Budget Sub2 — 2026-04-16 (partial)

Senators Reyes. Aye. Here. Here.

Choi.

McNerney.

We have a quorum. All right. Let's start with issue number one, Department Overview of the California Conservation Corps. We welcome Director Patton.

Begin when you are ready.

Thank you. Finance? Finance?

Thank you. LAO?

Thank you. Let's bring it to the DAIS members. Members? Senator McNerney.

Corps and urge you to continue the good work. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Senator Choi? Thank you. And also I want to thank you, Director Patton, for directing the wonderful

That's correct.

of referred to as a 55-45 split. So 55% of our funding comes from the general fund. The balance comes from the reimbursement in the projects that the core members go out and do. So many of our core members go out and do these wonderful conservation projects and charge a fee for the service.

40-45% or so, correct.

It's typically been steady, actually. It's typically been steady, and that's been consistent for quite some time, in fact. A lot of the partners that we go to for those fee-for-services are other, like, local governments, county governments, the federal government. And so those are our partners in those particular spaces. But it has been, fortunately, quite steady.

Julie Ann Rolfe again for Department of Finance So that million number are the actuals for 2425 And so in terms of like the actual appropriation it was higher than that So that accounting for the savings of unspent expenditure authority for that year And so the Conservation Corps' budget has remained relatively steady the last few years. So we're happy to provide you a year-over-year authority if you request that. But in terms of overall budget, it's been fairly steady. So with the projected budget, about 55 percent from the general budget, it has been steady, that's what you said. But from that budget, obviously nobody will say we have enough funding, always a shortage of funding for your activities.

As a program, this is sufficient for us. There are a lot of great things that are included in these proposals and a lot of great achievements and accomplishments we're looking forward to. including bringing on the new residential center in Greenwood.

It would be a combination. It could be Cal Fire. It could be state parks. But we have a network of our partners under the California Natural Resources Agency that we provide service to. When we do flood work, it's the Department of Water Resources. When we do trails and maintenance, it's state parks. CAL FIRE represents about 30% of our program.

I'm not familiar with them, but the fact that they are a nonprofit and a conservancy means that we can do work with them. And so we do a lot of work with fire safe councils, resource conservation districts, other conservancies across the state. And so absolutely, we're happy to partner with them. Okay, thank you.

the lessons I have learned I think the this generation is wildly fascinating they are people who when I started in this program you could talk to folks who were interested in joining this program and they would be really bought into sort of like the aspirational messaging behind it I think with this generation currently who are coming into the program they sort of see right through that They want to know exactly what they are getting into. They want to, they are willing to serve, they want to serve, they want to have their life transformed. But they also want to know crystal clear what they are getting into. And so that has been really, really exciting. I'm really proud of, in these two years, sort of stretching the circle open of who can serve in the CCC. I'm really, really proud that we've increased the number of women who are serving in the Corps. We have increased the number of people who are living with disabilities to serve into the Corps. the generation knows that our outcomes are what really is walking the walk for us they say hey the ccc promises to transform me in one year i give them a year of my life and i know at the end of this i'm going to have i'm definitely having scholarship money i can pursue higher education and it's very likely that i'll have a career in the natural resources and so that's great that's what we want to keep going on. In terms of things we want to improve on, we're all over state of California. We have 26 facilities and our attention has been focused on making sure that we're taking care of those facilities so they are spaces for these young people to develop properly. It's essentially a college campus. You have your recreation spaces, you have your therapy spaces, you have your high school classes, you have your kitchen, you have your dorm room. It's sort of an all wrapped around service. Making sure that that goes and is safe and healthy for our Corps members is important. And then also just making sure that we're telling the story of our successes is important and also the value that the Corps brings to California. So a lot of investments and making sure that our data is great.

We do, and it is hard. It is hard. It's tricky to nail down a 19 year old or 20 year old once they have left our program. But we have the Navigator program from the legislature here that is actually wildly successful. And so we spend a lot of time. There's multiple state agencies that we work with to find this data, Cal Fire, EDD. But sometimes it's just a good old picking up a phone, calling in, checking in. How are you doing? What are you up to? What have you been going on? six months since you've left the Corps, a year since you've left the Corps. So that's what it looks like, and we need to get better at that.

That's right.

Yeah, absolutely. So every year we do an assessment of what our fees are, and we adjust accordingly. However, again, as I mentioned, a majority of the contracts come from other state funding sources. And so is it a cost that is passed on may result in pricing ourselves out of work Because we have that 55 split we also want to make sure that we remain a core for all communities and that people can still afford our services. And not just the well-resourced areas or the organizations that have sophisticated staff that know how to navigate our bureaucracy. And so although we are entrepreneurial in nature, we don't aim to make a profit as a state agency. So we set our reimbursement to offset our Collins-Dugan and just keep that solvent.

Thank you.

It is.

On issue number two, you did talk about the Greenwood Residential Center staffing and operations. Is there anything further you'd like to add on issue number two?

Sovereign Finance?

Thank you. Elio?

Very good. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Let's bring it back to the dice. Any other questions on Greenwood? Director Patton, I heard you mention Stockton. Could you elaborate a little bit on the connection to Greenwood, please?

thank you I have a question I'm not familiar about your Greenwood Residential Center is that the place you give training or are they stationed there waiting for responding or maintaining resource or whatever the natural demands that they may need their service, is that the 24-hour living and working space for them? And then that the capacity is 100 people in the center and with 19 staff members?

Yeah, regarding that full staffing, given ongoing staffing challenges across CCC operations, the proposal assumes full staffing at the opening without evaluating a phased ramp-up. what would a more gradual approach look like, and what are the associated cost savings for tradeoffs?

I see. I would assume that finding staff members would be less problematic, but service core members of recruiting, do you have any trouble finding enough core members to serve in the SSCC?

Oh, so you have oversubscribed.

Okay. If so, then that's like the college admission. Yeah, it is. If you have 10,000 positions, 10,000 applied, then universities do have selection criteria such as GPA or SATs. Do you have a selection criteria or is it on waiting in sequence, first come, first served basis? What criteria do you use?

so what is your practice at this time in the first come first serve from your waiting list is that your methodology of meeting them

Okay. A related question is that I might have missed it. how long is the training program or military service when you sign up? How many years are they committed to or obligated to stay?

Okay. During that training period, I'm sure for whatever various reasons, some dropouts. What is the rate of a dropout, 5%, 10%? and what are the reasons?

Is it like a military style?

Okay. Earlier times you mentioned that there are some disabled applicants. If they are physically disabled, how can they serve in the Corps?

Okay, thank you. Senator Choi. All right. Any other questions, comments? We're on the CCC part, right? The Greenwood Residential Center. Okay. Oh, well, mine is on issue number three, which is the CCC on the next one.

Alright, 1,000. 1,000 and counting, I should say. The CCC-Cal Fire partnership has produced more than 1,000 professional firefighters since 2018. Every one of them started as a Corps member. That is a result of a program the legislature supported, designed to put young Californians in the field doing real firework alongside Cal Fire earning those recognized credentials and leaving ready for a career But the model only continues to work if it keeps pace with the reality it is preparing people for. And the climate reality we live in today has outpaced the current calendar. We know wildfire is no longer seasonal and it is year-round. In our lifetimes, we have witnessed this shift. Nine of the 20th largest fires on record occurred in 2020 and 2021, and the fire season has expanded by at least 78 days since the 1980s. CAL FIRE has adapted to moving to a 66-hour, 7-day-per-week, year-round operation model because the threat demands it. The CCC has not been resourced to evolve alongside that shift. If we do not close that gap, we face two consequences. We become less effective as as emergency response partner to CAL FIRE and the state, and we become less effective as a workforce development pipeline for the next generation of firefighters following the footsteps of those 1,000 Corps members. During what used to be the off-season, crews work four days a week, 10 hours a day, and during peak season, April through November, crews rotate to provide seven-day coverage, and that has been the full extent of our operational capacity. This has created a persistent structural staffing gap. Each crew requires one conservationist supervisor, excuse me, one conservationist, and 12 core members to remain operational under the CCC-Cal Fire agreement. There is no relief staffing built into that structure. When a conservationist is unable due to, excuse me, unavailable due to illness, leave, training, or promotion with Cal Fire, that entire crew can go offline. That also means CAL FIRE personnel assigned to that crew may not have a unit available to deploy with. Over the past five years, CCC hand crews have failed to meet CAL FIRE minimum staffing requirements in 57 of 60 months. On average, about 20% of our crews were unavailable at any given time. Just imagine if those resources were whole. There is also a program integrity issue. The CCC is not only an emergency response workforce. It is a youth development program established in statute. When crews are consistently stretched to meet operational demand, Corps members lose access to training and education that is at the core of our program. They shift from trainees in a developmental pipeline to primarily a labor workforce. And that was not the intent of the program. and is not what Corps members were told that they were getting when they signed up, and is not how we sustain a long-term pipeline into fire and land management careers. This proposal restores that balance. It provides relief staffing needed to ensure crews are reliably operational. It strengthens supervisor training, culinary, and administrative support so the crews can safely maintain seven-day readiness. And it preserves the training and development mission that produces real career pathways. ways. According to FEMA, every $1 spent on wildfire prevention saves $6 to $11 in disaster recovery. The scale of the cost avoidance is staggering. So denying the funding doesn't save the state $11 million. It shifts the financial burden from inexpensive prevention to expensive catastrophic recovery. But the outcomes are straightforward. CAL FIRE receives more consistent and reliable seven-day crew coverage year-round. Corps members receive the training and development they were promised Staff receive the support needed for sustainable operations And California is safer and preserves a proven pipeline that has already produced many professional firefighters

Brian Metzger, LAO. We find that this augmentation of the Corps' hand crews would help provide relief to existing hand crews, allowing them to maintain their current capacity even when some members are temporarily unavailable due to injury or illness. And if fully funded, the proposal would allow hand crews to operate on a daily and year-round schedule consistent with CAL FIRE's requirements. However, this proposal could be funded at a lower level to make progress towards its intended objectives without spending as much general fund. The legislature could, for example, prioritize relief funding for existing hand crews, thereby reducing attrition and burnout. And the legislature also could consider whether some of the hand crew operations could qualify for at least some reimbursement if they work on fuels reduction and other projects when not responding to wildfires. We acknowledge that a lower level of funding would come with tradeoffs, reducing hand crew availability during certain times of the year. However, we recommend the legislature continue to consider potential alternatives to fully funding this proposal.

Okay, thank you. I noticed in the briefing material that it says that the augmentation would help offset a declining number of hand crew staff by incarcerated individuals. So I wanted to ask about why that number is why incarcerated individuals are declining. In relation to the CDCR CAL FIRE crews, yeah. So a number of bills in recent history, which I think the chief will explain, has added or contributed to the reduction in just incarcerated people in general. And then also with the pandemic that kind of added to the acceleration of the reduced crew, but please.

But when you're saying this effort, are you talking about the non-incarcerated individual effort, or are you talking about trying to bring back the incarcerated individual number?

Okay Yeah and maybe this is a little bit beyond the scope of like this budget hearing but I guess I was trying to get a handle on it does seem to me like incarcerated individuals are getting a lot of value from the training and then the potential to work when they are no longer incarcerated And there's a really important sense of purpose and mission and that we should be there. Also, it seems like financially there was a discussion about how much people are paid when they're incarcerated and that. But it just seems like it would be a good bang for our buck in terms of helping people get the training, having important work done. And so the fact that that number has fallen so substantially to me seems like maybe that's not ideal and we should be working on that. So I was really trying to get a handle on why is that number down so much. And I'm going to circle back to the question of getting you to full staffing. But I just was trying to understand why that number. The number is also so small compared to the overall number of incarcerated people. I don't think it's likely that it's because we have fewer incarcerated people overall because people still want to be firefighters. So is there – did you want to respond to this? Stephen Benson, Department of Finance. I don't cover the CDCR budget, so I'm limited into what I can say, and the folks that do cover that will be able to talk more about CDCR setup. But I think there is a change in the number of incarcerated individuals who are qualified to be able to work or to be in the conservation camps and then to work on the fire crews, I think, is part of the issue. So it's not just a overall prison or incarcerated population. In order to qualify to be in a conservation camp, there are certain criteria that have to be met in terms of level of risk and things like that. When we have done realignment and other types of reform over the years, that primarily impacts the lower security individuals who are most eligible for camps and for fire crews. Those are primarily who have been shifted to counties and things like that. So we may, I don't know the exact number, so the total population, maybe it hasn't changed a great deal, but the segment of that population that qualifies for camps and for fire crews has changed significantly. and cdcr and cal fire do work regularly all the time trying to see you you know flesh out you know who's eligible are it's a volunteer thing so they have to be interested in doing it so they work a lot to try and flesh out like who's eligible let's identify them let's see if they want the opportunity i think what's been demonstrated over the last five to ten years is that they're just the pipeline in has not rebounded from what it was. We've struggled, frankly, over the last five or six years to maintain 65 incarcerated hand crews. It seems to be rebounding a little bit. Maybe we're working a little closer to 70-ish at this point.

Okay. I appreciate that answer. Okay. So one other question I wanted to ask about is just it's really getting at innovation around fire suppression and fire management. And I'm a recent evangelist for GOATS. And so, you know, what hand crews are doing, you know, 10 years ago, 30 years ago versus what they're doing now and how much brush can be cleared from these little animals that, you know, leave the pellets for the nutrition for tomorrow and don't, you know, have the need to have so many people sitting there digging out the trenches and on the steep slope. and all the things that are really difficult about managing and preventing wildfires. I'm just wondering if you could address that, essentially any potential reduced need for hand crews, because we're looking at innovations in this area.

Okay. I mean, I guess I'm not getting at mechanized equipment. I'm specifically asking about goats or herd animals in general if there are other types that would be used. I don't know if anybody is able to. Are you utilizing those more? I mean, it does seem like there are many cities and counties that are doing it. It's coming more into my area, which is Southern California. It used to be, I think, predominantly in Northern California. But, you know, is that part of the innovation of looking at how can we manage enormous acreage in an effective way to try to reduce wildfire risk?

Right. Okay. I hear what you're saying. You're saying they need to be around for the crisis when there is a fire, of course, so we need to be fully staffed. But then what are they doing when there's not an active fire? So they should be doing suppression.

OK, well, I appreciate the perspective that was shared that CAL FIRE has expanded. I think its budget has doubled in I think it's five years. And we did a lot of that work in this committee last year, too, related to the 66-hour week and then also just in general realizing that we need to be more staffed and more resourced if we're going to effectively fight fires in California. So having the CCC be able to mirror that to some degree and not be left behind is really important. So I appreciate that. There is I think there's an important point that the LAAO made about prioritizing a workforce that has relief and making sure that that's staffed according to the number of days you could do that instead of spreading everybody so thin and having it be across more days. You could have you could organize it differently. So I think there's an important point to that, too.

Okay. Well, thank you very much.

The inmate fire hand crews, I had the privilege of working on the issue. We had AB 2147 signed into law in 2020, where our inmate firefighters would then, once they completed it and had their certificate, they could then go to the court system for an expedited expungement of their conviction. and that allowed them to then sit for the exam for EMT. Otherwise, they could not sit for the exam because they were convicted felons. So we're very proud of that legislation, but the numbers have decreased. The number I heard anecdotally from some criminal defense attorneys whose clients were very excited about being able to participate in the program because they knew that after they completed it, they could request the expedited expungement, and some who lamented they got out too soon and didn't get to participate. But the number of inmates has decreased. We recognize that, and there has to be some other way to help with providing the hand crews that are needed to supplement the work that CAL FIRE is doing to keep us safe. So I wanted to share that. There's a lot of work that was done, and we're very proud of that work. So thank you so much.

Well, good morning. Thank you, Chair Reyes and members of the committee. My name is Annalie Berlew, and I have had the honor of serving for the last 25 years at the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, CAL FIRE, and I currently serve as our Chief Deputy Director of Operations, so I appreciate your time this morning. So with an incredible team of over 13,000 employees, CAL FIRE is responsible for stewarding and protecting over 31 million acres of state responsibility area lands. These are our watershed lands across the state of California. We are so fortunate to live and to work in such a beautiful state where FIRE has always been part of the natural part of our ecology and our landscape. But due to changing climate, extreme weather, drought, diseases, dense and overgrown vegetation, and more and more population moving into these rural communities and wildland areas, we face more large, damaging, and catastrophic wildfires than ever before. We recognize that addressing the wildfire crisis requires an all-the-above approach, which includes a robust fire protection response, vegetation management to help restore resilient and healthy landscapes, community-level preparedness, and parcel-level mitigations. And we know that this is working because of the proof that we are seeing in our fuel treatment effectiveness reports, as well as our defensible space inspections. But we can't do this alone. Today, CAL FIRE and all of us that call California home are charged with preventing devastating fires, hardening our communities, and restoring healthy landscapes that are not only resilient to wildfires, but also naturally thrive with beneficial fire. CAL FIRE's Office of the State Fire Marshal continues to lead the way using science to develop and implement best practices for community wildfire preparedness and fuel reduction strategies to create resilient communities and landscapes. CAL FIRE's Natural Resource Management Program is responsible for protecting and restoring the watersheds of California. These watersheds is where the drinking water for all Californians come from and the water that is so needed to grow California agriculture. In 2025, CAL FIRE responded to over 600,000 emergencies. 8,000 of those were wildfires. And 2026 is off to a rapid start with large fires already in Los Angeles, Kings, and Riverside counties. We know that with the extreme heat that we've already seen in March, those record-breaking high-temperature days, as well as our decreased snowpack, that 2026 is set up to be a very concerning fire season with above-average fire potential, leading to more potential for large and catastrophic fires. Cal Fire's fire suppression resources are situated strategically across the state. Those are our engines, our bulldozers, our hand crews, and our aircraft to be rapidly able to respond to initial attack fires to keep them small Cal Fire continues to meet our goal of keeping 95 of all fires 10 acres or less to protect lives property and the environment And we recognize that in California, wildfires are now year-round. We are no longer just a fire season. And with the support of all of you in the legislature, as well as the administration, we are transitioning to implementing the 66-hour workweek. The 66-hour workweek, one of the benefits of that is allowing us to staff our resources at peak staffing for nine months out of the year, making more resources available year-round for fire suppression. But it also means that when these resources are not fighting fire, they are the workforce implementing fire prevention activities, fuel breaks, defensible space inspections, fuel reduction projects, and prescribed fire. Technology continues to be integrated into everything we do, fire prevention, suppression, detection techniques, using cameras, AI, fire spread modeling, night vision aviation resources, and satellites to enhance this work. To be successful, we recognize the importance of partnerships. With our local partners, state partners, federal partners, tribal partners, NGOs, and private partners, we need to all work together to effectively implement our all-the-above strategy to protect the people, property, and natural resources of California. We have been closely monitoring and coordinating with our federal partners in California as they are undergoing restructuring at the Department of Interior and reorganization at the U.S. Forest Service. California is one of the states that will receive a state-level director from the newly formed Department of Interior U.S. Wildfire Service, correction, U.S. Wildland Fire Service, as well as a director from the U.S. Forest Service. We are working with them to ensure that these changes do not create operational impacts this coming season. We are also in discussion with the U.S. Forest Service about the planned closure and consolidation of their research stations into service centers and have expressed our continued concern about the impacts of long-term research that is happening here in the state. The Pacific Southwest Research Station, for example, is one of these stations that has been conducting one of the longest running research projects in the nation. And it's actually in partnership with us since 1962, Cal Fire and the U.S. Forest Service have been partnering on this research as Cal Fire's Jackson Demonstration Forest. And we recently signed an amendment to this agreement to allow that partnership to continue until 2099. I don't know that any of us will be here in 2099, but that agreement is in place so that research can continue for generations to come. We are working to find ways to ensure the work that we are doing together in the operational and research space continues to not be impacted by federal changes. Because of the continued support of the legislature and the administration, California is making huge strides in wildfire prevention, community resiliency, and fire suppression. We recognize that you have some very difficult decisions to make in this year's budget, and we appreciate your continued support of CAL FIRE in our work. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Nothing at this time.

No comments at this time.

Yeah, I'll just... Briefly, I really appreciate the work that CAL FIRE does. I represent San Diego and Orange County, and San Diego has over 1 million acres of fire-prone chaparral, and that's more than any other county in California. So, you know, we are very reliant upon CAL FIRE, and I'm just grateful for the professionalism. And when I was in local government, I served on LAFCO, And one of the things that was hot at that time was volunteer fire fire stations were being proposed to be absorbed and covered by Cal Fire. So we had hearings and testimony on the unbelievable additional resources and professionalism that were going to come from moving to Cal Fire. And as a member of LAFCO, there was no question that that was for the benefit of the community and the county. But it was controversial because people were committed to their volunteer fire department. But I came to know more about the operation of it through that service and just was very impressed. I wanted to ask a question specifically about Orange County. So the committee analysis lays out that local, state, and federal responsibility areas cover different places, but it doesn't fully capture contract counties. So in places like Orange County, and you can tell me if what I'm saying is wrong, but this is my understanding, that the local fire authority is actually providing coverage in state responsibility areas on behalf of CAL FIRE. So it raises a fair question about whether those counties are receiving an equitable share of the resources, particularly Prop 4 funding, when they're effectively carrying out the state's responsibilities. So as I understand it, Orange County Fire Authority is only reimbursed about one-third of the actual expenses of covering the state responsibility area in Orange County. So I wanted to ask if you could speak to how contract counties are operating on behalf of CAL FIRE and if they're resourced appropriately to ensure that they can cover those needs. First, really appreciate your nice comments and our relationship with San Diego County Fire and your office as well.

Hello, Chair, committee members. So when it comes to our contract counties, we have a total of six. specifically for Orange County, they've received the, they protect roughly 103,000 state acres of, encompassed in two large sections within Orange County. And what we have done through our contract county agreement is provide them the proportional share of Cal Fire resources that would be there. And we staff or we reimburse for six wildland engines, two full hand crews, and one dozer in addition to prevention staff and prevention law enforcement type investigation staff. So with that 103,000 acres of coverage, they equate to a CAL FIRE administrative unit that we have roughly 21 across the state. So we can provide specifics. I can provide we have an annual document called the Cal Fire Contract County Gradebook, which outlines all the specifics to each contract county, what they're allocated, but also their mission and what Cal Fire is reimbursing them for.

The contract county agreement is very specific, only for the protection of state lands. We do not have any oversight for what they do on local or federal lands, knowing that they have multiple agreements. But they are reimbursed up front for the protection, but also reimbursed for incident response, including aviation, which is a large component of their response.

Well, thanks for the information. I appreciate it.

Yeah, there's quite a bit in the documents about seedlings and the amount of seedlings. Do we have, are we growing enough seedlings to cover the needs to reforest with native species if there's worst case scenario fires? Great question.

Members of the subcommittee, Eric Huff, Deputy Director, Natural Resource Management. Are we growing enough seedlings? No. We currently out at our L.A. Moran Reforestation Center in Davis are growing somewhere around 200,000 seedlings. That's a drop in the bucket. We hope to expand capacity to one day get up to half a million seedlings. In the meantime, we are relying upon our partnerships with industry and with the federal, with the U.S. Forest Service to try and meet that reforestation need. We have a great consortium of local, state, and federal partners as well, cone collectors that are all trying to meet that reforestation need, but the need is significant. We're working to try and achieve positive results there, but that's going to be a hurdle for us that exists probably for many decades.

Yeah, that's a great point, Senator. We have the state's seed bank out at the Reforestation Center in Davis. That is the state's repository for seeds across all seed zones, across all species, conifer, hardwood, et cetera. And that facility has recently been upgraded. We have a new freezer. So we have the capacity to store, I think, more seed than we have available currently. And we are always annually looking to collect as much seed from a variety of seed sources wherever those seeds are appearing. Part of it is we can't control the tree's decision to actually produce seed. And so we have to be nimble and enter in come survey seeds and make sure that we're capturing as much of that available seed as we can.

Actually, we helped to support a brand new nursery up in the far northern part of California, Siskiyou County, that is run by Sierra Pacific Industries. They have capacity, I think, of upwards of a million seedlings a year. And so coupled with our partnership with the United States Forest Service Nursery in Placerville, we're doing everything that we can to grow enough seedlings to occupy the space. But again, with a number of intensively burned acres of timberland, I think we're always going to be a bit, or at least for the foreseeable future, we're going to be a bit behind in being able to meet that need.

It is indeed, sir. Endeavor. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Considering the general fund for Cal Fire or Department of Finance, considering the state of the general fund and the GRF, has the administration considered temporarily freezing the phase-in of the 66-hour work week?

I may just stay up here. You're welcome to stay. Thank you, Chair. The 66-hour workweek wasn't built into, cannot be sectionalized. It's a full five-year implementation with components in year one, adding to the contributions and additions in year two and so forth. It's 2,471 personnel over five years. It's a very large effort. Some of the components in the background were to basically our promotional path, the fire apparatus engineer and the fire captain. We had a very large deficiency and a reduction of fire captains available for the position. In the 66th work week, we added quite a few engineers to balance the fire captain and the FAE, so we always had an applicant pool for the promotional path. Those are built in not just in one year but over the five-year course. So by stalling or shelving any of the future outlying years of 66 we potentially still have that deficiency with that fire captain rank We also cannot commit to what we agreed to with our local 281 Bargain Unit 8 of shifting the legacy staffing factors of the old to the new, which is from an old which was one company officer and a minimum of two firefighters to transitioning to a fire captain, a fire apparatus engineer, and a firefighter. And we built three levels of succession and mentoring in that, but that cohesion of that engine company, which has become the industry standard throughout California in the nation, we haven't fully transitioned all of our engines over because we need the five-year. Additionally, there's other components built out in the outer line years, including fire apparatus engineers, to accompany our CDCR crews, hand crews. They've never had that lower level of support, and we built that in years three, four, and five of the allocations, along with our bulldozer support with engineers to have company officer leadership while out there walking the line with the bulldozers. So those are some of the components that could be shelved that are desperately needed to support the wildfire mission in years three, four, and five.

Thank you. The questions are important because of the structural deficit we're in. Yes. When we have all of the funding, it's so much easier to take care of everything that needs to be done. and when we find ourselves in a structural deficit of over $20 billion, we've got to figure out what cuts we do now, figure out if we're going to find some other way for revenue so that we can not only balance the budget this year, which we will, but to take care of that structural deficit. It's not an easy task, but I assure you that the Senate, the administration and the assembly are all working very hard to try to figure this out. Another question has to do with GGRF funding. GGRF funding is very volatile. We're not going to know from one year to another what the total amount is going to be that we receive. Has the administration looked at other ways so that we don't rely on GGRF? Does the administration believe it is prudent to use a volatile fund to pay for an essential public service such as Cal Fire operation costs?

So I think you hit on a lot of the considerations that we've been looking at across the state the last couple of years is looking at the structural deficit and how to handle some of these things and both limitations in the GGRF side and the general fund side. So it's not our position. The solution that was agreed on between the legislature and the overall state budget was that we were going to do a short-term backfill of some general fund.

Well, so the Budget Act of 2000.

2025 has some language in it about what was planned.

That's right, yes. But it lays out a plan.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it lays out a plan for what sort of the framework of the agreement was when the 25 Budget Act was enacted. And it says that, you know, we'll do, I think it's a billion dollars in 25, 1.25 billion in 26, and then 500 million in 27, 500 million in 28, assuming there's still a budget deficit. And that's, of course, when we did the governor's budget and released it, we still have a bit of a deficit issue.

So that has stayed in place. And so I think what the distinction you'd make is we agree that Cal Fire services are a core public safety need.

There's the short-term backfill to try and help bridge a gap for a period of time. while we are seeing GGRF funding levels that can support it. Obviously, there's a lot of policy decisions you can make in terms of how you want to use GGRF, and that's a big part of the discussion that's been going on in both houses and in this committee, and that will be an ongoing conversation. I think we recognize that. But I think what we're recognizing is that it's not a proposal to ongoing, forever, make this shift.

recognize GGRF is not I mean the whole program is designed essentially to kind of put itself out of business over time period of time like that really is the design of that whole framework and it is a declining revenue stream and we recognize that and I think that's part of why we haven't proposed to do you know an ongoing permanent it's sort of a short term well there's resources to do it provide some general fund relief while we're figuring out the long-term structural but GGRF in tier two specifically it was supposed to be the agreement was one billion for high-speed rail and a billion for legislative priorities and it seems that the only thing that's being taken out

when the framework was agreed to last time that billion for that year right so when 840 was passed And that year, again, recognizing every year you have to redo a budget. So we're having all those conversations. But the way that it – obviously, we budgeted this year based on what was in statute and what was sort of agreed to last time. And so the way that the Tier 2 works out as it currently exists is that there's $750 million coming from that billion dollars of sort of legislative priorities, and the other $250 was slated out for some things.

And then the remainder –

Right, sure. But it's a billion dollars for legislative priorities with $250 that was noted, as you say, for certain programs. Right, and the other $750 was slated at that time as going towards this backfill, and the remainder of the backfill was coming from essentially the fund balance and interest earnings on the fund. And so that's where the rest of that $1.25 billion comes from.

I think as we recognized here, obviously we have a budget conversation every year. So if there's an interest in changing that stuff, that's part of the conversation. I mean, the administration obviously put out in the governor's budget the way that it was viewing it for this year. But that always is a kickoff to a conversation on the budget. So, you know, we're having those conversations. I think we've discussed it in this committee, you know, recently.

yeah I think above all of our pay grades in a lot of ways

So Chief Hoff is going to come up here and talk some more about how we do some of those programs with our federal partnerships. But just high-level-wise, we do have a lot of partnerships with our federal partners, both in DOI, Department of Interior, as well as U.S. Forest Service, because we recognize the value of the holistic approach to firefighting in the state of California, and that the fire doesn't understand jurisdictional differences. And so we need to be proactive in ensuring that we are doing fire prevention work on areas that need to have fuels reduced and need to be secure fire breaks around communities so that homes and communities can be protected. And so a lot of those considerations go into our decisions to partner with our federal partners on work on their lands. And so I just want to put that out there as some high-level framing as we start through this conversation, because that is a priority to us as we are looking at those projects. How do those projects impact state lands and how those projects impact the communities that we are all charged with defending? And knowing that in addition to direct impact from fire, there's also the smoke impact. and how hard those can hit communities long, long distances away. And we know that fires in Northern California impact our communities in the Bay Area and the Central Valley and even Southern California at times in communities that are already struggling with air quality issues. And so those are things that we are looking at as well when we decide on partnering with our federal partners on some of these projects.

Thank you once again, Erica, WD Director of Natural Resource Management. Thank you for the question. CAL FIRE does normally receive federal grant funding annually from the USDA Forest Service for several programs, including Forestry Assistance, Forest Entomology and Pathology, and Urban and Community Forestry. These grants total $2 to $3 million per year, typically, and are formula-based, non-competitive awards. We also compete for federal grant awards from the Forest Service on occasion, and these can be much larger sums of funding. It is also possible that we could see impacts to Good Neighbor Authority and shared stewardship agreements with the federal reorganization yet to be seen. All of these agreements are reimbursable.

Okay.

It's such devastating news and just recent news, but thank you for commenting on that. Very good. Let's go to issue number five, permanent resources for enhanced defensible space inspections. We'll first hear from Deputy Director Bigelow.

California continues to face historically destructive fires, with 15 of the 20 most destructive fires occurring in the last decade. Data from CAL FIRE's Damage Inspection Program shows that homes lacking compliant defensible space are six times more likely to be destroyed during wildfire events. Yet, despite the state's goal to inspect approximately 250,000 homes annually, CAL FIRE will only be able to complete less than 130,000 annual inspections once the one-time wildfire and forest resilience funding expires. In 2019, AB 38 created 21 permanent forestry technicians to meet the increased workload of providing defensible space inspections and documentation of compliance for real estate inspections. In fiscal years 2021 and 21-22, we received funding from the Wildfire and Forest Resilience multi funding package to provide three permanent and 28 temporary HELP forestry technicians to augment and enhance defensible space inspection efforts in the state responsibility area However these were one funding allocations and they must be used before June 30 of 2027 Therefore, CAL FIRE is requesting $6.1 million in general fund and 31 positions in fiscal year 2627, with $5.6 million ongoing. This is to stabilize the state's defensible space inspection program and support the ongoing workload created by Assembly Bill 38 in 2019. This proposal transitions temporary roles to permanent staffing to ensure California can meet its long-term wildfire mitigation and defensible space obligations. Strengthening the defensible space program enhances our state's wildfire resilience. Permanent staffing ensures continuity of inspections, public education, and enforcement under Public Resource Code 4291, and supports anticipated future workload under the Governor's Executive Order N-19-25, or Zone Zero implementation. Permanent positions also strengthen operational stability by improving retention, institutional knowledge, and inspection data quality challenges intrinsic to temporary help. This proposal represents a critical investment in the state's core wildfire preparedness strategy. Stabilizing the defensible space workload is essential for reducing structural losses, supporting community resilience, and fulfilling statutory requirements. Additionally, there are long-term benefits in avoided suppression costs, reduced disaster impacts, and improved insurance accessibility, and also enhanced public safety. Thank you for your time today, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Also here for questions.

Brian Metzger, LAO. This proposal has merit as a way of continuing CAL FIRE's work on defensible space inspections. Without these resources, CAL FIRE expects it could perform only about half of these inspections, which could increase the risk of damage to parcels during a wildfire. However, this proposal could be modified given the budget condition. For example, at least some of the positions in the proposal are funded out of CAL FIRE's existing GGRF allocation and so you know there could be a different mix between the general fund and GGRF considered alternatively or in addition the legislature could consider other funding sources such as a reinstated SRA fee or a fee with a similar structure where the primary recipients of fire prevention services help cover their costs and moreover the legislature may also want to approve these positions on a one-time basis rather than an ongoing basis as as forthcoming state regulations to strengthen defensible space requirements may change how much time is required for each inspection, and that may require revisiting the program's staff and structure.

Yeah, I mean, the whole defensible space thing seems just like a no-brainer, right? The more defensible space, the less damage there is. But I'm wondering how rigorous the six to one number was arrived at. What are the analysis? How defensible is the analysis of that number?

I'd like to take a look at that analysis sometime if that's possible.

So what's the jurisdiction? I mean, it'd be great if every house in California had a defensible space inspection and I'd like to see cities incorporate codes requiring that on housing but what's your jurisdiction who can you go to and inspect their house and say this needs this needs to be changed? Well every home

And are you coordinating standards with local jurisdictions?

All right. Thank you. I'll yield back.

Yes, thank you. Yes, I mean, this, as my colleague just said, this is really important, but I also, this is a budget sub oversight hearing. And so I think it's just important to recognize that I think this should be prioritized within CAL FIRE's budget. You know, we have, as was mentioned, the budget has doubled for CAL FIRE. And as the materials say, from $1.7 billion in 2014-15 to $3.7 billion in 2023-24. And then there's been more money since then. You know, with the department staff growing from $5,700 to $10,200, total number of positions, 6,600 to 12,000, representing an 80% increase in both cases. So to me, it just it seems like this is critically important, but it should be prioritized within the existing budget and not to have more draws on the general fund where we really have to exert some discipline in the legislature and the governor's office around our spending. And we're going to be cutting things and almost every other department is seeing just really substantial cuts. And so it's important as part of this budget sub to say, I think, to say verbally and out loud when we should prioritize this kind of thing instead of funding it from the general fund. So I do completely support this I think it enormously important It also the kind of thing that could be an almost I mean when you start talking about defensible space at the city county planning level CAL FIRE state it could be an ever expense because it can literally consume you can just envision it becoming absolutely enormous And so how to do that with discipline and with a sense of doing the things that are most important and prioritizing the areas that most need it, but also recognizing that we can't do absolutely everything. So this is something that I think just should be absorbed within the existing budget. Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to note, while the administration is in support of approving the funding resources, if the legislature does not want to approve funding, we at least request the position authority because a lot of these positions were limited term. And if we have these positions as permanent ongoing, we'll be able to have more stability and more retention of these individuals that complete these dispensable space inspections.

And we had that same thoughtfulness when we provided this proposal and looked into our CAL FIRE budget. And you'll notice that not all the positions we're asking for are being funded through this BCP. We are redirecting internal funds for a portion of these. We just need the permanent position authority for half of them. The other half we are dipping into CAL FIRE's budget to support.

Yeah, so CAL FIRE hosted a defensible space site visit, and Brian was also there. And while those certificates are really, you know, a policy decision, and if they work, that's wonderful. But it's also important to note that the work in terms of defensible space has to happen routinely. It's not just a once a lifetime type of work. And so these consistent defensible space inspections are important and that why the administration maintains the 250 inspections a year goal so that we can hit every parcel at least once every three years to make sure we at least visiting these locations frequently enough so that we able to account for that vegetation growth And so if it a policy decision to reduce the number of inspection that Cal Fire wants to do then the resources can be scaled back in terms of what approved But overall, the administration is maintaining that we want to stick to 250 so we can hit all 750,000 parcels every three years so that we can, you know, maintain our mitigation efforts for wildfire prevention. because as Chief Bigelow mentioned, that homes are more likely to burn down if they don't have this principal space. And Brian's reference to the zone zero, while we acknowledge that and that will likely lead to longer inspection times, this is for already required inspections and these resources that we're requesting. And so while there might be increases later on, we want to acknowledge that this is resources we are seeking now to keep maintaining those $250,000 inspection.

For the bill that's making its way through, it isn't a one-time thing, I would imagine. Hopefully, as negotiations, I'm only familiar with the fact that it was introduced. I don't know where it is. But in negotiations, certainly the homeowner can have the certificate, have it recertified every year. That's even better than every three years. So things like this, because, again, we go back to what we're talking about, is that we do have a structural deficit. We do have to figure out ways to do the work for California, but we still have to find ways to reduce the costs. We have to find ways. And it is being creative. I recognize an important department. And as was noted, the budget has doubled for CAL FIRE over the years. And we recognize climate change is wreaking havoc on our California, and we do have to protect it.

Good afternoon Chair Reyes and members of the committee. My name is Jake Shuland. I'm the Deputy Director of Fire Protection for Cal Fire. And thank you for the time to speak with you all today. California's fire environment has extended to a fire year. This can be seen from many fires since 2014, including the devastating January 2025 LA fire siege. And recent fires in March of 2026 have already mitigated large fires, including the Springs Fire, the Crown Fire, and the Paramount Fire in Southern California. Certain aviation assets must now be staffed continuously, including day and night operations. To meet fire activity demands and rapid response requirements, which also increases the need for ongoing flight crew training to maintain proficiency and readiness across all aerial firefighting disciplines. CAL FIRE's fleet has also modernized, transitioning to 16 CAL FIRE Hawk helicopters and adding seven C-130H air tankers for a total of 72 aircraft. These platforms are more advanced and capable, but require more intensive and frequent maintenance across complex systems including avionics electrical communication and suppressant delivery Maintenance staffing has scaled accordingly from 90 maintainers in 2015 through 2020 to 152 by 2024 171 in 2026 and now 191 proposed under this contract, reflecting increases aligned with a larger, more complex fleet and year-round operations. Maintenance has also shifted from a five-day to a seven-day model. though staffing remains lean compared to federal counterparts. Pilot staffing has grown from 108 pilots in 2024 to 163 under the proposed contract in response to year-round fire activity and increased mission demands, including support for our C-130 air tankers. Sustaining these operations requires a larger, highly trained pilot workforce developed through a rigorous training pipeline and specialization. These positions align the program with FAA Part 135 requirements, expand the support pilot corps for transport of personnel and supplies, enable dual-shift operations, and strengthen reserve capacity to address absences and attrition. At the same time, we are competing in a tight labor market. Industry labor pressures have driven contractor-negotiated salary adjustments, increases of approximately 51% for pilots and 20% for mechanics to recruit and retain a qualified workforce. This contract reflects today's reality, a year-round mission, and a more complex fleet, and the personnel required to safely and effectively meet California's wildfire demands. With that, I thank you for your time today and I'm happy to answer any questions. I'd also...

I'd like to just state for the record, the BCP submitted at Governor's Budget says that CAL FIRE is requesting up to a certain amount. That amount stated in the BCP is the final amount for the contract that's being awarded. So there will be no additional BCP for May revision. So it's a 66.5 for this year and 69.6 next year. Correct. And on up. Okay.

significant health and safety concerns, which was one of the criteria we use in our framework to prioritize proposals, and so we think it merits consideration for funding. And absent this funding, our understanding is CAL FIRE would not be able to make full use of its aircraft, and that would have, you know, leave more communities and residents at risk. Thank you. All right, let's bring it back to the

Yes, great question. There is a difference. The contract provides maintainers, mechanics, for 100% of the CAL FIRE aviation fleet. So CAL FIRE has no mechanics under the department. It's in the contract.

No mechanics.

No mechanics. The pilots on the fixed-wing side are the same that fly the airplanes. They are through the contract. CAL FIRE does have force fire pilots that operate our CAL FIRE Hawk helicopters, and those are the only pilots that we have specific to our helicopter program. So we have the aircraft, but we don't have the people to fly them, and we don't have the mechanics for them. Correct.

Are you referencing the personnel, you mean, not the aircraft?

Can you repeat the question?

Oh, okay, understood. So the aircraft is specific and what we hire for specific reasons, the aircraft. So on the specific to the fixed wing side, the S-2 aircraft model is a type three air tanker with this capability and performance that is desirable for what we need in the initial attack mission and how it's operating out of what we call our air attack bases that are what we call foothill bases. So they're not large airports where you see the larger air tankers operating out of. We would then not have those aircraft in those foothill regions of the state because they simply can't be supported by the infrastructure of the airport system in place out there at the air attack basis.

Excellent question, Chair. And to answer it completely, a full analysis would have to be completed to determine whether or not what the cost effectiveness is. but there's some points that I would like to point out that the contract benefits us. And one would be the challenge given the state's job classifications and the hiring process, given the specialty of the aviation positions would be one of those. The contract does offer flexibility in the aviation roles because not all the positions in the contract are salaried year-round. So, for instance, the pilots on the fixed-wing side are only paid for the days that are worked, And so they're not paid for the entire year, and we have a schedule of how that lines out based on our fire severity. We have the ability to call them back, for instance, things of that nature, but they're not salaried employees over the course of the year. The increased liability on the retirement and benefit costs. And then one way I do see the contract potentially getting lower in costs is if we extend, and this is internal conversations with our business services office, is extending the contract from a three-year fix to a five-year fix so we can look at that contract for a longer period of time and driving down those costs and not having those optional years driving increases.

or rather Department of Finance, you wanted to say something? More just last year we submitted a BCP for exclusive use contracts. And so we talk about having planes available. And so I just want to remind us that, you know, fire year is happening all over the world. And so having access to these aircrafts longer term with CAL FIRE as the owners, as well as making sure that they're available 24-7 is really important for our operational readiness for fighting fires, as well as prescribed burns that have also been increasing. And we've already invested a lot of money, and it's during some great years, financially speaking, during some great years.

I'd like to get some idea of how effective aircraft are in fighting fires. And the reason I ask that is because two of the biggest, most destructive firefighters in Paradise and Altadena, winds were 90 miles an hour.

How effective can those tools be in that situation and in general?

It really depends on what the environment is of that fire, Senator.

First we're going to hear from Julianne Wolfe, who will present the Governor's proposal.

Thank you. LAO?

Thank you. All right, bring it back to the dais. Any questions?

Once again, Deputy Director Eric Hoff over Natural Resource Management. We have actually fairly recently had a meeting with East Bay Park's leadership to discuss grant funding opportunities that they could take advantage of under both greenhouse gas reduction funds existing and forthcoming Proposition 4 funds. We have forest health grants. We have business and workforce development grants. We have tribal wildfire resilience grants, but primarily the forest health grants and also wildfire prevention grants administered by the Office of State Fire Marshal would be available to East Bay Parks.

I'd like for you to please tell us the department's plan for how financial and technical assistance would work with the proposed $20 million that is proposed to be set aside for fuel reduction, structure hardening, defensible space, restoration acquisitions. Specifically, what types of property could be acquired with this funding? And would CAL FIRE be collaborating with any organizations such as UC Ag and Natural Resources on any of these activities?

Thank you again. Frank Bigelow, Deputy Director of Community Wildfire Preparedness and Mitigation.

And I'll just add on the natural resource management side of the house, we intend to spend a significant or the most significant portion of our portion of that funding on reforestation grants, as well as a smaller portion on the forest legacy acquisitions and conservation events.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the subcommittee.

Yes, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Any other questions? No? All right. Then we'll thank you very much. We will now begin public comment. So if you'd like to offer comment, please give your name, your organization. And we'd like to limit your comments to 30 seconds.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members, Jeff Neal representing Orange County Fire Authority. I want to thank Senator Blakespeare for her comments earlier about ensuring that the benefits of the Prop 4 funding supports all of the communities in the state, including the contract counties like Orange County, where OCFA provides the wildland fire protection for those communities. So we do think it would be appropriate to break out some specific funding to make sure to build the capacity for those wildfire prevention activities in Orange County. Thank you.

Hi, Michael Jarre with the Nature Conservancy on issue number seven. Proactive investments in wildfire risk reduction are among the most effective tools available to protect our state and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Every dollar invested in reducing the risk of catastrophic events like wildfires saves more than in damages of cleanup costs and in future economic losses The majority of Californians strongly support increased state spending on wildfire resilience The January budget would be the second smallest investment in wildfire resilience in the last decade. We align our asks with the Wildfire Solutions Coalition to fix that, and thank you for your time.

Chair and members, Bruce Mignani on behalf of the Sierra Consortium. Also on issue seven, related to Prop 4 spending, we request an increase to $500 million for the reasons already stated. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts and the California Tahoe Alliance would echo the comments from the previous two speakers on the need to increase funding this year for wildfire resilience. Same comments on behalf of the Irvine Ranch Conservancy, but would also add that we echo the comments from OCFA that we need to be ensuring that we're targeting projects in Southern California, particularly ignition reduction. That's not at the moment in the mix for a lot of our funding coming through Forest Health. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon to our members. Crisella Chavez on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps. We want to express our support and gratitude to the ECCC for their strong partnership throughout the years and also express support for the fiscal year 2026-2027, Prop 4's appropriation of $12 million for the demonstrated job projects. That was not for you. Oh, sorry. Which goes to help our meaningful job training for our Corps members. And then on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park Districts, we ask that the legislature maintains the $80 million of CAL FIRE local fire prevention grants. Thank you.