Response says
County partially disagrees within County operations, citing an approved FY 2026–2027 addition of 44 positions and increased budget, plus plans for 39 more positions and related budget increases over FYs 2027–2028 and 2028–2029.
What should residents consider about Finding F5.3: F5.3: The City EMD’s and County OEM’s budgets and staffing are inadequate, limiting their ability to carry out their missions effectively., and the County’s response?
Audit context
Response says
County partially disagrees within County operations, citing an approved FY 2026–2027 addition of 44 positions and increased budget, plus plans for 39 more positions and related budget increases over FYs 2027–2028 and 2028–2029.
Audit analysis
County scope and staffing/budget basis make the disputed adequacy claim and rationale discernible. Fiscal-year-specific approved and planned resource changes explain the response, without independently proving mission effectiveness. Report physical PDF page(s) 231; County response physical PDF page(s) 45. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
4/4
Statutory elements
6/6
Public usefulness
County scope and staffing/budget basis make the disputed adequacy claim and rationale discernible. Fiscal-year-specific approved and planned resource changes explain the response, without independently proving mission effectiveness.
Scoring confidence: high
Source pages
Public participation
Use Pol.is to discuss both the Grand Jury finding and the County’s response, see where participants agree, and add a perspective for others to consider. Participant statements do not alter this audit or verify factual claims made by any participant or source document.