Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0429.094. , , ~ I, TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: REOllESl' " . . ~~ )" ~~------.... --.. -'-' .. ---.--. City of Palo Alto City Manager'sSummary Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POllCE September 12, 1994 CMR:m:94 Response to Grand Jury Rooommendations Reganting !be Standardization of Pollcle$, Lkenslng, IIDd F... Scbedules Associated with ."a!se AIamls The 1993-94 Santa CIani County Grar.d Jury issu.:O their final report CO"''''''''"8 their in'"estigation of false burglar alarms in the cities within the County, Their fe:port concluded with some recommer.dalions tiat, if adopted, would significantly impa~t t.ie Cily of Palo Alto. Sm.", law require, that the governing bodies, of the public agencios that have been ,uhie"! to a Graod Jury final report, must comment within 90 ruys 10 the preaiding judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the malten under control ofllle governing body. Although a fannal vote is IlOI required, the Grand Jury encourtlges provisions for public discussion ",;th the individuai governing bodie •. RECOMMENDAllONS Staff tcCQI11mends th&t Council authon"" the Mayor 10 send • le"er to the Santa Clara County Grand lury indicating the City of Palo Alto', response to the recommenrutions. POUCY IMPIJCATIQNS The recootmendations made by the Grand Jury, if approved, would result in several policy implications for the Council to consider. The implications include the following: A change in the Municipal Code that would require an aJarrn permit for all burglar alarms installed in commercial, public or !esidenlial buildings; the automation of burglar and false alann infonnation; a change in the six-month time allocation for false ala.nns to ~Ive months; and a change in the false alarm fee structure for burglar alanns. EXECU'lJYE SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto's Intrusion Alann Ordinance and Fee Schedule waa originally adopted by the City Council in 1976. The ordinance deals with private intrusion alarms. Since that time, the ordina.oce and fee schedule has been revised several times, with the lut revision occurring in 1989. The intent of the ordinance was, and remains, an attempt ...,. 1,,(7 \ 10 -__ .... _ .......... "','""· ... ·"'--4.,-.. ==· .. --....... _ ........ '-.,. ... , __ ------- 10 reduoe !he nwnber of false alarms to which police office,.. respond. The current onIiDllJlCe provides f()1 a ree \0 be charged after lime or more fal:;e alarms in a >ix-month pe:ri«I. The fees arc jn<:reased for each subsequent false a1ann, up \0 • mlUimum of S I SO per fIIx alarm. Iu. result of. complaint made to the Grand Jury, regarding llIe pen:eived e.orbitard and iDI:<laa~y applied 11 .... and penalties levied by the City of San Jose for false burglar alarms, !he Grand Jury initial.cd an inquiry in'.o the aIsrm programs and policies by every city ;1\ !he CGWIty. Their inquiry resulted in eight recommen<iati ons. 'The i~~mentation of some of ~ir recommendations would have an impact on the City" current ordino.nce and procedures. meAl, !Ml'ACr Should the Orand Jury's recommendatiom be implemented, the precise fi,cal impm that wooJd f'iesul! cannot be delerrnined. However, ba..~ 'upon tht City's current false alarm ,."j"" fees compand to lIlose proposed by the Grand Jury, staff .stimate. lIlat a reduction of awroxill',a!ely $97,000 in false alarm service r::e, would occur. This rev ....... loss may be offset to • certain extent, depending upon any revenue generated by fee" tIW would be associated with the propoocd alarm permit recommendation. If the City were to initiate an alarm permit system similar to that proposed by the Grand Jury, additional .laffing resources would be needed to maintain the system, keep alarm infonnllion current and updated, and issue new vern>its for new systems. Eo'\f\'DlONMENTAL AS.~" 'There is no Environmenlal Assessment required or associated with the Grar.d Jury m;ommendatioru. I /'. PREPARED BY; Lynne Johnson, A~' . ta alice CIri,of DEPARlMENT HEAD REVIEW: _ .. ~{::,,, _/L__ ~ __ ._ C oS DURKH', / . Poli~ Chief I A CITY MANAGER APPROY AL: "",' +.1-",/;:.:=>-~&Q!,"'joI~ ____ _ FLEMI G (5,1{ Manager ha<2017 '. .:. , .. - City Manager's Report (In-Depth) SI!JIUTT: Rcspoooe 10 Gnnd Jury Recommendations Reganling the Standudization of Policies, Li=>Sing, and foe Schedules A~;.ted with False Alarm •. JECOMMENDADONS St&tf recommends !lull COUDciJ IUthoriu the MlYo.-to send • letter to the Ssnta Clara Count)· Grand lury indicoring the City of Palo Alw', concerns and opposition to some of !heir =ommendatlom osoociated with false alarm fee li~nsing, policies and fee structure.. IIACKGROlCSP In 1976, t~ City CooOC)t ~d,~.c-d a..'1 ordinance n:ga.rdir1£ false ?.la.rms (Palo Alto Municipa..i C\1I:k Chapta 4.39). The ordin..an,"'< was presented to COl.lndl as a result of !.he Felice Ocpa.rt.rr.ent's cort<:.tm aoolJl f"l;:spor ..... jmg W approximately 200 alarms.~ month, 98 percent of which wen: false. I11e concerns w;!re centered afOund. t.~e resulting use of police re..souroes &nd the ncgz.r..ive effect on police officer availability and safety, Sp«:;fic~y, the concerns j""Iud<"<l the poknli!l danger to om""" .00 the public from the ·'o_....c guan:\ syndrome' offi",,,, experience after repeaU:d responses 10 false aUmu, !he .moont of poli", staff time required to re'porJ to ialse alarm,. and the offi.::.ers' resulting unavailability to respond to other situations. Th~ original ordinance allowed for two (alse rJ~rn" withool penall)' per qUArter, with. $25 charge fur each false aLum !hereafter. Owing !be Policc [)eputment', budgel hearin" in May 1982, the Council reviewed the iDInasioo aLum J'I'OVIITI. AI !hat time, officers re.<pond<d to approximately 280 aLums per mandl. Ill! perceoI of whlch were false. As. resu II of this review, together with the belief thai usinIi: fees II • ~ .... rned w affect m;idents ~ ... most, Council amended ~ fee schcduk I<> provide for two free faI>e alarms, S50 for the iliir<l, $75 fer the fourth and $100 for !hoe tiftlt and each 5Ubsequent faI .. aIDm. As I resuit of considerable public ruction by .a..1ann owners and users to the revised fees and, in paniculu, the r.on-reDCwablc naw'" of til< fee schedule, staff initiated A change lIIowing the fee sd1cdule to revert 10 !he no charge peMlty, if • false alarm were not generaI<d dwing • 1i .• -rnonth period. In t989, £h(: Council approved major reVISIOns to the alann ordinance. Staff had requested the revisions due 10 changes in state legislalion, a report from the City Auditor ~ that thet'e were not any provisions in the Municipal Code to authorize assessment "",. 3 of 1 -"'--~.'''' \ of laic cIwgeo, and oyonll improvernentJ to alarm .}"Iems. The ",visions inclOOed the eIlDWwioo of automatic te!epbone dialer and direcl ~ of alum systems into the City', Communications Center; the provisioo fex laic fee ch&rges for cIcli nquent iDlnlsioolJillsc alarm payments; and the inclusioo of • """poliet response policy for IqJeIt offencIen. III respoo ... 10 • complaint ~ng the peroeiyed •• orl>itant L'>d inconsistenll)' ipplie<l fiIIes and penalties Ievi<d by the City of San Jose, the Grand I"')' initiated an i.-.quiry during FiJcaI Y= 1993-!U in:.o the Jdminislntioo of alarm prugrwru. It.t>ould be !!OI<d tbaI the Gnnd Jury', iDqUiry and report rer-nce. only lobe '~rg\ar' alarms. Like some of the other citieo, ~ Alto'. ordinance ""'...... all aIanru including those uoociated with hokI-up, robber)' and other types of intrusion alarms. Ten cities within the County currenOy have alarm ordinar.ce< and prognrru. A •• result of tr.eir inquiry (,.,. attached cop)' of the report!, Ill< Grand bf) de,eiC>p«i eigh' re("ommend.tions. In FisaJ Year 1993--94, Palo A~IO P:)~i·;C' off,c(~ resj:.. .... ,:,'roro W !in aY(j;l~~ (If 236 alarm'S per month, 98 percent of which wae fals.c n;i~ reileos ail ir.C'rt'as.': sin~c 1989, thzl staffaltributes to the bcl;ef that there are mere :1Jarm ~»Ier!i.s thaI arc (;pcr?tiGD~ v. itl,in the City, POIJCy [MPLICAUO;.iS The =omrnendalions mode by the GraM lury, if appro"ea, would result in ,.,,,oral policy implications for the Council (0 consider. The implications i'lClooe the following: A clw\gein the Municipal Code: ,'u,w'ould f<<Juire an alarm penni I for all burglar !larms i1'\8Uilled in commtrciaJ, ~blic or re~lder.tj.al boi\dj"~s; the automaU0n of burgtar and false alarm infonnation; I ch.a.ng~ in the !.i~~IThJnth time aJl,xation for falS-\: alarms 10 twelve months; and • change in the faI~ alum i~ structure for burglar alarms. DISCUSSION Five of the eight recommendations made by the Grand JUf)' would ""wI in dim,'1 impacts O!I the City of Palo Alto per the followi"8; RC'!;QRunco1ation Il, -That requirements for response '0 and efforts to reduce the incidence of fllse burglar limn, be 5tandarGli=l throughoul Ihe County. Staff does not concur with thls recommendation. Police responses \0 i.larms vary from city to city depending upoIl Ihe avAiabwty of sWf, In the GraM Jury's report fo< inotaIIce, it indicates that all poIiet depertments dispalch one officer to • burglar alarm. WJille this may be the case in other jurUdictioru, PaJo Allo cop.sisten~y dispatches. minimum of two officers, depending upon the type of lIarm. Staff r",ls strongly !hoI il'.is procedure should no! be aleered for officer ;aiel)' ""-,,,ons. \ f. ,I 1I [I 'I "j . ,:~- 0Ihet" r.ctoro that",uaIly vary from community to .:ommunity include the diffu-ence in penema,es of residcntial versus commercial alarm systems and =ponsive..,.. of residents and busi ..... owners in preventing false alarms. Because lbese fac10n are lISU&Ily not the same amOtlg ccmmunitieo, !he need for =pome to alarm. shoold te1t with eacIt city. Brwmmc:od,rion n -That all cities require an alum pennit and regiltrotion with the police for any burglar alarm iru>talled in any commercial, public 0< residential building and that permits be renewed annually. CUITCIIIly. the City of Palo Alto', ordinance requires an alarm user to regi,le( with the Police Departmenl. 'I'bc registration includes the user', name, addre .. , busi,.,.. and home "'Iepbone numbers. and. liil of responsible persOtl,. The ordinance specifi~ly indicates that no fee shall be charged for the registration. Woile mary oJarrn users comply 'With this provision, it is not infrequent to find new a.larm u~rs who have rYA complied. The imormation is kep~ in the Communication.s Center and updated ):Jeriodica1lyas svaiiablc st!fftime permits, or when it is determined that the inJormation is not accurs.te or at the time of a police response to an alarm, The registration system is somewhat informal. and because there is nl) fee attached 10 it, the tir1",'! !.pent (0 maintain jt is minim~ at besL 'The inclusion of a fee for an alarm pennit woo IJ res ult ina need for add j ti onaJ ~taff. Staff estimates that approximately an hour per alarm per year would be l"e<Juired for th< processing. billing, updating, and reven"e collection alisocia!ed ·,.ith • fee. &sed u!,," an estimated 3 ,()(x) alarm systems in the City, a minimum of one person ,'ear would be needed to mainta',1 the permit system. Berornmcndujon ~ -That :records on burglar alarms and false alarms be automated. Prcaently, al&nn records for the City are maintained manually. When officen respond to an alarm. they provide the appropriale infonnation 10 the dispatcher as 10 the validity of !he alarm. The dispatcben reccrd !he information and pass it on to the staff person who tTacks !he infonnation, notifies the al&nn user about !be number of alarms !bey hav. had, and bills the ..... rs when they exceed !he allowable umit of false alarms. While staff is looldng at the possibility of automating these rerords e\'entua1ly, especially as part of !he computer aided dispatching syste", that will be purchaSl'.<I thi' fiscal ,eu, sWT dO<'.s not feel !here is an urgency for the automation of these records 10 be completed. B('fpmmendatjon IJj -That the false Alarm reporting period be standardized al 12 mon"'!s, beginning with the issuance of a permit. CMR:4l9:M Pot< 5 0(7 • .- ;/-. . f J · . o While uff iI IlOl SIrongly opposed 10 ~'lis recommendation on its own merit, in con,iullCtiol> with the Gnnd lury's seventh recommendation regarding the fine sch<dul., IIIaff ~ thai the aliding fee sch<duJe does encourage many alarm users to maintain aM openII: their ~ responsibly. Palo Alto', ordioance currently iocludes • six­ IIIOCIIb recording period. An alum wer i. allowed three false alarm ..... jlbin each six­ moodt period beI'= penalties are assessed. Togelber W11b the proposed fees sch<dule, IIIaff beIievca thai deterrent would be weakened. Bavm!lml •tiop t1 -ThaI 5Chedules of fines be eslablish<d by resolution of the City COUIIcil slid appended to the ordinance gove.ming burglar alarm systems, for example, u follows, m;! thai to mluoe admini!trarive costs, these line. be allowed to occrue durinc !be annual permit period and be payable in full at Ibe time of rene .... a1, CAJ>Ce!latioo, or termination of the permit. Occum",ce Residential I Commercial 1 I Warning J Wa...rning ~ 2 Warning Warning 3 Warning Warning - 4 $25 $SO 5 $55 $110 - 6 Probation ·t· $ I 00 Probation + 5150 Palo Alto Ius hi.toricaUy .scI fee., fines, and penalties by !'Csolution during the annual budget proceu and with the adoption of the yearly Municipal Fee Schedule. 5i lICe the initial adoption of tbe alarm ordinance, the fee structure has been revised approximately four times. Staff believes this method Ius worked well in the past and should continue. 'The propoW to set lines as IlOIed above, IOgether with allowing the accrual "f fine payments over the COUI'$<l of. year, is in conflicl wilb the intent of the establishment of ~. AI noted earlier, lines are used as • deterrenl, especially for residential users, and ohouId reflect the cost to provide the service. Staff does not beHeve that by lowering the fines and allowing deferred payments until the end of the year, any reduction in the number of false aJarms will occur. AL]EBNATIYES No alternatives were identified. nSCAL IMPACT Should \be Graad lury', ~ be implemented, the precise fiscal impact that woWd result caaaoI be dcIennined. H~, based upon the City's curront false alarm cvioe feel COOIjMiod to IhoK proposed by the Gnnd Jury, staff estimates that a I"Iduction at ~matdy $97,000 in false alarm service fees would occur. This I'1Ovem1O loa may be offset to • certain extent, depending upon any revenue generated by feel Ihor woWd be ....,..;ated with !be proposed alarm permit recommendation. WhlIe it io WIkDowa bow many alarm .yslcm. &re operational within tho City, there pul>4>l) .... weiJ "' .... 3,000. If the City wat: to initiate an alarm permit system ,imilat ID !bot pup<ao! by the Gnnd Jury, additional .Wling resources would be needed to maUuin the syaem. keep alarm information curront and updated, and issue new permi!JI fer new !)"!tIemJ. Po'VIRONMEl't'IAL A..~SWENT There il no Emrironmer.ta.I AsseSSfO(:nt required or associated with the-G:and Jury recommendations , ~ ffiLLQWh'ffi AITRQV AL Pending CouncE approy~. the Mayor will s:nd ! lr:tter to the Grand Jury indicati.ng the Clt)"s concern a.nd opposition regarding some of their recommendations. AUACHME..VJ'SIEXHJBIIS Copy at the Grand Jury Report ·,.d Pq.7ol7 • -. S&Jn:a. CLU.A CWli 1 i S't1P£U0I. 191 Borth Firl&~, Street San JOSR, CA 95113 V'oic.~ {40B) 2515-2731 Pax, (4CS) .98-0SB. lIa10 Al to Pol ice ~.-.rt:.c:li t rR~: Hele:n Donne:Lly ADOrrlONAL KESSAGE, ~ D l..U L/) ~ 0 "" ~ U.J -- .'." Pinal P,epcrt of the .1"3-'~ Sant.e Clara county GranO Jury X!lVBB'1'IGAr.IOll OJ!' 7ALSB BI1RGLAa AL&lUl8 Xli C,r'fZES OP aAlfTA CLaltA CO'D'JITY • " \- Policies governinq responses to f~lse hurglar alar=s--how po­ lice respond to tbClll, how reconU;; are aaintl!lin("d. and \rOhat cit}' de­ pa~nt maintains the., and. finu: and penal ty assessaents i.posf!'d :for false alarms--vary greatly aaong t-he cities of Santa Clara County. Policies are also inconsistently enforced. The report recommends ~tanda~ization ot policies, auto~~tion ~f record r.eep­ ing, and the licensing of alarms. -or ~, ::E:::: ,-- C c l'.i 0 .. ~ __ J (V) c.. , "" C;2?~ ~ = -< -, try;'" ~ 1 Fiual Report of the 1993-94 Santa Clara County Grand Jury :INVES'I'IGA"1'rON OF FALSE BORa LlUt ALArut6 IN CITIBS OF BANTA CLARA COUNTY INl'RODUCTION. In response to a complaint that f ines an~J pen­ alty assessments levieo for talse hurglar alarms in the City of San Jose 'Wer-e both exorbitant and inconsistently applied, the Grand Jury began an inquiry into the administration of burglar alanu pro­ grams by Police Departments in ten Santa clara county cities: san J05e, santa Clara, CUpertino, Saratoga, Monte Sereno J Los Altos Kllls, Campbell, Mountain view, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale. In all ten cities the programs covered comme,rcial, industrial, and public buildings and private residences: none of the cities included auto­ mobile alarms in their coverage. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMS. The ten cities covered by the GrC"lnd Jury investigation had ordinances on fal~e burgla,':" alarLls ei ther in 9ffect or under considera.tioll. All cities except San Jos~ defi!,e false burglar alarms as civil offenses. San JosP. d:~tines the)":;l-­ ir.appropriately~ in the judgment of Gr-.-:md Jl.lry--as cd_rdnal cE::ens­ CoS. The usual authority for a schedule 0_1' fines for false b' .. n::-glar alarms is a. City Council re~olution. dlthough in sor.:e cilies the setting of fi.nes is delegated to other authority. h11en, 3""' in San JO!3e J false al~rn:s iu:e cr.iminal offenses, they are subject ui1der the state criminal Code to a penalty assessment in addition to a fine. Pines are payable to the city in ,",'hich t.he often~e is cott­ mitted, but penalty assessments are transmitted to the count}' and ~~e state. Fees and penalties tor false alarms in t~e ten cities covered. in this report vary from zero for tha first offense to a high of $675 for the third. Table 1 shows the fines and penal ty assessments in the city of San Jose. Table 1. Fines and penalty assessments in the City of San Joze for false alarms occurring within ~ period of 60 aays. (Data from city ordinance 10.42.0200.) OCcurrence fu~ PenaltY __ A.ssessed ~_9.!_{',_1 1st $ 5e.OO $17.00 X 5 $135.00 2nd 100.00 17.00 X 10 270.00 3rd + 250.00 17.00 X 25 675.00 The recording period for false alarms--the period ..... ithin which repeated false alarms result in an increase of fines and penal~y assessments--varies from city to city; it is usually defined in the city ordinance but, as with fines, is in so~e cities defined by the Police Department or the City Manager. The features o( all ten tc'1.1- nicipal programs are shown 1.n 'l'able 2. 2 Table 2 -- <U <U " " " " ~ ~ ~ '" w '" c " " C " " " <U ., ., " ~ ~ ", ~ <H ... "' "' ~ <H ~ "-< ~ 0 '" '" 0 0 0 San Jose It Sheriff's DepartJ1'lent respJnds to false ,11arm .. s in these cities .. § Infor~tion not available. <,I The Sur.nyvallS ordi.nance requires that t.he Police Depart.ment ccntact offen­ ders b-.f letter, telephone calls, "and personal visits as the nU!l'..ber of false al..anRs increase.. Sunnyvale does not levy {ines or assessments.. Sunnyvale also reports a 5O-percent drop ir. the nurobr of false alarms in the four years erAi..ng IT 1993. C'.ampbe:ll reports similar slIccess over a five-ye-ar ~riod be­ tweP..(l IGSS, 'WhEn It l".ad al.m.:;st 2000 false alan;$~ ari!'j 1993 J .. r&n it had 1101. 3 • In soae cities the Frogram is adtdniste:r;-ed by a department other th~n the Police Department, such as Finance or Communication; jn Qthers the Po~ice ~partaent retains responsibility. No Police [)c;!part:::aeJ"lt surveyed by the Grand Jury devotes. stat! exclusively to adzinist!'Btion of the false-alat:1ll. prog.l.-am. In one Department it is a ~rt-tiae job for one officer: in others it is administered by an ~ploy~e other than a police officer. All Police J)(!part,laents respond similarly to the sounding of a hurqlar: alara, by dispatching a patrol unit_ (a unit is one officer in one C4r) to the scene of an alarm. All alarms are treated as siaple incidents until they are investigated. If an investigation identities an alar. as false, the investigating officer prepares the dooIlafmtlltion en the incident, has the respon5ible person in the facility in which the alarm sounded notified, and at the end of the police shift gives the d~entation to the administrator of the burglar-alaZ"'m progr~p for posting to the poU.ce log and for any required follo .. -up ~.cticn. Be::.ause re.gtstration ef alan::l systems is T:ot required. ~n all cities, it is so:::":etimes difficult for the invest.igating ott'icp.t-to locate the re.sponsible pers-:.n in the es­ tablish=ent ~here a fdlse alarn h~s sound~d. J..lt_h'J"G.gh SO":f-city ordinances .!:Iuthorize the Police Department to c':.~a::;('"-respc;f~ding at-c"r 10 or 12 fdlse ala""C""ins ·,t the sal:!€" facil­ i-::y .. ithin a repo7"ting pq:ioi, the Grand Jury f~.uf'.d no instance in ... hi("h th~ palice rl'l\'<" d:)ne $,--,. ctli''.!iS of Poli::=e indic3.te that not to res?Ond to a burglar diann goes ag21inst the 9['ain of police tl:aining, reg~rdless of th-e number of false alarms. One Chief stated th~ ~~se ~el1: "The thirteenth alarm might be a real one.~ S'OPOO..KY. There:is ~ide variancf!, among the cities ot Santa Clara Count:,.' in tl.e amounts of fines for repeated false burglar ala~s and in the length ot ti~e that is allowed ~o elapse betw~en them betore-tines and penalty as.s:essments are increa~ed. Registra­ tion of alar. syste.s is not re~~ired in some cities, and San Jose is the only city where false ala~s are violations of the criminal code and therefore incur a penalty asseSSMent. Automation of the manage.ent and adainistration of burglar ala~ programs would be aore efficient than the: manual :methods currently in effect and li'ould qive cities qreater control over the problem of false alarms. llE<XJ:HliBJIDATIO.S. The Santa Clara County Grand Jury recol'lmends to the City councilS, City Managers, and other responsible offi­ cials of" cities \ol~thin the County: j. That the City council of San Jose dccriUlinalize false burglar alarJriS. 2. That requirements fOl response to and efforts to reduce the incidence of false burglar alarP..s be standardized throughout. th-e Councy. '", -;;:--.. -...... ~----------- 3. That all cities t'~ire an alanD pCnlIit. and registra.tion with the police for any burglar alarm installed in any cottmercial. public, or residential buildinq~ and that p-erzits be rene·."e-d e:~lnU­ ally. 4. That records on burgldr alar=s and false al~~1<.s be duto­ mated. 5. That the false alanl: report.iog period be st..andardized at 12 lIonths~ be:qinninq vitll the issuance of 4 p€OIit. 6. That fines, if levied, taKe effect after th~ third false ala:~ 'With in the reportinq pedod. 7. That schedulE'"s of fine~ be establi5he~ by resolution of the City Council and appended to t.he aT:"dir,'"!m:e goverr,ing burglar alar1:l systems, tor-eXi!!Iillple as folle.!':, i'lr.d that t.o redtlCe adJ:;lin­ istrative costs, the:<;;e fines be I!Il1o"'E'd to ae,-=rJ.:€ durif'g th(' annu.al permit period ar-.<i .be payable in tul1 at the ti~.e cf rcn,2· ... ,:il, can­ cellation, o!: tel""':":inatictl of ~ f-t"r.::it: Q.\= . .9_\l.r t:.og.J!.g!,_ 1- 2. J . 5. 6. Rf'51d e r1 t i~, : ~·d:-n~~'J ..... arnil~:: \0.;;, r ri i r, 'J $ 2:".0:; "i'). (:,0 Probation + $100.00 c-:::::::er~(~i,).1. ;;;,rnir:u­ \.\arnir;g . ... '.] rnino '$ :'0.1)0 :'10.00 Prob3tion + $150.00 8. Th.at the cities of Gilroy. Milpitl'ls, and K<:lrqan Hill and unincorporated arei'\5 of Santi! Clard: C'oun':y ",ho 3Te under the ;uris­ diction af the county Sheriff .:'tnd ,";hl) are r,,-;t inch:uc'd :in th:is re­ ~ort imp1e~ent similar actions. PASSED AND APPROVED bV tl~e Santa Clard. County Grand Jur'.1 this thirty-first day of Mar-ch, 1994.