Subcommittee reviews LFA budget-reduction options; agencies flag program and timing concerns

The Criminal Justice Appropriations Subcommittee on Tuesday heard a summary from Legislative Fiscal Analyst Gary Sipes of proposed budget-reduction and revenue-neutral options affecting the Attorney General, Department of Corrections, Board of Pardons and Parole, courts and the Department of Public Safety.

Sipes told the panel the LFA had identified several potential reductions and revenue-neutral moves — for example, a proposed $1 million reduction to the Attorney General’s general‑fund line for contract attorneys and a proposal to supplant an estimated $188,000 in court IT security with money from the court security account so the freed general‑fund dollars could be repurposed.

The committee’s roles: why it matters

The subcommittee’s review is part of its regular work to produce a prioritized set of “building block” requests and technical adjustments for the full appropriations process. Sipes told members the LFA presents these options so legislators can weigh agency reactions, spending trends and reprioritization opportunities before Wednesday’s planned voting session.

Most significant items and agency reactions

- Attorney General: The LFA proposed a $1 million reduction to the AG’s contract‑attorney general fund line based on historical expenditures. Sipes said the AG’s office did not oppose the option but was neutral.

- Board of Pardons and Parole: The LFA flagged a potential reduction to the board’s general‑fund/nonlapsing balances. Scott Stephenson, chair of the Board of Pardons and Parole, addressed the committee. “The budget with the board is very tight,” Stephenson said, and he warned that the board needs its current nonlapsing funds to run pilot programs, manage mental‑health work and use pro‑temps to reduce pressure on full‑time members. He said the board would return next year if pilots succeeded and ongoing funding were requested.

- Jail contracting and county jail reimbursement: The LFA reviewed jail‑contracting appropriations (the current budgeted capacity was described as about 1,600 beds) and estimated modest ongoing savings in one item ($34,000) and a one‑time savings ($531,000) based on recent expenditures. Sipes also described a broader jail‑contracting formula discussion — including options to average correctional costs over five years rather than three — and said sheriffs are likely to oppose large formula changes after a recent double‑digit jump in per‑day rates.

- Department of Corrections and Department of Public Safety (DPS): Sipes noted both agencies’ nonlapsing balances have declined recently as vacancies have been filled; both agencies opposed several proposed reductions and said they want to retain cushions for unanticipated needs.

- Courts and juvenile services: The LFA identified a roughly $119,500 court line under review and said courts oppose reducing funds currently allocated to juvenile programs. The LFA also noted that some court IT security funding could be supplantable from a court security account, making a $188,000 general‑fund reduction revenue neutral in effect.

- Driver license and restricted accounts: Sipes said the driver license division has had vacancies and that the transportation/public‑safety restricted account could, in principle, be used to free up roughly $4.8 million for other public safety purposes; he described that item as potentially revenue neutral.

- Flood mitigation and other one‑time balances: The LFA reported the state made a one‑time $10 million appropriation in 2023 for local flood mitigation and that agencies reported about $1.6 million of that appropriation remains unexpended and could be reallocated by the committee.

- Utah Victim Services Commission: The LFA noted the commission, created for FY 2024, is being discussed for possible transfer to Health and Human Services in the governor’s request. The LFA said a possible reduction could be $30,000 ongoing and $100,000 one time while the commission and committee consider placement and duties.

Process items and member input

Staff reminded members that the committee’s building‑block priority document (agency requests and RFAs) will be used by co‑chairs to prepare a chair’s list for Wednesday’s votes. Nate Osborne of committee staff distributed a two‑page priority sheet and asked members to return rankings and any nuanced notes (for example, preferring one‑time vs. ongoing funding) no later than 12:00 noon the next day.

What the subcommittee did not decide

No formal appropriations votes were taken at the hearing because members lacked a quorum, and agencies were given the opportunity to respond publicly to analyst recommendations. The committee adjourned after continuing its work on member priorities.

Ending note

Members will consider these LFA options and the member priority inputs when the subcommittee reconvenes for votes scheduled later in the week. Several agencies told legislators that recent hires, statutory obligations or program pilots limit their ability to absorb the suggested reductions without affecting services.