Some members of Youngstown City Council have been adamant in their call to equip that city’s police officers with body cameras.

In the name of transparency and oversight, we agree.

Past conversations in Youngstown on this topic have wrapped up mostly with questions about cost — primarily, we suspect, cost of the associated legacy costs that include things like storage fees; staffing to ensure archived videos remain accessible or editing them for release according to Ohio Sunshine laws; and any other related recurring software licensing fees. We realize these are never-ending costs that must not be taken lightly.

However, when considering the important value that body cameras offer in investigating incidents, it can easily be argued these costs are justifiable.

During a recent fact-finding session, members of Youngstown council’s safety committee quizzed police Chief Robin Lees for more than two hours about various proactive or community policing issues. During the session, committee chairwoman Anita Davis, a former Youngstown police officer, and vice chairman Jimmie Hughes, a former Youngstown police chief, became increasingly critical of the various policies.

The tone of this and other conversations between council and the police chief is concerning to us because, as a legislative body, we believe council’s role should not be to zero in on nor attempt to micromanage administrative matters.

That said, council certainly is within its right to control or allocate spending in any way it sees fit.

During the recent conversations, it became clear that Davis, in particular, was adamant she believes Youngstown police should be utilizing body cameras.

Again, we agree. But at what cost?

And while Lees acknowledged he has some concerns, at the end of the day, it’s pretty clear to us that in principle, Lees, too, supports the use of body cameras.

“I have been an advocate from the beginning,” Lees told us this week, noting that by and large, the use of a body camera “helps to validate what our police officers are doing.”

Lees does, however, express concerns at the costs that accompany use of the cameras. That’s a big issue.

Indeed, grant money may be sought, but there is no guarantee the department will be successful in obtaining grant funds. And if it is, it is extremely unlikely those grants will be recurring permanently.

Certainly, local money will be needed for funding. With limited budgets, those funds likely will be redirected from other allocations. Yes, body cameras will create a public record of incidents that can be used to record and help outline the details of incidents that can be used later for investigative purposes.

But if council is adamant that body cameras are a must, then hard decisions will have to be made. Ultimately, it is council that controls the city spending, and it is council that must make those hard decisions. Those decisions should not include redirecting funds from other necessary basic police services.