Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-05 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Page 1 of 10 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 5, 2014 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Ken Hales and Angel Lotito, Community Corrections; Dan Despotopulos, Fair & Expo; Trish Meyer, Saving Grace; Sarah Peterson, Health Services/Early Learning; Sgt. Nathan Garibay, Sheriff’s Office; Nick Lelack, Will Groves, Peter Gutowsky and Matt Martin, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and two other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 2:15 p.m. ___________________________ 1. Approve Grant Application – Violence Against Women Act. Sarah Peterson said the original award for this grant was in 2010. The Early Learning Division can apply on behalf of the Board of Commissioners, with the County as the official applicant. The authorized signer is Erik Kropp on letters and the certification. Ken Hales added that this is pa rt of the Parole & Probation operations budget. UNGER: Move approval of authorized signatures. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 2. Approve Grant Application – Sheriff’s Office Emergency Operations Center Enhancement. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Page 2 of 10 Sgt. Nathan Garibay said the Sheriff’s Office was made aware of this grant opportunity, involving funding that remained for Fiscal Year 2011-12 at the State level. It has been made available for short-term projects. His department identified a lack of infrastructure that this funding could be used to enhance. This technology goes along with the goals of the Board and the Sheriff’s Office. They are asking for these Office of Emergency Management funds through the Homeland Security Program for technology upgrades, to ready laptops with needed mapping resources. They do not have all of the quotes in yet, but the amount is close to what is being requested. UNGER: Move approval of application up to $20,000. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 3. Discussion of Fair & Expo Food & Beverage Contract. Dan Despotopulos gave an overview of the original 2001 agreement. The vendor put in about $75,000 worth of improvements at that time. The agreement was extended in 2005 when there was to be a new water park that had its own vendor in mind. Premier put $100,000 back into capital improvements then. They have been good partners overall, even though there have been some conflicts over the years. This was the right thing to do at the time. The County avoided spending funds for capital improvements, and revenue has been generated through food and beverage services. GMO is the new term. They are working hard on the possibility of amending the existing contract, which terminates on June 30, 2016. The key issues are staffing, the facilities and food and beverage services. They have an opportunity to amend the contract and all have agreed to this. As they move forward with future plans for the Fair & Expo, adjustments are being made. A new RFP is in the works at this time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Page 3 of 10 They are looking at every possibility, including multiple caterers, the existing contract, opening it up to alcohol service, an exclusive caterer, or maybe handling it in house. He does not have the answers today, but hopes to fulfill the plan and do the best for the Fair & Expo overall. The amendment to the existing contract serves to protect the County. The kitchen is being revamped and inventoried by the vendor and staff. By the end of February, there will be a master list. The vendor’s replacement account has a balance of $77,000 and they will have to replace whatever is missing or needs replacement. This is to make sure that by the end of August, it is all there. They were required by the agreement to put 1% of gross revenue into this account. The other protection to keep in mind is the FMCA event that ends in August. They pay about $100,000 for food each time. This will go to the Fair & Expo direct, and the vendor will receive a check for their share at that time. The perception of food and beverage service is all over the map. They are working hard on this. They have an opportunity for significant positive change with their new marketing plan. UNGER: Move approval of the amendment. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Tom Anderson noted that it is important to structure the RFP properly, and flexibility and negotiations will be a part of it. Mr. Despotopulos added that this might be one of the most important documents relating to the Fair & Expo. The end result is important. He wants input from the Fair Board, staff and the Board of Commissioners. It needs to be done right. Mr. Anderson said that it is not just the RFP but the investment and poss ible exclusivity, to maximize return and protect against possible issues; or to give opportunities to others in some situations. He has already spoken to Wayne Purcell and others about this. Mr. Purcell’s conference center (the Riverhouse) is not doing as well as he had hoped. Care needs to be taken in asking others in the same business. He has already been contacted by two of the biggest vendors in the country. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Page 4 of 10 4. Update on the Agricultural Lands Program, and Discussion of Recommendations of the Planning Commission. Matt Martin and Peter Gutowsky provided a handout on this issue. The agricultural lands study was originally called non-resource lands, but they reframed the conversation after discussions with the public and others. These included a panel with State agencies for the broader issues, and the Planning Commission for a more local view, and public input. There have been a lot of questions as to why this is being pursued. Calling it non -resource lands was premature. They are looking from a broader agricultural lands perspective. The work plan was broad in scope to explore these kinds of issues such as the Big Look/House Bill 2229, with opportunities to reclassify agricultural lands to something more accurate. They want to take this out to th e general community to learn what is working and what isn’t. The 2011 Comp Plan has a colorful history and varying opinions. This identifies the values of agricultural land and the secondary benefits. However, the burden of this value is being carried by the property owners. This will help to provide a basis to evaluate the future of agricultural lands for the next twenty years. They want to encourage flexibility for the farming community, and support the preservation of farmlands by ensuring there are ways to profitability. It is important to engage the public, and set policy criteria and code to clarify when and how EFU can be converted to other designations. There is no easy landing spot in the existing plan, as MUA became the default. Mr. Gutowsky went over the goals of the plan. He said the Planning Commission supports this refinement. It needs to be transparent, open and strategic. They started with non-resource lands but this raised a lot of concerns. They need to know if the Board feels it is a wise use of resources to do this at this time. It needs to be meaningful. Matt Martin stated that they have identified methods to reach out, with a public forum in all areas and with stakeholder groups. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Anderson said that the outline is good. He asked how they are going to handle expectations. People might think the County has the wrong intent. It needs to be made clear at the start that this is incremental change and why it is being done. Many people might not even know what EFU is. It is a good opportunity to educate. Mr. Gutowsky stated that they would meet with the public, stakeholder groups and other organizations, report back to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the Board. Mr. Lelack noted that various results are possible. It might be that the status quo is okay. Or, it can provide a landing zone for those that don’t meet statewide definitions. There are emerging markets and technologies that have not yet been contemplated by the County or state. They could report the results to the DLCD, LCDC and the legislature. If the feedback is there, they can embark on a plan to create a non-resource lands program with clear policies and standards. He added that they need to embody why this is happening. There has been no meaningful conversation regarding the agricultural lands program for over twenty years. They need to understand what is working and what isn’t. They need the perspective of the community to help the Planning Commission and the Board make decisions that are clear and identifiable. They might need to expand EFU to include things not thought of twenty years ago. Mr. Lelack said that the DLCD wants Deschutes County to take the lead, if there is to be an addition of non-resource lands. This is similar to the study done on destination resorts a few years ago, learning the perception and ideas. Mr. Gutowsky noted that they want to capture the spectrum of opinions to compel people to get involved. Otherwise, they will question the agenda. EFU is varied and all of it might not make sense. Mr. Anderson said that DLCD thinks it is a blank page but there has to be parameters and a threshold. He wants to know what DLCD might support. Mr. Lelack said that it has to be within agricultural parameters, as it is not an exception to Goal 3. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Gutowsky stated they met with panels, the Planning Commission and staff, and it did not register right away that they are jumping to non-resource lands. This would mean policies and procedures for an applicant to initiate at a cost of thousands. The County could try to create clear and objective criteria, but it will be hard. You get into discretion and then it is more volatile. LUBA is not sure this is the right way to go. The comprehensive plan provides the framework. Commissioner DeBone asked if they are always talking about parcel size. Commissioner Unger said that SB 100 created land use, and everyone had trouble applying it. Urbanized is different, and they tried to match what was already there. They were left with land that didn’t fit neatly anywhere, but it had to go into something. They are now trying to manage those decisions. For instance, people in Brothers want more of a community. Someone else wants to hire kids to help with farming for the educational aspects. Parents want to stay on the farm but they can’t add more dwellings. These issues make the farmland designation that is perceived in the valley different from here. There should be discussion on this to explore what is really needed, and to learn the next step. Commissioner DeBone said it sounds like it is all on EFU. It is non -resource if you can’t grow anything or it is not a forest. Then it boils down to lot size. Mr. Gutowsky stated that this is conceptualizing it. They have to look at compatibility and use. MUA lots under ten cares are prohibited. However, what if you are surrounded by commercial or high-density housing? These are complex issues. You have to consider transportation and density. Crook and Jefferson counties have a non-resource lands program that is not being utilized. Whatever Deschutes County comes up with will be cutting-edge. The Newland decision may help define what is or isn’t agricultural lands. The DSL demonstrated that their land was not agricultural. There needs to be a context of how to develop policies and procedures. Mr. Lelack added that they changed the name from non-resource lands to agricultural lands. Jackson County call is rural land. Some people oppose this in fear of development in rural areas. Others feel it will be too restrictive. Maybe it won’t be EFU but an agricultural zone, with our own list of uses. The granny flat or the separate dwelling is not a rural subdivision. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Anderson said that much of this is small changes and more focus ed, like allowing daycare in a farmhouse, or doing an agricultural -related thing like packaging flowers. This kind of update is needed and may help with profitability. Deschutes Junction has unique circumstances, with a bisected area, and might be a candidate for some kinds of different applications of EFU. There is no allowance now for these kinds of differences. Mr. Gutowsky stated he wants to engage the public, break out by ownership, average parcel size, irrigation, fire districts and others as a whole. There are about 8,500 parcels that can be broken out by sub -zones. They need to understand why and what EFU is and what you can do today, along with what is missing. They can discuss the next steps. It is an educational piece but no small task. Chair Baney asked how they can be accurate. Few will be satisfied with this. She asked if this fits into the work plan. Mr. Lelack replied that they are very busy and a lot of big things are happening. Chair Baney noted that it might need to be a winter project. They went through this with destination resort remapping. They don’t want it to be applicant driven, but need to get ahead of some of the big items or the applicants or legislature will decide it for the County. It needs to be clear where they are going, and they need to be in charge of their own destiny. Mr. Gutowsky said there are some parallels with destination resorts. They processed the unmapped lands, added some and took away a lot. Some of it was appealed. There was robust public outreach, and the criteria were clear and objective. Chair Baney asked about the 30-month provision. Laurie Craghead said it started in 2003. Mr. Gutowsky said that Measure 37 happened, then Measure 49. At some point they understood the outcome. It made sense for the County to initiate clarity on destination resorts at that time, with deliberately established criteria. Ms. Craghead noted that there was more prescribed guidance from statute, non- judicial. Mr. Gutowsky stated that they did not put in discretionary language; it was black and white. It is then easier for LUBA to make decisions. If there is a temptation to look at agricultural lands and designations, he is not sure they can come up with fair and objective criteria. For instance, profitability can be viewed in different ways. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Lelack said that if they don’t deal with this, they will continue to get applications. Do they want to create a program with what is important here instead? The question is whether to do it now or next winter. The southern Oregon regional pilot project is exploring this now. The original plan was appealed and changed, then accepted in 2008. This may create a better non- resource lands program. The County can initiate it now or wait, but there may be more clarity with the other project in play. Mr. Gutowsky noted that if they are successful, they will adopt a regional definition of agriculture, and those lands would retain that zoning unless different. They may want to work on the definition of agricultural lands and how people can take themselves out of it. It is easier to watch someone else go through the process. They can initiate this now and launch it later; or work on multiple other projects. Jackson County has been in this process for two years and hopes to have much of it done by mid-year. He is watching this closely. He is not sure they will meet their timeline. There will be an overview of the work plan presented at the Board’s February 24 work session. They can talk about whether it is time to engage this. They are maxed out at this time, but can keep the Board informed if something gets handled and frees up some time. Commissioner Unger noted that it is a matter of being proactive or reactive. They don’t want to wait too long. Maybe there is a way to get something done, like having other groups do some of the early work; perhaps the Farm Bureau or others. This would help avoid using staff resources at too high a level. Chair Baney said that when they look at controversial issues, stakeholder committees can be cross-purposes, but might help guide this forward. There could be significant recommendations from that kind of group if they can come to consensus in some fashion. They may get there if they have to talk about it, instead of having one body do all the work. Commissioner Unger stated that they would want to have a facilitator with a larger group. They can then perhaps decide the questions and the important issues. Mr. Gutowsky said this is part of the stakeholder process. He can engage them and see what other questions come up. This might ignore the property owners at the beginning, however. Everyone is connected in a different way. It is a timing issue overall. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Page 9 of 10 Mr. Anderson said it is hard to know the best time to start this. On a seasonal basis it won’t matter too much. Mr. Lelack stated they are maxed out with this, but planned to do it. The key now is that they have momentum since they have already had panel discussions. They can do the education and outreach and bring back what they hear. Then they can look into a stakeholder committee. They are prepared to move forward on this now. Mr. Gutowsky added that some will say it is okay the way it is. Others will feel that there should be adjustments to all ow for creative farming and EFU uses. They can figure out the popular themes, and look for ways to adjust things for the benefits. Some are bearing the cost of leaving their land open for others to enjoy. He sees this as a range of actions to maximize the program. Commissioner DeBone asked that they start the process. Chair Baney said they need to do this solid out of the gate, take a leadership role and don’t let it get away from them. Mr. Gutowsky said he wants the Board to be informed and to give direction. This is one of several programs that spill into the next fiscal year. Commissioner Unger noted they have known this is a problem for years. They wanted this to be a pilot project but couldn’t get in. They need to be engaged at the start and move forward with more clarity. Mr. Gutowsky said they will listen to the public and the Planning Commission and show how the comprehensive plan captured agricultural lands as well as it did. This provides meaning for engagement. They need to keep th e plan update and relevant. 5. Discussion of Ordinances No. 2014-006 and 007, regarding a Terrebonne Land Use Application – Molony. Will Groves gave an overview of this application. The Molonys own a one- acre property in Terrebonne that needs to change zoning. There has been no opposition and it is supported by the Hearings Officer. It was a long process. This is explicitly considered in the comprehensive plan and the Terrebonne community plan. The Board has to approve it without additional testimony, and they have to accept the Hearings Officer's decision. However, the only wrinkle is that they are asking for this to be approved by emergency due to the financial hardship to employees . Commissioner Unger stated that an emergency clause of 30 days would put this on par with what the cities do. This allows time for an appeal if there is one. Mr. Groves said there were only proponents and no opponents. Ms. Craghead stated that no one has a right to appeal at this point. They can only object to the emergency clause, not the change. The Board simply has to justify the reasons for the emergency. Mr. Anderson said the business, the Coffee Hut, has to go through the site plan review as well. ODOT is satisfied with the traffic analysis. Chair Baney said it is compelling to go ahead with the emergency clause due to the hardship. Commissioner DeBone stated he supports the 30-day clause. This comes before the Board on February 12. 6. Other Items. The work session adjourned at 4: 15 p.m., at which time the Board met under DRS 192. 660(2)(d), labor negotiations. DATED this 2014 for theU!:. Day of4~ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Ta~ Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners ' Work Session Wednesday, February 5 , 2014 Page 10 of 10 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 5, 2014 1. Approve Grant Application -Violence Against Women Act Hillary Saraceno and/or Sarah Peterson 2. Approve Grant Application -Sheriffs Office Emergency Operations Center Enhancement Sgt. Nathan Garibay 3. Discussion of Fair & Expo Food & Beverage Contract -Dan Despotopulos 4. Update on the Agricultural Lands Program, and Discussion of Recommendations of the Planning Commission -Matt Martin and Peter Gutowsky, CDD 5. Discussion of Ordinances No. 2014-006 and 007, regarding a Terrebonne Land Use Application Molony Will Groves, CDD 6. 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; or other issues under ORS 192.660(2), executive session. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board o/Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. I ! ! I 1 Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 388-6571, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. 61 ·Vi VI Q) V\ ~ '­~I I ~ ·s cS: ~ ~ ~ ~ I i - - co 0.. 4­o January 31, 2014 To: Tom Anderson From: Dan Despotopulos Subject: Staff report -amendment to existing food/beverage contract I Tom: The Fair & Expo Center entered in an agreement on February 2, 2001 with C &D Event Management to exclusively provide catering, concessions and alcohol for all events at the Fair & Expo Center. The annual Fair was the exception to the exclusivity. There was also an investment of $75,000 to improve kitchen facilities in the Event Center that were not completed during initial construction. In November 2005 the Fair &Expo Center entered into a ten(10) year agreement with Premier Service Group (formally C & D Event Management)(PSG) to provide the same as above, this agreement was originally scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2016. At the signing of the present agreement an investment of $100,000 was made to improve kitchen facilities, build a new concession trailer and add to our inventory. Over the years we have had a very good relationship with PSG. After several months of staff and Fair Board meetings, realizing the food/beverage industry has seen many changes; we have come to an agreement to amend the existing contract with PSG, with the new ending contract date of August 31, 2014. This amendment and new ending date will allow the Fair/Expo staff, County Fair Board, County Administration, BOCC and other interested parties to begin discussing all the various options that may Ibe available to craft an RFP over the next coming months with a target release date of June 1,2014 or no later than July I, 2014 so a new food/beverage contract can be in place on September I, 2014. I I I• I J ,~ ! i I I f I DESCHUTES COUNTY DOCUMENT SUMMARY R I 1 !• (NOTE: This form is required to be submitted with ALL contracts and other agreements, regardless of whether the document is to be on a Board agenda or can be signed by the County Administrator or Department Director. If the document is to be on a Board agenda, the Agenda Request Form is also required. If this form is not included with the document, the document will be returned to the Department. Please submit documents to the Board Secretary for tracking purposes, and not directly to Legal Counsel, the County Administrator or the Commissioners. In addition to submitting this form with your documents, please submit this form felectronically to the Board Secretary.) I I fPlease complete all sections above the Official Review line. Date: IFebruary 5, 201~ Department: IEarly Learning Divisionl Contractor/Supplier/Consultant Name: ~ i Contractor Contact: ~ Contractor Phone #: ~ Type of Document: Office on Violence Against Women, Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program Application. Documents requiring signature: Memorandum of Understanding, Letter of Nonsupplanting, Letter of Certification and Eligibility. Documents requiring electronic signature/assurances: Application for Federal Assistance SF-424, Standard Assurances and Certifications Regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters, and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Form 4061/6). Goods and/or Services: This is a continuation application for the Office on Violence Against Women, Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program. Background & History: Health Services Early Learning Division (ELD) is serving as the applicant on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. ELD will enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Deschutes County Parole & Probation and subcontract with Saving Grace-Imagine Life Without Violence to provide services. ELD (formerly CFC) applied for and the county has been awarded over $600,000 since FFY 2010 to fund this project. The primary goals of this project are to enhance victim safety and hold batterers accountable by implementing collaborative use of the Lethality Assessment Program (LAP) and by increasing supervision of hjgh-risk offenders, with use of the LAP to inform level of supervision. LAP is a research-based domestic violence risk assessment that is being utilized by law enforcement officers to connect ~Iigh-risk domestic violence victims with domestic violence program services. The grant funding will: 1) Provide on-going training on lethality and danger assessment for collaborative partners (law enforcement, victim advocates, district attorney's office, victim's assistance office, Health Services public health nurses, St. Charles emergency room SANE nurses and social workers, parole and probation officers, and others; 2) Promote coordinated community responses that account for victim safety by implementation of the LAP and Danger Assessment; 3) Provide immediate access to services for victims at high-risk of lethality; 4) Provide culturally appropriate services to Latino victims; 5) Ensure high-risk offenders are held accountable; and 6) Support the development of a specialized DV investigator position Uoint project of the district attorney, sheriffs office and Bend PD) by earmarking training dollars for the position. 2/4/2014 Departmental Contact and Title: IHiliary Saraceno, Directo~ Phone #: 1317-317ij Department Director Approval: ~'__~ :l/+--,1J~~,,--_I}'i_ ~bafeJdfl:Jd/wt-n-....:') Distribution of Document: Who gets the original document and/or copies after it has been signed? Include complete information if the document is to be mailed. Sarah Peterson Official Review: County Signature Required (check one): 0 SOCC 0 Department Director (if <$25K) o Administrator (if >$25K but <$150K; if >$150K, SOCC Order No. ) Legal Review Date Document Number ________2014-058__ I I I f I i I I 2/4/2014 HEALTH SERVICES P.O. Box 6005, Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 1130 NW Harriman, Suite A, Bend, Oregon 97701 Public Health (541) 322-7400, FAX (541) 322-7465 Behavioral Health (541) 322-7500, FAX (541) 322-7565 www .desc hut eS.org January 24, 2014 To: Tom Anderson From: Sarah Peterson, Early Learning Development Coordinator RE: Office on Violence Against Women Grant to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders application approval The Early Learning Division (ELD) requests approval from Deschutes County to write an application for a continuation of the Office on Violence Against Women Grant to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders. The application must be submitted by the unit of local government, therefore the application will be written by the ELD on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. The A brief summary follows: Grant Name Office on Violence Against Women Grant to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders (Arrest Grant) Grantor U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women Grant Type Continuation application. Original award was received in 2010 Funding Amount $100,000 per year for 3 years. No match required. County General Fund Requirement $17,725 per year for Intensive Supervision Parole & Probation Officer. These funds are based on County General Funds. State Grant in Aid $52,446 per year for Intensive Supervision Parole & Probation Officer. These funds are based on State Grant in Aid for Felony supervision. Due Date February 19, 2014 Subject focus Enhance intimate partner victim safety and improve offender accountability Benefit to Deschutes County The grant application has three components: 1. Supports the continuation of the Lethality Assessment Program (LAP) used by law enforcement, public health nurses and St. Charles emergency room nurses and social workers. The LAP is a first responder protocol designed to connect victims at highest risk of lethality with domestic violence program services. 2. Funds .4 FTE Intensive Supervision Parole & Probation Officer to closely monitor and contain the highest risk DV offenders. 3. Funds Saving Grace LAP Response Advocate and On-Call LAP Advocates to connect high-risk victims with services. Alignment w/County Goals Health Services: Prevents intimate partner violence Community Justice: Provide community safety through high risk domestic violence supervision and accountability. I [ t ! i I ~ I t I i t I ,f I I I t r I i l Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost effective manner. r < t 1