Loading...
2011-65-Minutes for Meeting February 09,2011 Recorded 2/28/2011DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ ~011~~~ NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK 1nl COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1111111 III 02/28/2011 08:12:31 AM III~IIIIIIIIIIIiII 2011-86 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page F Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2011 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Tony DeBone. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Ken Hales, Corrections; Marybeth Jaeger, Courts; Nick Lelack, George Read, Peter Gutowsky and Terri Payne, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; citizen Andy High and media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m. 1. Review of Specialty Courts. Chair Baney said that the Specialty Courts are integral to other work being done. She would like to know what it means if the Courts are no longer able to function at the same level. Ken Hales gave an overview of what the different Courts do and how they are financed. He said that he believes that Family Court, which was thought to be secure, may not be totally. And the idea of a satellite Juvenile Court was not in the report since it is not officially a Specialty Court. Ms. Jaeger said that there is not really an FTE taking care of these cases because they are bundled together to go before one Judge. Mr. Hales feels that staff that handles Parole and Probation will end up with some lower caseload going unsupervised. Dave Kanner stated that the Governor has talked about taking away some funding from Family Drug Court. Mr. Hales said the grant comes from the Community Justice Commission, and the recipient is the region. A coordinator and the purchase of services are included, such as drug and alcohol services. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 9, 2011 Page 1 of 6 Pages Commissioner DeBone asked if this increases capacity at the Courts. Mr. Hales replied that diversion courts are helpful because some cases that would have otherwise been deferred or delayed can be handled on a timelier basis. Sometimes there are grants available specifically for these Courts, and the County uses some community investment funds for these as well. Commissioner Unger said there is an unknown but significant value to the community, by helping families stay together and dealing with problems before they get worse. Commissioner DeBone asked if a Veterans' Court would be included. Mr. Hales said there have been some meetings on this, but the talk is that it would be funded through the State. 2. Comprehensive Plan Review. Terri Payne gave an overview of the ideas and goals behind the Comprehensive Plan. Nineteen statewide planning goals were developed, but only the first fourteen apply to this region. Various sections were referenced in the greater planning document. Each area was to develop a comprehensive plan using the goals as a guide. LCDC have to acknowledge that the plan meets the intent of the goals. Over the years, this has gotten very complex, including adding statutes and rules. They want agencies to think of the big picture affecting their areas on a long- term basis (twenty years) and to obtain public input. Some policies are almost like a work plan, highlighting areas that may need attention. Generally, a map is included to match the text, but is not generally site-specific. Nick Lelack said the comprehensive plan is the blueprint for what follows. Zoning has to be consistent with the plan, and decisions are made on that basis. Laurie Craghead stated that the comprehensive plan is somewhat like a vision statement. There may be some site-specific issues listed in the comprehensive plan, but for the most part, it is generalized. Chair Baney pointed out that the County can be more, but not less, restrictive than the comprehensive plan. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 9, 2011 Page 2 of 6 Pages Ms. Payne said the plan was adopted in 1979 through statewide planning efforts. Period review is required afterwards, originally every five years, to make sure local rules are consistent with the plan. The County initially did not get back to review for almost nine years. She added there were a lot of panel discussions, hearings and other conversations so that the ideas and comments of the public and other agencies could be gathered. The first draft was completed in the fall of 2009. The department then went back to the public. The Planning Commission was not satisfied with what resulted and asked for more time regarding specific policies and goals. Mr. Lelack stated there were many public discussions, but the Planning Commission asked that public input not be taken at their meetings for a while so they could concentrate on working with staff. There are times when the Board decides to take some things out of Code, and adjustments need to be made. Commissioner Unger said there is so much public land that influences what is done with the other lands, so they need to work with the other entities. Mr. Lelack said partnering with other entities has been helpful. They recognize local wildfire plans and the National Forest and BLM are able to work on their land closer to private land. Commissioner Unger appreciated how some of the outlying communities developed over time. Some offered services, but were not incorporated. The La Pine area is now incorporated so the background concentrates on other unincorporated areas and rural service centers. Background research could be done, for instance, on communities like Deschutes River Woods. Peter Gutowsky said that information on the cities is under the urbanization section. This includes population forecasts, the urban growth boundaries and the amendments that have been done. The maps have to show the urban growth boundaries. Terri Payne said that many people do not get involved in land use issues until there is a site-specific application. However, at that point a decision may not be discretionary if the application meets the set requirements. The hope is to get more people involved in setting the basic policies before something becomes site-specific after the policies are in place. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 9, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Pages Citizen involvement is challenging because most people do not care unless they feel an issue might impact them directly. A lot of effort has been put into getting more people involved at the basic level. Commissioner Unger asked how the areas represented by the Planning Commission are defined. Ms. Payne said that geographic distribution is followed, although this is not required. There are diverse areas and needs and the hope is to include them all. It is found in Code under 2.52. There is a comprehensive plan map and a zoning map, and they do not exactly match due to goal exceptions. There is currently no real description of the designations on the map, so that will be included. The County does have parklands and some policies need to be developed in this regard. Ms. Craghead stated that the County is required to retain those parklands. Section 1.3 addresses the different sides of the issue - primarily private property rights and economic development. It is hard to balance these issues to everyone's satisfaction. The thought is to try to review the plan every five years. At this point, the section relating to urbanization and urban growth management was discussed. The UGB is outside the city limits but it is expected it will be within the city limits within twenty years and needs to be planned accordingly. The only city with urban reserve is Redmond. Rural reserves are a consideration, but it is uncertain if it makes sense for this area. It basically creates a greenbelt around cities. This is a fifty-year designation and could involve either public or private lands. Ms. Craghead said that federal and state entities are supposed to abide by the rules, but do not have to by law. Mr. Gutowsky stated that in some areas this is used to protect perhaps the best farmland in an area. It may also make sense if two cities are growing into each other, keeping them more defined. Unincorporated communities are another aspect. Some people have wondered why there are special rules for these areas. These were set by the State. The communities have been asked for input, and most are satisfied with the way it is now. Some items have been deleted because they no longer apply. Others were added and some are controversial, such as the Sunriver sewer expansion project proposal. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 9, 2011 Page 4 of 6 Pages 3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. Mr. Kanner said that Senator Chris Telfer would like to meet with the Board to discuss the legislative redistricting issue. He is going to try to find dates that work for her and the Commissioners, and perhaps it can be handled via video conferencing since it is hard to catch the Senator in town. Commissioner DeBone said he is touring the District Attorney's Office tomorrow morning. Chair Baney may accompany him. Commissioner Unger has an all-day retreat to attend for the Deschutes River Conservancy. Chair Baney will be attending a meeting regarding the Commission on Children & Families and its restructuring at the State level. AOC has asked for a group to evaluate this situation. Chair Baney and Commissioner Unger will be on Salem on Monday, and Chair Baney is speaking at a meeting regarding immigration issues on Tuesday. Commissioner DeBone will be in Sisters at a Chamber event, and has enrolled in the Sheriff's Academy program. Discussion occurred regarding setting three evening hearing dates for March to address the comprehensive plan update. March 15, 17, 29, and 31 are possibilities. 4. Other Items. None were offered. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3: 50 p. m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 9, 2011 Page 5 of 6 Pages d DATED this Day 2011 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tammy Baney, Chair Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Cua', Lt/VL- la` c Recording Secretary Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 6 of 6 Pages Wednesday, February 9, 2011 cp~ L LL co N ' .a Q co E a~ c 0 s a N~ ~ U N N L 4 C V C Gl a < ` N CLC C co . ` ~S N Y ca z l o C a Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2011 1. Review of Specialty Courts - Ken Hales, Ernie Mazorol 2. Comprehensive Plan Review - Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Terri Payne 3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 4. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for M. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. ,TES I Department of Administrative Services Y O RrA%AA A Dave Kanner, County Administrator 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 www.co.deschutes.or.us February 1, 2011 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Dave Kanner RE: Specialty Courts During the budget process last spring, the Board requested a report from staff on the sustainability of the specialty court programs offered by the Circuit Court here in Deschutes County. Those courts are: Family Court; Mental Health Court; Family Drug Court; and Domestic Violence Diversion (DVD) Court. Attached is a memo from Community Justice Director Ken Hales that describes each of these courts and their funding sources. Of the four courts, only Mental Health Court and DVD Court receive direct support from the County, primarily in the form of staff resources. Joining Ken at the February 9 work session will be Trial Court Administrator Ernie Mazarol. Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner 1G~VTES CO`Z~ O < Deschutes County Department of Community Justice J. Kenneth Hales, Director MEMORANDUM To: ve Kanner From: Kenneth Hales Date: anuary 17, 2011 Re: Specialty Courts As requested I have prepared a report on the specialty courts operated by the Deschutes County courts. Please see the attached. The report describes each court, their purpose, target population and financing. I am unable to provide recommendations to improve efficiency or effectiveness. I am able to provide descriptive information on how each court contributes to or impacts costs to system stakeholders. I am also able to provide an educated guess of the likelihood of each court's continued operation for the near future. Pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners interest in the ability of the 11th Judicial District courts to maintain essential services, a recommendation is provided. I must make clear that as it is currently structured; the adult parole & probation division cannot finance its currently approved FTE for felony offender supervision. Any service expansion would need to be resourced. I am available to discuss this further at your convenience. ,CEDWE JAS! 182011 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADMINISTRATION 633360 Britta Street, Building 2, Bend, OR 97701 Adult Parole & Probation 541.385.3246; Juvenile Community Justice 541.388.6671 11th Judicial District Specialty Courts Report January 13, 2011 J. Kenneth Hales, Director Deschutes County Community Justice The 11th Judicial District (District) operates four "treatment courts". The treatment court supervisor is Christie Combs. Ms. Combs is an employee of the District. The four treatment courts are the Family Court, Mental Health Court, Family Drug Court, and the Domestic Violence Diversion Court. Most commonly the term "specialty court" refers to Family Drug, Mental Health, and Domestic Violence Diversion Courts and not Family Court for reasons noted below. Family Court Family Court has been in operation since 1995. The Family Court Coordinator is Brie Arnette. Ms. Arnette is a District employee. Currently 1.3 District FTE are dedicated to the Family Court. Family Court is unlike all other treatment courts because it does not have a specific judge. All judges do Family Court. There is no specific budget for Family Court. It is financed from the District's regular operating budget. The primary objective of the Family Court is to coordinate multiple cases among family members, creating a one-family, one-judge environment. This allows judges to review family issues in a comprehensive manner, consolidate hearings when appropriate, and issue non-conflicting orders. Secondly, the Family Court Coordinator utilizes mediation, negotiation, and conflict management to resolve issues outside of court thereby reducing frequency and duration of court hearings. Participating Family Court families must have an open dependency case, an open criminal case, and another open court case such as domestic relations. Families challenged by substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, or sex abuse are priority. At any given time there may be approximately 95 families with active Family Court cases and the coordinator will be working with 15 to 20 families. Approximately 150 families are served each year. The key partners are the Oregon Department of Human Services, Deschutes County Health Department, Deschutes County Community Justice Adult Parole & Probation Division, CASA, and the local school district. This Family Court model is research based and has received outside review from the Center for Policy Research. Mental Health Court Mental Health Court has operated since 2002. The Honorable Stephen N. Tiktin presides over the Mental Health Court. Amber Clegg is the coordinator. Ms. Clegg is an employee of the Deschutes County Health Department. An annual budget of approximately $182,000 finances 2.75 health department employees; the court coordinator, a case manager, and a therapist and provides approximately $36,000 for materials and services. Of the $182,000, 54% comes from a Federal grant, 37% is financed from the Deschutes County Crime Prevention Fund and the remainder is financed from Health Department reserve funds. The Deschutes County's Mental Health Court program is a voluntary program with the goal of increasing access to and engagement in treatment for persons charged with or convicted of a crime who suffer from an eligible serious mental illness. Court participants are provided access to services which support the well-being of the participant, thereby reducing the likelihood that they will commit a new crime. Mental Health Court is held twice a month. The average number of active participants is 21. The program may serve approximately 60 persons each year. Key partners are the District Attorney, Circuit Court, Public Defender's Office, Deschutes County Community Justice Department Adult Parole & Probation Division, law enforcement, and the jail. In June of 2009 the Bureau of Justice Assistance sent evaluators to Deschutes County for a site and program review. Family Drug Court Family Drug Court has been in operation since 2006. The Honorable Alta J. Brady presides over this court. District employee Colleen Kruse is the program coordinator. A $252,349 grant from the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission finances the coordinator position, provides $42,126 toward Deschutes County Mental Health Department employee costs, and provides approximately $143,000 for other purchased services. The purpose of the court is to help parents become sober and responsible caregivers, create environments where children are healthy and safe from abuse and prevent the removal or promote the return of the child to the family. Participants are parents who are involved with child welfare, the criminal justice system or both who have a significant current substance abuse problem and who either have had their children removed or are at risk of having the children removed from their care as a result of their substance abuse. The court averages 23 participants and will serve 43 participants each year. Court is held weekly for approximately one hour. This court receives grant oversight from the Oregon Criminal Justice Council and has received outside technical assistance. Key partners are local alcohol and drug treatment providers, the Deschutes County Health Department, Deschutes County Community Justice Department Adult Parole & Probation Division, the Oregon Department of Human Services, the District Attorney's Office, indigent defense attorneys, CASA, and Healthy Families of the High Desert. Domestic Violence Diversion Court Domestic Violence Diversion Court has been operating since 2007. The Honorable Michael C. Sullivan presides over this court. District program analyst Sharrie Owens directs 40% of her time to coordinate this court and monitors the 35 to 45 court participants not supervised by the Deschutes County Community Justice Department Adult Parole & Probation Division, which has one parole and probation officer to supervise approximately 80 court participants. The District receives no dedicated funding to support this court. Deschutes County Community Justice Department Adult Parole & Probation Division receives $50,000 from the County's Crime Prevention Fund to help finance the parole and probation officer assigned to supervise the Domestic Violence Diversion Court cases. Court participants are offenders arrested for a misdemeanor or a Class C felony domestic violence offense which did not involve a weapon or a victim under 14, have no previous history of person-to-person offenses, and are not under a restraining order, release agreement, or stalking order at time of the offense. Court is held twice a month for 2 to 2-1/2 hours. The Domestic Violence Coordinating Council has a Domestic Violence Diversion Supervision Program subcommittee which reviews program operations. This court and the supervision of the participating offenders dramatically increased the number of offenders entering pleas to domestic violence crimes, therefore avoiding cost and time demanded of the court, the District Attorney's Office, law enforcement agencies, and other system stakeholders. Domestic violence crimes are the second highest number of crimes in Deschutes County. Without this court many offenders would escape prosecution and the prosecution of others would demand additional expense and time of system partners. The quick resolution of these cases through the Domestic Violence Diversion Court has eliminated the year-and-a-half long backlog of domestic violence offenders awaiting prosecution or resolution. Analysis As noted above Family Court is unique from the other treatment courts because it is a method of handling cases rather than a specific judge holding court at a specific time. The activities of Family Court are now routine to and highly integrated into the District's regular business practices and budget. In the opinion of this writer Family Court will continue and the impact of future budget reductions on Family Court would be much the same as the impact of budget cuts on overall District operations. For example, if the court closed its doors certain days this would impact Family Court but the impact is not specific to Family Court. The Mental Health Court has specific funding to finance staff and purchase services. The budget reductions faced by the Oregon Judicial Department and the 11th Judicial District do not directly impact the operations of and financing for the Mental Health Court because it is financed from a different source and the expense of that court is borne primarily by the Deschutes County Health Department. A $252,349 grant from the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission finances the personnel and services devoted to Family Drug Court. In the opinion of this writer if grant funding is maintained the court can continue. If funding is marginally reduced the court could continue as a criminal drug court which is less expensive than a family drug court. The specialty court in the greatest jeopardy is the Domestic Violence Diversion Court. The District receives no financing for Domestic Violence Diversion Court. This court could not exist if the parole and probation division did assign a parole and probation officer to provide the supervision. Previously two PPOs supervised these cases. The one remaining PPO is partially financed by a $50,000 Crime Prevention Fund grant. As with the other courts the financial impact excludes the judge's time and clerical support, therefore the primary expense to the District is the 0.4 FTE the court allocates to monitor the Domestic Violence Diversion Court participants not eligible for Deschutes County Parole & Probation Division supervision. Because of the District's budget cuts and its shrinking ability to support various court operations it is almost a certainty that District will discontinue monitoring the court participants not supervised by the Deschutes County Parole & Probation Division by prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year. Recommendation in the opinion of this this writer the best opportunity for the Board of County Commissioners to assist the District to maintain essential services is not to provide direct financial aid, but to provide, to a limited degree, specified basic court services that benefit court operations. The Board of County Commissioners would assist the District and enhance public safety by having the Adult Parole & Probation Division of the Deschutes County Community Justice Department assume responsibility for monitoring all Domestic Violence Diversion Court participants. Monitoring these additional offenders will allow the Domestic Violence Diversion Court to maintain its current level of service. Monitoring these additional offenders is not an expansion of the department's mission or core functions, rather it places the supervision of these offenders in the agency most expert in that function. This would free up scarce District resources that could be redirected to meet essential District needs. Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 February 9 Work Session Topics Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Overview • Comp Plans in Oregon • Process to date n/a • Comp Plan Structure Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning Section 1.1 Introduction No goals or policies, just background Section 1.2 Community Involvement No major issues Goals and policies on the land use process, regional coordination and county-owned lands Section 1.3 Land Use Policy 1.3.12 staff recommendation only because the Planning Commission did not discuss this Policy 1.3.13(d) staff recommendation only Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management Section 4.1 Introduction No goals or policies, just background Section 4.2 Urbanization Goals and policies for coordination with cities Policy 4.2.3 rural reserves Section 4.3 Unincorporated No goals or policies, just background Communities Mostly retained from current Plan Section 4.4 Sunriver Policies 4.4.4, 4.4.18, 4.4.34 amended New Policy 4.4.30 Section 4.5 Terrebonne Adopted separately Section 4.6 Tumalo Adopted separately Section 4.7 Resort Communities Mostly retained from current Plan (Black Butte Ranch, Inn of the 7th Policy 4.7.17 amended Mountain/Widgi Creek) Policy 4.7.24 new Section 4.8 Rural Service Centers (Alfalfa, Brothers, Hampton, All retained from current Plan - Millican, Whistlestop, Wildhunt) -1- Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 February 16 Work Session Topic Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Section 3.1 Introduction No goals or policies, just background Section 3.2 Rural Development No goals or policies, just background Policy 3.3.3 was discussed for how much detail to Section 3.3 Housing include Policy 3.3.4 regarding accessory dwellings No major issues for the rural economy Section 3.4 Rural Economy Mostly retains policies from the current Plan for site- specific Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial properties Section 3.5 Natural Hazards No major issues Section 3.6 Public Facilities and Policy 3.6.12(a) is staff recommendation Services Section 3.7 Transportation Separate process, not part of this update Section 3.8 Rural Recreation No major issues Section 3.9 Destination Resorts Incorporates and reformats Ordinance 2010-024 New Policies 3.9.4, 3.4.5, 3.9. 11 Retains from current Plan the chapter on Regional Problem Solving for south Deschutes County Adds a goal and policy supporting area specific Section 3.10 Area Specific Plans and planning Policies Adds policies for south Deschutes County and the Oregon Military Site If policies are adopted for Deschutes Junction they will be incorporated in this section -2- Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 February 23 Work Session Topic Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.1 Introduction No goals or policies, just background Adds policies to retain current farm designations but Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands to reevaluate farm land Adds policies to support farming and other uses compatible with farming Section 2.3 Forest Lands No major issues Section 2.4 Goal 5 Resource Policy 2.4.1 refers to reviewing all Goal 5 inventories Overview and programs Long section, considerable discussion on County's Section 2.5 Water Resources role -there was consensus on the final goals and policies Long section, considerable discussion Policy 2.6.3 is a staff recommendation on the Section 2.6 Wildlife Interagency Report on wildlife that can be found at www.deschutes.org/cdd under comprehensive plan update then reports Section 2.7 Open Spaces, Scenic policy 2.7.5(d) includes a staff recommendation Views and Sites -3- Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 March 9 Work Session Topic Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.8 Energy No major issues Section 2.9 Environmental Quality No major issues Section 2.10 Surface Mining No major issues Section 2.11 Cultural and Historic Policies may need to change due to the intent of Resources Bend, La Pine and Redmond to create their own Landmark Commissions Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections - no goals or policies in this chapter Section 5.1 Introduction n/a Includes a definition of agri-tourism Section 5.2 Glossary and Acronyms Defining private parks was discussed, but a definition was not added Section 5.3 Goal 5 Water Resources n/a Section 5.4 Goal 5 Wildlife Resources n/a Section 5.5 Goal 5 Open Spaces, n/a Scenic Views and Sites resources Section 5.6 Goal 5 Energy Resources n/a Section 5.7 Goal 5 Wilderness, n/a Natural Areas and Recreation Trails Section 5.8 Goa15 Mineral and n/a Aggregate Resources Section 5.9 Cultural and Historic n/a Resources Section 5.10 Goal Exception n/a Statements Section 5.11 Legislative History n/a Additional Discussion Points Preamble Proposed and revised by the Planning Commission Maps Goal 5 maps removed from the draft Findings Coordination with Legal Counsel -4-