat $30 was cited), and whether the fees should instead be absorbed in departmental budgets. Throw said state law requires uniform APRA fees and that the city had consulted the public access counselor about charging the first requester for a given recording and not re‑charging subsequent identical requests. She said more staff time might be required as volume grows.

During the public hearing, Kylie Connell, assistant city attorney working with the police department, clarified that to date the city has not received APRA requests for Flock Safety camera footage and that whether Flock footage is processed the same way "would depend on the definition of law enforcement recordings." Two members of the public testified against the proposed fee scale. Richard Herbst said the charge "appears to be accomplishing neither" a deterrent nor appropriate administrative funding and urged annual review of the policy. Jordan Geiger said the proposal "disproportionately impacts or, burdens, the citizen who doesn't have as deep of pockets or as deep pockets as, as a business."

After discussion the committee voted 4–0 to send Bill 43‑25 to the committee of the whole with no recommendation, allowing further discussion at a full council session and additional public input.