Council tables five-year body-camera/cloud contract after extended public concerns about access and use

The Hammond City Council voted to table action on a proposed five-year agreement for police body cameras and cloud storage, after several council members and multiple residents raised questions about the contract terms, delivery schedule and whether officers are using equipment consistently.

City staff presented a multi-year quote for licensing, cloud storage and hardware support under a state contract (listed in the staff packet as state contract 4400028582). Staff said the vendor offered a multi-year pricing package that, when broken down, equated to roughly $89,100 per year in recurring service costs; the written materials in the packet contained inconsistent figures and delivery dates that council members and residents highlighted during public comment.

Public commenters and several council members pressed the administration on a range of issues: how many users/licenses the city would receive (staff said the packet showed eight professional licenses and 94 basic licenses), whether the cloud vendor (commonly referenced in the discussion as Axon) provides an audit trail showing who accesses or exports footage, how disciplinary steps are applied when officers fail to record, whether certain hardware components would only be delivered years into the contract term, and whether a five‑year contracting period was prudent given rapid technological change.

Residents including Stanley Campbell and Tracy Wells described perceived gaps in camera availability and urged more transparency and consistent enforcement of camera-use policies. Pam Haynes asked whether the city could shorten or scale the contract given rapid technology changes; staff replied that the quoted agreement includes scheduled hardware upgrade eligibility and software updates as part of the service.

Council members said they needed additional detail before committing city funds and information about which staff have access to cloud-stored footage, the scope of the ‘‘community submission’’ features referenced in the vendor materials, and the city’s procedures for responding to public-records requests that include camera footage. Several council members said they attempted to view camera monitors at the police station and encountered scheduling or access issues; staff described technical or scheduling reasons for those limitations.

After discussion, Councilman Andrews moved to table the contract renewal to the next council meeting to allow administration to provide the requested clarifications. The motion to table passed with the following recorded votes: Councilman Leon — No; Councilman Andrews — Aye; Councilman David Terrio — Aye; Councilwoman Gonzales — Aye; Councilman Wells — Aye. The item will return to a future meeting with the additional information requested by the council.

Staff said the vendor had indicated the written quote would expire on June 27 and that costs could rise if the council delayed beyond that date. The administration also said the proposed service includes cloud-based audit trails and provisions for reburning unreadable media at no charge in instances where DVDs provided to requesters do not read properly.