Wednesday, Dec. 22, 2004 | 9:10 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- The Homeland Security Department allocates money to cities based on five variables, including a "threat index" compiled from intelligence information about which cities are at risk, according to a Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by the Sun.
Another variable is "private sector infrastructure," according to the memo marked "For Official Use Only."
But none of the factors specifically account for huge tourist populations or for the fact that "icons of American culture" such as Las Vegas could be likely terrorist targets, said Amy Spanbauer, spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev.
Gibbons plans to introduce legislation next year that would alter the funding formula to include those factors.
Nevada lawmakers are concerned that Nevada, and more specifically Las Vegas, is not getting their fair share of money from two of the Department of Homeland Security's funding programs aimed at funneling money to states for training and equipment. One of the programs, dubbed the Urban Area Security Initiative, is specifically designed to boost money for big cities.
Nevada will receive $28 million in fiscal year 2005 from the Homeland Security Department for emergency planning and equipment, a decrease from roughly $36 million in 2004. That includes about $8.4 million for Las Vegas, about $2 million less than last year, from the urban area grant program.
Nevada's five lawmakers in Congress were irked earlier this month when the amounts were released. This week they fired off a letter to outgoing Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, asking him to consider that areas with tourist populations require more complex emergency planning.
This year the department shifted its program priorities, doling out more money overall through the $3.5 billion urban area program. New York was the biggest winner in the funding shift -- the city got $208 million, up from $47 million last year. Los Angeles, Boston, Washington and Chicago received more money. New York, Washington and Los Angeles will get 42 percent of the money.
But officials in a number of cities, including bustling tourism cities like Orlando and Las Vegas, decried federal funding decreases.
Nevada lawmakers in their letter to Ridge asked for more explanation about how money is allocated.
According to the eight-page department memo, "Funding Distribution Model for the Urban Area Security Initiative," the department this year relied on five variables:
-- an intelligence information index
-- a law enforcement activity index, including the number of FBI terrorism-related cases under investigation and "Special Interest Alien" apprehensions
-- an index for "national critical public and private sector infrastructure," weighted for vulnerability and consequence of loss. The memo lists 22 specific "potentially desirable terrorist targets," including casino-hotels, tall buildings, malls and theme/amusement parks. The memo explains that "consequence of loss" was ranked on a scale of 1 to 3 based on how many people could be affected. For example, the memo said a strike on a major chemical facility likely would have a greater consequence than on an individual electricity substation.
-- an index for "mutual aid cooperative agreements"
-- an index for population and population density.
Gibbons believes the formula does not yet adequately consider metro areas, which also could be the subject of a change in his legislation, Spanbauer said. Currently, Las Vegas may be getting less money because the population of the incorporated city is substantially less than the metropolitan area, she said.
Gibbons plans to work with Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who has called the current funding formula a "seat-of-the-pants" analysis. Gibbons also sits on the panel.
The memo acknowledges that funding is not an exact science.
"The difficulty of determining which cities/urban areas are most at risk is ambiguous to some degree because of the nature of most intelligence information and the scarcity of data specifically identifying targeted cities and infrastructure," the memo says. "The results therefore represent the best available combination of data, current understanding of threats and expert judgment."
But the memo hints that funding formula changes are possible for next year.
"Obviously, as information develops, understandings change, and/or capabilities improve, DHS needs to adapt as we have done since the inception of the program," the memo says.
archive
