Nevada proposal moves Office of Cyber Defense Coordination into state CIO amid small staff, modest budget increases

The Nevada Office of Cyber Defense Coordination would move from the Department of Public Safety into the Office of the Chief Information Officer under the governor's recommendation, state IT officials told a joint legislative subcommittee. The change is intended to centralize cybersecurity policy, tools and incident response under a single executive branch office.

Timothy Coluzzi, the state's chief information officer, told the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committee members that the governor's recommended budget would place OCDC in budget account 4704 with biennial funding of $661,838 for FY 2025–26 and $658,669 for FY 2026–27. Coluzzi and Adam Miller, administrator of the Office of Cyber Defense Coordination, said the office will remain a four‑person team and no new full‑time positions are proposed as part of the transfer.

The recommendation includes two small enhancements described in the presentation: a decision unit labeled E275 for cybersecurity software and training (listed in the presentation as $1,270 in FY 2026 and $1,270 in FY 2027) and a one‑time equipment appropriation labeled E710 (listed as $4,040 in FY 2026). The governor's recommended budget also reflects an agency cost allocation adjustment (E800) to allocate an estimated $9,946 in FY 2026 and $10,299 in FY 2027 for shared central services once OCDC is inside OCIO.

Miller said OCDC was created by the legislature in 2017 and has operated as the statewide focal point for cybersecurity strategy, planning and incident coordination while administratively housed in Public Safety. He described coordination challenges that have arisen from OCDC operating alongside, but outside, OCIO and argued the move would eliminate duplicative systems and speed incident response by putting policy and technical execution in one office.

Coluzzi said the consolidated structure would allow OCDC to leverage OCIO's security operations tools, monitoring systems and service desk support and to “speak with one voice on cybersecurity matters.” He added the intent is not to grow government but to optimize existing resources and reduce administrative overhead.

Legislators pressed officials on details. Assemblymember Anderson asked what services would be provided to local and tribal governments; Miller said the combined office could extend OCIO threat‑scanning and security operations resources that OCDC has historically delivered through grant programs. Coluzzi and Miller noted the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program (SLCGP) funding that has supported OCDC initiatives is expected to expire at the end of the next year, increasing the value of sustained executive‑branch resources.

Committee members also raised jurisdictional questions involving independent executive branch offices. Coluzzi said the Secretary of State maintains its own cybersecurity team and clarified that the transfer would not subsume the Secretary of State's responsibilities; rather, it aims to reduce cross‑agency vulnerability by centralizing standards and support that other offices may opt into.

Coluzzi and Miller said they expect to finalize rate and service discussions with municipal partners during the next budget cycle and that the transfer would allow OCIO and OCDC to “try before you buy” with federally supported grant pilots now open to local governments.

No formal action was taken during the hearing; the presentation followed the governor's budget submission and committee members asked for additional detail on rates, services and the accounting changes before a final appropriation decision.