LAO
The 2024-25 Budget: CalFire—Implementation of a 66-Hour Workweek
Read the report at Legislative Analyst's Office ↗
2024-25 BUDGET
The 2024-25 Budget:
CalFire—Implementation of a
66-Hour Workweek
GABRIEL PETEK | LEGISLATIVE ANALYST | MARCH 2024
SUMMARY
The Governor’s budget includes $199 million ($197 million from the General Fund) and 338 positions
in fiscal year 2024-25 to begin implementing a shift to a 66-hour workweek as contemplated in a 2022
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the union representing firefighters from the California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). The costs of the proposal would increase in the coming years as
CalFire phases in the changes, rising to $770 million ($756 million General Fund) on an ongoing annual basis
and 2,457 permanent positions by 2028-29.
Prioritizing firefighters’ health and welfare is a worthwhile goal, and pursuing this outcome through
the concept of reducing firefighters’ workweek was a reasonable step for the Legislature to take when it
approved the MOU in September 2022. However, both the cost of adopting a 66-hour workweek and the
extent of the state’s revenue shortfall still were unknown at that time. The magnitude of the proposal the
administration has now presented to the Legislature shows that it would create a substantial new ongoing
General Fund commitment. This proposal comes at a time when the state faces a large, ongoing budget
problem. As such, the Legislature faces a key decision as to whether or not implementing the proposal is
affordable given the state’s current fiscal condition.
If the Legislature is not certain that the General Fund can sustain the proposal right now, we recommend
that it not move forward with funding the change as part of the 2024-25 budget. Deferring implementation
would provide the Legislature with greater flexibility in the future to determine its preferred course of action
in light of potentially evolving budget conditions, while still sustaining its long-term commitment to improving
the health and wellness of the state’s firefighters. We also offer suggestions for interim, less costly steps the
Legislature could consider taking to support firefighters if it were to delay implementation of the workweek
change. If, however, the Legislature wants to prioritize General Fund for implementing this change beginning
in 2024-25, we recommend it add reporting language to help ensure that the proposal maximizes the
potential for associated wildfire resilience-related co-benefits.
BACKGROUND
CalFire’s Main Responsibilities state consists of both developed and relatively
rural lands (generally not wildlands) for which fire
CalFire Has Responsibilities for Fire
response services are the responsibility of local
Response and Resource Management. CalFire
jurisdictions. In some cases, local jurisdictions
has primary responsibility for wildland fire response
contract with CalFire to provide fire protection and
in State Responsibility Areas, which are mostly
other services on their behalf. In addition to its roles
privately owned wildlands that encompass about
related to fire response, CalFire also has various
one-third of the acreage of the state. The federal
responsibilities for the management and protection
government is responsible for wildland fire
of the state’s forests.
response on federal lands. The balance of the
www.lao.ca.gov 1
2024-25 BUDGET
Trends in Wildfires and the driest Figure 2 shows the average number
CalFire’s Budget of wildfires by month across the last five years
compared to the ten-year average, along with the
Major Wildfires Have Occurred Over the
number of wildfires by month in the severe 2018 and
Past Several Years. As Figure 1 shows, most of
2020 wildfire seasons. As the figure shows, wildfire
California’s largest and most destructive wildfires
activity is relatively low from December through
have occurred in recent decades. This trend has
March and reaches its peak from June through
been particularly notable in the last several years,
August each year. While generally fewer wildfires
which have seen some of the worst wildfires in
occur in the fall (as compared to summer), these
the state’s recorded history. For example, the
fires can be particularly severe because forests are
2018 wildfire season included the Camp Fire in Butte
dry after little to no rainfall during the summer, as
County, which became the single most destructive
well as due to other autumn weather conditions such
wildfire in state history with nearly 19,000 structures
as high winds.
destroyed and 85 fatalities, including the near-total
Increase in Wildfires Has Led to Concerns
destruction of the town of Paradise. A few key factors
About State’s Preparedness and Demands
have contributed to the recent increase in large
on Firefighters. Recent increases in large and
and destructive wildfires, including climate change,
severe wildfires have raised concerns about the
poor forest and land management practices, and
state’s capacity to adequately respond to these
increased development in fire-prone areas.
growing threats, particularly when multiple large
While Annual Wildfire Seasons Have
wildfires occur simultaneously as has happened
Lengthened, Strong Seasonal Pattern
in recent years. Responding to these large and
Still Exists. Despite recent years having
severe wildfires has imposed significant burdens
particularly large and destructive wildfires
on firefighters—many of whom have been required
and concerns about wildfires becoming a
to work long stretches without breaks. This, in turn,
year-round phenomenon, the occurrence of
has led to concerns about the mental and physical
wildfires in California continues to have a strongly
health and wellness of the firefighters who are on
seasonal pattern—primarily occurring during the
the frontlines of these events. These issues have
summer and fall months when the weather is
been highlighted in the
media—such as in a series
of articles published in
Figure 1
2022 by CalMatters.
California's Largest and Most Destructive Legislature Has
Wildfires Have Occurred in Recent Decades Taken Various Actions to
Respond to Concerns.
The Legislature has
9
taken a number of
8
actions in response to
20 Largest
7
20 Most Destructive these growing concerns,
6
including to improve the
5 health and wellness of
4 firefighters. For example,
3 in the 2020-21 and
2 2022-23 budgets, the
1 Legislature approved
proposals—totaling roughly
1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020sa $170 million per year on an
ongoing basis—to provide
a Includes wildfires that occurred from January 2020 through February 2024.
relief staffing for CalFire.
2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2024-25 BUDGET
in improving forest and
Figure 2 landscape conditions in
recent years, including
Even in Recent Years, Wildfires Have Rarely Occurred in the Winter
providing $2.8 billion from
Number of Fires
2020-21 through 2023-24
as part of a series of
700
budget packages, as
well as authorizing the
600
2020 continuous appropriation
of $200 million annually
500
from cap-and-trade
program revenues
400
through 2028-29 to
2018 Ten-Year Average
support wildfire resilience
300
activities. These
investments—which we
200 Five-Year Average
discuss in more detail
in our February 2024
100
report, The 2024-25
Budget: Crafting
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Climate, Resources, and
Environmental Budget
Solutions—are aimed
in large part at reducing
The main goal of these augmentations was to
the susceptibility of the
reduce the strain on firefighters by making it easier
state’s forests and landscapes to catastrophic
for them to take time off, such as for vacations
wildfires, which should indirectly reduce the strains
and training activities. (We discuss these staffing
on firefighters.
expansions in further detail later in this brief.)
CalFire Budget and Staffing Have Increased
Also, as part of the 2019-20 budget, the Legislature
Substantially in Recent Years. Driven by
approved a proposal that provided $9 million
augmentations such as those discussed above,
annually and 25 positions to augment various
we estimate that CalFire’s total base wildfire
employee health and wellness programs at CalFire.
protection budget has nearly tripled over the past
In recent years, the Legislature also has
ten years (from $1.1 billion in 2014-15 to $3 billion in
approved various increases in fire response
2023-24). As shown in Figure 3 on the next page,
capacity more broadly, such as adding new
CalFire’s overall budget also has increased, with
fire crews at CalFire and partner agencies and
its combined budget for fire protection, emergency
funding new helicopters and other aircraft. (We
fire suppression, and resource management and
summarize many of these augmentations in our
fire prevention more than doubling over the past
2022 publications, The 2022-23 Budget: Wildfire
ten years (from $1.7 billion in 2014-15 to $3.7 billion
Response Proposals and The 2022-23 California
in 2023-24). Correspondingly, CalFire’s staffing
Spending Plan: Resources and Environmental
levels also have increased significantly over the
Protection.) By augmenting fire response capacity,
past decade. Specifically, between 2014-15 and
the state provided resources to enable CalFire to
2023-24, the number of positions that CalFire
respond more quickly and forcefully to wildfires.
categorizes as related to fire protection increased
This, in turn, was intended to help keep fires from
from 5,756 to 10,275, and the total number of
growing and exacerbating, thereby avoiding placing
positions at the department grew from 6,632 to
more severe strains on firefighters. Finally, the
12,000 (representing roughly an 80 percent
state also has made unprecedented investments
increase in both cases).
www.lao.ca.gov 3
2024-25 BUDGET
(Pursuant to federal law,
Figure 3 212 hours is the maximum
number of work hours allowed
State Spending on CalFire
during a 28-consecutive-day
Has Grown Significantly in Recent Years
period before overtime must
(In Millions)
be paid.) This compensation
structure results in 19 hours
$6,000
in a typical workweek (or
76 hours in a 28-day pay
5,000
period) being paid at 1.5 times
Resource Management
4,000 and Fire Prevention an employee’s hourly rate for
scheduled overtime, referred
3,000
Emergency to as Extended Duty Week
Fire Suppression
2,000 Compensation. We estimate
that scheduled overtime makes
1,000
Base Fire Protection
up roughly one-third of the total
base pay for most common
2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2011-12 2013-14 2015-16 2017-18 2019-20 2021-22 2023-24
firefighter classifications.
CalFire = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. For example, the salary range
for an entry-level, seasonal
Firefighter I position is roughly
Current Structure of CalFire’s
$3,700 to $4,600 per month, plus an additional
Workweek, Staffing, and
$1,800 to $2,300 in scheduled overtime.
Operational Models
Employees receive additional pay for unplanned
CalFire’s current workweek, staffing, and overtime for any time worked in excess of 72 hours
operational models are dictated in large part by in a workweek, which also is paid at 1.5 times an
the department’s service needs, which include employee’s hourly rate. Unplanned overtime is used
providing 24-hours per day, 7-days per week to backfill staff that take vacations or engage in
coverage on a year-round basis, as well as training exercises, as well as to engage in certain
augmented response capacity during peak wildfire emergency response activities.
season. We discuss these current structures in
CalFire Generally Uses a 3.11 Staffing
further detail below.
Factor for Permanent Firefighters. To provide
CalFire Currently Operates on a 72-Hour round-the-clock coverage and allow each firefighter
Workweek. CalFire firefighters have a different to take four days off per week, CalFire must hire
work schedule than most other state employees. more than one person to cover each fire response
To facilitate providing round-the-clock coverage, position (referred to as a “post”). Historically,
firefighters typically work—on average— CalFire used a staffing factor of 2.33, meaning the
four 72-hour workweeks in a 28-consecutive-day department would hire 2.33 firefighters for each
cycle. A 72-hour workweek typically consists of post position in order to provide coverage seven
three consecutive 24-hour days (during which days per week. As a result of the recent relief
firefighters usually sleep at the station), followed staffing augmentations mentioned above, CalFire
by four days off. currently is in the process of moving towards
Under Current Workweek, Firefighters a new standard staffing factor of 3.11 for most
Receive Significant Compensation post positions. Under this new staffing factor, the
From Both Scheduled and Unplanned department would hire 3.11 firefighters for each
Overtime. CalFire employees working a post to provide coverage seven days per week as
72-hour workweek receive overtime pay well as for when firefighters take time off (such as
for all hours worked in excess of 212 hours for vacations, sick leave, or training).
during the 28-consecutive-day workperiod.
4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2024-25 BUDGET
CalFire fire engines generally are staffed with three has relatively few professional prerequisites.
personnel at all times. Since each of these positions In contrast, attaining the rank of Fire Captain
is considered a post that must be covered, it would requires significant firefighting experience,
take 9.33 personnel to staff each engine if a 3.11 including serving for roughly three years as
staffing factor were applied to each of the positions. a Fire Apparatus Engineer. Additionally, the
CalFire’s Current Staffing and Operational various classifications also carry notable
Models Have Various Other Key Features. differences in pay and benefits—we estimate
Besides the workweek and staffing factors, other that Fire Captains earn roughly 50 percent
important features of CalFire’s current staffing and more per month than Fire Fighter Is and Fire
operational models include the following: Apparatus Engineers earn roughly one-third
more per month than Fire Fighter Is. (Fire
• Engines Currently Staffed With Mix of
Fighter Is also are less costly for CalFire to
Classifications, Including Temporary
employ because they work a maximum of nine
Staff. As mentioned above, CalFire’s fire
months per year rather than year round.)
engines generally are staffed with three
• CalFire Operates Three Staffing Periods.
personnel at all times. At least one of
Currently, CalFire operates three staffing
these three personnel is required to be a
periods—base, transitional, and peak. The
Fire Captain or Fire Apparatus Engineer
number of fire engines, air attack bases, and
(positions referred to as “company officers”).
helitack bases that the department activates
For example, a fire engine may be staffed
varies across these three periods based on
with a Fire Captain and two Fire Fighter Is
projected fire risk. For example, during peak
or a Fire Apparatus Engineer and two Fire
season—which typically extends from roughly
Fighter Is. As we display in Figure 4, these
June through early October—CalFire operates
personnel have different qualifications and
356 fire engines, 12 air bases, and 10 helitack
duties. For instance, a seasonal Fire Fighter I
bases. In contrast,
during the base
Figure 4
staffing period—which
typically extends from
Qualifications, Duties, and Pay Differ
roughly December
Across CalFire’s Firefighter Classifications
through March—
CalFire operates
Company Officer Classifications Other Key Firefighter Classifications
65 engines and no
aerial resources.
Between the base and
peak periods, CalFire
operates what it refers
to as a transitional
staffing period. During
these times of year,
the number of fire
engines and aerial
Fire Captain Fire Apparatus Engineer Firefighter II Firefighter I
• Permanent employee • Permanent employee • Permanent employee • Temporary employee resources are ramped
• Manages fire station • Operates fire trucks, leads • Member of fire crew • Member of fire crew
and supervises fire crews assigned fire crew under supervision under supervision up and ramped
• Typical minimum • Typical minimum • Typical minimum • Typical minimum qualifications:
qualifications: drivers qualifications: drivers license qualifications: 18-years old 18-years old and capable of down. (We display the
license and three years and eight months as a and three months of physical duties
as a Fire Apparatus Engineer firefighter firefighting experience • Estimated monthly number of fire engines
• Estimated monthly • Estimated monthly • Estimated monthly payª: $6,200
payª: $9,300 payª: $8,300 payª: $7,500 that CalFire typically
operates each month
a Estimated monthly pay calculated assuming average of the salary range for the position and scheduled overtime. Does not in Figure 7 on page 13
include unplanned overtime.
CalFire = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. of this brief.)
www.lao.ca.gov 5
2024-25 BUDGET
• CalFire Currently Rotates Personnel Unit 8 MOU Included 66-Hour Workweek
Individually Rather Than as a Group. Provision—Contingent on a State Budget
Currently, CalFire firefighters rotate on and off Appropriation. Under the agreement, the state
of their shifts individually rather than together and union agreed to reduce the CalFire firefighter
as a group “platoon.” For example, on a given workweek from 72 hours to 66 hours—a 24-hour
fire engine, one firefighter may work Monday, reduction per 28-day pay period. The MOU set
Tuesday, and Wednesday; whereas another this change to take effect on November 1, 2024—
will work Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday; notably, after the expiration date of the agreement—
and a third will work Wednesday, Thursday, and subject to an appropriation in the 2024-25
and Friday. For this reason, the same team budget. The agreement required that a joint
of firefighters typically does not staff a fire labor management committee be established to
engine together for more than one or two determine the changes needed to implement the
days a week. reduction, including hours of work, shift patterns,
retention and recruitment, and classifications.
Unit 8 and Recent MOU The agreement further required the committee
Unit 8 Represents Most CalFire Personnel. to present to the Director of the Department of
Under state law, state employees regularly Finance a mutual agreement by July 1, 2023, to
undertake collective bargaining with the Governor be included in the Governor’s budget proposal in
(as represented by the California Department January 2024. Notably, the MOU specified that
of Human Resources) over their compensation. if the Governor declares a fiscal emergency and
State workers (except managers and certain General Fund monies over the 2024-25 Governor’s
others) are organized into 21 bargaining units and budget’s multiyear forecasts are not available to
represented by unions. The product of the collective support the reduction to a 66-hour workweek on an
bargaining process is an MOU, which specifies the ongoing basis (including the estimated direct costs
terms and conditions of employment. To take effect, and any increases in the cost of overtime driven
MOUs must be ratified by union members and the by the proposal), the parties agreed to reopen the
Legislature. Unit 8 (CalFire Local 2881) represents provision regarding how and when to implement the
most of CalFire’s positions, such as Fire Captains, workweek reduction.
Fire Apparatus Engineers, Fire Fighter IIs, and Fire Governor Intends to Declare Fiscal
Fighter Is. (CalFire’s positions that are not covered Emergency and General Fund Is Facing Very
by Unit 8 mostly consist of its administrative and Large Out-Year Deficits. Due to a deteriorating
support positions, such as Associate Governmental revenue picture relative to expectations, both
Program Analysts and Office Technicians.) our office and the administration anticipate that
Legislature Approved Current Unit 8 MOU in the state faces a significant budget problem.
September 2022. The Legislature approved the Specifically, in January our office estimated
most recent MOU with Unit 8 in September 2022 that the Governor’s budget addressed a
with the passage of Chapter 250 of 2022 (AB 151, $58 billion problem. More recent fiscal data we
Committee on Budget). This MOU is in effect summarize in our February publication, The
through June 2024. A successor agreement likely 2024-25 Budget: Deficit Update, indicate the
will be submitted to the Legislature for ratification in budget outlook continues to worsen. We now
the coming months, although the precise timing is estimate the state has a $73 billion deficit to
not yet known. As we discussed in our August 2022 address with the 2024-25 budget. To address
analysis of the Unit 8 MOU, the agreement included the budget problem, the Governor proposes
various provisions such as providing a 6.6 percent a combination of actions including spending
general pay increase over two years, adding reductions, fund shifts, delays, reserve withdrawals,
additional pay for employees with long tenures cost shifts, and revenue increases. Notably, while
and certain education qualifications, increasing the Governor has not yet declared a formal budget
reimbursements for transit and vanpools, and emergency, the structure of the proposed solutions
changing the workweek, as discussed further below. assumes that a declaration will be forthcoming in
6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2024-25 BUDGET
the next few months. Specifically, the proposed problem facing the state, both our office and the
withdrawals from reserve accounts—a key part of administration estimate that based on current
the Governor’s budget balancing plan—are only revenue forecasts, the state will face significant
allowable with a budget emergency declaration. structural operating shortfalls—at least $30 billion
Moreover, in addition to the immediate budget annually—from 2025-26 through 2027-28.
GOVERNOR’S PROPOSAL
Includes Roughly $200 Million—Growing wildfire response-related positions; (2) salaries and
to Over $750 Million Ongoing—From the benefits for adding new support staff, including
General Fund to Implement a 66-Hour administrative personnel and maintenance staff;
Workweek. The Governor’s budget includes (3) additional overtime (including both scheduled
$199 million ($197 million from the General Fund) and unplanned) for firefighters and other wildfire
and 338 positions in fiscal year 2024-25 to begin response-related classifications; (4) 235 new
implementing a shift to a 66-hour workweek as vehicles, as well as costs for vehicle leases,
contemplated in the 2022 MOU with Unit 8. The maintenance, radios, and equipment; (5) various
costs of the proposal would increase in the coming augmented aerial support-related contracts, such
years as CalFire phases in the changes, rising to as for contracted pilots and mechanics at airbases;
$770 million ($756 million from the General Fund) (6) one-time special repair funding to address
on an ongoing annual basis and 2,457 permanent maintenance needs at CalFire facilities; (7) training
positions by 2028-29. As shown in Figure 5 on center costs; and (8) proportional funding for
the next page, these costs include (1) salaries contract counties.
and benefits for adding new firefighter and other
ASSESSMENT
Addressing Firefighter Fatigue and In adopting the Unit 8 MOU, along with the various
other actions it has taken in recent years to
Welfare Is a Worthwhile Goal
address concerns about the health and wellness of
Workweek Change Aims to Address
firefighters, the Legislature has demonstrated that it
Legitimate Concerns About Firefighter Welfare.
prioritizes this issue.
The state has experienced some of the most
severe wildfire seasons in its history in recent Legislature Faces Decision About
years. As discussed previously, these wildfires
Whether Proposal Is Affordable
have placed significant strains on the state’s
Prioritizing firefighters’ health and welfare
firefighters, many of whom have been asked to work
through the concept of reducing their workweek
for extended periods with few breaks. These long
was a reasonable step for the Legislature to take
periods of work have been difficult for firefighters
in September 2022. However, at the time that the
as well as for their families. By switching from a
Legislature approved the current Unit 8 MOU,
72-hour workweek to a 66-hour workweek, the
both the cost of adopting a 66-hour workweek
typical schedule for a firefighter would include
and the extent of the state’s revenue shortfall still
roughly one fewer 24-hour shift per month than is
were unknown. The magnitude of the proposal
currently the case. This, in turn, could provide some
the administration has now presented to the
additional time off for firefighters, thus helping to
Legislature shows that it would create a substantial
address the legitimate concerns about fatigue that
new ongoing General Fund commitment.
have resulted from these recent wildfire seasons.
www.lao.ca.gov 7
2024-25 BUDGET
Figure 5
Summary of 66-Hour Workweek Funding Proposal
(Dollars in Millions)
2024-25 Ongoing
Positions Amount Positions Amount
Salaries and Wages 338 $28.3 2,457 $191.9
Fire Response Positions 231 $19.5 2,075 $162.1
Fire Apparatus Engineer 104 7.6 1,352 98.7
Fire Captain 105 8.6 594 48.7
Battalion Chief 10 0.9 59 5.5
Heavy Fire Equipment Operator 10 0.8 40 3.3
Assistant Chief 6 1.1 24 4.3
Forestry Fire Pilot 5 0.6 15 1.7
Aviation Officer III 5 0.7 5 0.7
Reduction of Firefighter I Costs -14 -0.8 -14 -0.8
Support Positions 107 $8.8 382 $29.8
Associate Governmental Program Analyst 56 4.2 302 22.7
Staff Services Manager I 5 0.4 34 3.0
Heavy Equipment Mechanics 25 2.0 25 2.0
Direct Construction Supervisor I 21 2.1 21 2.1
Overtime — $13.9 — $122.3
Scheduled Overtime — 9.5 — 83.6
Unplanned Overtime — 4.4 — 38.8
Staff Benefits — $28.4 — $206.4
Operating Expenses and Equipment — $20.0 — $125.8
Contracts for Aircraft Staffing and Maintenance — $15.1 — $15.1
Vehicles Purchases, Leases, and Repair — $48.5 — $14.8
Training Center Costs — $33.2 — $7.7
Special Repairs — $5.3 — —
Contract County Proportional Share — $6.3 — $86.4
Totals 338 $198.9a 2,457 $770.4b
a $197 million from the General Fund and $2 million from reimbursements and various special funds.
b $756 million from the General Fund and $14 million from reimbursements and various special funds.
This proposal comes at a time when the state faces First, the workweek change would not be
a large, ongoing budget problem. As such, the implemented until after the expiration of the MOU
Legislature faces a key decision as to whether or and the administration’s estimate only included
not implementing the change in the workweek is costs for activities occurring during the term of
affordable given the state’s current fiscal condition. the MOU. Second, the joint labor management
We discuss these issues in further detail below. committee was given relatively broad discretion
Legislature Did Not Have Information About regarding how to structure implementation of the
Cost Implications When It Considered MOU. new provision, but the committee was not even
When the administration submits an MOU to the formed until after the MOU was ratified. These
Legislature for consideration, it typically prepares factors precluded the Legislature from having
an estimate of the associated costs. In the case of detailed information about the ultimate costs of
the Unit 8 MOU, however, the administration’s cost implementing the 66-hour workweek change when
estimate did not include the costs of the 66-hour it considered the MOU. Notably, at the time our
workweek provision for a couple of reasons. office analyzed the MOU, we estimated that the
8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2024-25 BUDGET
66-hour workweek provision likely would be costly the number of firefighters the state employs, the
for the state. However, we were only able to provide proposal would contribute to the need to build a
a broad sense of the potential costs—which we new CalFire training center, which is estimated to
stated were likely to be in the range of hundreds of cost roughly $420 million.
millions of dollars annually—given the uncertainty Fiscal Conditions Have Deteriorated Since
regarding how the provision ultimately would the Legislature Considered the MOU. When
be effectuated. the Legislature considered the Unit 8 MOU in
Structure of MOU Workweek Provision Is September 2022, the state’s fiscal condition
Unique. The provision of the Unit 8 MOU that and outlook looked significantly better than they
establishes a 66-hour workweek differs from how do currently. Specifically, around the time the
policy changes typically are handled through the 2022-23 budget was enacted, both our office and
collective bargaining process in a few notable the administration anticipated the state’s budget
ways. First, the provision establishes a large policy would be roughly balanced over the coming years.
change that affects how the state compensates Since that time, revenue projections have declined
its employees and how the state combats wildfires precipitously. For example, the administration’s
with minimal detail and significant deference to revenue forecasts for 2023-24 and 2024-25 are
the joint labor management committee process. more than $70 billion lower than they were in June
Second, the provision has very large fiscal effects 2022—and our office’s projections are even worse.
that are not incurred until after the labor agreement This revenue erosion has resulted in significant
has expired, making it impossible to know the projected deficits both in the budget year and
full fiscal effect of the current MOU at the time out-years, as discussed previously.
of legislative ratification. Third, as we discuss in Legislature Maintains Flexibility Over
more detail below, the provision specifies that Implementing MOU Based on State’s Funding
implementation of the policy change is subject to Capacity. The provisions of MOUs are always
legislative appropriation in the 2024-25 budget— subject to appropriation, as the Legislature has the
an explicit acknowledgment of the Legislature’s fundamental constitutional “power of the purse.”
budget authority and its ability to revisit, modify, However, as referenced above, MOUs typically do
or reject the policy in the future. None of these not include language explicitly declaring this to be
three characteristics are standard of a typical the case. The fact that the Unit 8 MOU explicitly
MOU provision. mentions this condition seemed to emphasize that
Costs of Workweek Change Turning Out to the Legislature might need to weigh the capacity
Be Very High. The cost of the administration’s of the General Fund to support the costs of the
proposed approach to effectuating the 66-hour change beginning in 2024-25. Also, regardless of
workweek change is substantial—$770 million the intent of the language in the MOU, no particular
($756 million from the General Fund) when fully Legislature may “bind the hands” of a future
implemented. This proposal would result in a Legislature by requiring a future appropriation.
roughly 20 percent increase in CalFire’s budget As such, even though it approved the Unit 8 MOU,
and staffing levels compared to 2023-24. (As the Legislature still has flexibility around whether
mentioned previously, total funding and staffing to provide funding to implement this proposal—
in 2023-24 already reflect significant increases as with any other proposal the committee and
compared to historical levels.) As noted, only administration might put forward.
limited information was available on the details and Governor Is Inconsistent in Pulling Back
implications of the 66-hour workweek when the Some Commitments While Retaining 66-Hour
Legislature approved the MOU, so it may not have Workweek Change. The administration putting
expected the associated costs to be this high. The forth this workweek proposal despite the
66-hour workweek change also could create cost budget shortfall—and thereby deferring to the
pressures for the state that are not reflected in the Legislature to decide whether the General Fund
proposal. Most notably, by significantly increasing can sustain the associated costs—deviates from
www.lao.ca.gov 9
2024-25 BUDGET
its approach to various other state commitments. However, in practice, if the Legislature chooses to
Notably, in light of recent deteriorations in the appropriate the proposed funds to implement the
condition of the General Fund, the Governor change as part of the 2024-25 budget, delaying
is proposing to pull back numerous other implementation through the collective bargaining
commitments that the state made in recent process likely will be difficult and result in some
years. For example, the Governor is proposing to other concessions to affected employees that
eliminate the existing telework stipends that have would increase state costs. Deferring to the
been provided to many state employees—even collective bargaining process for adjusting the
though these stipends also were agreed upon in workweek provision also would constrain the
negotiations with numerous bargaining units— Legislature’s role in being able to shape any
to save a much smaller amount than the cost potential modifications, since its only involvement
of the 66-hour workweek proposal ($26 million with MOU agreements is a “yes” or “no” vote on
General Fund annually). Additionally, the Governor ratification. In contrast, if the Legislature were
is proposing various budget solutions in the climate, to defer approving funding for implementing the
resources, and environmental areas—including 66-hour workweek, it would give the parties the
reductions, delays, and fund shifts—to achieve opportunity to reopen discussions on that provision
$4.1 billion in savings to address the 2024-25 as part of the upcoming negotiation process,
budget problem. These proposals would pull such as to consider an alternative implementation
back multiple funding commitments that were time line or put forward alternative and less costly
made over the past few years, including reducing options to address firefighter welfare. It also
well over $1 billion in funding that has already would give the Legislature the opportunity to
been appropriated. (We discuss these proposed independently explore whether it would like to
solutions in greater detail in our February 2024 implement other approaches to addressing its
report, The 2024-25 Budget: Crafting Climate, concerns about firefighter health and wellness
Resources, and Environmental Budget Solutions.) instead of the workweek change. Accordingly,
Given the condition of the General Fund, we not funding the workweek proposal in 2024-25 is
think it is both reasonable and necessary for among the only effective avenues available to the
the Legislature to revisit all its previous budget Legislature if it wants to maximize its authority and
commitments—including those the Governor flexibility to consider alternative approaches.
proposes revising and those he would leave Withholding Approval Would Allow
intact—to determine whether they still are among its Legislature to Adjust to Future Budget
highest priorities for available funding. Conditions. The flexibility provided by not
approving the proposal in 2024-25 would allow
Withholding Approval of Funding in
the Legislature to revisit the choice regarding
2024-25 Could Have Some Notable
whether to implement the 66-hour workweek
Advantages change in a future year when the General Fund
There are a few reasons why it could be has greater capacity, including potentially with
beneficial to the Legislature to withhold its approval modifications as needed or desired. In contrast, if
of funding to implement the workweek proposal in the Legislature approves the proposal now and the
2024-25, as we discuss further below. budget condition does not improve, it may be in
a position of having to make even steeper cuts to
Withholding Approval Would Preserve
other activities (or raising taxes by an even larger
Legislative Flexibility to Revisit Approach.
amount) to sustain this new funding commitment
As discussed previously, the MOU includes
in the out-years while facing multibillion-dollar
language allowing for the reopening of when and
annual deficits.
how to implement the change in the workweek
through future collective bargaining negotiations
if the Governor declares a budget emergency
and the General Fund cannot sustain the costs.
10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2024-25 BUDGET
Withholding Approval Would Enable Revised would struggle to hire a sufficient number of Fire
MOU to Incorporate Various Details That Have Captains to implement the workweek change if
Yet to Be Bargained. Withholding approval of the department were to continue with its current
funding for the 66-hour workweek also would give staffing model. As shown earlier in Figure 4,
the collective bargaining process more opportunity working for at least three years as a Fire Apparatus
to work out specific details of the policy so that the Engineer is a prerequisite for being eligible to be
Legislature and public can be more aware of the hired for a Fire Captain position. Under CalFire’s
totality of the proposal and the details can be fully current engine staffing model, the department
incorporated into a revised MOU. For example, the employs roughly three Fire Captains for every
current MOU does not incorporate any changes two Fire Apparatus Engineers. According to the
to the number of hours firefighters would be paid administration, this imbalance has resulted in an
for scheduled overtime, despite the fact that inadequate pipeline of qualified staff to fill Fire
firefighters would be working fewer hours under Captain positions. The administration believes that
the proposal. If a revised MOU were to come back adding large numbers of additional firefighters to
to the Legislature for consideration in a future year, reduce the workweek without changing the current
the negotiating parties could consider whether staffing model would exacerbate this imbalance and
overtime pay policies for firefighters also should be result in an unworkable shortage of Fire Captains.
adjusted in tandem with the workweek change. Proposed Approach Would Greatly Increase
Share of Experienced, Year-Round Staff,
Proposal Has Large
Resulting in Higher Costs. The administration
Operational and Other Impacts proposes to create a larger pipeline to Fire Captain
The main intent of the proposal is to change positions by creating far more Fire Apparatus
the CalFire workweek from 72 hours to 66 hours. Engineer positions than would otherwise be
However, as we discuss further below, it goes well necessary. Specifically, the administration
beyond just hiring proportionately more personnel proposes two actions that together have the
to implement this change. Instead, the Governor effect of significantly increasing the number of
also proposes making various changes to CalFire’s Fire Apparatus Engineer positions relative to other
staffing and operational models—with significant firefighter classifications, both of which have
associated costs. Additionally, the proposal also notable cost implications:
has potential indirect impacts on both CalFire and
• Increases Share of Seats on Engines Filled
other partner agencies, such as local governments,
by More Experienced, Year-Round Fire
which are not fully understood at this time.
Apparatus Engineers. As shown in Figure 6
Administration’s Proposed Approach Driven on the next page, under the proposal,
by Goal of Addressing Imbalance in Ratio of CalFire would use Fire Apparatus Engineers
Positions and Increasing Staff Development to fill many of the posts that currently are
Pipeline. The administration argues that it filled by entry-level, seasonal Fire Fighter Is.
cannot reduce the workweek simply by adding For example, an engine that currently is
proportionately more firefighting staff. Instead, in staffed at any given time with a Fire Captain
addition to hiring additional firefighters overall, the and two Fire Fighter Is might instead be
administration also proposes to modify various staffed by a Fire Captain, Fire Apparatus
other aspects of CalFire’s staffing model to address Engineer, and Fire Fighter I.
a current problem with its staff development
• Increases Number of Positions Hired to
pipeline. Specifically, the proposal makes two
Cover Each Fire Apparatus Engineer Seat
key changes—discussed below—with the
on an Engine. In addition to changing the
primary intention of increasing both the number
staffing mix on an engine during a particular
and proportion of Fire Apparatus Engineers the
shift, the proposal also would change the
department employs. The administration’s primary
number of Fire Apparatus Engineers CalFire
rationale for these changes is a concern that it
hires to cover an engine across multiple shifts.
www.lao.ca.gov 11
2024-25 BUDGET
(As discussed earlier, the
number of positions hired
to cover a particular post
Figure 6 across multiple shifts is
referred to as a staffing
Proposal Would Change Mix of Personnel and
factor.) This proposed
Increase Number of Personnel Covering Each Seat on Engine
change also is illustrated
in Figure 6. Specifically,
Personnel Covering Each Shift under the proposal,
Current Personnel Covering an Engine Proposed Personnel Covering an Engine four people would be
employed to cover each
Fire Apparatus Engineer
post rather than 3.11,
as is the current policy.
(As displayed, the
Seat 1 FC or FAE SSeeaatt 22 FFFFII SSeeaatt 11 FFCC SSeeaatt 22 FFAAEE proposal also would
increase the current
staffing factor for Fire
Fighter I positions from
2.33 to 3.11.)
Seat 3 FFI SSeeaatt 33 FFI
Fire Fighter I
The net result of these
changes is that the proposal
not only increases overall
CalFire staffing levels by
roughly 20 percent but also
makes very significant changes
Personnel Staffing Each Engine Across Multiple Shifts
to the mix of personnel
Personnel Covering an Engine Personnel Covering an Engine employed by the department.
Under Current Staffing Factors Under Proposed Staffing Factors
Notably, the proposal would
roughly double the number
of Fire Apparatus Engineers
employed by the department,
while decreasing the number
of Fire Fighter I positions. This,
Seat 1 SSeeaatt 22 FFFFII (2.33) SSeeaatt 11 FFCC (3.11) SSeeaatt 22 FFAAEE (4)
FC or FAE (3.11) in turn, has very large fiscal
implications because Fire
Apparatus Engineers are much
more costly for the department
SSeeaatt 33 FFFFII (2.33) SSeeaatt 33 FFI (3.11) compared to Fire Fighter Is,
Fire Fighter I
both because their pay and
benefits are more substantial
and because they work more
months per year.
Approach Has Various
FC = Fire Captain; FAE = Fire Apparatus Engineer; FFI = Fire Fighter I. Cascading Impacts on
CalFire’s Operational Model.
The addition of over 2,000
new firefighters combined
with the shift towards a much
12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2024-25 BUDGET
higher share of firefighters being more experienced platoon model (subject to further bargaining
year-round staff would have notable operational with Unit 8). Under this approach, firefighters
implications for CalFire, including the following: would rotate on and off duty together as a
group rather than individually. For example,
• Would Increase the Number of Fire Engines
an engine might be staffed by a team made
Staffed Year-Round. The expanded ranks
up of a Fire Captain, Fire Apparatus Engineer,
and higher share of permanent (rather than
and Fire Fighter I on Monday, Tuesday, and
seasonal) firefighters would allow CalFire
Wednesday; a separate trio of individuals
to modify when it staffs its fire engines.
on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday; and a
Specifically, instead of its current model of
third group on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
three staffing periods—base, transitional, and
Notably, under this model, some days would
peak, as discussed earlier—CalFire would
have overlapping groups of two teams working
move to two staffing periods—base and
on the same day.
peak—as shown in Figure 7. Also, the peak
staffing period would be extended to nine Proposed Changes Could Have Indirect
months rather than five months. Furthermore, Impacts on Other Agencies. In addition to the
the number of fire engines that would be direct impacts on CalFire operations, the workweek
staffed during the base period would more change could potentially have indirect impacts on
than double—153 versus 65. CalFire and other partner agencies, many of which
• Would Adopt a Platoon Staffing Model. may not be fully understood yet. For example,
In addition to moving the department towards currently, many local agencies have contracts
greater year-round staffing of engines, the with CalFire to provide local fire protection and
additional permanent personnel would allow emergency services. If the proposal is approved,
CalFire to adjust its staffing rotation to a we expect these agreements ultimately may need to
be modified to reflect that
(1) more personnel will be
Figure 7 needed to fill each seat on
a fire engine because of
Proposal Would Increase Number of
the higher staffing factors
Fire Engines Staffed Year-Round
and (2) each fire engine
Typical Number of Engines Staffedª will be staffed with a mix
of relatively more costly
400 personnel than is currently
Current the case. These changes
350
Proposed could result in higher
300 costs for these local
agencies and potentially
250
make it less advantageous
200 for some of them to
contract with CalFire
150
for services.
100
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
a Timing of the ramp up and ramp down in staffed engines can vary somewhat from year to year.
www.lao.ca.gov 13
2024-25 BUDGET
Legislature Could for addressing these issues are not particularly
Explore Other Options clear. Additionally, the proposal would not affect
many of the underlying challenges associated
As we discussed previously, addressing the
with being a firefighter. Specifically, under this
welfare of firefighters is a worthwhile goal. However,
proposal, firefighters still would have to deal with
particularly given the state’s fiscal condition, the
the various inherent strains of the job, including
Legislature could consider other ways to address
doing physically and emotionally strenuous work.
this underlying concern as an alternative to
Moreover, even with a shorter workweek firefighters
changing the workweek. Furthermore, even if the
still would be expected to work regular 72-hour
Legislature wants to proceed with implementing a
shifts and still would have to be available to serve
66-hour workweek, it could consider modifying the
potentially much longer periods during severe
approach proposed by the administration.
wildfire events.
Degree to Which Proposal Will Address
Most Cost-Effective Way to Address These
Concerns About Firefighter Wellness Is Unclear.
Firefighter Wellness Concerns Is Unclear. Given
At a high level, the administration’s proposal to
the lack of clarity around the strains affecting
reduce the workweek would result in the state
firefighters and the best ways to address them,
hiring many more firefighters and each firefighter
the Legislature could consider alternatives
working the equivalent of one fewer 24-hour shift
besides changing the workweek. For example,
per 28-day pay period. This has the potential
the Legislature could expand the existing health
to improve conditions for firefighters since they
and wellness programs at CalFire to ensure
will receive some extra time off relative to their
that firefighters have access to robust support
current schedules. Also, because the proposal
for mental and physical health concerns. Other
would result in higher overall staffing levels at
changes the Legislature could explore include
CalFire, it could increase firefighting capacity and
implementing policies that prohibit firefighters
thus somewhat reduce the amount of overtime
from working more than a certain number of days
any individual firefighter might be asked to work.
in a row (potentially paired with expansions in
However, the extent to which the change would
the use of mutual aid with partner agencies to
improve firefighters’ overall health and wellness is
offset potential losses in fire response capacity)
uncertain. This is in part because—as discussed
or decrease the number of hours worked in the
in the nearby box—the nature of the health and
offseason (such as through reducing or eliminating
wellness challenges facing firefighters is not fully
planned offseason overtime, as was done prior to
understood, and thus the most effective strategies
Lack of Clarity Regarding Nature of Problem With Firefighter Welfare
A general recognition exists that the health and wellness of firefighters is a concern—
particularly in light of recent severe and destructive wildfire seasons. However, the scope of
the issues facing the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (CalFire’s) firefighters
still is unclear, as data on key metrics such as the incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder,
other mental health issues, and suicides are limited. Additionally, despite the increasing concerns
about the health and wellness of firefighters, CalFire reports that its employee retention rates
have remained largely stable over time and firefighting positions appear to continue to be
very attractive to new employees. To date, CalFire has not provided evidence that it has faced
challenges attracting firefighters to work at the department. For example, CalFire reports that it
currently has three times more applicants for entry-level Fire Fighter Is than available positions,
suggesting that health and wellness concerns are not dissuading people from pursuing
this profession.
14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2024-25 BUDGET
a change that occurred in 2006-07). Additionally, hours were covered entirely through
the Legislature could consider using some of the scheduled overtime, this would essentially
funding that would be required to implement the result in firefighters working a similar amount
66-hour workweek change to instead support as they currently do, but shifting some of
efforts to improve conditions in the state’s forests. those hours to be classified as overtime.
Such investments potentially could provide Such an approach likely would have the
long-term benefits to firefighters—as well as to the effect of increasing the net compensation for
environment and surrounding communities—by firefighters—and therefore state costs—but
reducing the likelihood of the severe wildfires that we expect that the overall costs would be
create the most significant strains on firefighters. less than the Governor’s workweek proposal.
Each of these actions would involve trade-offs, but A major drawback to this approach is that
they remain available options for the Legislature to even though it might increase firefighter
explore if desired. compensation, it would not reduce their total
Other Ways to Implement a 66-Hour work hours to the same degree, and thus
Workweek. The administration indicates that it might not provide the desired health and
does not believe any other viable approaches to wellness benefits.
reducing the workweek exist apart from the one it • Addressing the Fire Captain Shortage
presents in its proposal. However, if the Legislature Through Other Approaches. The Legislature
wants to move forward with implementing a could consider adding firefighters to
66-hour workweek in accordance with the MOU, implement the 66-hour workweek but taking
we have identified a number of other approaches other, less expensive actions to address the
for doing so—although none is without trade-offs. Fire Captain imbalance. As noted above, many
For example, the Legislature could consider: of the administration’s proposed changes—
and associated costs—result from increasing
• Reducing Relief Staffing. The Legislature
the number of Fire Apparatus Engineers to
could consider reducing the workweek at least
encourage a bigger development pipeline
in part by dropping the engine staffing factor
for Fire Captains. The Legislature could
back to 2.33 (the level prior to the changes
instead adjust CalFire’s existing classification
approved in 2020-21 and 2022-23). Under
requirements, or create a new classification.
this approach, the additional personnel that
For example, the Legislature could look into
CalFire currently is in the process of hiring
creating a Lieutenant classification as a rank
to implement a 3.11 staffing factor could
between Fire Captain and Fire Apparatus
instead be used to provide coverage for a
Engineer, which could enable Fire Apparatus
reduction in the workweek. This could allow
Engineers to promote more quickly. This, in
the department to shorten the workweek
turn, would mean that fewer Fire Apparatus
without adding such significant new costs.
Engineer positions would be necessary to
A major drawback to this approach is that
create an adequate staff development pipeline
maintaining a lower staffing factor would deny
for higher-level positions. The Legislature
firefighters the benefit of additional capacity
also could direct CalFire to try to recruit
to cover time off for vacations, training, and
Fire Captains from other agencies. Even
other activities. It also could potentially result
if this required increasing the Fire Captain
in some additional overtime compared to
salary to make it more attractive, such an
current plans.
approach could potentially be less expensive
• Increasing Scheduled Overtime. The
than significantly expanding the number of
Legislature could consider using scheduled
Fire Apparatus Engineers beyond what is
overtime to meet at least some of the reduced
necessary to effectuate the workweek change.
workweek hours. If the reduced workweek
www.lao.ca.gov 15
2024-25 BUDGET
If the Legislature Approves Proposal, …And Wildfire Resilience Activities Currently
Important to Maximize the Benefits Not Well-Tracked. CalFire does not systematically
track the amount of time its crews spend on
Given the important goals—and very large
wildfire resilience work versus other pursuits, which
costs—of the Governor’s 66-hour workweek
makes verifying the extent to which firefighters
proposal, if the Legislature moves forward with
actually spend time on these activities difficult.
approving it, ensuring that the change provides
Moreover, while CalFire currently tracks and reports
as much value as possible to the state will be
the overall number of acres treated as a result of
important. Below, we discuss how the Legislature
activities undertaken by the department, it does
can facilitate this objective through requiring
not report a break out of how many acres were
additional tracking and reporting.
treated directly by CalFire personnel—either by
Proposal Has the Potential to Improve
firefighting crews or by dedicated fuel reduction
Wildfire Resilience, but Actual Benefits
crews—compared to those treated by partners
Will Depend Upon Implementation… The
that receive grants administered by CalFire.
administration’s proposed approach to decreasing
Absent such information, determining whether
the workweek to 66 hours would result in the state
changes in the number of acres treated are a
hiring over 2,000 additional permanent firefighters
result of additional activities being conducted
upon full implementation. These firefighters would
by firefighters—including personnel added as a
work on a year-round basis even during months
result of the 66-hour workweek proposal—or stem
when relatively few wildfires occur. In principle,
from other state investments (such as the funding
when not fighting fires, these personnel should be
provided in recent wildfire resilience packages)
available to perform other priority activities, such
will continue to be challenging. Should it fund the
as thinning forests and conducting prescribed
workweek change, the Legislature could use it as
burns to improve the resilience of the state’s
an opportunity to hold CalFire more accountable
forests. Importantly, however, the level of wildfire
for achieving demonstrable wildfire resilience
resilience benefits that ultimately are achieved will
co-benefits by requiring more detailed reporting
depend heavily on the extent to which the additional
on (1) how CalFire firefighters spend their time,
firefighters actually conduct this wildfire resilience
including the amount of time spent on wildfire
work in practice.
resilience activities, and (2) the number of acres
treated by CalFire firefighters.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Evaluate Whether Adopting New 66-Hour could be reopened if the Governor declares a
Workweek Is Affordable at This Time Given fiscal emergency. We therefore recommend the
Significant General Fund Shortfall. We Legislature decide whether or not to fund this
recommend the Legislature not treat the decision change in 2024-25 based on its evaluation of the
about whether to fund the implementation of a merits of the proposal, taking into account the
66-hour workweek as one that has already been information it now has on the costs of implementing
made. As noted, the MOU was structured to the change and the condition of the General Fund.
provide the state with the flexibility to weigh the Given the state budget deficit, we recommend
state’s fiscal condition when determining whether the Legislature reassess all its previous budget
or not implementation of this change should commitments—including those the Governor
proceed—including by explicitly making it subject proposes revising and those he would leave
to a legislative appropriation and by including intact—to determine whether they still are among
language that negotiations over the provision its highest priorities for available funding.
16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2024-25 BUDGET
Notably, given the recent deterioration in the Deferring providing funding now also could allow
condition of the General Fund, we expect that the forthcoming collective bargaining process to
difficult budget decisions may lie ahead for the consider changes—which is unlikely to occur if the
Legislature. Specifically, based on current revenue Legislature proceeds with appropriating the funding
projections, to bring the budget into balance over in 2024-25. The administration could come back
the next few years, the Legislature will have to adopt to the Legislature sometime after the next round of
some combination of ongoing program reductions MOU negotiations—such as in 2025-26 or a future
and tax increases totaling at least $30 billion. year—with a similar or revised implementation
Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature proposal as part of a future MOU. This revised
weigh whether the benefits of the 66-hour MOU could, for example, incorporate various details
workweek proposal are sufficient to prioritize that have yet to be bargained so it better reflects
funding it beginning in 2024-25, recognizing the totality of the change. The negotiations also
that doing so likely will come at the expense of could revisit other potential options for reducing
cutting other existing ongoing commitments more the workweek, such as using other approaches
deeply and/or raising taxes more significantly to improve the pipeline to high-level positions
than would otherwise be the case. instead of substantially increasing the share of
If Uncertain Whether General Fund Can Fire Apparatus Engineer positions. The Legislature
Support Proposal, Do Not Approve in 2024-25… could then consider whether to approve a revised
Several factors contribute to uncertainties around MOU and fund the change to a 66-hour workweek
whether the General Fund can sustain this proposal when the administration presents them to the
in the coming years, including its high costs, current Legislature again.
projections of budget-year and out-year deficits, and …And Consider Other Options for Addressing
lack of clarity regarding future economic conditions. Firefighter Wellness Concerns. If the Legislature
Moreover, as noted, the Legislature did not have were to defer action on the proposed workweek
comprehensive cost estimates or information on change, we recommend it explore supporting
the operational implications of the proposal when it other, less costly, steps to address concerns
approved the concept of the workweek reduction about firefighter health and wellness in the interim.
through ratifying the MOU. Should the Legislature For example, some changes the Legislature could
determine that these concerns require a more consider include (1) various options for expanding
cautious approach to adopting this substantial existing health and wellness programs at CalFire
operational change with myriad impacts at this time, to ensure that firefighters receive adequate
we recommend it consider deferring approval of professional support when they experience times
funding for the workweek reduction to a future year. of crisis, (2) policies to reduce the number of hours
(In practice, this would mean rejecting the proposal firefighters work in the offseason and/or the number
without prejudice in 2024-25.) This option would of hours firefighters work per shift during severe
provide the Legislature with the flexibility to sustain wildfires, and (3) additional support for projects
its long-term commitment to the goals of addressing to improve forest conditions and make the state’s
firefighter health and wellness, but also account for landscapes more resilient to the catastrophic
the state’s current fiscal realities. The Legislature fires that impose the most strain on firefighters.
could then reevaluate the concept of implementing The Legislature also could consider providing a
the 66-hour workweek change in the future when small amount of dedicated funding to support
the state’s budget condition improves. independent research to better understand the
Delaying implementation also could offer other scope of problems with health and wellness among
benefits, including providing additional time for the CalFire firefighters, such as the underlying causes
Legislature to consider potential modifications to and most promising approaches for cost-effective
the proposal (such as alternative ways to address solutions. Such research could help inform future
the Fire Captain pipeline challenges) and to gather decisions regarding whether reducing CalFire’s
information on the possible indirect implications workweek is the optimal approach to improving
(such as on contracts with local agencies). firefighter health and wellness.
www.lao.ca.gov 17
2024-25 BUDGET
If Legislature Wants to Proceed With important information to help the Legislature
Implementation This Year, Consider Adding assess how the newly approved personnel are
Reporting Language. If the Legislature determines being used and ensure that they are maximizing
that reducing CalFire’s workweek is among its the wildfire resilience co-benefits that can be
highest priorities for the General Fund this year, achieved. (While we think this information would be
we recommend it adopt provisional budget bill particularly important if the Legislature significantly
language requiring the administration to track the expands CalFire staffing, the Legislature may want
wildfire resilience co-benefits of the proposal— to consider requiring such a report regardless
including the time firefighters spend on wildfire of its action on this proposal, as it also could
resilience work and the amount of resilience help improve overall understanding of wildfire
work completed by CalFire’s firefighters—and to resilience co-benefits achieved by existing wildfire
report this information on an annual basis to the response staff.)
Legislature. Such an annual report would provide
CONCLUSION
The landscape has evolved markedly in a few Given this altered context, the Legislature faces
key ways since the Legislature approved the a key decision as to whether the General Fund
Unit 8 MOU and the change to CalFire’s workweek can sustain implementing the proposed change in
in September 2022. First, the condition of the CalFire’s workweek in the near term, recognizing
General Fund has deteriorated significantly in the that doing so could well come at the expense of
intervening months, making it much more likely making offsetting reductions to ongoing programs
that the state will need to adopt significant budget elsewhere in the budget and/or adopting tax
reductions and/or revenue increases. Second, increases. If the Legislature is not certain that
the magnitude of the costs and implications of the the General Fund can sustain the proposal right
66-hour workweek change have become much now, we recommend that it not move forward
clearer. We now know that when fully implemented, with funding the change as part of the 2024-25
the proposal would have very large state costs, budget. Deferring implementation would provide
eventually totaling over $750 million annually from the Legislature with greater flexibility in the future
the General Fund. Additionally, the administration’s to determine its preferred course of action in
proposed approach would have significant effects light of potentially evolving budget conditions,
on CalFire, resulting in a roughly 20 percent while still sustaining its long-term commitment
increase in the department’s budget and staffing to improving the health and wellness of the
levels and expanding its operations during months state’s firefighters. We also offer suggestions for
that are relatively low-risk for wildfires. These interim, less costly steps the Legislature could
changes would, in turn, have various direct and consider taking to support firefighters if it were to
indirect operational impacts on both CalFire and delay implementation of the workweek change.
other partner agencies. These impacts—some of If, however, the Legislature wants to prioritize
which are still not fully clear—were certainly not General Fund for implementing this change
apparent to the Legislature when it approved the beginning in 2024-25, we recommend it add
Unit 8 MOU. reporting language to help ensure that the proposal
maximizes the potential for associated wildfire
resilience-related co-benefits.
18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2024-25 BUDGET
www.lao.ca.gov 19
2024-25 BUDGET
LAO PUBLICATIONS
This report was prepared by Helen Kerstein with assistance from Nick Schroeder, and reviewed by Rachel Ehlers.
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.
20 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE