Emergency preparedness responses — Sheriff, Board and Ferndale

Response says

Agrees.

Audit analysis

Explicitly agrees. Agreement states a statutory position without requiring a disagreement explanation. No independent factual support or implementation evidence accompanies this answer.

Response says

Agrees.

Audit analysis

Explicitly agrees. Agreement states a statutory position without requiring a disagreement explanation. No independent factual support or implementation evidence accompanies this answer.

Response says

Agrees.

Audit analysis

Explicitly agrees. Agreement states a statutory position without requiring a disagreement explanation. No independent factual support or implementation evidence accompanies this answer.

Response says

Agrees.

Audit analysis

Explicitly agrees. Agreement states a statutory position without requiring a disagreement explanation. No independent factual support or implementation evidence accompanies this answer.

Response says

Disagrees that ICS instruction is limited to academy training.

Audit analysis

Pages 3–4 identify annual review of numbered policies, FEMA courses IS-100/200/700 and CMCI instruction. This explains disagreement about academy-only training, but does not independently establish refresher effectiveness or conditions across every local agency.

Response says

Agrees.

Audit analysis

Explicitly agrees. Agreement states a statutory position without requiring a disagreement explanation. No independent factual support or implementation evidence accompanies this answer.

Response says

Partly agrees; identifies practical field exercises as well as coordination training.

Audit analysis

Pages 4–5 acknowledge the importance of realistic training while citing CMCI activity and tsunami evacuation exercises as examples of hands-on response. The disputed training characterization is identifiable; the examples are not a comprehensive evaluation of officer readiness.

Response says

Agrees.

Audit analysis

Explicitly agrees. Agreement states a statutory position without requiring a disagreement explanation. No independent factual support or implementation evidence accompanies this answer.

Response says

Will add law-enforcement-relevant meeting items and outreach by December 31, 2026.

Audit analysis

The Sheriff promises standing items, a Chiefs Association presentation and agency email outreach. These are future participation measures, not proof all agencies subsequently attended.

Response says

Requires cost and delivery analysis before a separate training budget line.

Audit analysis

Pages 5–6 identify overtime, instructors, equipment, facilities and coverage costs to evaluate. No date for completing that analysis or reaching a decision is stated; the cited budget year is not an explicit analysis deadline.

Response says

Will incorporate ICS field-response training into the regular schedule by July 1, 2028.

Audit analysis

The answer is printed as R5 but quotes jury R6, matches the cover’s R6 listing and explicitly adopts July 1, 2028. It describes scheduling in FY 2027–2028, not completed delivery.

Response says

Partly agrees; ongoing ICS instruction and policy review occur.

Audit analysis

Pages 2–3 agree on the importance of recurring instruction but dispute academy-only preparation, identifying numbered policies, FEMA courses and CMCI practices. The distinction is explicit; no independent training-completion or effectiveness records are supplied.

Response says

Partly agrees; capacity limits coexist with recurring airport exercises and tsunami drills.

Audit analysis

Pages 3–4 acknowledge Sheriff staffing and budget limits while identifying mandated ACV tabletop, annual fire/rescue and three-year full-scale exercises, plus tsunami evacuations. This explains the disputed scope; it does not establish consistent training for every officer.

Response says

Partly agrees; some exercises include practical response activities.

Audit analysis

The Board accepts the importance of realistic instruction and distinguishes planning-only work from hands-on components in the F6 exercises. This identifies its disputed portion without independently verifying training adequacy.

Response says

Will not implement a separate training budget line as requested.

Audit analysis

Pages 4–5 cite a $12 million structural General Fund deficit, mandated-service review and the need for Sheriff cost research and budget prioritization. Encouraged interdepartmental collaboration and the Sheriff’s separate schedule promise do not amount to Board approval of a dedicated appropriation.

Response says

Agrees.

Audit analysis

Explicitly agrees. Agreement states a statutory position without requiring a disagreement explanation. No independent factual support or implementation evidence accompanies this answer.

Response says

Partly agrees about attendance constraints; disputes absence of meaningful coordination.

Audit analysis

The City identifies the accepted time/priorities limitation and disputes a broader implication about coordination, citing monthly Chiefs meetings and after-action discussion. These mechanisms do not prove regular OES meeting attendance.

Response says

Partly disagrees; describes a local mechanism for sharing emergency priorities.

Audit analysis

The City accepts the need for law-enforcement input but disputes lack of a communication mechanism, describing monthly local disaster-preparedness meetings, Police Chief participation and OES guests. This does not independently establish all county-plan input was received.

Response says

Agrees.

Audit analysis

Explicitly agrees. Agreement states a statutory position without requiring a disagreement explanation. No independent factual support or implementation evidence accompanies this answer.

Response says

Agrees.

Audit analysis

Explicitly agrees. Agreement states a statutory position without requiring a disagreement explanation. No independent factual support or implementation evidence accompanies this answer.

Response says

Agrees.

Audit analysis

Explicitly agrees. Agreement states a statutory position without requiring a disagreement explanation. No independent factual support or implementation evidence accompanies this answer.

Response says

Agrees.

Audit analysis

Explicitly agrees. Agreement states a statutory position without requiring a disagreement explanation. No independent factual support or implementation evidence accompanies this answer.

Response says

Agrees.

Audit analysis

Explicitly agrees. Agreement states a statutory position without requiring a disagreement explanation. No independent factual support or implementation evidence accompanies this answer.

Response says

Agrees.

Audit analysis

Explicitly agrees. Agreement states a statutory position without requiring a disagreement explanation. No independent factual support or implementation evidence accompanies this answer.

Response says

Will designate a Police Department representative for OES meetings by December 31, 2026.

Audit analysis

The City distinguishes current Chiefs meetings from the future direction to attend regular OES meetings and contribute to county plans.

Response says

Will review and, if needed, supplement disaster-response documentation by March 31, 2027.

Audit analysis

The response cites the May 2024 Safety Element and 2022 handbook, but commits to a new completeness review and necessary updates rather than declaring that work finished.

Response says

Will add a separate scenario-based ICS training line during FY 2027–2028 budget preparation.

Audit analysis

Pages 2–3 describe existing general training funding and turnover constraints, then promise the requested specific line. No calendar deadline for budget adoption is supplied.

Response says

States “Implemented,” without an implementation summary.

Audit analysis

The bare answer gives a disposition but no description of schedule changes, delivery or when implementation occurred. Its status is an agency claim, not verification.

Response says

Will separately identify equipment, maintenance and operator training/certification appropriations.

Audit analysis

The City distinguishes its existing equipment line from future separately identifiable appropriations during FY 2027–2028 budget preparation. It allows equivalent identifiable appropriations rather than promising each will use an individual line.