Las Vegas Urban Area Working Group CLARK COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION

FIRE STATION 18 2ND FLOOR EOC 575 EAST FLAMINGO ROAD

LAS VEGAS NV 89119

DRAFT MINUTES

Thursday, May 31, 2018 09:00 A.M.

ATTENDANCE UAWG MEMBERS PRESENT: JOHN STEINBECK, JOHN WIERCINSKI, MISTY RICHARDSON, SOLOME BARTON, RACHEL

SKIDMORE, KEVIN NICHOLSON, JAYSON ANDRUS, MIKE WILSON, STEVE KRAMER, JIM OWENS, BRIAN SCROGGINS UAWG MEMBERS ABSENT: CARLITO RAYOS, RYAN TURNER, JEFF BUCHANAN, TIM O’NEIL, JEREMY HYNDS, KEVIN

NICHOLSON

I. Call to Order and Roll Call John Steinbeck, UAWG Chairman called the meeting to order at 09:00 A.M. on Thursday, May 31, 2018. Misty Richardson advised quorum present.

II. Public Comments

Chair: Thank you Cheryl. Okay so moving on to item 2 public comment: No action may be taken upon this matter raised on the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on an agenda, do I have any public comments at this time. Mike Wilson. Mike Wilson: I know this is not related to anything on the agenda but I just wanted to publicly say thank you, especially to Rachel Skidmore and her group for the exercise yesterday and all the agencies involved. We really, really, appreciate all the efforts that members of this community take to keep our student center staff safe within our schools. I will just say thank you.

Chair: Thank you Mike. What a fantastic exercise yesterday that really showcased some of our abilities and what our mission is here as the UAWG and what it is that we’re supposed to be trying to fund and work towards and it was a fantastic exercise towards for that and it showed us where we have some work to do and certainly that we do have some pretty robust capabilities. Excellent Job. Rachel Skidmore: Mike you beat me to the punch, I wanted to say thank you today. Kevin, Mike, Carolyn, Jeremy, Carlito, Salome, the majority of you were out there were supporting our exercise and have supported prior to and building to. I can’t thank you enough for your support and showing up like you did. Thank you very much.

Chair: Now on the negative side is that Metro did show us that they can do a full-scale exercise in six weeks so no more excuses about needing 6 months to pull this off. Great job. Any additional public comment at this time?

III. Comments from the Chair Chair: First of all, I’d like to thank my staff for their work that they’ve done to put this together and the staff at the state every year this is a very chaotic process because of how late the notice of funding comes out. And I want to thank all of you also for making time with the different schedule changes, we know that we need to make this a priority. It's a great year for us, we received 5 Million dollars allocated to the urban area, $4,750,000 after the State MNA that we’ll be working with today and there was a lot of work that went into getting that and a lot of people here worked towards that. So, thank you very much for that as well. Today I just ask that everybody, as we’re looking at these projects to keep in mind what the mission is and that this is to prevent or prepare or recover or respond to or from a terrorist attack and that's what we have to rank accordingly where those projects are best suited and work with each other as we do some of this cutting down of this budget that will be necessary as we move forward here today.

IV. Update on Nevada Public Safety Communications Committee Grants

Subcommittee on action taken to review and prioritize communications project proposals at the April 18, 2018 meeting.

Chair: I’m going to turn that to Karen Taylor.

Karen Taylor: At the meeting they ranked the SHSP projects and the UASI projects separately, so I’ll review the UASI projects.

Number 1: Radio Interoperability Project Las Vegas Paiute Police

Number 2: Emergency Management Operational Coordination Clark County Emergency Management

Number 3: FAO Alternative Facility Clark County Fire

Chair: Thank you Karen. Are there any questions from the communications subcommittee and their rankings? As I will discuss here in a minute, the Paiute were ranked as number 1 and they are still eligible for SHSP funding with the notice of funding this year they are not eligible for the UASI funding. But we believe that we have funded that project with de-obligated funds so that we can still take care of that. Okay moving on, if there are no questions on that or on the ranking, I’m going to ask Karen to do the same thing on item 5, update on Nevada Cyber Security Committee and their rankings.

V. Update on the Nevada Cyber Security Committee on action taken to review and prioritize cybersecurity project proposals at the April 19, 2018 meeting.

Karen Taylor: The Cyber Committee did it a little bit differently. They Ranked all the projects together, the SHSP and the UASI. We only had one UASI CYBER project so those are, the way the rankings came out.

Number 1: Project Q Washoe County Sheriff's Office Cyber Project

Number 2: NetFlow Detection and Monitoring Office of Nevada Secretary of State

Number 3: Project R Washoe County Sheriff's Office Cyber Project

Number 4: Project P - Cyber Resiliency Project Desert Research Institute

Number 5: Project O (UASI Project) - Cyber Security Services Southern Nevada Health District

Number 6: Project N - Cyber Security South Lyon Health Center

Chair: Thank you Karen, are there any questions on the Cyber Security rankings that came out of the sub-committee, or any comments? This meeting, you guys just want to get to it? Okay, good job. Thank you very much we’re going to move on then.

VI. Discuss sustainment recommendations from the Homeland Security Work

Group (HSWG) Co-Chairs to align with Governors directive.

Chair: So, for those of you who don’t know this year, myself and Chief Cage, as co-chairs for the Homeland Security Working Group, were directed by the Governor to go forward with the resiliency strategy. There were many points of criteria in that resiliency strategy and in that directive that we need to go ahead and make. One of those points is so do a written Resiliency Strategy that is due by July 1st – that we’re working on right now. But one of the other things that was in that directive was for us to go ahead and do recommendations of projects that need to be sustained throughout the SHSP and UASI funding. You’ve just been given a letter that myself and Chief Cage put together, and for the record I’m just going to read this letter out and then we’ll go from there.

“Following an unprecedented year of emergencies and disasters throughout the state of Nevada in 2017, a new model for Emergency Management with an Emphasis on resiliency is needed. This Direction was given to the Co-chairs of the Nevada Homeland Security Working Group by Governor Sandoval in executive order 2018-4. Among other directives the Co-chairs have been instructed to develop a statewide resiliency strategy by July 1, 2018, and to develop a prioritized list of specific needs before the completion of the 2018

Homeland Security Grant Program Cycle. Recognizing that 2018 is a transition year, the prioritized list for 2018 will be comprised of agencies that have already submitted projects for the 2018 HSGP cycle and have been identified as a central program to sustained capabilities to prevent, mitigate, prepare, respond, and recover from a terrorist incident. The 2018 resiliency strategy and the newly formed Resiliency Commission will have a more comprehensive priorities list of vital programs for the following years budgeting grants fund cycles. These priorities will not be restricted to terrorist or man-made disasters but will prioritize programs for funding that are needed to address all hazard types. Subsequent years resiliency strategies, along with the THIRA, should be used to not only identify programs that are vital for sustainment but to identify gaps in resources and influence agencies to submit projects that align with the strategy and serve to reduce or eliminate those gaps. The Homeland Security Working Group Co-chairs have identified the following programs as vital and recommend that they receive priority during the 2018 grant cycle. The order they are listed are not indicative of a higher or lower prioritization and those are: Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center, Armor CBRNE, the Emergency Management Operational Coordination, Metropolitan Medical Response System, and the Southern Nevada CERT.” Is everybody’s two sided? Is everybody else's two sided? Okay, alright I got the one handed to me that was one sided so I just want to make sure that everyone else's was two sided. On the back you’ll see the SHSP ones that we also prioritized. It’s the, “Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center, The Nevada Threat Analysis Center, Armor CBRNE, Consolidate Bomb Squad, Tahoe Douglas Bomb Squad, Northeast Nevada Citizen Corps CERT Program, Southern Nevada Community Emergency Response Team, Statewide Citizen Corps Council, Statewide Continuity of Operations, Statewide NIMS, Washoe County Sheriff's Citizens Corps Program, Douglas County CERT Program, and the Statewide Interoperability Coordinator. These recommendations are hereby presented for consideration by the Homeland Security Working Group, when ranked prioritizing the 2018 project submissions.” And so, as you can see we’ve identified projects that have a long-standing need and history within this community, for our capabilities. And we have a substantial investment in already, you’ll see going forward that as we build this resiliency commission, which will be replacing a lot of the boards and commissions we have in place right now, we have over 35 statewide boards and commissions, and one of our directives is to reduce that amount and to increase our efficiency. And along with those types of projects, there will be a statewide strategy, which hopefully define what projects need to be brought forward so we kind of switch this order kind of a bit moving forward, where the strategies will drive the projects and not opposite. This here is of course a recommendation from us and as a working group, your independent and objective votes are still very much encouraged. Do I have any questions specifically about the Urban Area projects or about this process? None, really? Because I came up with about a thousand questions about this. You guys have none? Alright, good. I appreciate it.

VII. Discuss criteria and process for ranking projects to be considered by the

working group.

Chair: So, as everybody knows we’ve seen our previous proposals and presentations on the projects, what I don't want today is a repeat of those same presentations, we will be asking for new information and give everybody an opportunity to ask questions of the project presenters, and if there are any changes that have occurred the expectation would be that you’d go ahead and present those changes. As mentioned before, we saw the presentations before the notice of funding came out, some projects were eliminated because of the notice of funding, and some projects have been withdrawn on their own merit. Those that have been withdrawn or are not eligible include: the City of North Las Vegas EOC Laptops, the EMT and Paramedic Ballistic Protection Equipment by American Medical Response, Las Vegas Bomb Squad, and as mentioned before the Las Vegas Paiutes Radio Interoperability Project. After we get done with the ranking here today we’ll see the proposals, ask the questions, we’ll ask for reductions, we’ll try to get as many projects as we can get funded, but as we go through the ranking here today once we finalize that decision it will be moved to the finance committee for their approval and then eventually to the Homeland Security Commission. Kelli Anderson are you on right now? Okay great. Would you go ahead and speak to the process after today moving forward as far as the investment justifications and the expectations for the office.

Kelli Anderson: How we’re doing this is very similar to how we’ve done this in the past and we’ll go over the process pretty quickly. You should be receiving bulletins from our office with notification of deadlines and dates that you need to respond to, through specific email addresses. If you have not received those notifications or bulletins please contact our office, you can call the front office at 775-687-0300 and then they can transfer you back to one of us to address that. So, the criteria for this process would be you’re going through the process today, you’re going to rank, vote, and prioritize we will review those as well for compliance, because we’re still working through the details of compliance. So, I just want to make one statement, that just because you are funded here, there is a possibility that there could be compliance issues down the road, so I just want to make you aware of that. We try to catch them on the front end but this process is so fast that sometimes we are unable to do that. This year, we are focusing heavily on environmental, so the environmental screening memo that needs to be completed, it is very specific on what items may or may not drive that memo and that was the tab on your budget, so if you're not aware of that please when you open your detailed budgets click on that secondary tab that says EHP on it. So, even if you're hanging a television or doing anything of that nature you have to do environmental screening memo, it's not an impact study, it's literally just a two-page document with a description of your project and it has to be submitted before we can move forward with spending money. We’ve had some real big challenges with that last year and the year before and I just want to make sure that we address that. So, the next steps forward would be taking your priorities for your urban area, we will then split up those projects in capabilities, typically target capabilities and depending on what like projects are put together, so for example, we may have one that’s for the fusion center, we may have one communications, we may have one for NIMS - so we will look at these projects after today and then determine which projects are going into investment justifications. We’ve sent out that investment justification documentation from Homeland Security through the bulletins and those are due to our office by close of business on June 8th, which doesn't give us a lot of time, and the reason for

the time crunch here is because we’re going into the Homeland Security Working Group, SHSP process on June 6th, these are due June 8th, and then **********______ is June 13th [27:53], commission meeting is June 18th, and the application upload with all of your data that we have to key into the system is due June 20th. So, from the commission on June 18th to the due date on June 20th does not give us much time at all to make sure that we have a quality application submitted to the department of Homeland Security. So, I know this is fast paced but we are trying to do information in advance, I believe 2 days after notice of grant came out so that you could start working on it now. We know that you're at a disadvantage, we don't know what projects are going to be funded and we don't want you to do a lot of work on the front end, but we have to be prepared on the back end to get this uploaded quickly. Just to give you an idea of 10 to 12 hours depending on the system is probably working properly and that's just the data itself. So, it is a heavy lift on our office. We have two things that we want to mention, actually three things, that were a change from last year, and we’ll send out some highlights, so that we can address those well. But like Chief Steinbeck indicated, unfortunately the tribes are not eligible for Urban Area funding so we are working on de-obligations to ensure that we have radio communication with the tribe in the Urban Area. In addition, if the requirement to have investment justification for the Fusion Center, and one investment justification for cyber, in each funding stream, so one for the Urban Area, and one for State Homeland Security Grant Program. What that means to the Urban Area is that you only have one site or project so that needs to be funded or we have to come up with an alternative, that is a requirement of DHS. I think that’s pretty much it, as soon as you come with the recommendations from this group, we’ll review it in our office, and send out any questions or concerns – we’ll deal with the Chair first and then submit those questions to him, and then if there are project management questions or investment justification questions for group, they will be dealt with individually through Clark County Emergency Management and then with my staff. So, if there's any questions I can answer I will try.

Chair: Thank you Kelli. Any questions with myself or Kelli on this process moving forward? Carolyn.

Carolyn Levering: Only one point of order Kelli, when we were asked to resubmit projects after the first Urban Area Working Group meeting process the state told us that only one subgrantee per project was allowed on the process and I think you realize that some of our projects and I’ll be specific - the city of Las Vegas and the City of Henderson, we had specific goals in our projects but it included funding equipment for each other’s agencies and organizations and I think these are likely to end up all on the same IJ’s anyway, and we’re likely to get some grant funding for these projects anyway. My question is, are you going to have us go through an asset transfer process or will we be able to receive direct funding for the equipment, even if we’re on this same project together?

Kelli Anderson: So, I think that the challenge with the project form is that box that says who is going to be receiving project funding. That's a subaward box, that's not subset award box. So, what happened was we had some compliance issues last year and the year before. Recipients thinking that was the approval to sub, sub, grant money, and what happened was they subbed that money out and they are not a pastor agency or have the ability to manage those funds properly.

So that is actually, those are subs and not sub subs. So, we can work through those issues, my concern for how many sub recipients that we have as grants are driven, it opens up a large process for the state for monitoring and quarterly reporting. So, with the double disasters and the additional three sub awards that we’re managing currently, it's a challenge. So, I’m willing to work with the sub grantees individually, but I can't cut 15 to 20 awards for one sub award. So that won’t work for us because of workload, but if it’s just a few we’ll be able to handle it.

Carolyn Levering: I don't think any of us want to be in the sub, sub awarding business either, but I’m just not a fan of asset transfers, so as much as we can do direct funding to each agency is my hope and expectation. I just want to get that on record, thank you.

Chair: Thank you Carolyn, good question. Any other questions? For myself or for Kelli? Thank you Kelli.

VIII. Discussion of Project Proposal Modifications and Budgets. Review of each

project proposal for use of FFY2018 Urban Area Security Initiative funds, to provide project proposers an opportunity to discuss revisions to their respective projects and budgets, and for working group members to ask questions and provide input into revised projects and budgets.

Chair: I won't be taking these exactly in order, we did have a change this year, in which specifically without us knowing how much money we were going to get, we are allowing projects to ask for an increase at this meeting here today. So, to make this process as smooth as possible, I’m going to ask that the project that are asking for an increase to go ahead and present first and then we’ll have a fuller understanding of the full amount that we’re trying to work off of. And then as I stated in the email that I sent out, the expectation is that everybody will have the sharp pencil and be making cuts where they can and working together to try to put the best projects forward. Any questions on that? Thank you. So, with that I’m going to go ahead and start with the ones that I’m aware of and then I’m going to ask all the presenters to let me know if they’re asking for an increase that I’m not currently aware of. So, let's go ahead and start with Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and this will be for the Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center, Rachel Skidmore.

Project M – Enhancement SNCTC Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Initial Request Amount: $220,000.00 Additional Request Amount: $227,000.00 Total Request: $447,000.00

Rachel Skidmore: Thank you Chief, so on project M if you turn to project M, this is the enhancement for the Southern Nevada Terrorism center, we are going to be adding a singular line item to this the to the tune of $227,000 dollars, so the final ask for the UASI request for project M, for the Southern Nevada Terrorism Center, will be $447,000. This line item will be for sustainment for a project that is currently underway. We are going to go to bid

and request funds for a mass communications system, this is going to take place for, and I know several of you that have worked special events with us, the mass text groups and organize all of that communication flow that can come out of our Metro Com, our DOC, our Events Planning Teams, given the event that we have, so whether it be an emergency event, an emergency is kicked off that we have in the DOC or information flow for executive staff and critical Fusion Center stakeholders, so this portion will be for the sustainment of that mass communications system. So, it’s a singular line item.

Carolyn Levering: Can I ask a question for the record? Is this for the existing system that you’re using or the one that you just put out to bid?

Rachel Skidmore: The one that will be put out to bid, that is correct. This is not for the existing system.

Carolyn Levering: But it has been put out to bid?

Rachel Skidmore: They’re going to bid, correct with existing grant funds, so this is for future sustainment.

Carolyn Levering: Ok, but we don't know what the system is yet?

Rachel Skidmore: No.

Carolyn Levering: It has not been awarded yet?

Rachel Skidmore: It has not been awarded yet.

Carolyn Levering: How much was it again that you’re requesting?

Rachel Skidmore: $227,000.00 and that’s being added to Project M, UASI.

Carolyn Levering: So, it’s being added to your enhanced project not your sustained project?

Rachel Skidmore: Correct.

Carolyn Levering: 227?

Rachel Skidmore: Correct, so the total ask is 447 for project M, on UASI.

Carolyn Levering: Wow, okay thank you.

Rachel Skidmore: And I do have an additional one for our second project.

Chair: Okay one second please. Are there any other questions regarding the increase or any questions at all regarding the SNCTC enhancement project?

Kelli Anderson: So, Rachel you’re saying that this has already gone out to bid, what funding are we using for the original bid?

Rachel Skidmore: This is SHSP, I believe it's the SHSP, I’ll have to pull it Kelli. The documents are up in your office for a project change request to cover the initial portion of this project. So, this here today would be for sustainment for future. For next year.

Kelli Anderson: I’m not aware of a PCR.

Rachel Skidmore: It’s for fiscal year 16.

Kelli Anderson: Okay, I’m going to have to pull that. There's some challenges with releasing the RFP before the funding, so I think that we can work out that compliance offline to make sure that we’re covering that properly.

Rachel Skidmore: Perfect, thank you Kelli.

Chair: Thank you. Any other questions on this project. Rachel if you want to go ahead and speak to the second project which I believe is going to be the MACTAC project.

Project CC – MACTAC Training Equipment Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Initial Request Amount: $202,300.00 Additional Request Amount: $260,000.00 Total Request: $462,000.00

Rachel Skidmore: That is correct. This is our mass training grant that we have, project CC. If you’ll go ahead and turn to project CC. We are also adding a singular line item under equipment, this line item is a dollar value of $260,000.00 to this ask, so the final request for this project is $462,300.00. We are asking for a secondary pack set for our SWAT team, and I’ve brought our SWAT Lieutenant today to be able to answer any questions with regard to this ask.

Chair: Go ahead.

Will Huddler: Okay so just to go into the justification for a secondary pack set, taking away lessons learned from recent events, obviously, some things that I wasn't aware of in terms of functionality of the systems that we have in place. So, the channels that we utilize, and many of you are aware, we have trunk channels and we have repeater channels on our current Motorola's. When we have officers, when we have tactical operators deployed, in these towers, in these high rises, some of the high risers built after a certain date have repeaters and some do not. The Mandalay Bay did not have a repeater, so we were attempting to communicate with the tactical operators on two separate radio channels and there was… and when FEMA came to town we all agreed that command and control and intelligence sharing are paramount in complex coordinated attacks, but if we’re not able to share that because of our pack set failure then obviously we’re going to fail. And the issue is and I can tell you this candidly, that some of the most critical information sharing that occurred on October 1st from my SWAT team was done on our personal

Verizon cell phones. So, looking at a solution to this problem, we conducted some research, spoke to two analogous SWAT teams, one is Miami Dade SWAT team, both similar to us in terms of staffing as well as rural and high-rise operations and LAPD. Both of these teams conducted a 1-year study to resolve the communication issue that they identified three years ago. Their solution was to issue two pack sets, two radio pack sets, to each operator and a multi PTT, push to talk device, to control both pack sets, as well as a cell phone. So, if both sets fail we can essentially, the best way that I can describe it is that we can get on a team party call, and we can communicate using our cell phones. So that gives us three modes of communication and in terms of what is being done right now, that is the best practice for urban SWAT teams. Currently we run 1 pack set and yesterday during the exercise we had communication issues, we had a fast rope team deployed to Shadow Ridge High School. That fast rope team because they weren’t within eyesight of the command post had to be on a repeater channel so there was a communication delay in getting them vital intelligence. That team that was in route. So that secondary pack set, I understand that our Motorola pack sets come with a significant cost but the secondary pack set is critical for us.

Chair: And so, this will be, this pack set then, as I read through this project, its training equipment for this project? And then this pack set is actually operational?

Will Huddler: Yes Sir, it is operational.

Chair: So, it would be utilized for training but would have an operational and fully deployable?

Will Huddler: Yes sir.

Unidentified Person[43:11]: What was that additional ask again, what were those dollars?

Rachel Skidmore: $260,000.00 for this one under the equipment line item, and this is a UASI only grant, so the total ask for this, overall, including the MACTAC is $462,300.00.

Kelli Anderson: I just had one question on this one as well, have they purchased these in the past?

Rachel Skidmore: The secondary pack sets have never been purchased, there has never been a secondary pack set provided for this purpose. This is a new capability, they've never had it. The existing pack sets are the standard issue.

Kelli Anderson: So, what's the difference between a secondary and a regular pack set?

Will Huddler: Yes ma’am, good question, so what it does is it allows the operators to monitor two radio channels at once, with one push to talk device and headset. So right now, every SWAT operator, when a police officer is

hired to the department, part of the equipment is a single issued Motorola Pack set and they keep that with them for their entire career, when they go to tactical operations they still keep the same pack set with them their entire career, and we’ve found a necessity for a second pack set to monitor channels at once.

Kelli Anderson: So, at this point I would kind have needed to know. This project should have gone to the COMS group, and it bypassed the COMS group for the ask, so I’m trying to wrap my head around that.

Chair: Okay, that hadn’t come up before, so we understand.

Carolyn Levering: So, because this probably should have gone to the communications group and that ship has sailed at this late moment, and I don’t know that these high dollar amounts were what we were expecting when we allowed people to come back to the table for increases, do we have an opportunity to rank these projects based on their initial requests and rank their additions separately. I know that the ranking sheets are not set up that way and I don’t even know if we should be considering a communications project without that review process. But these are significantly sized adds from our initial process and I’m just wondering if they can be ranked separately.

Chair: You know as I think about that I think I’ll leave that up to the proposer. So, if they would like to have it separated out or if they would like to have it stay within their initial project, I’ll leave that to you guys to decide.

Rachel Skidmore: No, this is a critical ask, so when we originally submitted these grants, as you all know our UASI funding’s have dwindled to near nothing in 2013, we’re bare bones and have been bare bones just trying to maintain the existing projects and programs that we have. When we received the successful news that we had received 5 million this year, which was phenomenal by several accounts, these are necessary asks, the teams need these, I mean these are for counter terrorism funds and this is very necessary. Something that came out of 1 October and something that came out of the exercise yesterday morning. This is vital for our team and I would like to keep this component in with that.

Chair: Okay, but it does lend the issue of it having not gone to the communications committee.

Carolyn Levering: And Chief, the notifications system also is a communications project too. I didn't think of in that way initially, but as we’re discussing it, it should have been brought to communications as well.

Chair: Okay, so with that what we’ll do is we’ll leave them in the projects as presented. And we’ll let the project managers make those decisions, but we’ll need to decide on the eligibility and the compliance first because it did not go to those boards and that will go to myself and Chief Cage to make that decision. Okay, any other questions on these two items?

Jim Owens: Just for the Lieutenant, is one of the primary needs so that you can get better communication inside these buildings that aren’t complaint, like Mandalay? Or is it not?

Will Huddler: So, they’re all compliant Chief it just depends on when construction was completed, but it’s so that we have a secondary and tertiary option for communication because right now we don’t, and had we been able to project this sooner that obviously would have been optimal but we don't control when the events occur and then we take steps to try and remedy those and we plan and plan and plan. So, we set up a large-scale training scenario just yesterday and we identified that the stop gap steps that we took to remedy these things in house are just not sufficient.

Jim Owens: So, these radios, they’re not going to improve the ability to receive a signal inside any of these older hotels then?

Will Huddler: No, but they're going to allow the operator, if we’re all on an entry team, if we’re all tactical operators on an entry team, within line of sight. We want to be on a trunk channel because there’s zero delay, so I can tell you, I can communicate a threat to you immediately without delay. If we’re running off a repeater, it’s going to the repeater and then to the other operators. So, there's about a second or two delay, if that trunk channel is interrupted in any way, then they’re going to have to rely on the repeater channels because getting that information a second later is better than not getting it at all. So, the issue is, right now we do not have that capability to have a second option which is why we resorted to using cell phones on October 1st and why we resorted to using cell phones yesterday during our drill.

Jim Owens: Thank you.

Chair: Any other questions on this? From anybody here on the board. So, because of the compressed, we have to consider is, we end up putting the cart before the horse on this anyway, the notice of funding comes out after we’ve already set some of these meetings, that’s why Chief Owens put together a project that he wasn't even eligible for, for the UASI. And because of the compressed timeframes, we have to ask everybody to do that so that's why there’s flexibility and we’ll have to take a look at this moving forward. But you know the process is that those subgroups are to take a look at some of these projects and give some of that technical expertise that maybe we don't have, or that everybody doesn't share on the UAWG or the Homeland Security Working Group. But in an ideal world we would wait for the no file and then set those meetings, but if we did that, you heard the timeframe that Kelli gave us earlier, we have to have everything done by the 20th; so, we can’t do that either. So, we’ll add it in and we’ll take a look at the compliance and make a decision at that level. Lieutenant Clarkson did you have anything that you wanted to add?

Lieutenant Clarkson: Just representing the MACTAC for equipment last time. Do you want me to go over the justifications for the needs, do you want me to go over the needs again?

Chair: No, you’re just here if anybody has any questions of your last presentation and then even the projects that are asking for increase funding, once we have our final total here, we’re going to be asking everybody if there's reductions that can be taken place in any of the categories. That will be open for your considerations moving forward. Does anybody have any questions so we don’t revisit this project again for Lieutenant Clarkson?

Kelli Anderson: One thing that would be helpful on both these projects would be to review the State interoperable communication plan that’s approved with the state and these projects have to be, one of the issues would be that these projects would need to be compliant with that plan. So that will be helpful if those project submitters could do that and work with our SWIC.

Rachel Skidmore: Absolutely, we’d be happy too.

Chair: Thank you Rachel. Alright Any other questions on these projects? Appreciate it gentlemen, stick around. Okay, so does anybody else have an increase in the amount that they’d like to ask from their previous project. A lot of hands. Roger go ahead and then Mary we’ll go to you. Thank you.

Project A – Armor CBRNE Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Initial Requested Amount: $387,000.00 Additional Request Amount: $27,500.00 Total Request: $414,500.00

Roger Haskins: Las Vegas Metro Armor. Basically, I’m asking for an increase for Project A of $30,000 dollars, and what that is for is basically handheld explosive trace detection kits. We’ve been T and E’ing new handheld detection trace kits for the last three months and they’ve actually done quite well, as opposed to the old mobile trace, which was used at TSA where it had to heat up to 2,000 degrees before it can actually utilize it. These have been quite effective on a couple of cases that we’ve had. Like I said they’re $12,000 dollars a piece with a one-year warranty. I’d like to expand the warranty on that so, I’m asking for $30,000 dollars, for two of them, so I can get at least a three-year warranty on each system.

Chair: Okay, Kelli will a three-year warranty with the time that we go ahead and purchase this is that going to be outside of the grant time, is that going to be allowable?

Kelli Anderson: I’m sorry were you speaking to me?

Chair: Yeah, Kelli Anderson, so a three-year warranty, is that going to be outside of our performance period?

Kelli Anderson: Yes, it will, it’s only allowable for 24 months.

Roger Haskins: Okay.

Kelli Anderson: Now, if it comes with it, it depends on how the invoice is written, sometimes if it comes with, an add-on or an extended warranty it has to go within the performance period.

Roger Haskins: It would be an extended warranty and basically that would drop it down, pretty much about $27,500.00.

Chair: Okay, so the additional ask today would be $27,500.00? Roger Haskins: Yes, sir.

Chair: Okay, any additional questions for Roger, starting with the additional ask that he’s asking for? Okay, and any questions regarding his project in general? Thank you Roger, Mary.

Project MM – CERT City of Las Vegas Initial Requested Amount: $230,176.00 Additional Request Amount: $9,206.64 Total Request: $239,382.67

Mary Camine: I’m here representing Southern Nevada CERT. The State after the second submittal found a calculation error in the worksheet, that didn't pick up all the cells as listed, so the increase that I’m requesting is $9,206.64. So, it's a correction, not necessarily a request for an increase.

Chair: What category is that in?

Mary Camine: It was under fringe benefits and the total originally only picked up lines 5 and 6, it did not pick up line 7.

Chair: Could you give that amount again please?

Mary Camine: $9,206.64.

Chair: So, what does that bring your total to? Your total ask?

Mary Camine: The total ask is. $239,382.67, the State has already increased it. Chair: So, it’s just not in the project proposal, that budget that we have in front of us right now. Okay, thank you Mary. Does anyone have any questions for Mary on this? If you need someone who’s an excel wizard next time, give me a call I just dance through all of those things. It’s a nightmare.

Mary Camine: Thank you Chief.

Chair: Okay do I have any other project proposers who are requesting additional increase?

Project Y – Henderson Regional Hazmat Capability Henderson Fire Department Initial Requested Amount: $246,549.65 Additional Request Amount: $0 Total Request: $246,549.65

Jeremy Hynds: Originally, we had requested $283,000.00 for our product and per the first meeting we were requested to get a warranty, yes project Y. We were requested to get a 1-year warranty and we were informed that we should get an extended warranty, based on the first meeting. We went out and realized that the manufacturer of the unit does not provide an extended warranty so we would have to go to a third-party vendor to get a warranty and they provided us a 5-year warranty quote of which was the $37,254.35 and that was about $18,000.00 for both units. We were later told that we needed to reduce that down because we couldn’t have a 5 year warranty and we have tried to get ahold of that third party vendor and they haven’t gotten back to us about what an extended warranty for the performance period would be so I’m going to request that we strike this $37,000.00 dollars from this list if we are okay with having the manufacturer's 1-year warranty that was provided and not anything additional, and that was a state question for Kelli.

Chair: Well I don't think there’s a requirement for you to have a warranty.

Jeremy Hynds: Originally, in our first meeting we were requested to get an additional warranty.

Chair: Yes, it was requested but I don’t think it is a requirement.

Jeremy Hynds: Kelli can you shed some additional light on that for us?

Kelli Anderson: It is not specific in the way it is written, it is not a must. It is a should, to protect our investment. Because if something goes wrong with this quarter of a million-dollar piece of equipment and you don't have the funds to replace or repair, it’s a problem if we don't cover it, for me.

Chair: But it's an unknown amount. You don't know how much it’s going to cost.

Jeremy Hynds: And it’s also based…My original already has one year already on it and we have to go to a third party in order to get a warranty because the actual manufacturer doesn’t provide an extended warranty. What happens if we don’t even use that vendor anymore? Is that still going to be a valid warranty to use? So, that’s our concern. We’re happy to strike that if…

Carolyn Levering: Can I make a recommendation?

Chair: Please do.

Carolyn Levering: Since it already has one-year warranty, why don’t we look at coming back next year to extend the warranty with next year’s funds, and strike this addition at this point?

Chair: If it’s approved I think that’s an excellent idea.

Jeremy Hynds: I’m good with that. We’re good with that. So originally we were asking for an additional $37,254.00 but we’re not asking to increase that now. So, it's going to go from its original ask for $246,549.65

Chair: I think that’s a great solution. Kelli Anderson are you okay with that?

Kelli Anderson: Yes.

Chair: Okay, thank you. Thank you Jeremy. Any questions for Jeremy on project Y? Alright thank you. Do I have any other projects that have a request to increase their amount? You want a buck?

Steve Kramer: That was from one project proposal application to the new upgraded one. The decimal place moves over, it’s one dollar. I put it in myself to match.

Chair: You’re matching? Sounds good. Sounds good. Alright no other requests for increase? Alright, so with that Karen could you please give me my grand total?

Karen Taylor: Right now, you’re sitting at $6,272,669.87.

Chair: And we have $4,750,000.00. Okay, alright so we’ll here the other projects here in just a few minutes, we’re going to start taking some reductions and see where we can pair this down and rank accordingly. Now I’m going to give us a 5-minute break and we’ll start back up at 12 after.

BREAK

Chair: Okay we’re going to go ahead and call this meeting back to order. Do I have quorum? Thank you very much. Okay so we’re going to go through this project by project now and see where we can whittle some of this down. So, we’ve already heard from Roger on project A, and let’s go ahead and hear from Roger Haskins on project B, Intelligence and Information Sharing Armor CBRNE. This will be for a total request of $75,000.00 and I would like to give additional questions, additional information, that Roger may have and then we’ll see if there’s any reductions that can be… that we can come too. So, Roger do you have any new information on this project that you’d like to present for us?

Project B – CBRNE Sustainment Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Initial Requested Amount: $75,000.00

Roger Haskins: Uh, no not at this time.

Chair: Okay, do I have any questions from the working group for Roger on project B? Okay, Roger are you able to take any reductions on project B at this time?

Roger Haskins: Unfortunately, not. We’ve looked at the equipment that we currently have and what we utilize most, and as we get into 2017 and 2016, $75,000.00 is pretty much going to keep the equipment that we utilize the best, on warranty.

Chair: Okay. Any questions for Roger or any additional comments at this time? Okay, actually Roger while we’re here, although you’ve asked for an increase in A, are there any reductions in any category in Project A, that you can take at this time?

Roger Haskins: Um, we only have 3 items we were actually purchasing in Project A, with an increase for. Unfortunately, 2 of them are major items, the price is, what the price is. I can take a $3,000.00 cut to the ATV. I will tell the guys they can do away with the leather seats, I know nothing about mechanics so…

Chair: Okay, so that's a $3,000.00 reduction. That's a start, so we’ll eat this elephant one bite at a time. What line would that be under?

Roger Haskins: That would be under the $20,000.00 dollars for the ATV.

Chair: So that would be in 15 C, reduce from 387 to 384?

Roger Haskins: Affirmative. Not including the addition of the $27,500.00.

Chair: Correct, so we’re including the 27,500 so we would go from 4145 to 4115. Correct, affirmative. Kelli Anderson: What was the decrease? Chair: It’s $3,000.00 Kelli. Than you Roger, we appreciate it. Okay, Project C, Special Events Safety Program City of Las Vegas, Department of Public Safety.

Project C – City of Las Vegas Trailer and Cameras City of Las Vegas Initial Requested Amount: $213,068.00

Tim Shattler: A couple updates. At the suggestion of the committee we met with LVMPD Sgt. Cup, who oversees their program for their video trailers. We walked through, as well as us, we brought our IT department with us, we walked through some of the things that they ran into when they were implementing project and I believe, and Captain Seebach isn’t here today, but I believe, and I spoke to him after the meeting that he was satisfied with our IT’s response to any of the questions. Some of the things they brought up were indeed the network issues - we’re not going to be running on cell systems, we have wifi that’s going to be going into all our parks, and that's

where we’d be using these the most is at parks at large special events. One of the other things they also mentioned was the maintenance of them, we have at the city of Las Vegas, two maintenance yards with mechanics that work on this type of thing, so the generators is what they were specifically speaking too, and then one of the other things they were talking about was the fuel costs which they spend about $2,000.00 a year on fuel costs, but we’ll most often be plugging into power outlets at our facilities and then a truck to pull the trailers, we have that as well. So those were the issues they brought up, I think we were fully able to address those issues, with them, I think they were fully satisfied with our responses to that.

Chair: Okay thank you, do you have any questions at this time? Can you take a reduction in the amount that you’re asking for?

Tim Shattler: We would obviously not want too, but we of course could. I’d like to at least… three would be good, there's a lot of times where we have holidays and special events going on where we have multiple locations where we would like to use these, so I’d like to keep it at three if we could. But of course, it’s your guys’ discretion and we’d respect that.

Chair: Yeah, so right now we’re at that point where we’ve got to pair this down well over a million 5. So, if there’s reductions can be taken that you feel are buildable in additional years, we ask that you voluntarily take that now after we do the ranking we might come back and ask for an additional but right now if you can take a reduction at this point we’d ask that you do so.

Tim Shattler: Yes, sir we can take a reduction of one at this time and at your discretion anything else.

Chair: Okay, so what would that bring our cost down to? It would reduce our cost to $159,801.00. It would be by $53,000 and some change. $53,267.00 would be what the reduction would be, and the new amount would be $159,801.00.

Chair: And then of course at the end, it will be up to the group, and the way this will work, is we’ll have a line of projects that are getting funded or not funded and at that time we’ll be able to a look at what we can bring up above that line or if there’s additional funding, then there will be an opportunity to say well maybe we add that back in.

Tim Shattler: Thank you sir, I appreciate that.

Chair: And I appreciate you stepping forward and taking that reduction.

Tim Shattler: Of course.

Chair: Any other questions on project C?

Project E – Emergency Management Tracking System Clark County OEM Initial Requested Amount: $425,000.00

Chair: Okay, project E. Emergency event tracking system. Some guy named Steinbeck has to speak on that one ,so let's take a look at that here again. I beat myself up on this one last night to make sure I could get a reduction down and at this point in time, thanks to the Health District there's an easy reduction. Steve would you like to go ahead and speak to that? Steve Kramer: Yeah so part of this overall project, for the initiation, purchase and the setup of what's called EM Track, it hooks up to the webEOC system, in conjunction with the webEOC program to do information tracking. The Health District had some funding available through some grants that needed to be spent by the end of this year. We’ve got the States approval to move forward on the initial phase of this which would be the purchase, initial setup, putting everything into motion as far as, how we want the boards to look, doing the initial training for everybody and doing one year of maintenance on it. So, we were able to incorporate $130,000.00 out of this initial project - the PO has already gone out to Intermedics, they have the PO right now, so they are initiating it, and we’re meeting with them next week to setup the scope of work for them to come out and get that started. The project is underway, the project was initially $130,000.00.

Chair: Okay, thank you very much, so the remaining portions of this, and correct me if I’m wrong then, would be, the project management, the training portions of this, and the maintenance of it moving forward, is that correct?

Steve Kramer: Yes, that is correct, ours will do the initial training for the administrators of it but not for all the jurisdictions that are involved in EM Track, or have access to EM Track to be able to utilize it countywide, because it is a county project. One of the things that we’re looking forward to doing is eventually making this a statewide project but we need to get our ducks in a row for the county first, so this would allow every jurisdiction within the county, or every incorporated and unincorporated area of the county to utilize this tracking system. We did do a pilot on this, during EDC, which the Health District had the mobile command, at their unified command site and they started to put some patients into the system when available, so, we would be able to track these patients from you know being on site, being picked up by a provider, going to a medical tent, and then transported to a hospital and released from the medical tent area, we were able to track that over the three day period.

Chair: I felt that was effective for that small test product, that was my opinion.

Steve Kramer: It was, we only had about 2-3 days to get this whole thing in motion with EM Track to get everything set up on the criteria and everything and unfortunately weren’t able to get the 900+ patients from the infield area to medical tents into the system. But we were able to get some in there and we were able to see the demographics come out of it, which I feel was very, very, useful, and pull reports every hours and daily to give them out.

Chair: Okay thank you, but this project… the purchase of this software is one component. If it’s not utilized it’s no good. It would be worthless. The big part

of this would be the training and the implementation of this and the commitment to it, is where it hits the road. So, as my calculations are that we can reduce this down to $300,000.00, do you co-sign on that?

Steve Kramer: Yeah, that would sound about right for ongoing and the training for everybody.

Chair: So, any questions from the working group on this?

Carolyn Levering: Yes, so this solution you have demo’d this solution and you’ve tried this in field exercises?

Steve Kramer: Absolutely, so we did it at EDC, so an actual event…

Carolyn Levering: Yeah, because I was actually wondering why we weren’t demo’ing something during yesterday’s exercise if I’m being honest.

Steve Kramer: To be honest, we were not invited to that exercise. We would be more than happy to be involved in any exercise to move out our mobile command which is fully setup to do the tracking for many patients that are picked up on the scene. We would be more than happy to do that. It’s not just a countywide project. Being that public health pretty much fills ESF8 and the Medical Surge Area Command, we felt that it was important for us to be involved with EDC, to kind of try this and see how it works. We have looked at numerous software options out there. It’s all the same thing, it all has human input into it. The only thing that really helped us with EM track was the fact that it can automatically upload to webEOC. So, as we build the demographics on what everybody would have access too, because of protected health information…

Carolyn Levering: So right now, you’re not able to load it into webEOC but…

Steve Kramer: I can log into EM Track. So, if anyone wanted to see some of the stuff that was in there, as long as we still have that test module available to us we can.

Carolyn Levering: I feel a lot better able this project knowing that you’ve actually used it.

Steve Kramer: That was very important to us to actually get us out to EDC to actually do it. , thanks to the Chief and his staff for getting us out there to do it and for Pat to get as many as we could in for those three nights. They were long, I don't work graveyards anymore, but I did.

Chair: I did. It was great to get that out there that fast. And Carolyn, to your questions, it was my decision to hold it off of the training yesterday because we just had to put some side boards on that training exercise yesterday and I wanted to stand up the MACC and I wanted to test the patient tracking I wanted to do a lot of things, but if we didn't put some sideboards on it yesterday we were just going to grow too big and weren’t going to be effective. So that’s why we didn’t do that yesterday.

Steve Kramer: Chief, once again as a little side note, in this system we did have it available during the event but we weren't able to coordinate with it. There is actually a law enforcement component with this. So, there’s actually a tab on the mobile app that gets utilized in the field, where law enforcement can also put information in, so if they pick somebody up for like, let's say drunk and disorderly and they take him a detention area like at EDC. It can also track those patients, so when we look at a large-scale patient tracking, or the number of people who were picked up or couldn't be found at the end of the event, we can at least say, Law enforcement has the ability to pull this up and say okay this one was taken to the detention center, but ended up going to CCD, or they went to the hospital.

Chair: Outside of operations this is my number one issue from the after-action report from 1 October. Thank you very much. Is there any other questions for myself or Steve on this project? Salome.

Salome Barton: Can you repeat that number please for the reduction?

Chair: Yeah, so the reduction amount is, we’re reducing down to a total of $300,000.00 on the project. So, it’s a $125,000.00 that we’re reducing, out of software procurement. Line item 15C. Yeah, Kelli.

Kelli Anderson: So, we’re eliminating the software, but we’re paying for – what is it that we’re going to be paying for?

Steve Kramer: I believe part of that is going to be for the project manager to take on the project moving forward. The training for the individual jurisdictions or entities. I mean there's going to be a very detailed training opportunity that also has to go out to EMS and jurisdictional partners in cities but also the healthcare facilities that would be doing the ongoing tracking of patients once they are received in the facilities. In the discussions there’s no agencies that really have the time to dedicate one individual to do this with all the individual agencies and entities over the year. So, a project manager would have to be contracted to assist so there's the time of that, the training of that, the components for that. And additional maintenance, there is only one-year maintenance because of the ending of our grants, so it would be the maintenance for the second year of this which would take us into the initiation phase of the project.

Kelli Anderson: What funds are we using to leverage with this?

Steve Kramer: That’s CDC HPP funds. We had the approval from the State to go ahead with the initial purchase and setup of it.

Kelli Anderson: Okay, so we need to work really close together to ensure compliance because it's really hard for one grant to support another grant. So, we just need to make sure that we’re working together and that we have a scope of work that I can vet for Homeland to ensure compliance.

Steve Kramer: Absolutely, I can get you any information that you would need.

Kelli Anderson: Thank you.

Chair: Thank you. And Steve thanks a lot for coming through with those funds and making this reduction. Any other questions?

Project F – Emergency Management Operational Coordination Clark County OEM Initial Requested Amount: $71,000.00

Chair: Okay, moving on, we’re going to go to F, Emergency Management Operational Coordination Sustainment and that ask is for $71,000.00 and I’ll take any additional questions on that but at this time I’m not offering any reductions on that because much like some of the other projects the cost is what the cost is and so it’s a take or leave as far as the VTC capabilities and the webEOC modules that this supports. Any questions for me? Thank you. Okay so, moving on to K, which is Public Health Analytical, Steve Kramer again and the ask is $98,636.00.

Project K – Public Health Analytical SNCTC Southern Nevada Heath District Initial Requested Amount: $98,636.00

Steve Kramer: Thank you Chief, this would be sustainment of the Public Health Analytical individual that’s full time over at the Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center. It’s been a very, very, eye opening experience on how we integrate over at the counter terrorism center working with Rachel over there and the other staff at the facility to see what kind of information is useful to them, how we might help them. After months of some meetings and stuff trying to figure out what information can be provided we’ve gotten down to a way to put out bulletins and alerts for different types of emerging diseases that could affect the community. Both on just a naturally occurring type of disaster, or things that could be used as a weaponized release of something. There’s many things that could be released, we always talk about the category 8 agents. So, it’s kind of gotten into a little niche and we want to sustain this. The counter terrorism center thinks it’s very useful to them. We’ve been working very closely with them to enhance the capabilities that we can provide them. The request for this is very simple. It's just a salary and fringe. There’s a very minor amount in here for slight travel costs, and I’m talking about slight travel costs of just mileage. When he has to go to the IAEM conferences and stuff like that, so there’s no heavy cost for travel. I did put a couple dollars in here for a training that Rachel had mentioned a while back in regard to counter terrorism workshop back east but that’s it. If worse came to worse and I had to decrease there's a $2,000.00 travel cost in there that I could take out, otherwise it’s just pretty much bare bones.

Chair: Are you willing to take that out at this time?

Steve Kramer: Yeah.

Chair: Thank you very much. And again, we’ll have the option to add that back in at the end if that's possible. So that reduces this down to $96,635.55, correct? Any questions for Steve on this? Okay thank you. Moving on to item L, Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center. I don't see Jim, so Rachel back to you I guess?

Project M – Enhancement SNCTC Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Initial Requested Amount: $220,000.00

Rachel Skidmore: Yeah, so this is the existing, there’s no changes to this project at this time. But I do have some changes to project M since we’ve spoke this morning.

Chair: Alright: So, are there any questions on L while we’re on L? Okay, then go ahead with M.

Rachel Skidmore: Okay so this morning when we were speaking we added 227, we’re going to reduce the add, but I still need to add the addition is only going to be $56,750.00. So, the new total request for the enhancement instead of the 447 that we talked about this morning is $276,750.00. We are going to pull the large COMS platform and request the majority of sustainment on fiscal 2019 next grant funding year so that we can discuss that further. But I have to $56,750.00 will be for the carryover until the fiscal year 19 grant would kick in. So, I’m reducing the grant 227 to $56,750.00 for our addition to project M. That’s correct, so that's the total ask for project M. This morning I increased to 447 and we’re reducing it now back to $276,750.00.

Chair: Okay, so will you have that mass communications notifier then?

Rachel Skidmore: We won't have sustainment unless we get it on fiscal year 19. Chair: So, you will have it but you won’t be able to sustain it until then?

Rachel Skidmore: Correct.

Chair: So, you’ll have 1-year purchase of that.

Rachel Skidmore: Correct.

Chair: Alright, I appreciate that.

Rachel Skidmore: Yeah, so it’s still an add of $56,750.00.

Chair: Thank you very much for that. Any questions on that? Okay thank you. Okay so moving to O, Cyber Security Services, Southern Nevada Health District. Is Jayson here?

Project O – Cyber Security Southern Nevada Health District Initial Requested Amount: $184,000.00

Steve Kramer: No, it's just me. So, this is a cyber security project for us that we do not currently have in place. It would be for a second party that would monitor our incoming emails, 24/7, 365. For obviously cyber security concerns. They would be filtering everything, watching everything, make notifications as needed for anybody that wants to know, it’s kind of like one of those companies I think like Mosaic is one of the companies here in town that does that 24/7, 365, and notifies you if you have any attempts for intrusion into your system. The $184,000.00 that is absolute bare bones to even get this project started, so I wouldn't be able to cut anything off of that.

Chair: Alright, is there any questions at this time? Thanks Steve. Okay, moving to T, which is our CBRNE Mobility, is Karl Here? Karl Rosette, please.

Project T – CBRNE Mobility Las Vegas Fire Department Initial Requested Amount: $39,000.00

Karl Rosette: Discussing Project T correct. As the CBRNE Mobility goes, cost reductions, the modularity for this would be that we’re asking for two units. We do have the ability to reduce this by 50% which would be $19,500.00 dollars and that would provide us with one unit.

Chair: Thank you very much. I will accept that. Thank you. Are there any questions for Karl on this project? So, Karl, since I have you here are you prepared for LL? Or would you like to come back to it?

Karl Rosette: I am ready for that Chief.

Chair: Okay, let's go ahead and go to LL which is radiological monitoring for $151,600.00.

Project LL – Radiological Monitoring Las Vegas Fire Department Initial Requested Amount: $151,600.00

Karl Rosette: This project is also scalable. We would be at a 50% scale at a reduction of $75,800.00, that cuts the project directly in half.

Chair: Awesome. Let that be an example to everybody here. Way to go Karl. Appreciate that very much. Are there any questions for Karl, not only in his reduction but also in his project in general? Appreciate it thank you. The big one thank you, alright Karl, ZZ. Let's go on to the CBRNE unit ask of $850,000.00.

Project ZZ – CBRNE Unit 2018

Las Vegas Fire Department Initial Requested Amount: $850,000.00

Karl Rosette: On Project ZZ the initial ask on this project was I believe $850,000.00 on this we would be able to reduce that project by $50,000.00.

Chair: Okay, so the ask would be $800,000.00? Can’t go 50% on this one?

Karl Rosette: No.

Chair: This one’s a challenge I mean I understand the need for it. Can You give us a little information on your current unit?

Karl Rosette: Absolutely, the current unit was purchased… I believe it’s a 2006 Pierce Quantum as it sits right now. The unit currently has 115,000 miles and 8,000 hours of engine use, its over its life. We staffed it with over 3 million dollars’ worth of personnel on this unit. The current maintenance cost, when I pulled the information on the initial submission was $185,500.00 worth of maintenance on the unit, so we have taken care of it, and it still looks great. We tell people it’s 13 years old and they are shocked half the time when they’re told it’s that old. It does provide some specific capabilities and puts in some different roles. It’s not only a HAZMAT unit but does provide some fire suppression capability and it allows us to really bring the full package together for backing up our bomb squad and increasing our situational awareness not only for HAZMAT incidents, but truly the full CBRNE incidents. It runs great for our bomb squad. It operates as a part of the HAZMAT team. It really is one of those units that we try to pull everything together and make it do a little bit of everything on and it really does that.

Chair: Yeah, I fully support the program. My challenge with this is that its 18% of the total budget. That's about the hardest part of it. And how come, and maybe you can and also Jeremy is here as well… why is this so much more expensive than the city of Henderson’s unit that we went ahead and funded a couple of years ago?

Karl Rosette: In looking at the city of Henderson unit they don’t have fire suppression capability on that unit and when we actually talk to Secret Service for details, they actually like that we have a small fire suppression capability on that unit. And it's a service…and again we tried to really take all the roles that we could identify and smash it into one unit and that's what makes it distinctly different and adds a little bit more to the price tag on this unit.

Chair: Okay, that makes sense.

Carolyn Levering: Chief, if I could just chime in too, I mean that was the point of these super units originally when they were purchased, is that they had more capability than anything else we’d ever seen before. So, Henderson’s is a HAZMAT unit, specific to HAZMAT - CBRNE has that expanded capability and we’re simply just trying to replace what funds had already purchased. I know the percentage is high, I know that all of these

were purchased back when we were getting 8 million dollars and not just 5 but…

Chair: Was this UASI funding?

Carolyn Levering: Yeah, that's the thing. This is part of the problem, like the letter you gave out today talking about the importance of sustaining the capabilities we’ve already built with these funds previously. That’s exactly what this project is. It’s a sustainment project from the good old days when we had a lot more money to deal with. Initially we bought, I think 7 of these units. One went to the City, two went to the County, actually. So, we had a lot more money back then. We’re just trying to maintain that capability, they've done a really good job at maintaining that unit to the extent that they have and we just want to make sure that we make sure we can keep going on that capability.

Chair: Yeah, the issue again is that the percentage again out of this year’s budget, and it’s not the opportunity to fund it in multiple years, it's a big piece. Karl, appreciate the reduction that you took on your other two projects and as much as you could take on this.

Karl Rosette: And there also is one more challenge to address with this CBRNE Unit and this is to say that if we were to approve this, it’s still two years away so we’re going to be keeping that current unit operational for two more years while we’re in the process of building this one out.

Chair: And there’s no - currently, it’s not in the City’s budget for replacement?

Karl Rosette: It is not.

Kelli Anderson: Chief I have a question as well. It’s about noncompliance with project Z. Would this be considered law enforcement, with our law enforcement 25% or is this a non-law enforcement vehicle?

Chair: It’s non-law enforcement.

Kelli Anderson: It’s non-law enforcement?

Chair: Yes. It could support Armor but it's definitely non-law enforcement, fire department vehicle.

Kelli Anderson: I thought that Las Vegas Bomb, was what it was for?

Chair: It’s not. It’s for Las Vegas Type 1 Hazardous Materials Team.

Kelli Anderson: Okay, is there anything on there for city of Las Vegas that would be considered law enforcement.

Carolyn Levering: The DPS surveillance trailers would be, they just reduced the budget to $159,801.00. That would be law enforcement.

Kelli Anderson: Yeah I’m just trying to track our 25 percent threshold for what we’re working through.

Carolyn Levering: Yeah, and unfortunately we withdrew our bomb squad project so that isn't helping your cause I apologize for that.

Project U – Clark County Emergency Operations Center Clark County OEM Initial Requested Amount: $500,000.00

Chair: Thank you Karl. Okay, U, Clark County EOC Enhancements. That’s for here, that’s been discussed a little bit. The original ask was for $500,000.00. I've taken a look at this, and today right now I am ready to reduce this by $150,000.00 to $350,000.00. And I’ll take any questions on that.

Carolyn Levering: Chief what are you cutting exactly?

Chair: The video wall display and some of the expenses that will occur with that and I’m going to still get the HVAC improvements, but I’m going to be utilizing some other funds to get those so it will be a combined group.

Carolyn Levering: So, the HVAC budget line item is only a portion of the cost?

Chair: Yes.

Carolyn Levering: I was kind of hoping you were going to be cutting that portion actually.

Chair: (laughs) I understand. And believe me every time I go back for this it doubles.

Carolyn Levering: RPMs got to figure this out, they’ve got to fix you building, man. Okay, thank you.

Chair: Yes, absolutely. So that will reduce it down to $350,000.00. Any other questions?

Jeremy Hynds: Chief isn’t the video wall kind of the cornerstone of your EOC?

Chair: I want to have it.

Carolyn Levering: I’m just really concerned that buying HVAC systems with Homeland Security money doesn't look good. When we go to the delegation - Rachel, you and I have gone together to these things, I just am really concerned that when they look at that line item and how much it costs, they’re saying what does HVAC have to do with Homeland Security?

Chair: I share your concern.

Carolyn Levering: I mean years ago the City of Mesquite got hammered because they bought a command vehicle and to save money they bought a party pert coffee maker instead of having one for a hundred thousand dollars installed in the making process and they got smashed by the media, like, what does making coffee have to do with preventing terrorism? Which I think they have a good argument for, I just wonder if HVAC really qualifies as a renovation. Because usually renovation costs need to be security related, certainly we are not allowed to do new construction. I’m just worried it’s not even eligible under this fund.

Chair: I agree, I agree with those same concerns.

Carolyn Levering: I’d rather see you with dry HVAC and put your video conference system back in, that's just my personal…

Chair: Yeah, me too obviously, and as the guy that doesn’t care what the temperature is in here it’s probably it’s the most frustrating thing for me, but as I move forward with the project, it’s the RPM telling me that I have to make those adjustments as I make these other improvements. It’s not that I can’t go back and fight this fight. So those improvements have been vetted several times, and like I said, I keep getting a higher price tag each time. I’m going to continue to bite this apple and I understand what you’re saying and I’ve kept off of the previous year budgets and I will go with the group at this point in time and remove the HVAC from this line item. And so, with that I will be reducing this down to an ask of $240,000.00.

Jeremy Hynds: Is that with the video wall back in there?

Chair: That would be back in with the video wall. So, at any rate we’re at $240,000.00 on this project and I’ll take any additional questions or suggestions. Thank you. So, moving to item X, Enterprise Surveillance, Salome are you going to be presenting?

Project X – Enterprise Surveillance System City of North Las Vegas Initial Requested Amount: $165,000.00

Salome Barton: In the spirit of giving back a little bit, we are willing to give back approximately $10,000.00. There are no changes, we’ll just get a couple of pieces of equipment less. And we are working on the environmental survey at this time as requested and required.

Chair: So that’ll be our total ask down to $155,000.00?

Salome Barton: Yes, sir.

Chair: Okay thank you. Any questions on this for Salome?

Kelli Anderson: Quick question Chief, is this one law enforcement driven? Or is this non-law enforcement?

Salome Barton: It’s non-law enforcement Ma’am.

Kelli Anderson: Okay, thank you.

Chair: Additional questions? Okay, moving to Y - Henderson Regional Hazmat, Shawn Patterson.

Project Y – Henderson Regional Hazmat Capability Henderson Fire Department Initial Requested Amount: $246,549.00

Jeremy Hynds: I’ll be speaking.

Chair: Alright.

Jeremy Hynds: So, based on our reduction on our warrantee from the $246,549.00, we’re able to reduce that by $25,894.00 to a total of $220,655.55.

Chair: Thank you for that Jeremy.

Kelli Anderson: So just for ease of reconciliation you probably won't get your 55 cents so…

Chair: So, do you want to round down or up Jeremy?

Jeremy Hynds: We’ll round up.

Project CC – MACTAC Training Equipment Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Initial Requested Amount: $202,300.00

Chair: Alright, thank you any questions for Jeremy at this time? Okay, thank you very much. Alright so, we’re back to CC, Lieutenant Clarkson, MACTAC training, and Lieutenant we are asking for reductions here as possible. But I want to point out on this one in particular and I’ve made this one pretty public that out of the new projects presented this is my favorite one and so I just want to make that opinion clear that I want to keep the capabilities of this project, but of course if you have any areas that you can slim your budget we would accept them.

Rachel Skidmore: I would also like to point out that we’re requesting simunitions in here and one of the takeaways that we had at the exercise yesterday was that we do not have enough simunitions for the teams that we need to exercise, to appropriately have the right response in these exercises, so for us to be able to increase this capability to make sure we would be able to have this for the training, this is so vital for us. The MACTAC one that we put together this year is so vital.

Chair: Okay, so are we taking any reductions at this time or are we holding where we are? Okay, thank you very much. So, any questions for Rachel or Lieutenant Clarkson on the MACTAC proposal. Alright, thank you.

Project DD – MCI Training and Equipment Clark County Fire Initial Requested Amount: $201,610.00

Chair: Alright, so moving to Mass Casualty Incident, Pat Foley, DD. The request is for $201,610.00. And this project I would like to, for those of you who don't know, but the point of this project is for us to be able to put on additional training like yesterday’s training, in a much faster process. So, this project will be available to everybody in the valley, all of our partner agencies, and it’s going to reduce the time to set up a mass casualty incident training ground significantly and have it all in one area. What we haven't worked out is the logistics of that. I spoke to Jayson the other day about this and some of the rest of you on how it’s going to get checked out. Clark County is going to have the equipment and some of the responsibility of maintaining it but we want this to be used, if this project is approved today, we want a commitment that your jurisdictions are going to take this and put together more training because that's why we’re buying it, it to facilitate that. Pat is there anything you’d like to add to the discussion of this project?

Pat Foley: No, this is a scalable project, so if money is an issue we certainly have the ability to scale down the project.

Chair: Okay, so what would you feel comfortable in taking an initial reduction with and not losing the capabilities?

Pat Foley: Well it was designed with almost two matching sets that would mirror one another. So worst case the project could be reduced by 50 percent and that would still give us the capability to deploy a trailer with all of the supplies needed to run a little smaller drill than if it were fully funded.

Chair: So, that would be 25 victims?

Pat Foley: Yes, that would be 25 victims and all the support gear to manage that.

Chair: Then unless the group objects to that then why don't we go ahead and reduce this down to a single unit, at this point in time, as we’re looking for these reductions and then we’ll take a look at the end and see where we are as far as funding. Do you agree to that?

Pat Foley: Yes.

Chair: Okay are there any discussions on that? Any questions for Pat Foley on this? , thank you Pat, appreciate that.

Pat Foley: Thank you.

Project EE & FF– Metropolitan Medical Response System MMRS Initial Requested Amount: $334,224.00

Chair: Okay, Chris Sproule, MMRS. Hi Chris, so our current ask is 334, is that correct?

Chris Sproule: Yes, that is correct $334,224.00 for the enhancement. I’m prepared to reduce that by $10,000.00, making the new total $324,224.00.

Chair: Okay, thank you very much. And what will we be reducing with that reduction?

Chris Sproule: As of right now it’s going to come out of the Stingray poleless litters, the people movers.

Chair: Okay, any questions for Chris on this? And Chris which one is the one with the project change request? That's the next one right? That's in FF?

Chris Sproule: The project change request was in EE.

Chair: Okay, alright thank you very much for that clarification. Any other questions on this project? Alright go ahead with FF then Chris.

Chris Sproule: FF is the sustainment of MMRS and this is bare bones so there are no reductions at this point. Chair: Any questions of FF? Thank you Chris. Okay, going to II, which will be North Las Vegas EOC Sustainment and Enhancement, Salome would you go ahead please, for $71,000.00.

Project II – North Las Vegas EOC Sustainment and Enhancement City of North Las Vegas Initial Requested Amount: $71,000.00

Salome Barton: We can break this project up into two parts so we can reduce it by $11,000.00.

Chair: So, that will be a $60,000.00 total ask?

Salome Barton: Yes sir, If it’s a necessity.

Chair: Alright, we’ll accept that reduction.

Salome Barton: And there are no changes.

Chair: Okay, so are there any questions for Salome on this project? Thank you very much. Okay, MM, Mary. I know we discussed this project earlier, but do you have any reductions in any areas of your project?

Project MM – CERT

City of Las Vegas Initial Requested Amount: $230,176.00

Mary Camine: No, the CERT classes have exploded after October 1 and the growth is huge, our classes have been filled within 24 hours of opening them.

Chair: Fantastic.

Mary Camine: So, no.

Chair: I understand. And I am glad to hear that it’s got that kind of momentum, that's necessary.

Mary Camine: We’re booking classes into February.

Chair: And can you give me… I know we spoke about it in the last meeting… but as far as the stop the bleed education or portion of it that's going to the classes, can you talk to me a little bit about that please?

Mary Camine: Well at VOAD we discussed, Stop the Bleed, versus, be the help until help arrives. And the problem with Stop the Bleed is that you have to have very specific training requirements to teach that, and some of our instructors done have that level of certification. Be the help until help arrives is very similar to the higher training levels and all of my instructors could teach that, so we’re leaning after the VOAD meeting towards Be the Help until Help Arrives.

Chair: Okay, alright thank you very much. Any questions for Mary please. I appreciate it.

Project NN – Southern Nevada Incident Management Team Clark County Fire Department Initial Requested Amount: $30,000.00

Chair: Okay, Southern Nevada IMT, the request is for $30,000.00. We have a couple of classes that have been available this summer that have been announced, and we are partnering up with the State to make sure we’re maximizing our effort on these, the classes that are going to be available are Situation Unit Leader and Logistics Section Chief. I know that the MACC needs more people trained in. There’s also a planning section course that’s coming later in the summer that's being funded strictly by the State. This is for additional training during the next year, for 2019. Based on the cost of the courses that we’ve put out this year, I can reduce this from $30,000.00 to $25,000.00. That will still give us the ability to offer two sanctioned courses. And with that I’ll take any questions. Alright, thank you.

Project EEE – FAO Alternative Facility and Dispatch Center Clark County Fire Requested Amount: $465,000.00

Chair: Okay so our last one that we’re going to hear of is EEE I’ll tell you that in life this is Jeff Buchanan that's supposed to be presenting this, I’m not an excuse guy but there’s two and they both come with certificates. One’s a death and ones a birth, he had a baby so congratulations to Jeff Buchanan, he’s at home with his little boy and I told him to stay there and I would take care of this today. So, when you see him please congratulate him it’s fantastic news and so with this we are prepared to take a reduction down to $70,000.00 to $395,000.00. The way that we are doing that is by…this project from the beginning, as everybody understands, has been very complex and difficult dealing with all of the vendors that are involved but we believe that from the last funding that we received that we are going to be able to maximize some of those funds a little bit more, and get some of the additional work that we were going to ask for from this ask. So, with that there would be no reduction in what we’re asking for in that actual deliverables, but we will be out of the 15C be able to reduce down that $70,000.00 and that's going to come from the console stations and call takers. So, one console station and two call takers down to 4. Again, my expectation is that we’ll be able to deliver on the four consoles and the 6 call taker stations that we presented last time. And with that I’ll take any questions on the alternative FOA.

Chair: Alright, so are there, do we have a grand total?

Karen Taylor: We do right now we’re sitting at $5,280,454.22. We are over by $530,454.26 to get it down to a 475 number.

Chair: Alright, thank you, and I appreciate everybody’s reductions that they took during this. It gives us maximum flexibility. I do want to point out it is not our obligation to fund every project. It is this groups job to fund the projects that best align with that grant and best protect our citizens the most and are in the most need. So, unless anybody would like to come up and tell me about another reduction or a change then we will go ahead and move to the ranking portions.

Carolyn Levering: Chief, can we just go down the line and re-confirm all the numbers, because I think we have some mismatched numbers. I just want to verify that.

Chair: Absolutely.

Steve Kramer: I was wondering if I could just ask a follow up question to one of the projects that’s on here and I don't have a full understanding and I don't know if everybody does.

Chair: Absolutely.

Steve Kramer: On project ZZ, we’re talking about it being a large item project we’re talking 18 percent of the overall budget for the CBRNE unit itself. We know it’s going to take two years to build and that they would be able to receive it. Can I ask if that project does get funded and we don't have that capability in two years what does that mean for this community. I know we always talk about replication

of certain projects between Armor and the HAZMAT team, but this is CBRNE, I just want to get it in my head, at least when we’re voting I want to understand fully.

Chair: That's a great point. Karl?

Karl Rosette: So, where the CBRNE fits in, it’s one of our primary HAZMAT response vehicles. It runs rapid intervention team for the bomb squad, which is under Las Vegas Fire and Rescue and we also have an integrated response with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Armor unit. This unit comes in and supports situational awareness for the on-scene operations for a lot of the things that are occurring. We have Air monitoring capabilities, radiological monitoring capabilities, biological testing. We do carry DECON line on there, and we also have the fire suppression component on, which makes this unit a little more expensive than Henderson’s unit because they don't have that fire suppression ability, but again when we integrate with our partners at the Secret Service and people like that, the CBRNE can be the one stop shop for them. Obviously the bomb squad integrates with them, we can put the CBRNE in there and we have the ability to cover the fire suppression needs that they have, as well as all the chem, bio, rad, nuke and explosive packages. The unit really does provide a little bit of everything to pull all of these teams together.

Chair: Is this broke down now what do you use?

Karl Rosette: We switch into a reserve HAZMAT unit, typically which does not have the water capabilities, does not have the fire suppression on board. It also does not have the emergency DECON showers and they have to take the HAZMAT unit as it sits, carries a lot of large equipment to handle industrial mitigation. So basically, there's two sides to our HAZMAT response, we have the industrial side which is the big clunky parts that we would use on a rail car or large emergencies like that. Those are on the HAZMAT unit, and then we have the CBRNE which is the high-speed low drag threatening stuff and we run them like that. Now when we have to take stuff off of the HAZMAT to make it run as a quasi-reserve CBRNE, we lose that fire suppression capability. We’re taking a lot of our heavy equipment, that we would expect the HAZMAT to have, and disperse that to other places in the event of a HAZMAT response. We did have to use some of that equipment yesterday on a rail car emergency in North Las Vegas, while we had security detail at T-Mobile as well so, we all know that in this valley we’re stretched pretty thin, but the CBRNE definitely plays a role in Armor, the bomb squad, and then HAZMAT response all together.

Steve Kramer: And if there's a call out of the County jurisdiction, can Armor or Henderson or…I know City of Las Vegas has gone up with their Hazmat team, CBRNE team, but do they all have that capability to respond up to Beatty, Nye County, Lincoln County? Or will they, or who will respond?

Chair: Yes, they do.

Karl Rosette: We try to maintain a very good relationship with the Nevada Test Site as well, or the Nevada National Security Site as it’s called now.

Steve Kramer: I’m just trying to understand this fully, because it is a large ticket item and if that capability is lost what does it mean overall for Clark County area.

Carolyn Levering: Steve thanks actually for bringing it up because I think we do need to clear up a couple things anyway so it's good that Karl is back at the table. I’m learning more about this unit as well and my understanding is that it does deploy to a lot of our bomb call outs, in addition to, like you said to the Secret Service type call outs, with security details and things like that, and so it sounds to me like it is also eligible as part of that law enforcement component of the grant requirement that Kelli is trying to meet up at the State level, so I just wanted to put that out there that this also has that law enforcement element because the CBRNE – the E at the end – explosives, does deploy with our bomb squad as well.

Chair: Yeah, so I’ve taken a look at the numbers as far as the law enforcement cut out. We have to do for 25%.

Carolyn Levering: This would go a long way towards meeting it.

Chair: I believe that the best course of action is for us to rank and then to take a look and see if we organically meet that, and then if we don’t to come back and say that we have to meet that. Same with any other criteria.

Carolyn Levering: And because we have some newer members to this group that what we’ve had before, I think Kelli if you could explain what we’re talking about when we’re talking about these carve outs. There’s additional requirements to these grants that many of our newer members might not be familiar with. Can you talk a little bit about that requirement?

Kelli Anderson: The carve outs have been a long standing carve out because back in the day when we received, you know 40 million dollars plus each year, we had multiple funding streams. We had individual funding streams for SHSP, one for UASI, one for LETPA which is the law enforcement provision piece, one for Citizen Corp - a standalone funding for Citizen Corp, a standalone funding for MMRS the Metropolitan Medical, and so over the years they’ve combined these funding streams and then put restrictions on us that we have to meet certain thresholds. The thresholds for both the SHSP and the Urban Area is that we have to pass through 25% of each funding stream or a combination thereof, so let’s say for instance you pass through 50 percent of your Urban Area to law enforcement then we wouldn't have to pass through as much that much money with SHSP so it’s a 25% total of the two funding streams so the 5 million dollars plus the 3.87 million, or whatever that is on the SHSP side. So, what we do is we track that we look at your projects, that's why I was asking those questions as we go through this process, to ensure that I’m capturing those projects with law enforcement or not so that we ensure that 25% of those funds actually go to law enforcement prevention. Another threshold in there, there’s a must and there’s some should that we should clarify as we move through. We have to have one Fusion Center investment on each project which is SHSP, one Fusion project on Urban Area, as well as, Cyber on each funding stream. And then you can’t allocate more than 50% of our total funds to payroll or personnel. So, as we’re going through these processes and looking at all of these, we track it to ensure

that we’re meeting all of those requirements so as you're making those decisions, we’re tracking those on our end to ensure that we meet the mandatory compliance threshold. So, I hope that clears it up a bit.

Chair: Are there any questions from the working group on that.

Jeremy Hynds: Do we have a running total for that 25% for those grants at this point?

Kelli Anderson: Well, we do but it’s hard to determine, I’m tracking it as you guys are decreasing you're costs throughout your different projects. But it really doesn’t mean a whole lot until we actually make those decisions based on the projects that you want to fund. Historically, we’ve never had a problem passing through the funds in the amounts that we need to pass through. So right now, we must pass through $995,000.00 in SHSP and $1.25 million to law enforcement. And right now, if we were to fund all of the law enforcement projects that are in the Urban Area currently, they total about $1.92 so we’re over our minimum required threshold at 671. Now, as you make decisions that will change and then I’ll let you know if there's any issues. Here's the difficult part, throughout these two-year to three-year performance periods we have to make sure that when we do change requests we maintain that level of integrity of the LETPA thresholds. And so, when we do the de-obligations, re-obligations, that's the tricky part of managing these ever-changing needs of funding. So, we’re constantly looking at that to make sure that we’re compliant on this end.

Chair: Thank you.

Craig Cooper: Just to add a little bit of clarification for people that don’t understand the difference between the CBRNE and the traditional HAZMAT that Karl was explaining. Between those two missions, the other thing that the CBRNE unit does, is that it expands operational capability. So, when we team up through Armor specifically, instead of being able to go down range with one team, that one team turns into two, three, four, it just depends on how many operators are available. We always have 4 available on the , so what it does is that it gives us the ability to work two events instead of one. Its gives us the ability to work an event and an incident, and that's something that we’re looking to be able to sustain with this new unit, obviously the older the unit gets the less reliable it becomes. So just with the foresight of knowing that it’s going to be another 2 years and however many more thousands of miles and hours on that apparatus, we’re just trying to get that replaced before that point of no return.

Chair: I appreciate it Craig. Go ahead Steve.

Steve Kramer: I just want to thank everybody for the explanations and I don't want to downplay any one specific entity, it was just a large ticket item and I don't want to be one just to say that one’s out without fully understanding it. I think that what everybody does is great. I've worked closely with both agencies as far as Armor and city HAZMAT, not as much with Henderson HAZMAT, that I know they all do a great job, so I’m not trying to put one above another or anything I just want a full understanding when I go to the rankings with the amount of monies.

Chair: No, I know what you mean. When I question it too, it's not a matter of need or certainly, I know that the valley cannot lose this type of capability, that's not a question. My concern is the full amount of this for this single grant cycle. That’s it, it’s not based on anything. So, if there’s opportunity to combine some funds or to see if the City could budget part, then we’ll budget part, or something along those lines it would be easier, but I’m not in any way questioning the need. Any other items before I have Karen go through line by line on the amounts? Alright, Karen if you would please, let’s go ahead and starting with project A.

Karen Taylor: The total ask by project:

Project A $ 411,500.00

Project B $ 75,000.00

Project C $ 159,801.00

Project E $ 300,000.00

Project F $ 71,000.00

Project K $ 96,635.00

Project L $ 361,990.00

Project M $ 276,750.00

Project O $ 180,000.00

Project T $ 19,500.00

Project U $ 240,000.00

Project X $ 155,000.00

Project Y $ 220,656.00

Project CC $ 462,300.00

Project DD $ 100,805.00

Project EE $ 324,224.00

Project FF $ 230,810.00

Project II $ 60,000.00

Project LL $ 75,800.00

Project MM $ 239,382.00

Project NN $ 25,000.00

Project ZZ $ 800,000.00

Project EEE $ 395,000.00

Total is $5,281,153.00, so we are $531,153.00 over.

Chair: Cheryl and Misty do your numbers coincide? Thank you. Does anyone have any discrepancies? Okay, I’m going to go back to project EEE, FAO alternative facility, and I’m going to reduce this another $70,000.00. EEE, so I’m going to remove one more dispatch center and two more call takers and we’ll look for those… what’s very vital that we get out of this specifically is the microwave tower, but the additional capacity, it just reduces the capacity of that alternate facility, but that will reduce it down to $325,000.00. And if you could give us a new total with that amount please Karen.

Karen Taylor: $461,153.00 over.

Chair: Okay, thank you. So, are there any other voluntary cuts at this time? Okay, so with that then I would like to go ahead and have the working group members rank their projects. And then we’ll turn in each one of those ranked projects as they are completed over to Karen Taylor, and then we will take a 30-minute break and come back and go over the rankings.

RANKINGS

Chair: We’ll start back up at 12:15 after everybody has turned in their papers. Take all the time that you need then go ahead and take a break and then we’ll start back up at 12:15.

BREAK IX. Ranking of FFY2018 Project Proposals Requesting UASI funding. The working

group members will individually evaluate and rank each project proposal so as to collectively create a prioritized list of projects to be funded. Each working group member will complete a score sheet identifying rankings of proposed projects. Individual rankings will be tallied and the results will be displayed and results announced for the record. Upon conclusion of the ranking, further budget modifications may be discussed.

Chair: Okay, we’re going to call this meeting back to order. Do I have a quorum? Okay, we’re back in I apologize for the delay, we had a couple of IT issues there and thank you for your patience, sorry about your blood sugar. I'm going go ahead and tell you which projects have made it for funding. I’ll go ahead and read this in for the record and then we’ll work from there.

Number 1 Project L - Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department SNCTC Sustainment

Number 2 Project MM - Southern Nevada Community Emergency Response, City of Las Vegas

Number 3 Project B - Armor CBRNE Sustainment

Number 4 Project F - Emergency Management Operations Coordination Sustainment

Number 5 Project M - Enhancement for the Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center

Number 6 Project CC - MACTAC Training

Number 7 Project FF - MMRS Sustainment

Number 8 Project K - Public Health Analytical

Number 9 Project E - Emergency Event Tracking System

Number 10 Project A - Armor CBRNE Enhancement

Number 11 Project Y - Henderson Regional HAZMAT

Number 12 Project EE - MMRS Operational Coordination Enhancement

Number 13 Project LL – Radiological Monitoring, City of Las Vegas

Number 14 Project DD - Mass Casualty Incident Response, Clark County Fire

Number 15 Project U - Clark County EOC Enhancements

Number 16 Project EEE - FOA Alternate Facility and Dispatch Training Center

Number 17 Project ZZ - CBRNE Unit, City of Las Vegas

Number 18 Project NN - Southern Nevada Incident Management IMT

Those Projects that have not been funded are:

Project C - City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety

Project O - Southern Nevada Cyber Security, Health District

Project II - Operational Coordination, City of North Las Vegas

Project T - CBRNE Mobility, Las Vegas Fire and Rescue

Project X - City of North Las Vegas, Enterprise Surveillance System

I can tell you that we have to fund the cyber security project, that's a requirement under the grant, and the only one that qualifies is Project O. So that is the minimal amount of work that we have ahead of us, and we have a balance of $113,048.00 remaining, and that Project O is $180,000.00, so with that, I’ll open it up for group discussion and we’ll go from there.

Salome Barton: Chief, we would like to pull Project X and put all the money back into the pot.

Chair: We appreciate that very much but Project X won’t affect that though because X wasn’t funded, but I appreciate that very much. Steve I guess my first question, is there any possibility that you can fund this project for $113,048.00?

Steve Kramer: From what I’m getting from IT the $180,000.00 was the bare bones to get everything initiated, if it went down 10 or a thousand or so he’d have to make do to get it started but that's about the best I can say?

Chair: Is there any possibility of having any other funds from any other sources?

Steve Kramer: Not at the moment, there's nothing budgeted.

Chair: Okay, this is unique because this is a project that has to be funded that’s below the line. So, with that, we’d like to ask for solutions from the group.

Steve Kramer: Chief, if I could possibly make a suggestion to help out? Well I don't know if we can do that, but I was kind of curious if the State was going to put a block on some of the stuff that came from SNCTC because it didn't go through a communications committee and we would just be able to use that money to be able to do it. But if it just has to be something that's approved today before it goes to them then that won't help you.

Chair: Yeah, but we can always make adjustments at finance or make adjustments moving forward after we make those decisions, but I’d like this board to work out the recommendations and the numbers today if we can.

Steve Kramer: I wish I could say that $113,000.00 would be perfect for it, but I can’t agree to that on behalf of IT, because it wouldn’t give them enough to keep going.

Chair: So, I’ve got that we’re just under $67,000.00 short?

Rachel Skidmore: When we say, and Kelli this is directed towards you, the way the grant guidance is written, if a project has ties to cyber security like a component of that, does this meet that threshold or does the project have to be the core capability, cyber security?

Chair: Good question.

Rachel Skidmore: If the secondary… Kelli what is the thoughts on that?

Kelli Anderson: There has to be an investment justification specifically for cyber, so if we can dissect one out then you would have to write two separate investments so for instance, if you found that there was a large cyber component in your fusion center and the group decided that was accurate, you’d have to pull that out, call it cyber and write a separate investment.

Rachel Skidmore: I don't know if this helps at all, but we have our cyber analyst that is in the grant application and that is a contract that is just being initiated under fiscal year 17, so the funding that we have here in 18 is sustainment for a significant contract with a preferred DHS vendor and other items. I would throw out there, that we have a large portion of cyber security in the Fusion Center one but we are primarily intelligence and information sharing.

Chair: So, if I’m hearing you right the possibility would be that we break that out, make its own project out of that and make its own IJ off of that?

Rachel Skidmore: I don't know if that helps but I want the group to be aware that that's another component.

Chair: Yeah, that's a creative idea.

Kelli Anderson: So, if you’d just let me read this to the group this might help, it’s on page 13 – Notice of Funding, and it says of the proposed UASI funding investments, at least one investment must support urban area cyber security efforts. Recipients must… (phone call cutting in and out)

Chair: You are very difficult to hear there Kelli. You cut out on us very bad.

Kelli Anderson: Maybe if I tilt my head…

Chair: Were you reading the fourth bullet? Was that the fourth bullet that you just read?

Kelli Anderson: It’s the third bullet page 13.

Chair: Okay, let me read that out then. “Of the proposed 10 investments Urban Areas are required to propose one single investment in support of a designated fusion center within the Urban Area, if applicable. Recipients must coordinate with the Fusion Center when developing a Fusion Center investment prior to submission, see additional information on how to develop Fusion Center investment below.” The next bullet below says: “Of the proposed UASI funded investments at least one investment must be in support of the Urban Area Cyber Security efforts. Recipients must limit the use of UASI funding’s for projects that support the security and functioning of critical infrastructure and core capabilities as they relate to terrorism preparedness and may simultaneously support enhanced preparedness for other hazards unrelated to other acts of terrorism. The investment name must include the words cyber security to easily identify the required cyber security investment.” So, in my opinion that solution would work. But I’m open and would like to hear other opinions.

Steve Kramer: One question that I have on that, we already have two projects that are additions that haven’t been rated by the communications subcommittee now we would be breaking out another one that hasn't been ranked by the cyber security subcommittee. So, I’m just curious on a lot of these things that we’re ranking, and whether we get it or not it has no bearing. I’m just talking about precedence and procedure, we’d have another project that’s being approved, that’s not being ranked by the subcommittee before it came to the committee.

Chair: Yeah, noted. It would be similar to the other issues so it would be handled the same way. In which case myself and Chief Cage would make a decision on how to move it forward and see if we have to in our opinions have those committees look at it or move forward because of the complexity of putting this together in this timeline.

Mike Wilson: Can you explain a little bit more about this contract cyber analyst position?

Chair: Yeah, that’s not going to be a viable, it’s in the wrong funding stream, so that’s not going to be viable.

Rachel Skidmore: It’s in SHSP so it’s not going to be a viable.

Chair: I’m just doing some calculations here. So, if the other projects can take about a 1 and a half percent cut.

Carolyn Levering: That means every project has to figure out one-line item that needs to…

Chair: I’m just throwing solutions out there… One solution is that if every project can take a 1 and a half percent cut then we can fund this. That’s one solution, nightmare as it may be, that’s one way to bring that up.

Rachel Skidmore: Steve, so it’s a monitoring service, so you're going to go to bid and then going to RFP, can you do a not to exceed value for services for $113 and select the service that does not exceed that value? Like the highest bid at that level? So, they wouldn’t accept 113 thousand?

Steve Kramer: I’m being told by IT that…(Off-Mic – Inaudible) Rachel Skidmore: So, they wouldn’t accept 113 thousand? Steve Kramer: (Off-Mic – Inaudible) They would accept it, I don’t know how much they would be able to do...onto the system, they have spoken to all the other jurisdictional entities and what they are using, and a lot of them are using these third-party servers…for 24/7 cyber security…everything that comes in or out, intentional breaches… Rachel Skidmore: So, there’s no one from IT that can say all or nothing, we need 180 or nothing?

Steve Kramer: (Off-Mic – Inaudible) They’re telling me that 180 was the minimum to start the project…it is what it is… Kelli Anderson: So, on Project P which is under the other cyber security projects and I don’t know if… I’m not too up to date on this project - Cyber Security Resilience and Outreach program competitive. I don't know if this one can be split out. If 20,000 or whatever amount can be put with the Urban Area piece of this project.

Chair: Okay.

Carolyn Levering: But Kelli does that put the state on the hook for ranking that one for… if it doesn’t get the State piece of the funding, we will have done that for naught, and I’m not sure if it’s that popular at the State working group level myself.

Rachel Skidmore: Kelli is saying carve out that piece so that if we have project P resubmit for, of their portion do he 113 out of…

Carolyn Levering: Yeah, but can they do an Urban Area portion without the rest of it? We’re not committing that project for the State, and they don’t like much when we do that…

Rachel Skidmore: What is the ask on P? Does anybody have that?

Chair: Kelli what’s the total ask on Project P?

Kelli Anderson: $238,000.00.

Rachel Skidmore: So, it would be half.

Kelli Anderson: And then we have another project for the Secretary of State which is the NetFlow intrusion detection system, but I don’t know if it’s for Clark County… I don't think it is.

Chair: No, it’s not.

Kelli Anderson: Well that's our only option for cyber right now.

Chair: Okay.

Kelli Anderson: Unless you want to write another cyber project…

Chair: Right, which is what I’m considering right now, yes. So, in the absence of…let me first of all let me ask the working group, is there any interest in taking a 1 and a half percent cut in every project.

Steve Kramer: Chief, before you go down that…can I just have a question for Kelli? Kelli, on my Counter Terrorism Public Health Preparedness Analyst, if I was to decrease funding on that from UASI side and try to match some funding from another grant down the road next year would there be any compliance issues on your part?

Kelli Anderson: So… that's a hard question. Sorry, I don’t mean to be stuttering and stammering. But one of the questions that I posed with the Department of Homeland Security about flip flopping funding streams between SHSP and UASI and they finally put it in writing that it's okay to do so. With the understanding that UASIs come and go SHSP funding will increase and decrease. But going from an outside funding source then trying to increase it later, that can be supplanting. If you were to try for SHSP funding, I’d say that that was split and then you could increase that in a future phase if the group approved it. But going outside the funding streams and then trying to get the funding back that’s pretty much supplanting.

Steve Kramer: Well, I would understand supplanting if it was general fund dollars to grant, but not grant to grant.

Kelli Anderson: But that would be specifically be federal supplanting.

Steve Kramer: I understand what you’re saying and that's fine, I mean my other option is I can… I mean of the 200 or something servers in the district I can have it narrowed down to the main servers coming in for just for just the main capabilities and knock out some of the surveillance on the ancillary capabilities that maybe aren’t as critical. So, let’s say I start them with 113,000 dollars and then we’ll work it from there.

Chair: And we could look to augment with de-obs as well.

Steve Kramer: If that's a possibility. I really don't want to take any more money from anybody else if this is something that has to go through, I’ll say that I’ll do what I can with what I have. And I’ll make it work. And like I said, there are certain servers that everybody knows are more important than other servers that have some of the main information that come into it, so those would be the ones that are hit first.

Chair: So, moving forward I don't see anybody jumping up and down at reducing the 1 and a half percent. Carolyn’s head almost fell off, swinging in a no. So that's fine. I’m going to take that one off the table and I don't know, we don’t seem like we have any projects that have the ability or the desire to reduce the

$67,000.00 right now. So, Steve, with that why don’t we approve this for the $113,438.00. You see, as fast as we can, what that's going to be able to provide how many servers, what they’re going to be able to work, with that. If we’re going to be able to augment that with some additional funding, de-obs, we’ll work together towards that end and if that looks like it’s just a no go, then I’ll just open this back up for cyber projects to the entire UWAG with a very fast turn around and we’ll get a cyber project.

Steve Kramer: I’d be okay with that. Let’s try and not take things away from everybody else or if worse comes to worse and if we try to get another cyber thing in there, but if I can get something going really quick and I’ll work with Jayson and staff when I get back to the office and I’ll let them know we need to know what we can do for the biggest bang for the buck.

Chair: I appreciate it, I know that last year the patient tracking was in the same situation within the SHSP and there just wasn't enough funding to make it worthwhile to move it forward, and that's just a decision that has to be made. And let move forward with this or at least it would be my suggestion to the working group. Does that meet with approval? Just a general straw poll? Any objections to that plan? Any objections to that plan? Okay, then with that, is there any other discussion on the rankings?

Carolyn Levering: Chief, the only question that I had is the column is missing off here is how the total numbers added up?

Chair: Yeah, so that’s available, like I said we had some printer challenges, that's available there on the public board.

Carolyn Levering: I guess I would just like to know how far off the difference is, from where the red line starts, like how many points different it was? Was it like 100 points difference or was it 1 point different?

Chair: Can you answer that Karen? Total votes?

Karen Taylor: NN total votes was 165 and C total votes was 176.

Carolyn Levering: Okay, thank you.

Karen Taylor: And then the next project which was the cyber project was 179.

Chair: Any other discussions as far as the rankings or prioritization of these projects and with that I would accept a motion.

Steve Kramer: I make a motion to approve.

Chair: Okay, so the motion is to approve those projects that are from the red line above, that were read into the record, along with Project O for $113,148.00, is that your motion?

Steve Kramer: Yes it is.

Chair: Do I have a second?

Mike Wilson: I second.

Chair: Do I have any other discussion? All those in favor?

Quorum Responds: Aye. Chair: Any opposed? Thank you, motion carries.

Motion, by Steve Kramer: To approve projects that are from the red line above, as read into the record, along with Project O for $113,148.00.

Seconded by, Mike Wilson No discussion, motion: carried

Chair: Okay, so that’s it, closing item 9. Item 10.

X. Public Comments

No Comments.

XI. Adjournment Motion, by Jeremy Hines: To Adjourn Seconded, by Jim Owens No discussion, motion: carried

In accordance to Nevada’s Open Meeting Law, this meeting was properly posted and electronically recorded. Next UAWG Special Meeting Scheduled: August 29, 2018, 11:00 AM at the Clark County Fire Department Administration Fire Station, 18 2nd floor EOC 575 E. Flamingo Rd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89119.