|
Miami-Dade
Legislative Item File Number: 171087 |
|
|
Miami-Dade
Legislative Item File Number: 171087 |
Printable PDF Format
|
| File Number: 171087 | File Type: Resolution | Status: Deferred by the Board | ||||||
| Version: 0 | Reference: | Control: Public Safety and Health Committee | ||||||
|
||||||||
| Requester: Miami-Dade Police Department | Cost: | Final Action: 6/14/2017 | ||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
| Sunset Provision: No | Effective Date: | Expiration Date: | ||||||
| Registered Lobbyist: | None Listed |
Legislative History |
|||||||
| Acting Body | Date | Agenda Item | Action | Sent To | Due Date | Returned | Pass/Fail |
| |
|||||||
| Public Safety and Health Committee | 6/14/2017 | 3D | Withdrawn | P | |||
| REPORT: | Assistant County Attorney Shanika Graves read the title of the foregoing proposed resolution into the record. Chairwoman Heyman relinquished the Chair to Vice-Chairwoman Jordan. Vice-Chairwoman Jordan opened the floor for comments on the foregoing proposed resolution. Commissioner Heyman briefed the Committee on the foregoing proposed resolution regarding the item coming before the Commission on a previous meeting. She added there was no discussion in briefing nor was there any dialogue on the item. Commissioner Heyman noted that she considered the item as a tool for public safety; along with gaining partnership with different source of government to receive funding from Department of Justice (DOJ) for a half a million dollars. Therefore, she noted that Technology Innovation for public safety passed under the federal grant. Commissioner Heyman indicated the only time for public hearing was at the Committee level, in which there was no public hearing regarding the matter. She added to no fault of the Committee Members, Administration, Police Department, or the General Public. Commissioner Heyman noted concerns were raised when the foregoing proposed resolution was presented at the Commission meeting, regarding the nature of innovative technology. She said unlike the Boston Marathon, the incident was captured at a time of sequent. Commissioner Heyman explained the Arial Technology was over 20 miles, in the jurisdiction area of the City of Miami Gardens and the City of Miami. She added if a crime take place, the Police Department would retrieve the captured pictures and reconstruct what was there. Commissioner Heyman noted the surveillance program created great concerns regarding privacy. Commissioner Heyman said because of time constraint the legislative body had to ratify the item; considering the grant was applied for. Nonetheless, as Chair she voiced her concerns that the name of the program was improperly framed by misguiding the Committee members and the public, as to what the item entailed, until it was later heard at the meeting. Commissioner Heyman thanked the Board of County Commissioners Chairman Esteban L. Bovo, Jr. for allowing the item to be deferred, by the members of the Public Safety and Health Committee (PSHC); which allowed the item to come back to the (PSHC) meeting for a proper public hearing. Commissioner Heyman indicated that she had been engaged in dialogue with Mr. Juan Perez, Director, Miami Dade Police Department (MDPD) before the grant was applied for and the item placed on the agenda. She added Mr. Perez also supported open communication with the community, while trying to remain within the time frame for the (DOJ). Commissioner Heyman said after concerns were raised Mr. Perez was prepared to make a statement and take action on behalf of the Department, along with Miami Dade County. She expressed she had reservations after reading the newspaper. Commissioner Heyman thanked the public for coming back and voicing their opinions on the matter. She explained to the public if they had a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the Committee, they would not be permitted to have the reasonable opportunity at the full Commission. Commissioner Heyman noted she sponsored the item because she was the Chair of the Committee; however, she reiterated she sponsored the item with great reservations. Ms. Julia Dawson 1701 SW 4th Ave Miami Florida, 33127 appeared before the Committee in opposition to the foregoing proposed resolution. She said she was pleased with the explanation given by Chairwoman Heyman and Mr. Juan Perez, Director of Miami Dade Police Department regarding the matter. Ms. Dawson indicated that she understood that Mr. Perez supported the withdrawal of the item, along with the grant from the Department of Justice (DOJ). She noted that she asked the Mr. Perez whether he would pursue the “Wide Area Surveillance” (WAS) and Mr. Perez assured her he would not. Ms. Dawson added that she took Mr. Perez at his word and as an active member of the Community, she was extremely happy that they were not taking steps towards militarization of the Police Department. Ms. Jeanne Baker 1717 North Bay Shore Drive, Miami Florida appeared before the Committee in opposition to the foregoing proposed resolution. Ms. Baker noted she appeared on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida in Miami; as Chair for the Police Practices Committee at Miami chapter level. Ms. Baker thanked Chairwoman Heyman for recognizing the importance of public input for such a controversial subject. She added when Chairwoman Heyman became aware there was no public input on the grant application and the public did not recognize the phrase “Technology Innovation” for WAS; she deferred the item back to the Committee to allow the public the opportunity to be heard. Ms. Baker also thanked the Commissioners and Mr. Perez for his commitment to the importance of public input. She noted within the past 10 days ACLU had been an active communication with Mr. Perez regarding the matter, in which he embraced the change that ACLU urged. Ms. Rhonda Thomas 940 Caliph Street, Opalocka Florida 33054 appeared before the Committee in connection with the foregoing proposed resolution; and thanked the Committee. Ms. Thomas noted, she and her husband served as pastors for 27 years at New Generation Baptiste Church; and she was an organizer at “South Florida for Faith” where reducing gun violence was part of her assignment. She shared a personal tragedy where her 23 year old nephew, who served as a fire-fighter, was murdered in Miami-Dade County. Ms. Thomas inquired whether there were other alternatives that could be considered. She noted that she represented an organization “Cease Gun Fire” which was modeled after Oakland and Richmond California. She added that Google had awarded “Cease Gun Fire” organization with two million dollars, and would continue to invest in Miami Dade County and Orlando, Florida. Ms. Thomas added that the program would also include the clergy community, school board, and the law enforcement; as they work collectively together in reducing gun violence. She urged the Committee to consider and research the program. She indicated she was launching a program through the Black Entertainment Television (BET) Awards, which would include law enforcement, from the City of Miami and Miami Gardens; she extended the invitation to Miami-Dade County to help reduce gun violence; and potentially help expand the program. Audrey Bomse 8600 Byron Avenue, Miami Florida 33141appeared before the Committee opposing the foregoing proposed resolution. She noted that she was a member of the National Lawyers Guild and Jewish Voice of Peace; however, she was appearing as a Miami-Dade County resident. Ms. Bomse thanked the Commission and the Police Director for opposing/dropping the WAS. She indicated if individuals were surveilled closely by the law enforcement, the more likely law enforcement would fine these individuals engaging in illegal behavior. Ms. Bomse cited statistics and stated as a former Public Defender people of all races use and distributes drugs at similar rate. However, she said in many States which included Florida, black men were incarcerated at a greater rate on drug charges than white men. Ms. Bomse believed if mass surveillance would take place, the under-privileged community of color would be hurt the most; along with students from fraternity houses at the University of Miami. She expressed the need to look into mass incarceration and criminalization when mass surveillance comes into question. Barry White 10001 SW 129TH Terrace, Miami Florida 33176 appeared before the Committee in support of the foregoing proposed resolution. He noted he was appalled at what he was hearing and he believed the issue was denied due process. Mr. White also believed the Commissioners had already decided on the matter, in which the public hearing was improperly advertised. He said the WAS was an invaluable tool, which was developed in Fallujah and Afghanistan to trace road side bombers to their source, and destroy the bombs. Mr. White indicated it would be a valuable tool for Miami Dade Police department. He said some individuals may feel the invasion of privacy; however, individuals were a pixel on the screen; in which the denial of privacy was not imminent. Mr. White suggested that the Committee properly convene another public hearing on the matter. Megan Kircher 5185 Ponce De Leon Blvd. Coral Gables Florida 33124 appeared before the Committee in connection to the foregoing proposed resolution. She thanked the Committee for allowing the public more time to learn more about the proposal; along with MDPD Director Perez for listening to the community concerns regarding the WAS Program. Ms. Kircher compared the similarity between the Wide Area Surveillance Program and Drones Technology. She said public disapproval of Drones Technology led the Florida legislators to pass the Freedom Unwarranted Surveillance Act in 2013. Ms. Kircher added that the Act illustrated public disfavor in drones surveillance by stating, law enforcement agency may not use drones to gather evidence or other information. She noted the WAS Program would be the same outcome the legislator tried to prevent. Ms. Kricher said the Freedom Unwarranted Surveillance Act had a description of an individual having reasonable expectation of privacy; however, the expectation of privacy should not be compromised based on technology monitoring as a human operator. She noted the public had the right of privacy from invasion from the sky. Dane Stuhlsatz 1238 SE 13TH Ave Deerfield Beach Florida 33441 appeared before the Committee opposing the foregoing proposed resolution. He thanked the Committee for making a wise decision in prioritizing in principle over expediency. Mr. Stuhlsatz noted the Committee was very prudent in their decision; and he referenced Anthony Amsterdam statement of the Fourth Amendment, which stated “The question was not whether you or I must draw the blinds before we commit a crime, the question was whether you or I must discipline ourselves to draw the blinds every time we enter a room under pain of surveillance if we do not.” He noted the Committee’s decision for abandoning the program would be protecting the citizens of Miami-Dade, from undertaking an onerous requirement. Mr. Stuhlsatz said some might say the Supreme Court of the United States case “Florida vs. Riley” supported an intrusive policy; however, he commended the Committee for rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. He said that other countries could look to the wisdom of the commission, as an example of good judgement of protecting the citizens’ rights; and sustaining the Fourth Amendment. Vice-Chairwoman Jordan closed the floor for public comment after no other persons appeared before the Committee. Mr. Juan J. Perez, Director of Miami Dade Police Department, shared with the committee and the members of the public, Miami-Dade County current crime statistics; which were 670 robberies, 44 murders; and he stated 42 out of the 44 murders was committed by firearm. He added the latest reported shooting incidents throughout Unincorporated Municipal Service Area (UMSA) were 388, and 1500 burglaries. Mr. Perez indicated those stats had not increased or decreased; however, it fluctuated and remained the same. He expressed concerns regarding the stats, and the efforts that had been placed in community policing by exploring different projects. Mr. Perez noted one of the projects that were explored within the community, was “Cease Fire” and other similar projects like it. He added different programs in Request for Proposal (RFP) such as “Cure Violence” as mentioned from a member of the public, it was being reviewed for the near future. Mr. Perez noted partnership had assembled amongst the Mayor and School Board regarding successful programs in the community for the youth. However, he noted it still remained his responsibility for the crime in the community. Mr. Perez said murders that stemmed from gun violence were committed daily; despite the efforts of law enforcements and the commission. He noted the responsibility lied on him, not on Chairwoman Heyman. Mr. Perez expressed his passion, dedication, and commitment to the community; nonetheless, he noted when he observed the statistics and the struggles by trying to identify different technologies to improve conditions for the youth in the community. He noted there was a demo conducted of the “Wide Area Surveillance” which allowed the ability to view a crime scene immediately before and after it had taken place. Mr. Perez explained the “Wide Area Surveillance” helped to identify where the perpetrators came from, and where they were going; also it helped with leads without identifying faces or vehicles. Additionally, Mr. Perez noted the “Wide Area Surveillance” could not identify whether the perpetrator was male or female because of the pixelated pictures; which was a series of pictures put together. Mr. Perez explained the reason the department explored the “Wide Area Surveillance” technology was because it was a proven technology that was explored in Baltimore. He noted the Police Foundation had conducted a report that showed how the program favorably impacted the community. Mr. Perez said 108 incidents, 5 homicides, and illegal dumping in the community had been solved in a short period of time; because the program was promising. However, he noted that he was uneasy with the program considering the program was fairly new and unreliable. Mr. Perez added the program would have been a pilot program; which he was not willing to invest County funds for it. He explained there was a technology grant; in which the department forwarded to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Mr. Perez noted as they explored the benefits of this technology, a recommendation was stating, before moving forward with the grant and implementing the program, outreach to the community was needed such as notification, signage, social media, and utilizing media outlets to broadcast the use of the “Wide Area Surveillance” technology in the community. He added because of the lack of funding community outreach could not be conducted. Mr. Perez expressed the importance for the Police Department maintaining a positive relationship with the community it served. He noted as a public servant who served the voices of the community along with the Commission; he hears the community and acknowledged that they program had not been proven to be 100 percent successful. As a result, he had made his decision, after working with the commissioners to withdrawal his support for the item. Mr. Perez noted he understood the tension and concerns of the community, and he would not want the community to think he was violating anyone expectation of privacy. He noted with regards to the drones, it would never be utilized because it was a type of surveillance that could identify individuals, and was low rated in expectation of privacy. Mr. Perez said in moving forward such surveillance programs would not be explored because the community has made it clear; and he was listening to the community; considering he cares and lives in the community. He added that he cherished the support and the relationship he had with the community. Mr. Perez noted to those that may be in opposition they stand together in protecting the Miami-Dade County residents He thanked the members of the public for their comments; along with his department for the work they have done. He said that listening and engaging with the community was more important than unproven technology; and he would rather maintain a relationship. Vice-Chairwoman Jordan wanted a point of clarification from Assistant County Attorney Graves. She noted although the discussion encouraged a withdrawal of the item on the agenda; however, she inquired whether the item was being withdrawal from the agenda. Assistant County Attorney Graves noted a motion to withdrawal the item would be in order. Pursuant to Vice-Chairwoman Jordan’s question as to what action had taken place on the agenda for the item; Assistant County Attorney Graves noted the item on the agenda was being ratified of the grant application that was submitted. Responding to Vice-Chairwoman Jordan’s question regarding if the Committee had made a decision based on the motion, whether the Committee supported or opposed the motion when presented on the floor, and if the motion failed whether another motion could be made; Assistant County Attorney Graves confirmed what was stated by Vice-Chairwoman Jordan as correct. Vice-Chairwoman Jordan clarified the item on the agenda was not withdrawn, even though the discussion was led in that direction. She acknowledged what the intent of the sponsor was; however, the item was still on the floor. Commissioner Heyman clarified why the item was voted out, and why the item returned to the Committee after it was voted unanimously. She noted the item was initially ratified; however, the item remained ratified when the item returned to the Committee, and was thoroughly explained on an Information Technology (IT) Innovation for public safety. Commissioner Heyman pointed out that the item was predisposed to vote on, and to give the public an opportunity to be heard. Commissioner Heyman thanked Mr. Perez and Deputy Mayor Russell Benford. She noted when the idea of grants was mentioned; she kept in constant communication with Mr. Perez regarding different grants that was offered; and was thoroughly reviewed by the County, such as the body cameras. Commissioner Heyman noted although it was a new conceptual system in Baltimore City; however, the grant may be another source of funding, it still remained as funds from taxpayer at a federal level. She also mentioned how Mr. Perez prevailed on the notion of what does it mean for Miami-Dade County. Commissioner Heyman indicated the body cameras were weighted out in different variables; such as, the cost to the clouds, peripheral view, recordation, and storage in which research had been conducted. She stated the reason why the item came before the Committee in this order, was because Mr. Perez had a deadline to adhere to, before the Commission was scheduled to vote. Commissioner Heyman wanted to qualify the item for those who had the notion of the item being predisposed. She added only depending on the motion only the Commission had the authority to vote. Commissioner Heyman suggested that Ms. Thomas speak to Deputy Mayor Russell Benford, Mr. Perez, Mr. Daniel Junior, Director of Correction and Rehabilitation, along with Commissioner Edmonson, to address the innovative prevention diversion by trying to combat gun violence in the Community. She added that Commissioner Edmonson had a subcommittee targeting youth intercity gun violence. Commissioner Heyman noted that she wanted to be well versed on various tools; however, under the “Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act Program” she believed it was an excessive scope in Baltimore City. She added the Unwarranted Surveillance in Baltimore City ranged from 21 to 25 miles out, which captured everything and had to picked apart when an issue occurred; it also included 150 hours of training, and overhead plane surveillance in demographic areas. Commissioner Heyman believed the Unwarranted Surveillance was intrusive; and noted the Commission had been looking into better technology, and man power resources to target areas with problems. Commissioner Heyman noted she did not want individuals not to support the item or to negate what the Commission was doing. Therefore, she does not believe the Unwarranted Surveillance was appropriate. She said she was pleased with what was done in Boston and Oregon; however, there were other practices that Deputy Mayor Benford would continue to pursue an advance technology to serve public safety. Nonetheless, her support of withdrawing the item was based on her colleagues message regarding the item. Commissioner Heyman added deferral of the item was not necessary, because the Commission had a timespan to apply for the DOJ grant. She expressed the importance on while the County was looking into Baltimore City practice; others were looking at this technology and what Miami Dade County might do. Commissioner Heyman noted it was a learning opportunity for her, and she would conduct research on the case file of Florida vs. Riley; to view the Supreme Court decision on that case. Commissioner Diaz noted based on the statements that had been made; he was following the lead of Chairwoman Heyman and Mr. Perez. He stated that technology was advancing in many different ways, such as surveillance in the stores, traffic etc. Commissioner Diaz concurred with his colleagues regarding the County needs; however, he disagreed and respected some of the statements such as, Mr. White’s statement regarding if the tool was use as a protection to the police officers who was protecting society, it would be the instrument of use. Also, he referenced the statement made by Ms. Kircher regarding the difference between drones, and unwarranted surveillance. Commissioner Diaz noted if the program was warranted to save lives, such as the program “Shot Spotter” which was a program that gave accurate radius reading when shots were fired to help law enforcements capture the perpetrator; he and Commissioner Jordan supported “Shot Spotter” in the past. Commissioner Diaz noted he did not want the Commission to rule out technology that served as a tool to help and support the police officers. He expressed the need to find alternatives to help assist the County, police officers, and the citizens. Commissioner Diaz noted that all departments were being equipped with new technology of all forms, to help serve the law enforcement officers to conduct their jobs efficiently. He added that Deputy Mayor Benford was working with Mr. Perez, to achieve those efforts. Commissioner Diaz believed those efforts would save lives of citizens as the violence continue to increase. He wanted to ensure that the Commission did not make broad statements suggesting that they were not going to explore other technology for the future. Commissioner Diaz said although individuals were required to have their privacy; however, public surveillance was everywhere publicly. He noted if a crime had taken place, the tape recording would be pulled to determine whether the crime had occurred. Commissioner Diaz added that surveillance had extended to the street corners of the communities. He noted that he had spoken to Mr. Perez on the matter; and was in full support of new advanced technology to help assist the department municipalities such as, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders, Fire Fighters, along with the Corrections department. Commissioner Levine-Cava noted that she supported the withdrawal of the foregoing proposed resolution. Commissioner Souto noted the County had to use what was available; however, he noted other parts of the world, such as Europe had surveillance everywhere. He referenced the incident that took place in Washington, and mentioned there were all kinds of individuals living in the world today; nonetheless, people still have rights. Commissioner Souto said 20 years ago he had proposed the use of blimps as surveillance as a patrolling tool for law enforcement officers; however, he noted that crimes remained an issue. He said that individuals who visit Miami Dade County want to feel safe, as result security was heavily needed. Commissioner Souto said within his own neighborhood there was no police patrolling; therefore, he noted more police patrolling was needed in the neighborhoods. Commissioner Souto expressed the need to prevent crimes, and recalled an incident that took place in his neighborhood shopping center, where an act of violence took place, and resulted in someone’s death. He added because of surveillance the police was able to apprehend the perpetrator who committed the crime at the shopping center. Commissioner Souto voiced the need for surveillance/cameras because the world was not an ideal place of dwelling. Commissioner Levine Cava noted this matter was delicate, and everyone wanted to unite together by addressing the crimes that affected innocent victims, and children in the community. Therefore, she noted there was substantial motivation to explore other alternatives. Commissioner Levine Cava said it served as a great example of public involvement, and the Mr. Perez wanting to collaborate with the community to solve this issue. However, she said exploring various alternatives would reduce crimes by working directly with individuals’ to decrease crimes, such as “Cure for Violence” and “Cease Fire.” Also, she noted that adequate police presence was needed in the community. Commissioner Levine Cava commended the public for speaking out and researching on the matter; and Mr. Perez for having a desire to solve crimes by looking into innovative ways to collaborate with the community. She noted that she supported the withdrawal of the foregoing proposed resolution. Pursuant to Vice-Chairwoman Jordan’s question regarding the grant application that was submitted by Mr. Perez; and whether Mr. Perez referenced “Wide Area Surveillance” demo as the grant application; Mr. Perez confirmed that they had received the demo of the “Wide Area Surveillance” (WAS) and Federal Government Funding was requested for the pilot program. Responding to Vice-Chairwoman Jordan’s question as to whether Mr. Perez had received a demo; Mr. Perez noted they he received a demonstration on how WAS worked. In response to Vice-Chairwoman Jordan’s question as to whether the “Wide Area Surveillance” was targeting one section; Mr. Perez noted the area surveillance was a single multitude of cameras, that photographed areas every second the plane was in flight; it covered 32-50 square miles depending on the height of the plane. Vice-Chairwoman Jordan highlighted the summary that staff had prepared. She said the “Wide Area Surveillance Technology” was developed by an Air Force researcher who called the program “Angel Fire” in 2006 when he gave it to the military. Vice-Chairwoman Jordan founded it interesting that the planes were equipped with megapixels cameras, computer algorithms, and then footage was stitched together into a rewinding recording of the entire cities. She said that she also found it interesting because of the movements, along with the area that was chosen, which were Miami Gardens and part of the City of Miami. Vice-Chairwoman Jordan enquired whether Miami Gardens and part of the city was chosen due to the high rate of crimes and shootings that occurred in those cities. Mr. Perez explained in a separate grant application that did not come before the Commission; that grant application required research partnership; which was a collaborative effort in other municipalities, and departments. He said that Miami Gardens, City of Miami, and the Miami Dade Police Department worked together to choose those areas. Pursuant to Vice-Chair Jordan’s question at whether it was a collaboration that took place; Mr. Perez confirmed that it was collaboration. In response to Vice-Chairwoman Jordan’s question as to whether Miami Gardens or City of Miami could have applied separately for the program; Mr. Perez stated they could have applied separately. Vice-Chairwoman Jordan expressed concerns about advanced surveillance technology eventually evolving. She noted as crime continue to worsen , the Commission wanted to know what was happening with crimes, such as shootings, robberies, opioids, and drug abuse. Vice-Chairwoman Jordan expressed concerns that certain communities were being targeted verses the entire area and crime needed to be looked at all sectors. Vice-Chairwoman Jordan indicated the “Wide Area Surveillance” technology was not just targeting the citizens; it was also targeting officers, or anyone who have committed any misconduct. She pointed out not all law enforcement commit to doing what was right, along with everyday citizens. Nonetheless, she noted that eventually they would be advancing to evolving technology; such as the “Shot Spotter,” where it could detect who was firing the shot. She further explained the “Shot Spotter” was able to recover finger prints from the casing of the bullets, and eventually make an arrest. Vice-Chairwoman Jordan noted that although she supported the withdrawal of the foregoing proposed resolution; however, she does foresee the increase in crimes. She expressed that she would like to see a decrease in black-on-black crimes, to allow young black males to grow up and contribute to the community. Vice-Chairwoman Jordan added with technology it would help young black men grow up, and move towards a career path; and rule out those who had adverse effect. She noted she was willing to support the foregoing proposed resolution, because she wanted to ensure that other opportunities were available. Vice-Chairwoman Jordan pointed out whether or not the Commission supported “Wide Area Surveillance” it would come up in the future. She added she believed it was forthcoming, and the Commission would not have a choice, because the Commission wanted to control the crime waves to the community, along with the country. Commissioner Heyman thanked everyone for participating and putting things on the record it will be shared and she move to withdrawal the ratification. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Committee proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed resolution. | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| Board of County Commissioners | 6/6/2017 | 8I1 | Deferred | 6/14/2017 | P | ||
| REPORT: | This proposed resolution was deferred and sent back to the Public Safety & Health Committee meeting of June 14, 2017, as requested by Commissioner Heyman. | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| Public Safety and Health Committee | 5/10/2017 | 1G2 | Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation | P | |||
| REPORT: | Assistant County Attorney Gerald Sanchez read the title of the foregoing proposed resolution into the record. Chairwoman Heyman opened the public hearing and called for persons wishing to be heard on the foregoing proposed resolution. The public hearing was closed after no one appeared wishing to speak. Hearing no questions or comments, the Committee proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed resolution, as presented. | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| County Attorney | 4/24/2017 | Assigned | Anita Viciana Zapata | 4/26/2017 | |||
| |
|||||||
| Russell Benford | 4/20/2017 | Assigned | Office of Agenda Coordination | 4/20/2017 | 4/20/2017 | ||
| |
|||||||
| Office of Agenda Coordination | 4/20/2017 | Assigned | County Attorney | 6/6/2017 | |||
| REPORT: | MDPD - Commissioner Heyman sponsors - Pending May Cmte - County Attorney: Anita Viciana - Attachments: none - Page Numbers: 5 | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| Legislative Text |
|
TITLE RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE ACTION OF THE COUNTY MAYOR OR COUNTY MAYOR�S DESIGNEE IN APPLYING FOR $500,000.00 IN GRANT FUNDS FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT 2017 IN ACCORDANCE WITH GRANT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MAYOR OR COUNTY MAYOR�S DESIGNEE TO RECEIVE AND EXPEND SUCH FUNDS, EXERCISE AND EXECUTE SUCH CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THIS PURPOSE; AND MODIFY OR AMEND THE APPLICATION IN ORDER TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL FUNDS, TO EXTEND THE PERFORMANCE PERIOD, OR TO COMPLY WITH FUTURE CHANGES TO GRANT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS BODY WHEREAS, this Board desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the accompanying memorandum, a copy of which is incorporated herein by reference, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board ratifies the action of the County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee in applying for $500,000.00 in grant funds from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance under the Technology Innovation for Public Safety Grant 2017; and authorizes the County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee to receive and expend grant funds; to execute such contracts, agreements and memoranda of understanding, and amendments, as required by program guidelines following review by the County Attorney�s Office for form and legal sufficiency; to modify or amend the application in order to receive additional funds should they become available through this grant program; and to exercise and execute any amendments and/or modifications in order to receive additional funds, to extend the performance period, or to comply with future changes to grant program requirements, renewals and extension provisions, cancellation and termination clauses related to the grant application, contracts, agreements, or memoranda of understanding on behalf of Miami-Dade County, Florida. HEADER DATE: TO: Honorable Chairman Esteban L. Bovo, Jr. and Members, Board of County Commissioners FROM: Carlos A. Gimenez Mayor SUBJECT: Resolution Ratifying the Application of the County Mayor for Grant Funds from the STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approve and ratify the County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee action in applying for grant funds from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Technology Innovation for Public Safety Grant 2017. It is further recommended that the Board authorize the County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee to receive and expend such grant funds. The grant period begins October 1, 2017, and continues through September 30, 2019. These grant funds are for the Miami-Dade Police Department�s (MDPD) Real-Time Crime Center. Scope The grant will support countywide services. Delegation of Authority The County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee is authorized to apply for, receive, and expend grant funds, and to execute documents such as contracts, agreements and memoranda of understanding, and amendments, as required by program guidelines. The County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee is also authorized to apply for, receive, and expend future additional funds should they become available through this grant program, and execute any amendments, modifications, renewals and extension provisions, termination clauses related to the grant applications, contracts, agreements, or memoranda of understanding on behalf of the County. Fiscal Impact/Funding Source This grant will provide up to $500,000 in federal funds and it does not require any matching local or in-kind funds. The funding source is the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Track Record/Monitor These funds will be monitored by Gustavo Knoepffler, MDPD�s Chief Financial Officer, and Jose Rivero, Commander, Information Technology Services Bureau, to ensure compliance with grant requirements. Background Retroactive ratification of the County Mayor�s action in applying for the grant is necessary as the grant deadline did not allow sufficient time to secure Board approval prior to submission of the grant. The MDPD�s proposed program will use innovative technology to support law enforcement by increasing information sharing across agencies and across entities within the MDPD. The technology solution is a Wide Area Surveillance (WAS) system intended to generate leads, improve incident clearance rates, maximize convictions, and prevent crime. WAS provides the equipment, personnel, training and technical support required, delivering complete analysis services for MDPD investigators. In addition, the technology solution will be evaluated to document its effectiveness in sharing data, and establishing best practices which may be replicated nationwide. _____________________ Russell Benford Deputy Mayor |
|
Home |
Agendas |
Minutes |
Legislative Search |
Lobbyist Registration |
Legislative Reports
Home | Using Our Site | About | Phone Directory | Privacy | Disclaimer
E-mail your comments,
questions and suggestions to
Webmaster
|
