Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Attorney General Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appropriations committee details attorney general budget: victims advocates, crime-lab staff, PIO and litigation fund among priorities
Summary
The Appropriations — Education and Environment Division reviewed the attorney general’s budget long sheet and directed staff to include targeted personnel and one‑time items — including a victim‑witness advocate FTE, an executive staff officer/public information position, a crime‑lab technician, and an $8 million litigation contingency — for consideration in the committee’s package.
The Appropriations — Education and Environment Division discussed and largely signed off on a package of changes to the attorney general’s budget, directing staff to include several targeted personnel and one‑time items on the committee long sheet.
Committee members agreed to advance a number of items the attorney general had requested or long-shot supplemental requests that were not in the governor’s budget. The panel directed staff to include at least one full‑time FTE for a victim‑witness advocate (committee noted a biennial cost of roughly $237,602 for a single FTE on the long sheet) and to add an executive staff officer/public information officer position (biennial cost cited about $195,432). Members also asked staff to include the crime‑lab evidence intake/technician position (about $189,393) among the prioritized FTEs, and to retain a tobacco settlement trust fund FTE item the AG had requested.
Levi (committee staff) walked the panel through ongoing funding adjustments: switches of salary funding from special funds/refund fund back to the general fund, funding for crime‑lab equipment and maintenance, and increased IT and software hosting costs. Committee members and staff noted that some previously counted capital items had already been purchased or were in operating leases, so certain one‑time requests were reduced accordingly.
The committee also discussed the AG’s litigation line. After hearing that the administration had asked for an increase to cover ongoing litigation needs, committee members agreed to start with $8 million in litigation contingency funding for the biennium and discussed an amendment to use excess charitable‑gaming revenue above a high‑end projection as a dedicated source for litigation expenses. Chairman Nathan instructed staff to work the gaming‑revenue amendment and present it as an option for the committee.
Members debated the BCI cybercrime items that had been discussed earlier in the day. Representative Hansen and others argued that administrative support positions—such as a cybercrime administrative assistant or an information processing administrator—might improve throughput and case turnaround as much as adding more agents. The attorney general testified he believed the agency’s budget reflected the assessed needs and emphasized that the BCI was deploying resources where needed; he also described a $100,000 request to retrofit secure forensic space as a separate priority.
Other one‑time items discussed included replacement vehicles on a rotation schedule, crime‑lab equipment and handheld radios. The committee placed human‑trafficking and victim grants on the long sheet and discussed whether to increase an existing line from $1.1 million by an added $650,000 as proposed in amendment discussions.
Committee members asked staff to update the long sheet and to prepare amendments for the full appropriations committee; several items were left as follow‑ups for more detail (FTE job descriptions, exact equipment line items and grant‑matching rules).
Provenance: the attorney general’s budget long sheet and testimony were discussed at length in the committee’s budget review; committee staff (Levi) and agency staff (Becky) provided line‑item explanations and cost figures. Ending: Staff will prepare an updated long sheet and draft amendments reflecting the committee’s directions for early next week.
