The 2023-24 Budget: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Major Capital Outlay Proposals

2023-24 BUDGET The 2023-24 Budget: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Major Capital Outlay Proposals GABRIEL PETEK | LEGISLATIVE ANALYST | FEBRUARY 2023 SUMMARY In this brief, we analyze the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (CalFire’s) 2023-24 budget proposals related to two major capital outlay issues: a new training center and rebuilding an existing conservation camp. Initiate New Training Center. The Governor’s budget includes two related proposals focused on building a new training facility: (1) funding for the study and acquisition phase of the proposed project to construct the new facility, and (2) funding to support 12 new ongoing positions related to the center, as well as limited-term funding to support costs associated with leasing and operating temporary training facilities. We recommend the Legislature approve funding for the study—with a revised scope—to inform legislative decision-making regarding whether and how to proceed with the project. We recommend rejecting the proposed funding for the acquisition phase of the project since it would be premature to approve such costs before the project’s study is complete and before a forthcoming master plan for one of the state’s main existing training centers is available for legislative review. Additionally, we recommend rejecting the requested facility-related staff positions since they are not adequately justified. Finally, we recommend approving some level of additional funding for temporary training facilities but seeking additional information from CalFire to justify the appropriate level. Rebuild Growlersburg Conservation Camp. The Governor proposes funding the working drawings phase of a capital outlay project to replace the facilities and infrastructure at the Growlersburg Conservation Camp in El Dorado County. We recommend the Legislature reject the proposal for a few reasons. First, the state may not need the Growlersburg Conservation Camp given the decline in the conservation camp population and the existence of a California Conservation Corps (CCC) facility within close proximity. Second, to the extent the state wants to retain a greater presence in the region than is provided by nearby CCC facilities and conservation camps, whether a conservation camp would be the most appropriate facility is not clear. Third, the costs of the project are much higher than anticipated. Fourth, the project is not a clear priority—particularly in light of the General Fund condition—given that it currently is serviceable. INTRODUCTION The Governor’s proposed budget for 2023-24 includes a total of $4 billion from various funds CalFire Has Responsibilities for Both to support CalFire, including $2.9 billion from Wildland Fire Response and Forest the General Fund. This represents an increase of Management. CalFire has primary responsibility about $150 million (roughly 4 percent) compared for wildland fire response in State Responsibility to the estimated expenditure level for 2022-23. Areas, which are mostly privately owned wildlands The Governor’s budget proposes to support that encompass about one-third of the acreage of 11,500 authorized positions at CalFire in 2023-24, the state. CalFire also has various responsibilities which represents an increase of roughly 3 percent for the management and protection of the state’s from the estimated number in 2022-23. forests. These include overseeing enforcement of the state’s forest practices regulations, providing CalFire Operates Numerous Facilities. grant funding for forest health and fire prevention CalFire operates more than 530 facilities statewide projects, and regulating timber harvesting on to support its mission. These facilities include private or state-owned forestland. 234 fire stations, 112 telecommunications www.lao.ca.gov 1 2023-24 BUDGET facilities, 8 fire crew camps, 21 unit headquarters, including firefighters, in recent years. For example, 16 administrative headquarters, 13 air attack the 2022-23 Budget Act added approximately bases, and 10 helitack bases. As we discuss 1,500 positions (representing a 15 percent in more detail in this brief, these facilities also increase compared to their previous staffing level), include 30 conservation camps and two main approximately 850 of which the department reports training centers. will require training prior to performing emergency This Brief Includes Two Main response activities. Sections. In the first section of this brief, we CalFire Is Undertaking a Master Plan for analyze two proposals related to building a new CFTC-Ione Facility. The 2022-23 budget provided training center: (1) funding for the study and $150,000 from the General Fund for CalFire to acquisition phases of the proposed project to conduct a master plan for the CFTC-Ione facility, construct the new facility, and (2) funding to support which was built in 1967. This document—expected 12 new ongoing positions related to the center, to be completed by May 2023—is intended to as well as limited-term funding to support costs identify a specific plan for future capital outlay associated with leasing and operating temporary projects to expand and update the facility to meet training facilities. In the second section, we analyze CalFire’s current operational requirements. a proposal to replace the facilities and infrastructure Governor’s Proposals at the existing Growlersburg Conservation Camp in Georgetown, El Dorado County. The Governor’s budget includes two related proposals, as described below. NEW CALFIRE Proposes Funding to Study and Acquire Site TRAINING CENTER FACILITY for New Facility. The Governor’s budget includes $19.2 million from the General Fund for two capital Background outlay activities related to building a proposed new training facility: (1) $545,000 for a study that is CalFire Operates Two Main Training Facilities. anticipated to be completed in June 2024, which CalFire currently operates two main training centers would identify potential parcels in the Sacramento for its staff. The first is CalFire Training Center area on which to construct the facility and develop (CFTC)-Ione, a state-owned facility in Amador a more refined cost estimate for the project, and County that historically has served as the primary (2) $18.7 million to acquire a property for the new training center for the department. The second is center. The department anticipates needing a CFTC-South, which is a leased facility in Riverside minimum of 50 acres for the facility. County. In recent years, CFTC-South has become an important ongoing, year-round location for Future planned project phases include the CalFire training. In addition to these facilities, preparation of performance criteria and the CalFire also provides training at various other construction of the new proposed training center sites, such as Castle Training Center in Atwater. using the design-build delivery method. The These centers offer a variety of types of training. administration anticipates it would complete these For example, the CFTCs host the Firefighter phases using a combination of General Fund Academy and the Company Officer Academy, which (which it would request in a future year) and lease are training courses required for classifications of revenue bonds (to be repaid from the General Firefighter II (permanent firefighters) and above. Fund). In total, the estimated cost of the project is In total, CalFire’s training programs train an average $419 million and construction is anticipated to be of 2,900 students per year. completed in 2030. CalFire Staffing Has Increased Substantially Funds Temporary Facilities and Operations in Recent Years, Necessitating More Training. Costs, as Well as Ongoing Staff for Project In part due to the recent severe fire seasons and Management and Maintenance. In addition to projections that these trends will continue, the the capital outlay proposal, the Governor’s budget state has significantly increased CalFire’s staffing, also includes a related state operations proposal 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2023-24 BUDGET that requests a net increase of $12.9 million from Uses Some Existing Funding to Help Support the General Fund and 12 new positions in 2023-24 Near-Term Training Costs. In addition to the new ($12 million annually through the completion of funding, CalFire also proposes to use a total of the new training center facility—anticipated to be $5.8 million from 2022-23 funding augmentations 2030—and $3.4 million ongoing thereafter). These to—on a one-time basis—support the full costs proposed resources include: of similar temporary activities to those discussed above, such as equipment, leased vehicles, • New Positions for Capital Outlay and other operational costs. This $5.8 million Project Management and Maintenance represents a portion of the $214 million ongoing ($3.9 Million in 2023-24, $3.4 Million General Fund originally provided for 17 new Ongoing). This funding would support firefighter crews and for staffing to support CCC the hiring of 12 new positions, including and California Military Department (CMD) crews. surveyors, engineers, and a right-of-way agent. These positions are proposed Assessment to (1) coordinate and consult with the Uncertainty About Future Training Needs Department of General Services (DGS) as Results in Unclear Need for New Facility. it manages the construction of the new In our view, CalFire has not adequately justified training center facility; (2) support the that its ongoing training needs are sufficient to development of future capital outlay projects justify the construction of the new proposed that might result from the CFTC-Ione facility. Specifically, CalFire argues that the facility master plan; and (3) engage in maintenance is needed because of recent increases in demand activities at training centers, particularly after for training, driven in large part by the significant the new proposed training center facility number of new authorized positions approved is constructed. as part of the 2022-23 Budget Act. However, we • Temporary Leased Facilities, Equipment, expect that much of the corresponding increases and Shifting of Staff ($8.9 Million in training needs will be short term in nature, in 2023-24, $8.6 Million Through associated with preparing personnel to fill the Construction). This funding would support new authorized positions as they are onboarded. various costs associated with leasing and Once these new authorized positions have been operating two temporary facilities that would filled, attrition will lead to some ongoing training be used for conducting training until the needs, but those are likely to be much smaller than proposed new center is completed (estimated the current short-term demand. (CalFire currently to be 2030)—one at Shasta College in assumes a 10 percent attrition rate annually.) Redding and one at a University of Phoenix Moreover, the proposed new training facility campus in Sacramento. Specifically, the is not projected to be completed until 2030, well proposal includes additional funding for after the recently authorized positions will be (1) facility leasing, utilities, and housing filled. Accordingly, the state’s decision regarding ($3.7 million); (2) logistics and supplies whether to construct this facility should be based ($1.6 million); (3) leasing of fire engines not on the current training needs—which may ($1.3 million); and (4) vehicles and fuel be temporarily high—but rather on a long-term ($845,000). The proposal also includes assessment of training needs. Over the longer roughly $1 million in new net costs to shift term, the growth rate for CalFire staffing is 12 existing CalFire staff positions from the unknown and, therefore, so is whether future California Correctional Center in Susanville— training needs will be consistently higher on an which is scheduled to be deactivated by ongoing basis. June 30, 2023—to provide instruction and administrative support. www.lao.ca.gov 3 2023-24 BUDGET Premature to Fund New Project When have been proposed thus far, requesting staffing now CFTC-Ione Master Plan Is Still in Progress. to support unidentified projects is premature. Uncertain training needs is not the only reason we We note that the department also plans to use find this project proposal to be premature. Even if these positions to perform some maintenance CalFire were to provide well-substantiated projections activities, particularly on an ongoing basis after the of future training demand increases continuing new proposed training center is completed. However, beyond 2030, whether the proposed new training we find this aspect of the proposal is also unjustified center would be the most cost-effective solution for two key reasons. First, different classifications, to address such needs is unclear. Specifically, the skills, and staffing levels likely would be needed to CFTC-Ione master plan that the Legislature funded conduct maintenance activities as compared to in the 2022-23 Budget Act is intended to provide the specific positions the Governor is proposing insights into the expansion capacity at that facility. (such as land surveyors). Second, the facility is not As noted above, this assessment is still in progress. anticipated to be completed until 2030. Accordingly, While it is anticipated to be completed this spring, it would make sense for the department to request it could be delayed and may not be available with appropriate maintenance staff if and when the new sufficient time for careful legislative review before the proposed facility is completed rather than at the adoption of the budget in June. Moving forward with initiation of the study phase. For these reasons, we approving a new training center before the Legislature do not find a compelling need for the requested staff. has adequate time to incorporate the findings of this Some Funding for Temporary Training Needs plan into its deliberations could result in a higher level Warranted, but Specific Costs Not Yet Clear. of state spending than ultimately necessary. CalFire also requests funding to support various Premature to Fund Acquisition Phase Before costs associated with leasing and operating two Completing Study Phase. Even if the Legislature temporary facilities until the new training center were to feel sufficiently confident that a new training is constructed. As described above, some of the facility is needed, providing funding for acquisition funding for these costs is requested as part of this before the proposed study is complete still would proposal ($8.9 million in 2023-24 and $8.6 million be premature. The study is anticipated to provide until the new center is built). CalFire would also information on available sites, as well as develop support some of these one-time costs using a portion refined scope and cost estimates for the project. ($5.8 million) of the funding already authorized in This would be important information for the the 2022-23 budget package. Given its elevated Legislature to have before deciding whether it makes near-term training needs—resulting from the sense to move forward with the project, as well as significant recent increases in firefighter staffing—the to more accurately estimate how much funding is department’s intent to pursue temporary leases and specifically needed for the site acquisition. to support other costs associated with operating Staffing Component Not Adequately Justified. temporary training facilities is justified. Moreover, As noted above, the Governor’s request includes using some of the funding appropriated in last year’s $3.9 million in 2023-24 (decreasing to $3.4 million budget to help offset these costs is reasonable, annually beginning in 2024-25) for 12 facility staff to since those funds were provided to help support consult with DGS as it manages the training center the staffing augmentations. However, at this time, project, as well as other potential capital outlay the department has not adequately substantiated projects at CFTC-Ione that may be identified in the the need for the specific amount of new funding forthcoming master plan. For a department to request proposed. For example, CalFire proposes $1.3 million staffing—much less 12 positions—to coordinate with to lease fire engines for training purposes until the DGS on a capital outlay project is highly unusual. permanent engines funded in the 2022-23 Budget Rather, departments typically absorb this type of Act arrive in 2024 or 2025. Why these needs could workload, which generally is modest. Additionally, not be met at a lower cost, such as by using older since the CFTC-Ione master plan has not yet been fire engines that the department would otherwise completed and no corresponding specific projects sell, is unclear. We believe the Legislature needs 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2023-24 BUDGET more information that explains and justifies the costs will need to weigh the importance and value of the of operating the temporary training centers before proposed new activities against the activities to which taking action on the Governor’s request. it has already committed. Essentially, it will want Commits the State to Significant—and to consider whether it wants to make reductions— Unknown—Amount of Out-Year Costs. Together, either those proposed by the Governor or equivalent the Governor’s training center proposals would alternatives—to free up resources for this project. In commit the state to significant costs over the coming our view, this proposal does not meet that higher bar. years, including about $400 million to construct Recommendations the new proposed facility, as well as ongoing costs associated with its operations and maintenance. Approve Proposed $545,000 for a Facility We note that these ongoing costs may not be fully Study With Revised Scope to Be Completed reflected in the proposals. Specifically, the only costs After CFTC-Ione Master Plan. We recommend the Legislature approve the proposed funding to proposed to be funded on an ongoing basis are for study options for a new training center. However, we the 12 facility-related staff mentioned above. Potential recommend that the Legislature require that CalFire remaining costs—such as for utilities, vehicles, and modify the scope of this study to include (1) estimates costs associated with the shift of personnel from of future growth in CalFire staffing and associated Susanville—are only proposed to be funded through training needs and (2) an evaluation of multiple the end of construction of the facility. We would potential alternatives for meeting those training needs expect that many of these types of activities would (with constructing a new training center as one but need to be funded even after the new facility is not the only option considered). We recommend the complete, however. Accordingly, the $3.4 million in Legislature require that CalFire incorporate the results ongoing funding requested as part of these proposals of the master plan for CFTC-Ione—anticipated to be likely understates the full costs associated with completed by May 2023—into this study to ensure the operating the facility in the out-years. assessment is comprehensive. Higher Bar for Approving New Proposals Reject Proposed $18.7 Million for Site Given General Fund Condition. These proposals Acquisition. We recommend the Legislature reject would commit the state to significant discretionary the $18.7 million proposed for site acquisition until General Fund expenditures in not only the budget after the completion of the CFTC-Ione master plan year but also in the out-years. Importantly, the state and the aforementioned facility study. The additional currently is experiencing a budget problem, where information from these reviews can help inform the revenues already are insufficient to fund existing Legislature’s deliberations by providing clarity on the commitments. In this context, every dollar of new options available to meet CalFire’s long-term training spending in the budget year comes at the expense needs, as well as a more refined cost estimate for the of a previously identified priority and requires finding potential construction of a new training center should a commensurate level of solution somewhere within it be determined to be necessary. the budget. The Governor “makes room” for this Reject Proposed $3.9 Million in 2023-24 (and other) proposed new spending by making and $3.4 Million Ongoing for Facility Staffing. reductions to funds committed for other programs, We recommend the Legislature reject the funding including many in the climate and natural resources proposed for additional facility-related staffing. These areas. Moreover, because these training center positions are not needed to oversee the completion proposals also have significant out-year costs, they of the revised study, which is the only portion of the would contribute to projected future budget deficits proposal that we recommend the Legislature approve and would require finding additional solutions in the at this time. However, even if the Legislature were to coming years. We therefore think the Legislature approve the Governor’s proposed funding for both likely will want to apply a higher bar to its review the study and acquisition, we still would recommend of new spending proposals such as these than against authorizing these positions, as we find the it might in a year in which the General Fund had department’s justification for their need to be lacking. more capacity to support new commitments, as it www.lao.ca.gov 5 2023-24 BUDGET Approve Some Level of Funding to Meet various changes to sentencing laws that have Temporary Needs, but Seek Additional significantly reduced the state prison population, Information. We recommend the Legislature particularly those individuals who can be housed in approve some level of funding to help meet the low-security environments. This, in turn, has reduced short-term training needs associated with CalFire’s the population housed at conservation camps and recent increase in authorized positions. Because the available to serve on hand crews. Specifically, as specific amount of funding needed is still unclear, of January 2023, 1,689 people were housed in we recommend the Legislature seek additional conservation camps, compared to 3,980 people in justification from CalFire in the coming months to January 2010. help determine the appropriate level of resources Population Declines Have Resulted in the to provide. Closure of Eight Conservation Camps. In response to the declines in the population at conservation GROWLERSBURG CONSERVATION camps, the state initiated the closure of eight camps CAMP REPLACEMENT in 2020-21, consolidating the remaining crews into the other 35 camps. The locations of these remaining Background camps, five of which are operated by Los Angeles (LA) Conservation Camps Provide a Key Source of County rather than CalFire, are shown in Figure 1. Hand Crews. Hand crews support fire response by As highlighted, the Growlersburg facility is located in constructing fire lines, assisting fire engine crews with the northern part of the state in proximity to several the deployment of fire hoses over long distances, other camps. providing logistical operational support, and extinguishing hotspots Figure 1 to help contain fires. These crews Conservation Camps Are Located Across the State also do fire mitigation work, such as hazardous fuels reduction and vegetation management projects. Historically, the majority of the hand crews utilized by CalFire have been operated through agreements with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for use of labor performed by people committed to state prison. These people are Growlersburg Conservation Camp housed at conservation camps located in or near forests throughout the state. They generally qualify for voluntary placement in camps if CDCR has determined they (1) can be safely housed in a low-security environment, (2) can work outside a secure perimeter under relatively low supervision, and (3) are medically fit for conservation camp work. Conservation camp hand crews are compensated for their work. State Prison Population Has Decreased in Recent Years, Resulting in Declines at Conservation Camps. Over the past dozen years, the state has enacted 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2023-24 BUDGET Remaining Camps Operating Below Governor’s Proposal Design Capacity. Even with the closure of eight Proposes Replacing Growlersburg conservation camps, the remaining sites continue Conservation Camp at Existing Site. The to operate well below capacity. Specifically, as Governor’s budget proposes $4.5 million from the of January 2023, 1,689 people are housed at General Fund in 2023-24 to restart a previously facilities that have a combined total capacity of paused project that would replace the existing 3,368. (Excluding the LA County-operated camps, facilities and infrastructure at the Growlersburg 1,612 people are housed at CalFire-operated Conservation Camp site in Georgetown (El Dorado facilities that have a combined total capacity of County). (As we discuss in further detail below, this 3,040—which represents an occupancy rate of just project was initiated in the 2007-08 Budget Act.) over 50 percent.) The proposed funding would support the working Prison Population Projected to Continue to drawings phase. CalFire estimates the total cost of Decline. The administration currently projects that the project—including $93 million for construction— the state’s prison population will decline by roughly to be $100 million, and that it would be completed 7 percent between 2023-24 and 2025-26. These in 2028. The administration anticipates funding declines, should they materialize, likely would result the construction phase of this project with lease in further reductions to the population housed revenue bonds, which ultimately would be repaid at conservation camps. To address the existing from the General Fund over about 25 years. and projected declines, CalFire has expanded Assessment its partnerships with other agencies, including CCC and CMD, to provide staff for hand crews. Population in Conservation Camps Has Additionally, the state has provided CalFire with Changed Substantially, Raising Questions funding to hire additional firefighters to help backfill About Need for Remaining Camps. As described for these losses. in the nearby box, the Legislature first approved this project 16 years ago, in 2007. Since that time, the population housed in conservation camps—and Need for Growlersburg Project Has Been Questioned Since its Inception in 2007 The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (CalFire’s) Growlersburg Conservation Camp project has a long history of stops and starts, beginning roughly 16 years ago. Key steps of the project include: 2007: Project Initiated. The 2007-08 Budget Act authorized $46 million for the completion of all the phases of the project, including preliminary plans, working drawings, and construction. Construction on the project was originally anticipated to be completed by 2013. 2016: Funding Expired, Project Halted. CalFire allowed the expenditure authority for this project to expire in June 2016 due to funding and department workload constraints and differing priorities. At that time, only the preliminary plans phase had been completed. 2021: Funding Provided for Working Drawings. The 2021-22 Budget Act included $3 million to complete working drawings for the project. 2022: Funding Reverted, Project Halted. The administration decided to halt the project after completion of the preliminary plans phase due to cost increases and uncertainty over whether Growlersburg might be a good candidate for closure to help reduce the conservation camp program. Accordingly, the 2022-23 Budget Act reverted the 2021-22 Budget Act appropriation for working drawings. 2023: Funding Proposed Again. The administration proposes to restart the project in 2023-24. www.lao.ca.gov 7 2023-24 BUDGET the associated need for facilities—has changed trends in prison populations and other nearby dramatically. Even within the two years since the facilities but also because the state might identify Legislature last considered providing funding for potential other, more effective uses of the site. this project in 2021, the prison population has To the extent the state wants to retain a greater declined faster than previously anticipated. Notably, presence in this region than is provided by the the Growlersburg Conservation Camp has a CCC’s Greenwood Center and other nearby capacity of 120 but currently houses 81 people, and conservation camps, it is not clear whether a several nearby camps also are currently operating conservation camp would be the most appropriate below capacity. For example, the Washington Ridge facility. Yet investing $100 million in replacing Conservation Camp in Nevada City has capacity Growlersburg Conservation Camp facilities would for 100 but currently houses only 52 people. make it impractical to then depopulate this site as The current overall 50 percent occupancy rate at part of a potential future plan to reduce the number CalFire-managed conservation camps together of conservation camps. We think eliminating that with projections for further declines in the state option now is unwise, because the best future prison population call into question whether all uses of the Growlersburg site still are unclear. of the remaining camps are needed or whether For example, the site could be a reasonable some additional closures may be appropriate candidate for permanent closure, or perhaps it in the coming years. As trends become clearer could be repurposed for other non-inmate hand over the next few years, we expect the state will crews in the future. In the coming years, the state have a better picture about the ongoing need for may decide that another type of crew—such as these camps. a CalFire firefighter hand crew—might be more State May Not Need Growlersburg Facility. appropriate for firefighting activities in this area Part of the administration’s proposed justification (particularly given the trends in prison populations). for this project is Growlersburg’s strategic location If a different type of crew were to ultimately occupy in the Sierra Nevada region and close proximity the Growlersburg site, it would necessitate different to sawmills. While this is true, the Sierra Nevada facilities (for example, to provide more space and region is home to other conservation camps as to accommodate those who identify as females). well, such as Washington Ridge in Nevada City, Accordingly, proceeding with a large replacement that could provide similar situational benefits. project such as the one proposed does not make Furthermore, to truly understand the need for sense until the optimum long-term use of the site this facility, the state needs to consider not only is clearer. the location of other conservation camps, but Project Costs Have Grown Dramatically. also other similar resources, such as hand crews The estimated costs of the Growlersburg project operated by CCC and CMD. For example, CCC have more than doubled since the Legislature is in the midst of replacing its Greenwood Center, first approved it in 2007—from $46 million to which is less than three miles away from the $100 million. Notably, most of the estimated Growlersburg Conservation Camp. The Greenwood increase in costs has occurred over just the Center focuses specifically on forest management past two years (from $59 million in 2021-22 and emergency response. That CCC has a facility to $100 million in 2023-24). According to the within close proximity and is playing an increasingly department, the cost increases have resulted from important role in meeting the needs once filled by various factors, including supply chain delays and conservation camp crews makes the continued inflationary pressures (such as increases in lumber need for Growlersburg even less certain. costs, transportation costs, and construction Premature to Decide That Conservation wages), and the update of several building code Camp Is Best Long-Term Use of Growlersburg cycles. These higher costs further call into question Site. We view the Governor’s proposal to rebuild whether the level of expenditure is warranted, the Growlersburg site as a conservation camp particularly given uncertainty about the long-term to be premature, not only given the existing need for this and other conservation camps. 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2023-24 BUDGET Project Not a Clear Immediate Priority, Recommendation Particularly Given General Fund Condition. Reject Proposal. We recommend the The existing Growlersburg Conservation Camp Legislature reject the proposal to replace the buildings were constructed in 1967 and thus are Growlersburg Conservation Camp for several over 50 years old. However, overall, the facility is reasons. First, the state may not have long-term still serviceable and well-maintained, as discussed needs for the facility given the current conservation in a recent external review conducted by the camp population only fills about half of the existing El Dorado County Grand Jury. (Such reviews of capacity and that future declines in the inmate prison facilities, including conservation camps, are population are projected. Second, other existing required annually under state law.) Additionally, facilities housing various types of similar crews we note that CalFire continues to rely on even are located nearby. Third, the state may identify older facilities, many of which have significant other, more effective uses for the Growlersburg site infrastructure needs. For example, CalFire indicates in the coming years, so committing to rebuilding that many of the state’s conservation camps were it as a conservation camp now is premature. built 70 to 80 years ago and are in dilapidated Fourth, the costs of the project are higher than condition. Similarly, many other departments anticipated, raising additional questions about have facilities that were built 50 or more years its benefit-to-cost justification. Finally, given the ago and have significant deficiencies. Why the state’s budget problem, dedicating new General administration views the Growlersburg project Fund to this project would come at the expense as a higher priority for funding than potential of previously identified priorities, and we do not alternative capital outlay projects that play a find it sufficiently justified for prioritizing limited central role in providing state services—by CalFire state resources. We note that the Legislature could or other departments—is unclear. Moreover, always revisit the need for the project at some time the administration itself has moved slowly on in the future when the General Fund condition is this project and the department has repeatedly more robust and the state has more clarity on its questioned its priority and merit (as described in the firefighting needs and plans in the region. box referenced earlier). As discussed above, given the state’s budget problem, funding this proposal— like other new General Fund spending proposals— would come at the expense of previously identified priorities. Given these trade-offs, we do not find a compelling rationale for prioritizing this project at this time. The Legislature could revisit the need for this facility in a future year when the General Fund condition is more robust and the key questions we have raised about its merit have become clearer. For example, revisiting this project at a future date would provide more time for the Legislature to glean more certainty on the extent to which the conservation camp population continues to decline and additional camp closures are necessitated. www.lao.ca.gov 9 2023-24 BUDGET 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2023-24 BUDGET www.lao.ca.gov 11 2023-24 BUDGET LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Helen Kerstein, and reviewed by Rachel Ehlers and Anthony Simbol. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, California 95814. 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE