Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy

Senate Budget Committee number two on Resources, Environmental Protection, Energy will come to order. Before we begin, let's establish a quorum consultant. Please call the Roll.

[Roll Call]

a quorum has been established. We begin discussing all the items listed in the discussion section of the agenda. For each item, we'll hear from the Department, followed by the Department of Finance and then the Legislative Analyst's office. And then Members will have the opportunity to ask questions. And we're going to start with issue number 22, beverage container recycling grants program staffing. And I'll ask Cal recycle to come up and join us. Thank you very much.

I think the Chief Deputy Director will begin when you, Miss McIntyre, when you're ready, go ahead. Thanks

Thank you. Chair and Members, I'm Chief Deputy Mindy McIntyre with CalRecycle. Sorry about that. Apologies. Apologies. I also have with me our Deputy Director Amy Cameron here, who oversees our division of recycling, which oversees the beverage container recycling program. The proposal before you today request position authority for six positions paid by administrative costs already approved. Currently, our staff oversees over 950 grants, awarding under 26 different grant programs for a total of $255 million.

The new grants under 1013 and AB 179 alone just about doubled the amount of funding that our program handles and doubled their workload as well. This is an exciting level of investment, but also a tremendous level of work. Given our priority to accelerate implementation of these programs. Cal Recycle is requesting an additional position authority. Thank you for your time and we look forward to answering any questions you have about the proposal about 1013 or about CalRecycle in General.

Thank you. Department of Finance? No

Frank Jimenez is with the Legislative Analyst Office. We have no concerns with the proposal. The position seem to have merit.

Okay, thank you. Sorry. Well, as you mentioned, this is a chance to go over a few things about the program, and I thought maybe we'd. Our resident recycling expert, Senator Allen. Do you want to start us off?

Okay. All right, let me. I wanted to. Well, I want to talk about some various. A couple different things, but let's, if you know my. Let's start on SB 1013. So we passed SB 1013, adding wine and spirits to the bottle Bill, which was a really important advancement and something that took a long time. The measure specifically called for consumer education before stories, before all the collection processes started collecting the deposits.

And I think this is something that's been really important in other jurisdictions where I've study to ensure confidence in the program, especially now. But we've heard from folks that outreach has been kind of lackluster, and I just wanted to first ask about what plans the Department might have to increase efforts in this space.

Absolutely. Thank you for the question. As you mentioned, 1013 included some significant changes to the program, including the largest expansion ever of the program with wine and spirits. In addition, it added the dealer Cooperatives, and it did it under. It did both of those things under an ambitious timeline. And we recognize that at Calri Cycle, we have made some significant efforts towards outreach, but recognize that this is a change for most of the program participants, and it's bringing in new program participants.

Amy's team Director Cameron's team has done a tremendous job, but is reaching out to those stakeholders still. We've done a number of webinars, workshops, et cetera. We do plan to do to kick up efforts in the summer as well, monthly forums for answering questions, etcetera. We've looked for any opportunity to provide presentations or answer specific questions, especially to the new. To the new participants in the program, including those beverage manufacturers for wine and spirits.

But we recognize that there are a number of changes happening in this program very quickly under a very tight timeline, and that additional outreach is necessary.

Okay. Appreciate that, and I'd love to continue to follow up with you. Absolutely. This is, as you know, we all sit around here and know everything that's happening. Sometimes it's not even easy to know when you're even in the room. Recycling is such a complicated process for people, and we're changing, so I want to just make sure that we're doing everything we can to ensure that folks know the rules so they can better participate.

All right, now. I think the implementation costs for the program are estimated to be over $1.0 billion, but the current Fund balance is less than that. So how are we addressing overspending, balancing those numbers?

I think you're right. The overall program costs include the CRV in and out. So the total amount paid in and total amount paid out after that, our Fund balances is what you are reflecting the 800 million. So.

830 million, I think it is.

We're happy to answer any follow up questions on that one, if there are some questions.

Okay, we'll do some follow up. I think we're just concerned about ensuring that it appears that there's just a bit of a disconnect between what it's actually costing to implement and what we have in the current Fund balance.

We have done a lot of work with finance recently to reconcile the Fund and I can tell you that the Fund balance is positive and we expect to be able to make all payments, including the investments outlined in 1013179 to the program.

Okay. All right. Love to do some additional follow up with you on that. All right. We also, I know we appropriated something like $15 million for 10 different collection pilot programs. And I just wanted to know if any of you had any lessons to share from the department's experience and with those pilot programs that we can take away as lessons learned as we think about how we proceed. Absolutely. And we actually do have a handout for an update on the pilots. They were. Go ahead, Amy.

Actually, yes. So we did provide a handout. I unfortunately forgot to save one for myself. But just overall, there are.

Is this right here? Is this.

No, it's, zero, maybe. There are 10 pilot programs, as you know, with an original appropriation of $10 million. Then an additional $5 million was added. And so they range throughout California serving high urban populations as well as rural populations.

And so what we're, and various innovative methods, whether it's a reverse vending machines, backdrops, mobile recycling, and really able to get out to the jurisdictions, we are hearing from both consumers and program participants, high consumer satisfaction where the pilots are up and running and they're enjoying the flexibility that the pilot programs offer.

Okay. I mean, I'd love to get a little more color.

Absolutely.

Could you just describe it a little more? What is the pilot program that is creating good satisfaction?

Sure. So, for example, in the City of Irvine, they joined up with their local municipality and they are doing a recycle from home program. And so consumers can get on to their app and schedule a pickup at, at their house. They put their CRV materials in a bag, recycle from home, comes by their house, picks up the material, brings it back to the center, processes it, and then pays the consumer via a mobile application method. So that's like one example.

The City of San Francisco is doing more of a backdrop program where all the dealers in San Francisco are participating. And so consumers can drop off their CRV material in a backdrop or at certain locations, you know, on a specified schedule and get payment for their CRV there.

Excuse me, chair and Senator Allen, I've busted into asking questions here on this topic. So who exactly is picking up at consumers homes this CRV material?

The recycling operator that is partnered with the City of Irvine.

Okay, so it's the waste hauler for that area.

It's not the waste hauler. It's a certified recycling center.

Okay. And is that compliant with the waste hauler agreements in those cities.

It's considered a donation of the or it's not considered a donation, it's considered recycling. So it is not considered waste. So yeah, the Calgary cycle doesn't oversee the franchise agreements, but it is consistent with and compliant with the local franchise agreement there. Okay.

And how many years will these programs last?

The Legislature extended them through June 30, 2026.

Okay, that sounds great.

So yeah, I would love to. These are obviously things that are going to just help us inform many of our processes going forward. And so I think we're all really interested in how they proceed and love to. Maybe we can even get a little tour, something that could help us just better understand what's happening on the ground. But everything you're seeing is great. I wanted to just ask something a little more technical.

I know you probably remember this letter that Susan Collins came out with from the container recycling Institute last year and she was just talking about the beverage container recycling program. They've got a Fund balance that according to their letter from last year, was understated by 188 million in the Governor's Budget. And now I think we're looking at even a much greater Fund understatement. 300 million in the Governor's Budget compared to the actual amount reported. So I wanted to get a better sense of how that discrepancy is getting addressed.

Yeah, sort of... Department of Finance so we go through a process every year with all funds to reconcile the Fund balances before Gen 10 budget. As part of that, we work collaboratively with the Department and gathering information reports from a controller's office. There are many times where we're not able to fully reconcile by the release of January 10.

And what we do in those cases is we add an asterisk to the public budget displays for those respective departments that acknowledge, hey, these Fund conditions have not been reconciled. And then we work over the spring to finish our reconciliation. And so in this case, the Fund itself was one of those funds out of a few funds that weren't completed for reconciliation. And so as part of merivision is when we will release our full reconciliation of that specific Fund.

And part of the Governor's Budget acknowledged the loan that we had done in the current year. And there was a proposed loan for the budget year. But there is trigger language that was adopted in last year's budget and that was the same language that was included in the proposed budget, which basically says that to the extent there's going to be an actual impact in the Fund, the loan triggers just get repaid back.

And as a result of some trends that we were looking at in some of the preliminary data, we realized that the Fund wouldn't be able to absorb the current year loan. So we actually already repaid it back, which just goes back to that trigger in the language. There's really no way that loan would actually impact the program itself because legally it really can't because of the budget loan language.

So we repaid back the $100 million loan, and as part of mayor vision, we're in the process of finishing our reconciliation. So the next month we'll be releasing an updated Fund condition, and that's going to reflect the actual past year reconciliation and then also just updated revenue and expenditure data based off of the most recent trends that we're looking at. But really more technical point in time of when we complete a reconciliation versus what gets posted publicly. But again, there's an asterisk and it clearly notes that this was not completed and that is the case for other funds as well. That's our process.

All right. That's helpful. I mean, the discrepancy is so large, and I guess, well, at some point I'd love to, I'm sure there's implications in terms of the way that the loans are paid off. And as these discrepancies get bigger, that probably becomes more challenging. But I'm glad you're working on it because I noticed that, you know, it was an issue last year and it's only gotten more challenging. So. All right. I'd like to.

Senator Dahle did of one. oh, Senator Dahle on that other point, just a quick follow up.

So. Well, I'm getting more confused as we go along here, but. So are you deficit spending or are you, are you, is there a surplus with the new bottle Atkins Dodd Bill?

So related to like the loan component of it, the loan was anticipating there would be a surplus, but now there's not as big of a surplus and there's triggers within the program where if the Fund balance gets below a certain level, I think it's about 75 million, then triggered proportional reductions. And we didn't want the loan to be the trigger of that. So by paying back the loan, we basically are not in a place of reduction. But the Fund balance, the Fund still has a balance. It's not negative. And especially now that we repaid back the loan, it maintains what should have been in the Fund.

Okay. So my second question was, so the curbside pickup program that you just mentioned that you said was, I think, Irvine or somewhere, where's that is that just in Irvine or is it in other parts of the state?

The pilot, right?

Yes, it's one of the pilot programs. And the City of Irvine started it. And about six other local jurisdictions have actually joined on to that same program in the greater Orange County area.

Okay, so has there been any analysis done on, like, the carbon footprint for us to, like, drive out to somebody's house and pick up some bottles and cans and then give them a rebate, give them the redemption value? And when we have a waste hauler driving, like right by there every, you know, other week or every week.

And it seems like to me that I know that this is one of my frustrations and this is not just pertained to this agency, but you're in a silo, so you do what you got to do in your silo to get your job done. But we have waste agreements that are in their silo. And anyway, everybody's like, doing, doing all kinds of stuff. And at the end of the day, it doesn't make sense.

We could pick it all up and maybe come up with a program that's less impact on the environment and actually doesn't cost as much money to operate the program so we can actually do more for recycling.

Thank you, Senator. The pilots were really set up to test different types of redemption and allow consumers to get their CRV back. And they are targeted in areas that have been traditionally underserved or were underserved for a long time because of the recycling center closures. So our recycling centers have to follow very specific rules and they have to use very specific mechanisms to offer redemption. And the pilots were very much set up to test different types of redemption models.

What we have with 1013 is the dealer co op option where they will be able to do a plan and consider just the things that you're talking about, which is how is the best way to get consumers back their redemption and overall meet the goals of the program in a much more thoughtful way. But the pilots were really just looking at do these other types of redemption models work for consumers and can they be deployed in California?

And so during, if it's a true pilot, then you're going to be taking into consideration your carbon footprint. I mean, obviously, everybody loves a program where they come to your house and pick it up for you and give you some money, but is that really the best program?

I mean, we, Senator ..., who dogged this thing for a long time, we worked on the bottle, and Oregon has a really unique process where you put the bottle in and it gives you a certificate, you can go in the store and spend it right there. And it's very effective. I live not very far from Oregon and it works very well. And we talked about that in this Committee over the years. So I'm interested in efficient, least impact on the environment and not duplication.

So are you going to come back to us with some real numbers of like, hey, you know, yeah, this program is really popular, but this is how we're doing it. We're running up and down the street picking, you know, and that's a person, that's a vehicle that's exchanging. I mean, there's a lot of moving pieces there. It seems to me that maybe the waste hauler would be a better way to collect the stuff and maybe compensate them. Just a thought.

And in every community that has curbside recycling, the curbside program can take CRV material. The only difference here is that the consumer would be getting the CRV instead of the waste hauler. So that's the model with the pilots. But to your question on the pilots and overall analysis, the pilots are extended through June 2026. And at that time we can do a little bit more of a, this is what worked here, this is what worked in other communities, and here are the lessons learned.

and the cost to the program. Thank you.

Okay. Yeah, I want to talk about the coingle rate, but I certainly think it is appropriate to do a full analysis, including, you know, pollution and carbon impacts associated with pickup. So I agree with that sentiment, certainly. All right. Commingle rate. Okay. So I think you all know that there are a number of stakeholders that have been raising concerns the CalRecycle is not going to recalculate the commingle rate soon enough. I know that.

At least my understanding is the current plan is not to recalculate until sometime in 2025. It was Last Recalculated, I think, July 1, 2023. So you all use data collected over a 12 month period to, to calculate the rate. And so you're going to have a 12 month sample that accounts for all the new products and changes the program under SB 1013 and SB 353 in early 2025.

So I'd love if you just provide an update on how things stand on this and then also if it's possible to update the commingle rate sooner than 2025, but also what the consequences might be of recalculating the rate too soon. So, yeah, let me start with those questions and quote a couple more.

Yeah, thank you. And as you've mentioned, the commingled rate is we do an annual survey every single year on what's coming back in curbside and look at the percentage of CRV in that material and that's analyzed again over 12 months. And then we look at if there's been any major changes and then consider a rate change. As mentioned, 1013 is a new program. There are a lot of unknowns with the program, but we don't have any information on consumer behavior under the new program.

And so that's where we're looking at a 12 month period which shows seasonality and geographical differences, et cetera, over this next year. And we'll consider that for the rate in 2025, as you mentioned.

What do you say to those who feel as though you're not recalculating the rate soon enough?

Well, again, we want to be as accurate as possible. And right now, again, it would be a complete guess on what consumers are going to do with the new containers in the program. Some of those containers have a 25 cent redemption, which is way more than we've ever seen in the past. And wine, of course, most of those bottles are $0.10. We do see a lot of wine in curbside, but which means that consumers want to recycle it.

And it makes sense that some of those consumers are going to want to take those bottles to recycling centers. And so really trying to figure that out, it would be a random guess for us to try to conclude what the consumers are going to do. Traditionally in our program, we see about 60% of the glass redeemed at recycling centers versus curbside, which is about 30%, and then 10% of our other community programs, et cetera. But most of the material does come through our recycling centers, and that's what we expect to happen under this program as well.

All right, thank you for that. And I want to go on to the question of quality of material. I know there's a lot of pressure to up the rate, but one of the concerns is just the extent to which you may be getting a lot of poor quality materials that just simply aren't recyclable. So. Yeah, so to what extent or when you do look at commingled rates, are you able to look at the quality of the material?

That's an excellent question. Our methodology was established in the nineties and we have not updated that methodology for quite some time. But we do not consider quality when we're looking at the curbside rate. So it's a representation of the amount of material in a curbside bale at the beginning of the process. We don't look at the quality of the material through that process.

Isn't that kind of crazy, given your goals?

It's a part of the process. And we do recognize there is a difference in quality between our recycling centers. Again, they have very strict rules about how they're to manage material. And as a result, the material that comes out of recycling centers is extremely high quality, and it's able to be recycled at a very high rate, which means it actually becomes other products.

Right.

We don't see that same. Whether you're looking at glass or plastic, there is a difference in the quality that comes through the curbside program.

Right. So what's the plan to address that? I mean, what, you know, you mentioned the regs you're working off of from the nineties. We got to do better. I mean, you know.

Again, we would need to look at our methodology and go through and update the method. Methodology.

And who does that?

In the past, when it was originally set, it was. We had a contract and did an analysis with, I believe it was UC Berkeley.

It was one of the UC's, yes. Did the research study back in the early.

So how do we encourage that process along? And, you know, we've got big things coming down the pipeline with SB 54 and other. I think you're feeling a lot of, many Members of the Legislature really want to see this system work better. And I'm sitting next to a great champion on that topic, too. You get a lot of just crap that's getting pushed into the system, making it harder for our whole system to work and making it harder for you to do your job. So how do we encourage this reevaluation ASAP?

Well, that's something we can go back and look at our authority and what we're able to do. Again, it would be, well, we'll need to look at what we can do to update the methodology, and we can definitely get back to you.

Okay. I'd love to partner with you. I'm sure my colleagues feel the same way. We want to see the system work better. It's not working at tip top right now, and there's some real changes, I think, that need to be made. And I look forward to the leadership role that you're going to play. We can play together on this topic. That's my line of questioning, and I appreciate the chair's indulgence.

Senator Blakespear.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I'm a new Member of this budget sub and a relatively new Legislator. This is my second year, I'm very interested in us as a state doing better, and I appreciate the comments about what Oregon is doing. And having been in Oregon, my sister lives in Portland and witnessed some of the things that are happening and the private companies that are able to fill in the gaps where our waste haulers are not serving the communities. I think our waste haulers are doing really important work.

Work. And the compliance with SB 1383 and upcoming SB 54 is. It's really important. But I think I just want to make the General comments that calorie cycle's role is so pivotal in driving what is the future of this, and making sure that we're not distracted with ancillary things and really getting at people want to save the planet. They want to recycle their wine bottle to be reutilized into another wine bottle. And how is the best way for us to facilitate that?

It seems like we used to have these recycling centers that have largely closed. I mean, in my community, the number when I served as the mayor of my city, the number of times I received complaints about that around the COVID time. And before that, like, why is it that we're not able to revitalize those and have that be something that's a normal part of our system, that people can easily access recycling centers?

But I think recognizing that we are really falling short of our environmental goals and hearing from you, what is the best thing that the Legislature can do to try to support that and being focused on that end goal of not having so much stuff landfilled. I mean, really, ultimately, the landfilling of just vast amounts of recyclable and compostable or digestible material that's creating methane and that is not being reutilized. It's a one way system that is not serving us in any way.

So the complexity around this can be hard to figure out where exactly to move. But to me, it seems like calorie cycle is so central to that. So I wanted to support your work, but also say that I hope that we're really being clear eyed about where we need to do better for the experts who work in it every day, how you can help us get there.

Absolutely. Thank you for that, Senator. It's something that we are definitely cognizant of, is developing the circular economy, not just focused on collection or any one program, but how do we get to our overall goals? And the Legislature, through the Governor's Budget last year, did direct calry cycle to develop a zero waste plan, which we will be coming back to the Legislature with in 2026. So we're developing that plan now and looking at just what you're talking about, where are those gaps?

Why aren't we meeting our environmental goals where we are falling short, and how can we fill those gaps and get to our overall goals? Thank you.

Excellent. Well, very robust discussion. I know we have a lot of passion on this issue here, and I appreciate all your work. We do have a hold open recommendation on that. So we'll move on to the next issue. But thank you all for your time.

Thank you. The next issue is issue 23, plugging and well remediation. And so I will ask the Department of Conservation to come on up. You are the state oil and gas supervisor, is that correct? Excellent. Well, thank you. Yeah. Maybe you could go ahead and give us some initial comments. That'd be wonderful, Doug.

Good morning. Thank you. My name is Doug Ito. I'm the state oil and gas supervisor for the California Geologic Energy Management Division, or CALGEM, as part of the Department of Conservation. This particular budget chain proposal request. The Department of Conservation is requesting $7.5 million for fiscal years 24-25 and 25-26 from the oil, Gas and geothermal Administrative Fund to implement mandates related to the plug in abandonment of hazardous and idle deserted wells across the state.

In addition, it's consistent with the proposed shift of the 232450,000,001 time General Fund appropriation for this purpose to the greenhouse gas Reduction Fund in 24-25. The Department is also requesting trailer Bill Language to amend Section 3258 for consistency with this change. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Finance, any comments?

Zach Lierly, the Department of Finance available for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Luke Koushmaro with the Legislative Analyst Office. We do not have any concerns with this proposal, but available for questions. Thank you.

Okay, great. You know, I do have a question. So again, this is 7.5 million annually for two years, and the proposal includes a one time shift of $50 million from General Fund to GGRF for these purposes. Obviously, this is very important topic, and our colleague Senator Lemon has been a big, big leader on this effort in the Senate.

But my question for the Administration and for Department of Finance is why do you believe that GGRF funds are an appropriate General Fund replacement for a topic such as this, plugging wells and site remediation?

Zach Lierly, Department of Finance broadly speaking, the Administration looked at what General Fund programs still have funding available that align with the administration's priorities, including those that support equity, meet greenhouse gas reduction goals, and or have been previously been funded out of GGRF. Just note that the state has documented over 17,000 wells that have been idle for over 15 years and over 5000 wells that are orphaned, deserted or potentially deserted wells which left unremediated.

As you may all know, these wells and facilities can contaminate waterways and soils, serve as a source of climate and air pollutants, and can present physical hazards to people and wildlife. Accordingly, we feel as the Administration, that this is consistent with the program being supported through GGRF.

Okay, I appreciate that. I mean, obviously there are. One of our priorities around plugging them is there are methane leaks from abandoned and unplugged well. So obviously related to climate from that sense. But there certainly are other more focused, direct programs on climate mitigation that will get pushed out of GGRF because of this. So just something that we need to keep in mind. I think that's, you know, on this particular issue, probably only questions I have. Do I have any questions from my colleagues? Senator Dahle?

Thank you. So I'm. First of all, I got a couple questions. I've been on this Committee now for some time, and Senator Stern and I, over the years, we have funded positions for Calgen to go out. And actually. So I want to. First, let's talk about the money. Isn't there a Fund available that the actual refiners and oil producers put into to do the legacy or wells that were. That nobody's responsible for, that were done a long, long time ago.

As part of the idle well management program? Yes.

That's funded not by GGRF funds. That's funded by producers and refiners that put into the Fund to take care of those. That was settled some time ago, correct?

That's correct.

How many of those wells have we actually mitigated and capped in last year?

Well, specific to the General Fund amount and.

No, no, I'm talking about. Let's just put it this way. How many wells have been done in California in the last 12 months?

So we are in the final stages of a contract that we started back in 202223 in the Cat Canyon area of California. It was a total of 172 wells we've plugged and abandoned nearly 170 with the rest of them anticipated to be done by the end of this year.

And that came out of which Fund?

That is a combination of both state, federal and the industry funds.

And how many wells are left to plug?

In total in the state? There are many. I don't have an exact number for you. In addition, one of the numbers that we had published previously 5300, I believe, Orphan Wells. We are continually re evaluating that. We are also taking a look at the idlewell trends in the state, which, as operators go defunct, and it becomes a responsibility of the state to take a look at. We add those to the list. So the numbers is shifting, but we could provide a current number to you as a follow up.

Well, because I've been monitoring this the whole time I've been on this Committee, because every year we add more positions to. We have added, like, since COVID which is 2019. When I came onto this Committee, we asked for, like, 50 positions every year. And every year I go, how many did you hire? And one year it was like three people. The next year it was three, but we still asked for another 50 positions. And I'm interested in getting the work done.

And so I know that there are wells that are responsible by somebody who actually drilled the well, and they have to take care of the well. Then there's wells that, or I guess orphan Wells, wells that were drilled 100 years ago that nobody owns, and there's no Fund there for it to pick up. And those are the ones that we're responsible for taking care of. So that's my concern, is I want to make sure that we get this job done.

I mean, to me, it's like we've been messing around for a long time, at least the five years I've been in this Committee talking about it, and we did 170 wells.

Well, there have been many wells plugged and abandoned, not necessarily through this particular Fund, but other funds and operators have, as part of the Idle well management program, funded the plug and abandonment of those wells as well. So.

And who keeps track of all that? Does Dogger do that? Or CALGEM?

Dogger was the previous name of CALGEM. So we have those records, and we can provide an updated.

I would love to have that information because, you know, we had a Bill, Limon had a Bill up just the other day, and we talked about contamination of groundwater. And I'm concerned about freshwater, not the deep stuff that comes the water that comes with the oil. I'm concerned about the water that is above that. And I was the only Republican in the whole Legislature that voted for SB 4, which was a Bill that Fran Pavley ran that said, hey, what are you putting in the ground?

Because I was concerned about it. So I'm not wanting to shut down wells that are taking water that's with the oil and putting the water back down where the oil is at. I just want to make sure that we are taking care of our fresh water, which is what our communities use and our ag people use. And I think that's what Senator Limon was trying to get out the other day.

So at the same time, we need to get rid of these orphan wells and plug them. And so I'm not satisfied with the amount of wells that are getting done with the amount of money we put into the process. And is it a lack of money or is it a lack of people? That's what I'm trying to figure out, because we've been adding people every year, and at some point we added the positions, but they don't get filled. So how many open positions do you have?

We had 24 vacancies across CALGEM currently.

Are you asking for more positions this year?

We are. So if I might.

Yeah, I want to help you. Tell me what you. I mean, we allocated positions every year, and some years we didn't get but three positions filled. And the oil folks pushed back on that because they're paying the Bill. They're the ones that pay the Bill on some of this. Not the, not the. Maybe the GGRF funds, but they do pay into the program.

And I would be happy to provide a more detailed overview of kind of where all the positions went and what they're currently doing. But in broad terms, you know, many of those positions have gone out into the field to address field inspections, to do the witnessing of operations that the operators do on a per well basis. I did want to highlight that this year.

At the end of last year, we did kick off our state abandonment program, which is a framework where we're going to be using funds that we get either state, federal, or the funding from the operators to plug and abandon orphan wells. We have three contracts that are currently in progress. One of them is on the verge of being completed for southern, central and northern districts to plug several hundred wells over the next year or two.

And that's part of the General Fund money, but it's also federal grants that we've been receiving and then also the money from the operators.

Okay. So I would love to see more information. Unfortunately, this will be the last time we get an opportunity to, or I get an opportunity to weigh in because I'm going to be terming out after this year. But I really think that for the publics, you know, a lot of the legislators, you know, take target at oil producers in California, but they're at the table. And what I hear from them is that they're frustrated that they are paying and nothing is getting.

They're not getting the work done that needs to get done on the abandoned wells and that part of it. And at the same time as somebody who uses diesel on my farm every day, I pay into the GGRF Fund. And if we're going to talk about the environment, we need to take care of these abandoned wells that are. That may be causing some of our environmental problems. And those funds.

As to the funds you're talking about here, which I think should go to maybe some of those programs if we can reduce the pollution. Thank you Mister Chairman, for allowing me. I'd love to have some more background. And if it's. You need to really be transparent. If you are asking for positions but you can't fill them, then we need to find out why is the talent not there or you hard to work for? What's the deal? That's what we say in the private world.

Maybe your pay is good, but they just don't like working for you. Or what's the issue. Because every year you ask for more positions than every year I ask how many are filled and there's always vacant positions. And obviously I'm glad that there's only 24 because in the last couple years there were 50 or more and you're asking for another 50 positions.

We are about a 14% vacancy rate. And many of the vacancies are being filled by people that are inside Calgem. And so we do have some of a kind of a promotional and internal flipping of positions which create the vacancies. But I understand, you know, we are very sensitive of that and are paying close attention to making sure that our hiring process is efficient.

Yeah, I just want to say I do appreciate the line of questioning. And because they certainly were not going to prove for myself any budget until we really see some of the firm numbers about that you referred to, that you'll get to us about how many have been plugged, how many remain to be plugged. Because we just really want to see that data. And I know that there's been concerns that a lot of the reports are often late.

And I don't know if that's staffing or whatever, but that's something that I. That I have concerned. And I know the departments firms feel like that we're sort of accelerating the plug in. I know industry feels that it's not accelerating. So I think there's a bit of a discrepancy there. So anyway, we'd love to see the numbers about how much has been done, how much remains to be done.

And your kind of overall estimate of the size of the issue at this moment, best as you can right now. Yeah. So I think we'll leave that for right now. But how long do you think that will take to get reporting of that?

It shouldn't take long. We have. We have those numbers back at the office.

Okay, great. Excellent. Excellent. Okay. Well, with that, we do have a hold open recommendation here, so we'll look forward to following up. And thank you for your time. Thanks. We'll now move to issue 24. I'll ask the parks and recreation folks that come up. I believe Mister Dewey, Assistant Deputy Director of Facilities and Development. Go ahead when you're ready.

State parks is requesting 6 million General Fund in the budget year and 1.5 million General Fund in 25-26 and 26-27 to install and maintain improvements that are needed to address the most significant ongoing impacts caused by legacy mining activities at this park and help the Department comply with Clean Water Act and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge requirements.

Malakoff Diggins is one of the department's most iconic and highest risk legacy mine sites, primarily because of the site's history and geological features, including highly erosive soils, presence of toxic chemicals in the soil, and its location within the watershed. Today, the state parks has been able to avoid waterboard penalties and fines largely because of the progress and efforts we have made to improve water quality over the years. The the growth current discharge permit expires in 2027 and all renewal options have been exhausted.

The next phase of improvements are expected to achieve compliance with the discharge limits for copper, zinc, nickel, and mercury if constructed before the current permit expires. While the project is not expected to achieve minimum water quality requirements for sediment, the initial project will significantly reduce the amount of sediment coming out of the pit. If this project is delayed a year or more, it will not be possible for the Department to achieve substantial compliance by the 2027 deadline, likely resulting in significant penalties. But moreover, the quality issues I just mentioned and health risks will persist until the source is addressed. And with that, I'll pause for questions.

Thank you. Any comments from the LAO? Any.

Helen Kerstein with the Legislative Analyst Office. We don't have any concerns on the proposal.

Okay. My colleagues have any questions or comments?

It's my district. I can talk. It's in my district. It's something we've been working on for a long time, trying to get the mercury that gets into the water source, quite frankly. And you know, the sooner we get it done, the less it's going to cost us. And we need to get it done.

Yeah. I just want. I support this work. I've been out to this park. It really, you know, it's an important part of our system and it tells an important story. And there's a lot of environmental remediation issues that need to be addressed, as you're describing. So I certainly will support this work. Thank you. I mean, are there any other funds besides General funds that could be used for.

Yeah, so we looked at alternative funding sources. We also attempt to try to find and hold potential liable parties responsible, but in this case, we don't have that. I have a number of occasions reached out to the Department of Conservation. They do have some funds for legacy mines, but given the magnitude of the issues here at this site, those funding sources were not appropriate for this project.

Liz Erie, Department of Finance, would just add that, as you know, the Administration had a very high bar for proposing new General Fund, and we believe that this meets that high bar.

Okay. I do appreciate that. And, you know, obviously, my colleagues joined in about the importance of this work. We still do have a hold open, so we'll keep that as a recommendation for now. But thank you for your time. Just for a point of reference, I mean, state park system does not come to us very often enough, quite frankly, given all the massive m and o issues throughout the system. And a lot of other people are very. Don't hesitate to come and talk to us.

But your agency is very probably, perhaps too judicious. And so I'm hopeful we'll be able to help with this and other projects around the system, quite frankly. Yeah, I know there is a lot of m and l, but thank you. Great. Appreciate it.

You're welcome. We're going to move on to issue 25 capital outlay projects and we'll ask folks from the California Conservation Corps and CAL FIRE to come on up. Director Patton. Okay, great. Will you be leading us off here today? We have Director Tyler as well. Thank you for being here. Yeah, go ahead.

Good morning, Chair Becker and Members of the Committee. My name is JP Patton. I'm the Director of the California Conservation Corps and I'm joined by Larry Notice, our senior Deputy Director. Thank you. For consideration of this budget request of $5.9 million of public building construction funds for working drawings to build a new residential center in Aubrey, California. Located in Fresno county, the new residential center supports program needs by enhancing our ability to provide essential services, including housing, our type one fire crews.

Fresno county has been highly impacted by wildfires, so the partnership with CAL FIRE to house fire crews at this location will support the region's emergency preparedness and response capabilities. The CCC's residential centers feature prominently in our ability to recruit and retain corps Members. Yet our 10 residential centers across the state have a six month waiting list for new placements. Our residential centers ability to increase participation in the program will enable the CCC to address the abundant conservation, fire preparedness and emergency response needs of the region.

Each CCC crew provides about $1 million of value annually through our natural resources and emergency response work. The cost effectiveness of the Conservation Corps work, as well as the indirect impacts or benefits of education, workforce training, and youth development aspects of the program would have an outsized benefit. In the Fresno County area, project costs have increased from initial estimates due to the inclusion of new fire facilities on site and exacerbating inflation impacts as well.

However, we believe following through on the state's commitment to this project is a sound investment both for the state as a whole and particularly for the underserved Fresno region. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions from the Committee.

Thank you. Department of Finance. Anything to add?

Victor Lopez, Department of Finance, nothing to add. Happy to support. Any questions?

Great.

Helen Kerstein with the Legislative Analyst Office. So I would just note, I don't know if you're covering both the CCC as well as the CAL FIRE projects in this item. But while CCC has one project, I believe one cap outlay project also, CAL FIRE has quite a number of projects. I don't know if you want to hear from them or do you want me to give the comments on.

That's a good point. Yeah. We probably should hear from Director Tyler first on those and then comments. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Becker and Senators of the Committee. Joe Tyler, Director at CAL FIRE. Today we present to you 10 capital outlay projects and totaling $36.2 million in General Fund. $87.88 million in public building trust or public building construction Fund for fiscal year 24-25. It's important to note that CAL FIRE has over 3000 structures on over 635 facilities decentralized across the State of California. Each one of those facilities generally have a maximum lifespan of 50 years.

63% of our facilities were constructed before 1960 and 80% were constructed prior to 1970. And because of our growth in the needs and the demands of the fire year and our fire prevention activities, CAL FIRE is experiencing a higher rate of deterioration of those facilities. The proposals outlined in the 24-25 Governor's Budget will tackle critical areas essential for enhancing CAL FIRE's infrastructure, leading to increased safety, efficiency and operational preparedness.

With me today is Assistant Deputy Director Michelle Valenzuela of Capital Finance and sustainability for CAL FIRE able to answer any specific questions you may have?

Thank you. Thank you. Department of Finance. Still nothing? Yeah, we're good. All right. So now we'll go back to thank you so much.

So we just have some overarching comments. We think that many of these projects may definitely have some value. However, we recommend that the Legislature consider whether they all need to happen this year just in light of the serious budget problems that the state is potentially facing.

And collectively, when taken together, these projects would add some significant pressure to the General Fund, not just in the budget year, but many of these projects are anticipated to be financed, and so they'll put some pressure on the out year General Fund condition as well. And then in some cases, for example, in the case of the CCC facility, there are anticipated to be additional operations costs.

Once this facility is up and running, it will need to be staffed, and there'll be some additional costs there as well. So just wanted to highlight that in light of the budget condition. While, while many of these projects are meritorious, we know that there are some tough decisions ahead for the Legislature. Thanks so much.

Got it? Yeah. So close to 40 million annually General Fund over the next few decades to pay for debt service on lease revenue bonds, along with additional operating costs in the case of Auberry residential center. So those were, I believe, the notes there. Let me turn. Ask if my colleagues have any questions on that. So there's a few questions. Senator Dahle.

I actually don't have questions. I'm in 100% support. I just want to let the Legis Members know, number one. I mean, we talk about the outgo here, but we don't talk about what they do. We funded new helicopters in the state, which need different types of facilities, quite frankly, and the infrastructure to operate them.

At the same time, with the new upgrades and the things that happen on the ground in strategically places throughout the state, one fire can cost a General Fund, I mean, hundreds of millions of dollars in a few weeks. And so this is, I call this preventive maintenance. At the end of the day, this is, well, money.

And the quicker we get on the ground and get these projects built with inflation the way it is, the better off we are to get it done now further than kicking the can down the road. And trust me, we will have fires, we have a lot of fuel out there, and we will need these facilities, and this will actually save us money if we spend the money now. So I will be advocating for this all the way through. I think this is just good business practice.

At the end of the day, I know that we have a tight timeframe or the budget is tough, but it's going to be tougher if we have a huge fire and we have to come find those resources. If you can get on the fire quick when it's small. It can maybe cost us $10,000 to put the fire out versus hundreds of millions if it gets out of control. So this is just really good. I'm 100% supportive.

Great. Appreciate that. And points certainly well taken that I agree with generally. I just have a couple specific questions first for Director Patton appears at the project cost has doubled for the Albury residential Center. Why is that?

Thank you for the question. In 2019, the CCC embarked on inquiring the Auberry facility initially to house our forestry corps crews. And then there was a decision to pivot and add in some facilities and infrastructure to support CAL FIRE crews as well. So that was a piece of the increase. The other piece of it has to do with inflation pressures. The project has been significantly impacted by disruptions and inflation affecting materials, costs, services, transportation of goods.

And this challenge added additional millions of dollars to the project. And that is a figure that aligns with broader observed state capital outlay project costs reflected in the California construction cost index.

Okay, how confident are you in the current estimates? Very confident. Okay, good to hear. In terms of CAL FIRE, you mentioned facility statewide. What was that number again? It's a little finicky sometimes.

There it is. Sorry about that. So there are over 635 facilities with over 3000 structures located within those facilities.

Built in the sixties and seventies?

Primarily. I get to get that. So how many capital projects total is CAL FIRE working on right now?

Good morning, my name is Michelle Valenzuela, assistant Deputy Director of capital finance and sustainability at CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE currently has 43 active capital outlay projects in various stages of the project life cycle, with an estimated project cost of $1.642 billion. So, as you previously heard, over 635 facilities with 80% of those exceeding that 50 year lifespan.

We have a large backlog of critically necessary capital projects and will continue to have an increased need for capital outlay funding to address the declining State of the current infrastructure.

Could you tell us specifically the Ishi conservation camp kitchen replacement? I understand the Department hasn't been able to obtain insurance necessary to sell bonds to finance a project. That's what I was told. Is this an isolated incident, or are there concerns that other CAL FIRE facilities may get a similar predicament?

Victor Lopez, Department of Finance to begin with, the insurance industry, they weren't interested in selling insurance policies in the region due to the perceived fire risk in the area. Alternative options such as the California Fair Plan, do not provide sufficient coverage to meet the requirement of the bond underwriters additionally, this is not the first time that this incident has happened. This is fairly infrequent. And DGS CAL FIRE, along with the Department of Finance, look at if there's any projects that face this same risk.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's ironic, and I guess it highlights the problem that we're trying to solve if Kel, fire facilities can't get fire insurance for fire facilities. But what happens in that case? And do we self insure or insurance or what happens then?

Mike McGuinness, Department of Finance so when this happens, we swap the project over to cash funding, in this case, General Fund, as we're unable to, to sell the bonds and get that financing.

Okay, so this one will be cash funded. That's the process right now.

Exactly.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, does highlight the problem for sure. Are we finding that in other facilities as well, or is that an isolated.

This is the second project that I'm aware of where this has happened. It's a relatively new phenomenon. So we're evaluating all of the projects. We, being Department of Finance, the Department of, Department of General Services and CAL FIRE as well, are looking to make sure that any projects out there that already have appropriations from the public building construction Fund or that are seeking appropriations this year are able to obtain fire insurance. Typically, this hasn't been an issue.

And so we have waited until closer to the point of selling the bonds to look into this issue. But given recent trends in the insurance industry, it's been prudent to start looking soon.

I will note I have a Bill on insurance and fire insurance, particularly featured in the Sacramento Bee today. But this is obviously part of a larger issue we need to get a hold of. And really, the bills actually were about trying to get recognition for the, in essence, we have collectively made as part of this Committee and as part of a Legislature, about 3.6 billion, I think, since 2017 in, you know, direct fire mediation from kind of on the ground and. Yeah.

Trying to get the industry to recognize that or make sure to take into account. Yes, sure. Senator Dahle?

Well, I think it's just this really should be daylighted out. There's a story right here. I mean, we can't get in fire insurance at a fire station, but it's going to be manned by firefighters. That's where we are in California. That to me is just crazy.

Yeah. Well, certainly part of the bigger issue, which, again, number of bills this year, but hopefully we'll continue. We will make some significant progress this year. Well, great. Well, thank you to the Conservation Corps. I believe Doctor Talleyou will stay up here for the kind of remaining focus of CAL FIRE. Thank you, Director Patton. So, yeah, we have a hold open on that item as well, and we'll move to item 26. Before I do that, I just want to ask Director Tyler a couple things.

I was briefed recently about the Alert California program, which is a collaboration between CAL FIRE and the UC San Diego Scripps Institute. Employment Combination of cameras, Lidar Multispectra data collection to aid in the prediction, detection and suppression of wildfires. And Time magazine, I believe, highlighted this is one of the best inventions 2023, kind of broadly and certainly could save the state a lot of money when completed. And my district focused a lot on wildfire technology. Dining, town halls on it.

Understand the program needs about 20 million more to complete the collection of the data for the program, as well as map the entire state with lidar and multi spectral. What status of that funding is? The funding included in this year's wildfire budget.

Thank you, Senator Becker. There is no specific earmark in the governor's proposed budget as CAL FIRE's first meeting to discuss this specific need with alert California occurred on February 72024.

Okay, so is it something that you're contemplating? Where does it fall under that General range of priorities, you know, in terms of the, where does this, the completion of this, you know, kind of fall among your priorities?

I appreciate you asking that question even more because that really talks about the history of it.

We entered this program about five years ago with funding approved by the Legislature and the Administration of the amount of $5.4 million to add 100 cameras in Association with investor owned utilities and other private, non governmental and governmental organizations across the state. Since then, that hundred cameras went to 104, where today the state, and specifically CAL FIRE, is funding 207 of those cameras. And there are 1068 cameras across the state currently. Now, there are still some holes in the State of California.

We just entered into another multi year agreement with Alert California in UC San Diego to continue this work that's been going on, and within that adds yet another hundred cameras to the system that will be funded and established by CAL FIRE. Alert California desires, as you said, to obtain additional lidar data, multispectral data, operate, maintain and install the camera system, which we feel the addition in this new multi year contract actually addresses that piece, and we continue to have a strong working relationship with them.

As you said, Time magazine really showed it as one of the top innovations of 2023. And it's important to stop there because when we entered this, there were a lot of false positives. And at the time when we first entered this relationship of 100 cameras, I made it clear to the Legislature that we could only use them as validation cameras, not as detection cameras. Well, technology has surpassed that now, and that's what makes it one of the great innovations of 2023.

We have instances in Riverside and in Nevada and placer counties where these cameras have actually picked up fires and started resources towards them before the first 911 caller. But based on their needs, it's also important to note that there are a lot of efforts in this space, and it is about bringing us all together to make sure that there is open source data available.

As an example, CNRA partnered with usgs in their 3d elevation program to start collecting $40 million in Lidar data across the cascades, in the northern sea areas, and to fill gaps up and down the state. And then they're also working with NASA Ames to utilize the supercomputing capabilities to be able to further expand this together.

More recently, we learned, and I don't know why we didn't know this ahead of time, but it's interesting what you learn, that the University of Washington has annual lidar data of three quarters of our state from 2009 to 2019. So we entered into an interagency agreement with them. We sent them the hardware of terabyte hard drives to Washington for them to put the data on there, bring it back to California so we can evaluate that again. In the end, alert.

California is a strong partner to us and has proven results working with us together. So we will work with the programs that we have. We'll continue to evaluate their proposal and work with the Department of Finance in the program.

Yeah, well, I appreciate that. I do believe. Well, just, I'd say generally speaking, and I think we need to tell the story more that we do have a comprehensive wildfire strategy with the aerial resources. And I just got a report, update on that with this technology that you're embracing, and obviously with also expanded kind of man and woman power on the ground, that we really do have a comprehensive approach. And again, also the 3.6 billion we've done in treatment of forest areas.

So I hope to be able, certainly plan to keep telling that story. And I've learned some stuff even from what you just said, which will be part of it, as you mentioned. Just so. I just said there's 207 CAL FIRE cameras right now. You said 1608 or is it 1068?

There's 1068 cameras throughout the state right now. Partnership with encounter utilities and other things.

Correct. The state is sponsoring 207 of those cameras currently.

Okay. Total, yeah. Good. Excellent. Well, good. Very interesting and love to stay in touch on it as that evolves, but really, really helpful to get that and appreciate you embracing that technology. Our first item, a few very specifically, is around the Ramona air attack base. Do you want to, could you tell us a little bit about that?

Certainly, and happy to do that. As Department of Finance is shifting. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is requesting $12 million of one time General Fund in fiscal year 2425 to address degrading concrete, reconfigure loading pits at the Ramona Airtec basin, repair the retardant loading operations that meets better tactical objectives and increases our operations. Now, more specifically, the Ramona air attack base is the southernmost base in the State of California.

It can accept large, not just about our c 130s, but it can accept large air tankers at that location. The next closest location that can accept large air tankers is in San Bernardino at the San Bernardino airport. It's a forest Service operated air base. When we are addressing the current configuration of the Ramona air attack base, it has historically had 21200 gallon s, two t air tankers. It is scheduled to receive one of the five c 130 air tankers.

To have a total of three air tankers flying out of the Ramona air attack base here soon with that will require a reconfiguration of the pit locations to be able to adequately and more expeditiously fill all three of those air tankers at the same time. So we are happy to answer any questions you may have.

A2C. What was the other kind of aircraft? You said the air tankers.

It is currently staffed with two s, two T Grumman air tankers that can hold up to 1200 gallons. And then when their c 130 comes online, that c 130 will hold 4000 gallons and they will then fly three air tankers out of the Ramona airtag base.

Great. The three being the two Grumman and the one c 30. Yeah. Okay, great. Okay. Excellent. Was there a concrete mix issue? zero, sorry. I guess before that, let's see if there's any add on from

Jamie Gonsalves, Department of Finance. No comments at this time, but happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, misses Gonsalves.

Helen Kerstein, again, we didn't have any specific concerns, although probably the comments we had on the cap outlay projects. This is very similar to a cap outlay project. So it's sort of in the spirit of those, but no specific concerns.

Okay. Got it. Got it. Was there an issue with the concrete mix at the base. Is that part of the damage question here?

Yes. So there was a problem with the concrete mix. They had to create control joints due to the concrete mix.

Okay, that was the issue. And does the timeline line up with the receipt and retrofit of the c 130s?

So it is important. Thank you for that question. It is important to add that foreign object debris creates damage on a Runway. An air tanker engine for an s two is $1 million. An air tanker engine on a c 130 is $2 million. So the c 130 that will receive. We received title and ownership of all seven c 130s from the Federal Government in December of 2023 that took it out of the federal contracting process and put it upon the State of California.

Currently, the first of those seven c 130s is up on Jackson. McClellan has the belly cut open and it's anticipated in late 2024 to have the first operational c 130. That first c 130 will go to McClellan so we can keep an eye on it. The second c 130 will then undergo construction.

The importance of this is that Ramona, when configured correctly and the issues are addressed, can accept any, exclude exclusive use large air tanker or the c 130 air tanker that is located at McClellan could be pre positioned and moved to Ramona based on fire activity.

Okay, thanks. I know. Plan a visit to Mcclellan soon. So that would be good to see. Good to see. Yeah. Good. We'll keep track. Any other comments from my colleagues? Okay, excellent. Good. Well, we have a hold open recommendation on that one as well. And move on to issue 27, which is the CAL FIRE training facility. The new facility. Maybe you could tell us a little bit about that.

Thank you, chair, to have the right people here for you at this moment. I'm going to defer to Michelle to open it and I'm going to bring a subject matter expert, Deputy Director Matthew Soley, to answer specific questions.

CAL FIRE currently has one state owned training facility, the I own training center, which was constructed in the 1960s. The Ione training center does not have the capacity to expand to Meet CAL FIRE's training needs. Since the early 2010, staffing levels have increased nearly twofold and will continue to increase once the reduction in the work week takes effect. In addition to the work week. Sorry. The workweek reduction will result in approximately 2500 additional personnel adding to the training needs of the Department.

With the increase in wildfires, decreased workweek and closure of the conservation camps, there's an increased training demand and the Ione training center does not have the capacity to fulfill the training needs. CAL FIRE is currently leasing temporary facilities to meet the training needs of the Department.

Okay, thank you. No comments from France this time, or

Helen Kerstein, again. So in addition to the overarching comments that I gave previously on the other cap outlay projects, we do have a specific recommendation to hold this item open until the Department comes forward with two studies that the Legislature has already funded on this project. So there's both a study of the Ione facility, which the Legislature funded and the Department has been conducting, and then there's a second study that the Legislature are funded last year.

So you may recall we discussed this facility at some length with the Committee last year, and our office had raised some questions about both, sort of whether, you know, what the long term needs were and whether this was the most appropriate way to address those needs. So this study that the Legislature funded would provide answers to those questions, as well as help give some more information about the expected costs and scope of the project.

And this will hopefully help inform the Legislature's decisions about exactly how much money to provide and sort of what the overall General Fund kind of contribution will have to be to support this project. So we think it's premature to approve this project until those studies have been received and you've had a chance to review them. Now, we understand that the Department is, is almost completed with them. They're almost ready for action, that they've maybe been completed and will be forthcoming soon.

So we're hopeful that that will be before the adoption of the budget. So that'll give you the information you need to make the most informed decisions. Thanks.

Thank you. So what is the status of this study and the master plan? Because the point that Lao seems to raise seems to be a good one. Why would we Fund this when we've requested a study? We're waiting for the study. Why would we approve this now when we haven't gotten the study or the master plan?

Yes.

So there are the two studies. The master plan is expected to analyze the existing I own training center in an effort to determine potential for capacity expansion at that particular location. The second study, as you mentioned, is the additional training center, and the intent of that study is to estimate the future growth in CAL FIRE staffing and associated training needs and evaluate multiple potential alternatives to building an additional training center, with an additional training center being one of those options.

So CAL FIRE has received both of the studies just recently, and it's currently still being reviewed to determine what additional feedback and comments that the Department wants to provide to finalize that study.

So when can we expect both of them or either of them to be completed.

We're hoping to get them to you within the coming weeks.

Okay. Okay. Well, that is good. We'll look forward to those. Any other questions from my colleagues? Good. We have a hold open on this. We look forward to seeing those, and hopefully we can then, you know, move forward on this as well. Appreciate it. Thank you. We're going to move over to our last item on the 66 hours work week and with Director Tyler, come back up. Thank you.

Great. Well, I appreciate it. We all hear many stories, and I hear many stories personally about long hours and the impact on lives. And especially in the previous couple years we had right before these, where we had lots and lots of fireworks. I personally heard a lot of stories about impact on people's lives in session. Anyway, why don't you please go forward and tell us about this item.

Thank you, Senator Becker and Members of the Committee. Again, Joe Tyler, Director at CAL FIRE. So the health and wellness of our employees is of significant importance, and therefore, looking at ways to reduce those impacts of those long seasons are equally important. The Governor's Budget for this year includes $199 million of General Fund and 338 positions in fiscal year 24-25 to implement the shift to a reduced workweek, shifting from a 72 hours workweek to a 66 hours workweek for our employees.

That was ratified by the bargaining unit eight Members for their memorandum of understanding, as well as approved in 2022 by the Legislature and the Administration. The cost of the proposal would increase to the coming years. That would rise to upwards of $770 million, 2457 permanent positions by 28-29.

Due to the complexity of this issue and the amount of work that had gone into it, I assigned our northern region chief sitting beside me, George Morris, the management responsibility of conceptualizing where this was going to go and putting it forward. So I have him sitting here beside us today, and if possible, I would like to heed just a couple of minutes, five minutes to allow him to open for you and provide detail.

Sure. Why don't we do that? We've got a handout as well that we've received now.

Good morning, Chair Becker, Members of the Committee, my name is George Morris and I have the honor of serving as CAL FIRE's northern region chief. I'm going to walk you through a high level overview of the plan to implement the reduction in the CAL FIRE firefighter workweek. The plan is designed to be phased in over five years, reducing the duty week from 72 hours to 66 hours in compliance with the 2022 bargaining unit eight MOU between the state and CAL FIRE firefighters Local 2881.

The objectives of the plan are to increase recruitment and retention, provide vacancy relief, maximize the plan's co benefits, and implement a transitional workweek in near alignment with industry standards. For background, the 2022 bargaining unit eight MOU required CAL FIRE to develop the planning consultation with labor to preserve the interests of the state and labor through the development process where possible.

The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection began the use of the 72 hours workweek in 1977, transitioning fire protection employees at that time from a 96 hours workweek. All fire protection proposals submitted by CAL FIRE since 1977 were developed within the paradigm of a 72 hours workweek, so implementing the 66 hours workweek requires adjustments to previous initiatives. To account for the change in workweek and its impacts, the Department accounted for systemic considerations which, if unaddressed or exacerbated, would compromise the successful implementation of the plan.

These systemic considerations included the imbalance ratio between fire captain and fire apparatus engineer relief personnel shortage, training capacity, and the challenge of developing this plan within the reality of a fire year. In the process of developing the plan, co benefits of the workweek emerged primarily through the mechanism for correcting the captain and engineer ratio imbalance. So for the systemic considerations, number one, improve the ratio between captain and engineer.

The captain to engineer imbalance is an insurmountable obstacle to effectively implementing the 66 hours workweek without significant intervention. Engineers are the feeder rank for the fire captain position. The ratio between captain and engineer at this moment is three captains. For every two engineers, an engineer must successfully complete a 36 month apprenticeship as a prerequisite for becoming a fire captain. Prior to this proposal, there was no feasible way to correct the imbalance within the legacy staffing paradigm.

With a new staffing paradigm, the Department will correct the imbalance by substantially increasing the number of engineers while only increasing necessary captains, inverting the ratio to nine captains for every 1.1 engineers consideration. Two is that the current staffing paradigm is incompatible with the 66 hours workweek. Traditional staffing is a term used to describe fire engine staffing as one captain, an engineer, and one or more firefighters per fire engine.

Municipal fire departments across California and our nation utilize a staffing model based on National Fire Protection Association standard 1710. The Department has utilized the legacy staffing model of one company officer, that's a captain or engineer and two firefighters to staff its 356 fire engines. The model places the burden of driving and fire engine pump operations on the company officer, and in the current model, the company officer may take initial command of an incident while conducting pumping operations while their firefighters advance fire control lines unsupervised.

The risk associated with firefighters advancing fire lines without the leadership of an experienced company officer creates a critical firefighter safety liability, which this plan addresses as a co benefit consideration. Three was to maintain vacancy training leave, and disability backfill capability.

The concept of relief is the essential component of fixing the captain to engineer ratio and it and this plan places the engineer classification in a 4.0 staffing factor and the captain and firefighter classifications at a 3.11 staffing factor consideration four is to provide for administrative support staff and programmatic support of additional firefighting personnel and consideration five was to provide sufficient training capacity to implement the plan and keep pace with normal attrition.

The success of this plan depends on the ability of the Department to hire and train sufficient personnel annually to ensure complete and full implementation. By year five, this plan accounts for an additional temporary training site at the former Castle Air Force base and this will increase the number of company officer and firefighter academies. All initial training required for company officers. For the plan elements, it will be phased in over five years.

The plan is built from a foundation of existing initiatives such as the relief BCP, direct mission support and the cruise bcps, and integrates with their multi year funding implementation.

It includes nine personnel months per firefighter one to reduce dependence on annual one time staffing enhancement requests and this is consistent with the May 2023 LAO report, includes a proportionate increase in contract county funding, an increase in administrative staff for programmatic support of additional firefighting personnel multi year training plan and development of an additional training center, technical services staff and special repairs funding emergency vehicles, utility vehicles and fleet support and unit level training capacity.

The co benefits of the plan include decreased reliance on annual one time staffing enhancement requests, surge in overhead supervision capacity for large incident support, builds unit level training capacity and builds additional permanent staff that will increase base level staffing from 65 engines to 153. It creates base and peak staffing levels and removes the transition period, extending aviation contracts to align with the staffing levels. It improves fuel reduction output and improvements in firefighter health and wellness.

Promotions to engineer and traditional staffing may be more appealing to candidates guided under the leadership of a fire captain, and it will bring the Department in closer alignment to the industry standard workweek and schedule and workweek parity. It may attract former previously trained employees back to the Department who separated for other departments with more attractive workweeks and compensation. So in summary, the 66 hours workweek is a step towards the industry standard workweek for fire protection personnel.

The transition maximizes the capability of fire protection personnel and creates significant co benefits beyond the benefit of a reduced work week. Chair Becker, Members of the Committee, I appreciate your time and attention and welcome any questions you have.

Thank you. Thanks for that overview. Certainly helpful with the Department of Finance.

First, thank you chair Steve Benson with the Department of Finance. Nothing to add to the overview but of course available to help out answering questions.

Thank you. Turn over to the LAO.

Thank you Mister chair. So I think you should all have a copy of the brief that we prepared, which I think is also in your agenda, but it's color here, so hopefully it's a little easier to read. It's also on our website. I'll just try to summarize it really quickly, as quickly as I can. This is a complicated proposal. I know there's a lot, lot in here. We think prioritizing the health and welfare of firefighters certainly makes sense.

Firefighters have endured really difficult fire seasons, as you all know very, very well, particularly over the last few years. And we think it makes sense that the Legislature would have wanted to prioritize that in passing the MOU in September 2022, and that MOU included a provision related to the 66 hours workweek. With that said, the landscape has really changed in the last year and a half in a couple of key ways, months.

So one way we wanted to highlight, and I know our office has talked, you know, at length with, with all of you about this, but the condition of the General Fund has deteriorated significantly in the last 18 months, making it much more likely that the Legislature is going to have to make really tough decisions related to potentially making cuts to programs, including potentially ongoing programs, as well as potentially considering additional revenue increases.

Second, the magnitude of these costs of this proposal have become much clearer since the Legislature adopted this MOU. Specifically, when the Legislature considered this MOU, there was no cost estimate that was provided by the Administration for this provision. And the reason for that is that this particular provision, unlike the other provisions of the MOU, this particular provision wouldn't take effect until after the term of the MOU. So this MOU that CAL FIRE currently has expires in June, this wouldn't take effect until after that.

So because of that, Administration didn't provide a cost estimate just because that's their policy, is to provide a cost estimate for the term of MOU. So there was really no good sense of the costs for that reason, as well as because there wasn't really a lot of specificity about how this would be implemented that was left to this Committee that was created. And so there wasn't a good sense of exactly what the Department would do to implement this change.

Our office, because of that, our office wasn't able to provide a very good cost estimate either. We said it would likely be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, but we really didn't have a good sense of exactly how this would be implemented and what the cost would be. We now know that when fully implemented, this is going to be a very significant proposal in terms of costs, eventually totaling about $750 million from the General Fund, $770 million from all funds.

So it's quite a significant proposal. It would increase staff levels and budget for the Department by about 20%. And this comes on the heels of some pretty significant increases in budget and staffing that the Department has seen over the last 5 and 10 year period. So this is a significant increase, and it would have a lot of both direct and indirect impacts on the Department.

So you heard a little bit about them, but there's a whole host of things in terms of how they are able to, how many engines are operated for a period of time, how folks move in and out of the periods of time that they're operating the engines, a lot of different implications, and there are also potential implications on other entities. Many of these we don't fully understand.

Now, certainly, Legislature probably didn't have information at the time the MOU was considered, but one I just wanted to flag, for example, as an example, is that CAL FIRE currently provides service for a number of local agencies. They contract with CAL FIRE to provide fire protection services as well as some other services in certain cases. We expect that this proposal will increase the cost of CAL FIRE crews.

So once those contracts with local agencies come up for renewal, we think there's a good chance that the Department will have to incorporate those additional costs into those agreements that may make it less desirable for some local agencies to contract with CAL FIRE. So that's just one example of the variety of potential implications this could have, because this really is a very impactful, significant proposal for the Department.

So we think that given this altered context, the Legislature faces a really key decision about whether it thinks that the Legislature can continue to sustain this proposal, recognizing that you may have to make some cuts other places or raise some revenue to sustain it. So just thinking about your priorities, is this. Is this a top priority?

And I think if I leave you with one point that I really want to emphasize it, is that our recommendation is that you not consider this a decision that's already been made. The Legislature always has the power of the purse. It's your most, you know, it's one of your most, of course, you know better than I do, important constitutional responsibilities, and you can always decide to choose, choose to Fund or not Fund MOUs. But this particular MOU had an unusual provision.

This MOU was unusual in a lot of ways, but one of the provisions that was very unusual is that it included specific language that this specific provision was subject to appropriation in this budget. So in that way, it seemed that the MOU envisioned that the Legislature might have to make decisions about whether this was something that the General Fund could support.

So we think if the Legislature is not certain if the General Fund can support this, we suggest deferring this decision, potentially funding it in a future year when the General Fund is, you know, that this condition of the General Fund is clearer. We think that would provide you with more flexibility, because if we think if the Legislature approves this in this budget, it's going to be really hard to kind of pull back if the condition of the General Fund continues to deteriorate.

So we think there are some other things the Legislature could do to improve health and wellness of firefighters in the interim if that were the choice that the Legislature wanted to take. However, if the Legislature wants to prioritize this and adopt this proposal, we just have some pretty minor recommendations related to adding some reporting language. For example, one of the things that this proposal does is it increases year round staffing quite a bit.

So a lot of now the Department is very, we're pretty reliant on seasonal staffing, and so this would greatly increase the number of permanent firefighters. And in so doing, there would be, we think, a lot more firefighters that would be available in the off season when typically there aren't as many fires and available to do other kinds of priority work. So it could be wildfire resilience work, could be defensible space inspections. It could be some of the priorities the Legislature has.

It's not the most, the cheapest way to accomplish those priorities, but we think that is, that could be a co benefit. So the reporting language that we recommend, we think will help the Legislature get a better handle on how much of those benefits are actually accomplished. And, you know, there is a little bit of the, you get what you measure, and so we would be hopeful that potentially some of those co benefits might be enhanced through that reporting mechanism. So happy to take questions.

Thank you. One question that our consultants weren't able to get through. How does this compare with other states, and in terms of any of the factors we're looking at here?

Sorry, that's actually an excellent question, and I may have to defer to the Department. This is one we actually asked the Department as part of reviewing this proposal because I think there's a question of sort of what's the most comparable. Right. With local agencies. They tend to have a Shorter work week, 56 hours, I believe it is. And so that's kind of standard in the local agencies. The feds, they have a different model, too. Right.

But in General, they tend to have and actually, locals tend to have pretty good pay, and they tend to be, I think, perhaps more competitive than CAL FIRE. The feds are kind of a different story. They tend to have lower pay, as I understand it, and benefits. And their work week isn't quite analogous to Cal fires to either agency. And then we weren't able to get good information on other states. We contacted NCSL.

They didn't, which is the national conference of state legislatures, and we weren't able to get really good information. CAL FIRE, I defer to them, but in the response, we didn't get a lot of detail there either. It sounded like there wasn't really, like other states really didn't have something that was quite comparable to CAL FIRE. And so I defer to the Director if he has any additional information to add.

But I had hoped for, zero, we could compare what CAL FIRE does to what Oregon does or Washington or Colorado, because to me, it seems like those states might be more comparable than your local fire Department, which has some similarities to CAL FIRE, but also has some differences. As many of you know, local agencies also do a lot of work that's not quite akin to what CAL FIRE does. So I defer to the Director to see if he has anything else to add on that point.

We can move forward, or unless there's anything else you have on that. Do you have response to that? I'm sorry.

So largely, Miss Kerstein is correct. When we look at the State of California, your municipal agencies are on a 56 hours workweek. CAL FIRE is on a 72 hours workweek. And our federal partners, as an example, are our forest Service partners. They will run a large seasonal workforce as well. Many times they're having, they're having recruitment retention issues right now to keep apparatus staffed.

And we see that through some continuing resolutions and through the Federal Government, through the Biden Administration, being able to provide funding for those firefighters. But they have a variety of methods across region five, across California as well. One of the differences that I find, when one of our federal agencies can staff fully one of their apparatus, they are largely staffing with a fire equipment operator and assistant fire equipment operators.

So a fire captain, an engineer, the equivalent and usually three to four firefighters, when they can staff that fire engine, and they're not going through their struggle specifically to the question about other states and other organizations, I can tell you, working closely with Casey, Casey, the state forester in the State of Nevada, they run similar to their operational responsibilities, as the Forest Service does in California, not to the significance of what CAL FIRE is encompassed to do to meet our mission across the state.

So they run much of the same operational schedule as the United States Forest Service. As for Oregon, I would have to go back and get details on that.

US Forest Service.

They have a large seasonal workforce and then they have a smaller permanent workforce as well.

If I could just. And Chief, one of the things that I've learned in the conversation with CAL FIRE as well is that CAL FIRE is a full service fire Department for the state. The Forest Service and other states don't do that model. So it's also very difficult to compare them because the scope of the responsibilities are very different.

Great. Well, I'll open this up. I certainly have some questions. And, you know, as mentioned, I've heard a lot. You're usually over there. I might at least look for you first. But, you know, as I said, many personal stories on this and great appreciation. However, it is a significant amount of money is discussed. So we want to ask some questions. I'll start with Senator Dahle.

Yeah, I would like to weigh in as somebody who has now been in the Senate on this Committee, stood on the steps with Senator Mcguire, who was on this Committee with me, talking about, you know, firefighters with PTSD, suicide, long, long hours. Not long hours. Not only long hours, but 7080 days on without time off. I know that we have not seen a significant fire in California, I mean, a major Dixie fire in a couple of years, but they will come back.

And I want to just, you know, when you can't really compare California to Oregon or Nevada, we have 40 million people and we have the Sierras and we have a lot of SRA, which they're mandated to defend on top of a significant amount of Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service grounds that they work together with. So it's really not apples to apples when you look at California and you want to compare it to another state.

So I think that needs to be thought about in this process. And also, I know this is not, this is going to cost some money. There's no doubt about it. This is a price tag, that is. But we, what did we ask them to do? We asked them four or five years ago to go back and do an MOU. The Legislature asked for this process, quite frankly, because we were grappling with how are we going to really do this in a way.

And they, to their credit, came back not at a 56 hours work week, which is what most of our locals do. They came back with 10 hours more than that, a 66 hours work week. So they really reduced 5 hours now, are there some staffing things? And we've discussed those things, too, about safety and how you run your engines. And I just want to say this for the record, and I don't care who's listening, at the forest service, they don't put fires out. They manage them.

These guys go put fires out. And we've, and I've had the battles with every single fire in my district where we've had to had multi agency fires, where the forest Service, they burnt down the town of Greenville, I'll just tell you that right now. And if our guys were there, we would have put it out. And so you can't compare what CAL FIRE guys do to the Federal Forest Service. And they have a whole different model.

They're on two weeks, they bring in a whole different crew that could be from some other state that doesn't even know what the Sierras look like. They're fighting in the Poconos, where the mountains are 1100ft high. And this is the Sierras. It's a different world. So I'm for this. I think we've asked them to do it. I think we've put them in a position where unfortunately, we have a budget deficit. But we should have did this five years ago. We wouldn't be here right now.

We were grappling with it five or six years ago and we kept kicking the can down the road and here we are now. I agree with the Lao that, yeah, there were some unknowns out there, but we know one thing, California will burn again. And we are going to put these guys in a position of catastrophic events where the fires aren't the same as they were even 20 years ago.

We are seeing fires that move fast and we have to have the right staffing and we have to have people that are able to be alert and be able to do their jobs in a way that is safe. So for me, I think that, yeah, it's going to cost some significant, and hopefully we'll see some more of our lidar radar stuff that you're doing and technology, quite frankly, help us to.

We don't have to do, we don't have to have as many people because we know in any business, whether it's this government or a private business, people are the biggest cost. The infrastructure itself is not that big of a cost, but it's the people. Hopefully, we'll see the technology come around where we don't have to have as many people to do the kind of work in the future that we need to do to get. And on top of that.

Hopefully we'll do some really good fuel reduction projects out there. So the fires aren't intense as they are because we've had 100 years of fire suppression, which wasn't good for the Sierras, and we need to actually do some of that. We've saw that. I mean, both the, well, I don't know about Senator Blakesford, but the other two Members on this Committee sit on those committees with me where we talk about those other issues, about doing fire management. So for me, I just want the rector to go. I'm all in. I think we should do this. I think, yeah, there's a cost, but we need to bear that cost and do what's right.

Thank you, Senator Dahle, Throw it to my colleagues. Questions?

Thank you. I appreciate the presentation, all of it. And I just wanted to narrow in on the part that the LAO focused on about if the Legislature approves the proposal important to maximize the benefits.

I think that section about tracking, to me this seems like it comes up across a lot of different areas of the state budget that we need to have more accountability when we do put more money into things, where is it being spent and is it achieving goals and when we have multiple goals, which of course, firefighter well being is a really important goal. But the wildfire and the resilience part is also a really important goal.

So I just want, to me, it seems like it might be a good idea for CAL FIRE to even propose how they would do this, and I wanted to get your response to, to it. When the LAO says wildfire resilience activities are currently not well tracked, CAL FIRE does not systematically track the amount of time its crews spend on wildfire resilience work versus other pursuits, which makes verifying the extent to which firefighters actually spend time on these activities difficult.

Moreover, while CAL FIRE currently tracks and reports the overall number of acres treated as a result of activities undertaken by the Department, it does not report a breakout of how of many acres were treated directly by CAL FIRE personnel, either by firefighting crews or by dedicated fuel reduction crews, compared to those treated by partners that received grants administered by CAL FIRE.

Absent such information, determining whether changes in the number of acres treated are a result of additional activities being conducted by firefighters, including personnel added as a result of the 66 hours workweek proposal or stem from other state investments such as the funding provided in recent wildfire resilience packages, will continue to be challenging.

And then it suggests, should it Fund the workweek change, the Legislature could use it as an opportunity to hold CAL FIRE more accountable for achieving demonstrable wildfire resilience co benefits by requiring more detailed reporting of how CAL FIRE firefighters spend their time, including the amount of time spent on wildfire resilience activities and the number of acres treated by CAL FIRE firefighters.

So I just wanted to hear your response to that, because I do think having been in a local government with a fire Department, that was really critically important to so many aspects of the city's safety and well functioning that, you know, the discussion about where, what are people working on and what kind of support is needed from people who at various hours, I mean, it can become extremely detailed.

But just the bottom line of this huge additional cost, making sure that we are able to, to make our environment more resilient and clear and do forest thinning and these other activities, to me that seems like a really important aspect, and I just wanted to see if you had a response to that, if you embrace it, if you are reluctant and see if it was something that you might even suggest and promote on your own.

So it is so critically important for us to provide the transparency to the public and to the Legislature. And your points to me are well taken. There are a lot of activities that are going on across the state, but perhaps are difficult to find. And that is something that I am embracing to rise it to a surface so it can be more easily found. There are over $818 million in grant opportunities in wildfire prevention across the state.

And as we heard earlier, over $2.8 billion have been invested by this Administration on that. And that's a lot of work to get out the door, whether we're doing it or whether our grantees are doing that. So there are efforts that have gone in place. The establishment at AB 9 created the community Welfare preparedness and mitigation program, and they are working strong on really identifying the prevention efforts and fuels reduction efforts that are going on. And they're expanding that.

They provide annually a fire prevention activities report. Those are posted on the website and they're provided to the Legislature as well. The wildfire Enforced Resilience Task Force has 99 action items. We are included in that as part of CAL FIRE to be able to provide more transparency. There have been two public dashboards that are available. Sometimes they are difficult to find.

One is the dashboard under the interagency tracker that is ran by the Wildfire Enforce Resilience Task Force to be able to see every project that's on the ground, what the dollars are, what the project footprint is, and what the treatment footprint is. But to your point, it doesn't specifically identify that CAL FIRE firefighters are doing that. So I will take that to heart for you. There is also Cal Mapper, which is specifically for CAL FIRE.

And for reference, if you wanted to see the more global picture of interagency calmapper feeds into the interagency treatment dashboard. So you could go there and see that we are working on a process to include our federal partners into that interagency treatment dashboard as well to bring even more transparency. But again, Senator Blakes fear, to your point, we will need to go back and prove specifically the hours of work that CAL FIRE firefighters are doing.

Thank you. And I think, you know, when I was in local government, I served on LAFCO. And as part of, one of the main things we dealt with during my term was volunteer fire Department in Julian, switching over to CAL FIRE. And so the reality of the professionalism, the really high quality service, there was just no question that there was a tremendous value that CAL FIRE was providing that a volunteer Department couldn't. And I understood it at levels that I hadn't previously before.

So I recognize that the things that you just listed off, there are all sorts of good work being done that you're overseeing. I think the main point of me reading that and of focusing on it is to say that with this huge amount of additional requested money to make sure that it's not just overseeing of other programs, that it actually is making our state more resilient to climate change and that these people, the boots on the ground are there.

And I think part of the accountability part is to say that we don't want to drown everyone data. We don't want to just have all sorts of dashboards that say all sorts of different things. And you can't find your bearing. I think it's to say specifically, what is this? Money, funding? How are we seeing those benefits that are for firefighter well being, but also for these community resilience things that are so important?

And, I mean, there is a really good point about the fact that although fire season has extended in many ways, months on either end, there are still periods, year long periods where we have a lot of water and we should be doing prescribed burns and forest thinning and a lot of these other type hardening and a lot of different projects that need to happen, making sure that people are working on those things. So I just, you know, that's really the main thrust of it.

May I offer a response to part of your statement?

Yeah.

So, thank you. So there is a co benefit that you just identified. CAL FIRE is the Lao identified works largely on, has been working largely on a seasonal workforce, a firefighter one, as a seasonal classification, as a non tested classification that can work nine months a year, at most, nine months a year. And so we bring those individuals on as what we refer to as the transition period until we come out of the transition period, which equates for those nine months.

And I agree with you that it's in those transition, in those base months in which the best fuels work can be getting done by our hand crews, our fire engines, our fire prevention folks assigned to community welfare, preparedness and mitigation. And so one of the co benefits is transitioning some of the seasonal staff to a more permanent workforce that would then allow for up to 153 fire engines and more fire crews to be able to get that work out on the ground. And our responsibility to report back to you what that work is that's getting done.

I just want to follow up a little bit on Senator Blakespears questions and maybe direct us toward Miss Kerstein. You'd mentioned something about this, trying to take better advantage of co benefits that could exist during the off season, but you said it's an expensive way to do it. Now, if we're paying people anyway, why is that an expensive way of doing it?

Well, if it's just, if it's a co benefit, then no, if you're going to do it anyway and have those people, then you might as well have them do this good work. So from that perspective, it's probably a cheap way, but if you were just to set out and say what's the most affordable way for the state to do wildfire resilience work, it probably wouldn't be to hire a lot of permanent firefighters because they're relatively expensive.

We have other, we have CCC crews, we have the military Department. We have CDCR to some extent, although obviously in diminishing numbers. And we have firefighter one. You know, there are other ways you could do it. So this, if you were just setting out to do that goal, you probably wouldn't do it this way.

But if you already want to do that because of, you know, because you want the 66 hours workweek, because you want to achieve other goals related to the health and wellness of firefighters, then absolutely, let's maximize those co benefits and make sure that we're getting the most from these investments.

Okay. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying.

We just looked up your dashboard real quick here, actually, Emily, did I notice that? So actually, just for knowledge for the Members, I actually had CAL FIRE. I did a 400 acre burn on my own property, and they came out and assisted me, obviously.

So you need to understand that they don't own the land, so they're having to work with the landowner to do these fuel mitigations and the likes of that, or work with a community safe fire plant or something like that. But just as a question for the Legislature for us to understand, I see most of it's handwork, which is the most expensive or the most time consuming, I would say. And then the rest is maybe far.

Is it because it's hard to get those windows to burn and the air quality parts of that, or is it insurance or what is that? And that was one of the driving factors. We did do some legislation in the past few years where, you know, CAL FIRE can go help and assist and not be liable if something happens. And the landowner has to take that responsibility, which is a big risk for the landowner. Now, I'm a farmer.

We ag burn a lot, and so it wasn't to me. I had the equipment to do what we needed to get done, and I felt safe to do it. But in most instances, it's probably not the case. So can you talk just a little bit about maybe that part of it? I know this is, but I think we need to do more of it, quite frankly, and hopefully we can get that done through the added infrastructure that you have.

I agree. Senator Dahle, thank you for that question. So in part of your question, you were referring to the prescribed fire liability Fund that authorizes, it's a pilot program through 28 that authorizes $20 million and for third party prescribed burn associations to sign up for that. It has been maximized but not ever used to date. So that is a good insurance policy that people are feeling comfortable burning on private land and being able to know that they have a Fund that is able to assist them.

It gives perhaps some more confidence to be able to do that. Specifically for CAL FIRE, we have had some critical years, and we all know that from 14182021 which really limited the ability to do prescribed fire on the ground, on private land, as you referred to now, one of the great things of a moderated fire year in 22 and 23 was the number of prescribed fire acres we were able to burn.

In 22, we were able to see the County of Tehama and Glenn burning significantly by CAL FIRE and its partners, as well as San Benito Monterey, as an example, burning a lot in the months that we would typically be at peak staffing for wildfire threat. Now I go to 2023. It was amazing to watch the efforts of our employees in 2023 become even more confident and more comfortable with the burn windows and prescription to be able to burn.

And they were burning maybe every month, except for the month of maybe August, and they were doing great work. So they were feeling more comfortable about that. CAL FIRE by 2025 has a goal of 100,000 of the million acre strategy minimum to be able to achieve. And we've hit the 100,000 acres annually for the last three, if not four years to be able to do that. And we can't just stop there. That's just because we hit a number. We don't stop.

We had a goal to hit at least 500 projects annually and be able to both do hand thinning, as you described, and prescribed fire. So really we have continuing to be doing great work. I'll just give you some stats. As of March, 651 projects. Our goal was 500 of both kinds. Of both kinds. Fuel reduction up through February. Right now, 64,400 acres of our 100,000 acre goal. And right now, almost 22,000 acres of prescribed fire by CAL FIRE alone on the ground.

But we also assist state parks and our Native American tribes and other entities in their prescribed fire efforts that they also report in on. Excellent. And you said it's the million acre restoration target by 2020. What's the timeline on that? So the goal of the wildfire Enforced Resilience Task Force, our action plan and direction by the Administration, working with our federal partners, was a million acre strategy. By 2025500,000 acres of that is the responsibility of our federal partnership.

500,000 acres of that is the responsibility of the local, state, and private partners in the State of California. CAL FIRE's responsibility on that is a minimum of 100,000 acres.

I'm looking, as I mentioned, I put together this, my own sort of version of a strategy doc, on this, because I do believe we have a very comprehensive approach which has been working, but it's good to fill in some of those numbers. Actually, I was looking at those, and I'll note just as I'm looking at it, that it's interesting. So in 2021, we had almost 7400 fires and 2.5 million acres burned, 3500 structures destroyed.

In 2022, they ship more fires, 7477, and only 363,000 acres per hour. Now, part of it, we had better conditions, better weather, but a lot of it was the other work that the Department is doing. 2023, still over 7000 fires and only 323,000 acres burned. And again, I think that's, again, we've had some beneficial weather, but it's also evidence, I think, of our strategy working. I do have some questions myself I wanted to ask. You know, we have increased positions significantly. 20218100 positions, roughly 134.

And then in 22, 20, 311 thousand positions. So what has been the impact on kind of health and welfare and fatigue, and have we seen from that those increases? Have we seen documented improvement or however you measure it?

Well, thank you, Senator. You know, during that, the last five years, there are two initiatives in particular that have been helpful in that arena. Number one is the build out of the Behavioral Health and Wellness program, which assigned 29 personnel to break into two different specific disciplines.

One is the wellness unit. The other is employee support services. This is all happening at a time that the fire service is beginning to destigmatize post traumatic stress injury seeking help. If you feel like you're in that spot, you're experiencing trauma, which emergency response is inherently traumatic. So this was kind of set the stage, as these things were being destigmatized. And so we have this unit that provides support to our personnel.

You know, wellness is about not just your behavioral health or your mental health, but also your physical condition. Obviously, firefighting is cancer prone by the nature of its work. So these two units work in conjunction for employee support services. Over just last year, did 79 training sessions for a total of 222 hours. In the subjects of resilience and coping, healthy coping mechanisms and kindred subjects, they make multiple contacts. They, on average, make about 40 contacts to a helpline for firefighters that are in crisis.

So these are really positive steps that have happened. The second initiative beyond that support network is the relief BCP, which came online in 2022. And we've been hiring in earnest on a multi year hiring plan on that. And that has provided relief at a 3.11 staffing factor for the fire captain and permanent FAE positions. But it didn't take care of the seasonal workforce, and there.

So if you combine these two initiatives with the 66, I think combining those and relief is built, or the 66 is built around the successes of relief and those same tenants. So we should see improvements there. In terms of overall workforce, what is the kind of, what's the attrition rate and vacancies? And how are you feeling about overall staffing for the positions we have right now? So, vacancy reports reflect a moment in time.

They can appear as if the Department has a very high vacancy rate, depending on that moment in time. And so we would prefer to get you that information in writing with some. With some footnotes to explain the various program areas where we may have vacancies. As you know, we may, we provide service and cooperative fire protection agreements as well, that carry vacancies. And this proposal in particular, is focusing on the schedule B or the state mission portion of our Department. That'd be helpful to get that.

Just a couple more questions just on the MOU. It's confusing the way Maelio talked about it. It's confusing the way MOU is structured, because this wouldn't take effect November 12024. And then there's a new MOU, I guess I believe you're saying, what is the timeline for the next MOU? Which is what I understand.

Stephen Benson, Department of Finance. So we'll acknowledge it is a bit tricky. So, unfortunately, or I guess you characterize how we want to, but the collective bargaining process and the state budgeting process are very distinct. And separate in the way that they run. And unfortunately, they don't always line up well. And so it is true that this is in an MOU that's expiring, and it's also true that that bargaining unit is up for negotiation this year. In fact, they've had their sunshine notice done. That process has been kicked off. But there's not, like, a definitive timeline.

And obviously, the nature of the discussions that they have is confidential, so we're not able to speculate on what they will discuss and what the outcomes of the discussions will be. So it's hard to sort of opine on, you know, how any of those negotiations will impact this particular proposal just because we're not going to know the outcomes of those negotiations until the process is done. And unfortunately, it doesn't line up with the budget process cleanly in most instances.

Got it. So the timeline is going to start.

So they've done the sunshine notice, which I guess is sort of the public notice that they're kicking the process off. Got it. I don't know, exactly, like, meeting timelines and stuff. And that, of course, fluctuates significantly during the process. And there's certainly no definitive timeline for, like, when it has to end. So that's. That's sort of the challenges of lining up collective bargaining with the budget process.

Of the recommendation of the recommendations that in the Lao report, in terms of other things around health and wellness or other options around health and wellness, are there any of them, though, that stick out to you as, I guess, how do you feel about those other recommendations that are. Thank you for the question. The Administration did not consider other options for health and wellness beyond the reduction of the workweek and the co benefits that came with that.

So for some context around that, firefighters, when they're on shift, we stitch 324 hours days together right now for that 72 hours workweek, and they cannot leave their workplace until they're relieved by someone that's properly trained and prepared to do that work. We call it post coverage.

So in terms of the wellness component of this, allowing them to get time and distance from the source of the trauma that they experience, which is the emergency response itself, imagine how destabilizing that is for individuals when they cannot leave their workplace unless they're relieved. And so that's a challenge for us now. It will be a challenge in the future. But we built in this plan sufficient relief in a staffing model that we think will reduce what we call forced hires.

A lot of our employees are stuck with mandatory overtime. They have to stay in their place, they're missing markers of a life, all the milestones of life. They can't be with their families. And so we think by reducing the work week, that's going to help get them time and distance from that trauma, have a more manageable schedule, understanding kind of rules of the road for them and their family. And I think that's going to have a long term and lasting impact on their health and wellness.

Yeah. Thank you. These last couple, we've seen a lot of proposals, and these I think is there in the bucket of the prevention and suppression and don't hear as much about the forestry kind of part of the mission which CAL FIRE oversees. Just kind of how is the forestry side doing from a staffing perspective? Do you have the sufficient personnel on the forestry side? I mean, it sounds like there's maybe some overlap here, too, in terms of the work that folks can do. But I think about more like the, the science of creating and crafting those plans.

So for the design of this plan, it doesn't specifically address resource management personnel or foresters, but because it focuses on post covered positions and those aren't, but by taking steps toward providing additional resources for longer durations, it gives that workforce to do the forestry work on the ground.

So our foresters are highly talented and trained individuals that are registered professional foresters that go through the planning elements, as Senator Dawley mentioned, working with landowners, getting those agreements set, making sure that all of the environmental compliance is there. All of the archaeological reviews are happening so that we are affecting the land in an appropriate way. So they are the planning element, really, of that. The fire protection resources are the workforce that gets that work done on the ground. So I think there's a symbiotic piece there where they will enhance the forestry mission.

Okay. Thank you. Well, as mentioned, you know, as I kind of started off and, you know, because I stayed the Sheridan when I'm here, a lot of folks kind of come through and just heard a lot of personal stories about the impact of the stressors on people's lives.

You mentioned lives, events, families, and certainly understand the impetus for all this and the work, you know, press conferences and such that were mentioned by Senator Dahle. So I really appreciate you being here and answering these questions, and we do have a hold open recommendation on that. So unless there's any other questions for my colleagues, thank you. Thank you all for being here and thank you for the work that you're doing that is having a significant impact. And again, the data bears that out.

So appreciate that. Excellent. I believe now we're going to move to our voting. oh, public comment. We'll do public comment first and then we'll move to voting. So I'll go ahead, Mister Chairman.

Members of the committee, Terry McHale with Aaron Read and Associates representing CAL FIRE Local 2881. Really appreciate the thoughtful discussion today. Discussion on comparisons. Let's just be very, very candid about comparisons. 16 hours a week comes out to 64 hours a month. A CAL FIRE firefighter works 700 hours more than a local firefighter. To their next door neighbor who works 40 hours a week. They work 800 hours more, five months. And that's just if they stay on the schedule.

If there's an emergency fire, a major fire that takes place and they are sent out, they are not let off work, which means that they are on work for weeks and months at a time without going home. And the consequences to their marriages, to their health and safety are profound. Think of this when there's a major fire and you turn on the news and the Weatherman tells you, don't let your kids go outside. Don't you go outside and work out. Wear a mask.

Our firefighters are on that front line for weeks and months and of time. We just had a conservancy hearing, which they talked about the profound consequences to the firefighters when they hit their fifties. Football players worry about what concussions do, firefighters when they hit 50, and think about the particulates that they have been breathing in and the worst circumstances in which they have been working. Live every morning with the idea that they're going to come down with cancer.

Walk out to the Capitol grounds, look at that wall. Both sides of the wall are covered with names. Most of those people died from cancer. There was a quick talk of the co benefits. There's huge co benefits to this. A 15 person hand crew with CAL FIRE can perform 43,000 hours of prevention work each year. And that prevention work includes cutting fuel breaks, maintaining fuel treatments, defensible space inspections, pre planning, all of the things that the Senator is asking and that are necessary to be done.

Senators, this is long overdue. If Dickens were to write the story about firefighters, he would concentrate solely on CAL FIRE local 2881 by HRs own numbers, more than 400 company commanders have left CAL FIRE in the last two years to work for local government. Why? Because they'll make more money and they will work fewer hours and the dangers presented to them are less. Finally, in terms of the idea of other ways to deal with this, there is no other way.

There is no other way. These firefighters need this relief. And if we go to the idea of having bringing in locals, remember, locals make twice as much as CAL FIRE makes. Any other option is more expensive. I'd like to close with this. Not only are our firefighters not paid appropriately, also, I think you watch today Chief Tyler and the brilliant work that he does. And I think it's unfortunate that he doesn't make as much as the OES and Highway Patrol. We should revisit also top management and what Chief Tyler is making. But thank you for the courtesy. Thank you for the help, and thank you for the support.

Senator Becker and committee members. My name is Brian Rice, I'm the President of California Professional Firefighters. I represent 36,541 professional firefighters and I've worked with really each of you. Senator Blakespear, Allen Becker and then Senator Dahle, we stood shoulder to shoulder about two years ago on the Capitol, and I've changed everything that I want to say.

First, I want to say thank you to this legislature and the Governor of California for six years ago, beginning the process of modernizing and really putting in the effort for fire protection in the State of California. Not just forestry management and mitigation and fuel removals, but in facilities, in equipment and air assets. And now we're talking about personnel. This is the last piece. And if you think about it, we've talked more about forests and fire stations and helicopters and airplanes than we have about people.

And I really appreciate the LAO and what she said in her closing arguments. If we're talking about co benefits and they equal, we should do it. You're doing status quo right now. And what we have figured out, and I want you to know, there is no other fire department in the world, the world, that compares to what CAL FIRE does. They have air assets in an air force that no one has. They have heavy equipment operators. No one has it.

I can say the same thing about the City of Los Angeles and the City of New York. But if you all are going to try to compare what CAL FIRE does, you're not going to find it. Oregon doesn't have it. Washington doesn't have it. And you know why? They're responsible for over 31 million of their own state acreage, plus a portion of the federal acreage, and 40 million people live here. And I want to go to the co benefits on this.

This is not just about clearing land or vegetation management or managing our assets and resources. By having a properly staffed, year round fire department, you're going to do the same things that their brothers and sisters do in the municipal government. And that is they're going to be out training. They're going to be doing those burns. And you see it as just fuel reduction. As a firefighter, this is how I see it. Topography, weather, how the fuels burn, where the fuels are at.

These are all training evolutions that California is going to benefit by. Those are the co opting and the co mingling of the benefit of this. We can't afford not to make this move. I know it's hard and I know this is tough budget year, but there's never going to be a perfect time. And Senator Dahle, Becker, Allen and Blakespear, the men and women of CAL FIRE have never let you down. In history, look back and tell me when they have failed.

They have done more with less than anybody. And now is the time to make that investment in the personnel and build this workforce that is going to protect our states, our water, excuse me, our resources and our communities. I want to thank you for your strong support on this, your forward thinking. We know it's hard. We as firefighters, municipal and CAL FIRE stand shoulder to shoulder with you in this decision making process. Thank you very much.

Chair Becker and senators, Isabella González Potter with the Nature Conservancy. First want to start by appreciating the earlier conversation related to fire insurance. That's something that TNC is thinking a lot about lately and really appreciate Chair Becker's leadership on SB 1060, which we are very proud to sponsor, would encourage other senators to co author that as well. Just a small part of a larger puzzle that we need to solve this year.

TNC would like to thank the assembly, senate and administration for protecting a significant portion of the natural resources and nature based climate solution investments in the early action agreement that was reached last week. We especially appreciate the protection of important funding to the State Coastal Conservancy and Ocean Protection Council in the coastal resilience package. Acknowledge that wasn't discussed today, but we really do appreciate it. So wanted to express our thanks.

And then also, given the current natural resources budget is less than 3% of the total budget, TNC continues to advocate for a climate bond. We have a great author here in Senator Allen and SB 867. Just given the critical need for the funding, we really think we need that this year. And then finally, as the LAO has stated previously, we have bond debt capacity. A total debt of 25 to 28 billion in additional bond debt this year would keep that bond debt service ratio at about 5%, which we think is doable. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Mike Robson here on behalf of the Glass Packaging Institute and feeling very awkward following all that CAL FIRE discussion. Some very serious stuff and excellent testimony by the CAL FIRE folks.

I'm here talking about the bottle bill issue that you had up earlier and just in support of CalRecycle's grants and the authority for their personnel years on the grants, and really wanted to just talk a little bit about some of the questions that came up by Senator Allen, specifically regarding the commingled rate and the question about whether CalRecycle should recalculate the commingled rate earlier.

And I just want to concur with CalRecycle position on that and that it wouldn't really make sense right now to revisit the commingled rate in the middle of the years following the inclusion of wine and spirits in the program, and that we really need to get a holistic, a bigger picture look at what's going through the MRFs and going through, from the MRFs to the glass processors to be made into new bottles.

And really just, again, Senator Allen, right on the money if you're going to. The question about quality has to be tied to the commingled rate. The current practice, the material going through the curbside program to the MRFs and then to a glass processor and back to a glass bottle manufacturer. It's not very good. And if we're going to revisit the commingled rate, then we really should be revisiting the methodology on how the commingled rate is calculated.

And there's a role for the legislature in that, in addition to the role that CalRecycle plays. And we hope to be able to work with all of you and CalRecycle on that because we have ideas. Thanks.

Good afternoon, Chairman Becker and members of the committee. My name is Kim Delfino, and I'm actually representing the Sonoma Land Trust, although I have other conservation clients. And I would like to echo the comments made by Isabella Gonzalez with the Nature Conservancy, but I'm here specifically to speak on issue 25 with respect to the Sonoma Lake Napa unit headquarters and the St. Helena fire station BCP.

The Sonoma Land Trust really appreciates and supports the staff comments that if that BCP moves forward, that budget bill language is added to ensure that the design and construction of the project not compromise the known wildlife corridor that stretches from the Yakima Mountains underneath highway 12 and up into Jack London State Park.

The station is being proposed right on the Sonoma Development Center lands on a portion of the lands that we originally thought were going to state parks but are now going to be for a fire station. We're fine. I mean, that area is heavily impacted by fire. We would just like to see the project designed upfront to accommodate and try to ensure there's permeability for wildlife, especially since we just spent a bunch of money clearing out the culverts underneath highway 12 right onto that piece of property.

We were told that you could maybe make comments on the CEQA once it's up for CEQA. I'm here because we don't want to do that. We want to. The Snowman trust would like to write a letter when this goes to CEQA saying, thank you so much. You've designed this project really well. We have no comments other than to say we support it. We can only do that by ensuring that it's designed upfront to deal with the wildlife connectivity issue, not as a mitigation measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you all for the public comment. We are going to move now to the vote calendar and I'm going to start out and I would like to take. Have a motion on issues number three, issues five to 15 and issue 19. May I have a motion? Senator Dahle motions, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 4-0. Those issues are adopted. Next issues 16 to 18. I would appreciate a motion on those issues. Senator Allen, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, those measures passed 3-1. Finally, on issues 1, 2, 4, 20 and 21, I would like to motion on those issues. Senator Allen motions, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. The vote is three to zero, and those issues are adopted as well. I want to thank everyone who participated in public testimony today. That's the end of voting. If you're not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions on our website. Your comments suggestions are important to us, and we will include them in the testimony and official hearing records. Thanks to everyone for your patience and cooperation. We've concluded the agenda for today's hearing. Senate Budget Subcommitee two is adjourned.