HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0516 CC REG ITEM 11MPAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr.
Mayor
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Mayor Pro Tem
ELOISE BROWN
Councilmember
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
Councilmember
BERNARDO M. PEREZ
Councilmember
LILLIAN KELLERMAN
City Clerk
103,-7 � � ►,�
MOORPARK ITEM� ■•� -�-
7/
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public
Donald Reynolds, Management Assistant
DATE: May 9, 1990 (Council Meeting 5- 16 -90)
SUBJECT: Graffiti Removal Program
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYL J. KANE
City Attorney
PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Director of
Community Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
OVERVIEW
This report discusses options to consider in formulating
policies and procedures relative to the establishment of a
Graffiti Removal Program.
DISCUSSION
A. BACKGROUND
City staff previously submitted a report to the City
Council describing graffiti problems, suggested graffiti
removal methods, and possible implementation procedures.
The report discussed...
impacted areas of the City;
types of laws enacted in other cities to deal with the
problem;
program delivery options;
program cost estimates; and,
program funding options.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Califomia 93021 (805) 529 -6864
Graffiti
May 16,1990
Page 2
Mayor Brown and Lt. Brown met with members of the Community
to gather views on the problem and to discuss alternative
solutions. The general view supported the establishment of
some type of graffiti control program. Efforts were made
to add a Graffiti Removal Program to those projects being
considered for funding through Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds. When certain constraints prevented the
use of this approach, it was decided to fund the
acquisition of certain graffiti removal equipment with City
funds.
B. EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION
The Budget for Fiscal Year 1989/90 provided for the
acquisition of a Graffiti removal machine. After extensive
research, specifications were developed and Requests for
Quotations (RFQ) were sent known vendors. These efforts
led to the eventual purchase of a machine at the cost of
$2010. The City has recently taken delivery of this new
Hydro -sand Pressure Cleaner. The training of personnel in
the proper use of the machine is underway.
It is anticipated that this new piece of equipment will be
the centerpiece of the City's Graffiti Removal Program. It
is the intent of staff, however, to continue to evaluate
other means, methods and approaches used in the eradication
of graffiti, and to make recommendations to augment our
program when and if appropriate .
C. PROGRAM OPTIONS
1. Community Involvement
An essential element to any effective graffiti program
is the involvement of the community. An example of such
involvement is in the community of Sylmar. Sylmar has
benefitted greatly from the establishment of a
"Neighborhood Watch" type of group known as the Sylmar
Graffiti Busters. This grass -roots organization serves
as a catalyst for the donation of labor, paint, and
equipment. As discussed later in this report, the group
also provides improved communications for dealing with
the problem and acts to generate revenue to support the
program.
The "Sylmar" program appears to be extremely effective.
Consideration should be given to efforts to develop and
establish a similar type of group here in Moorpark.
Graffiti
May 16,1990
Page 3
2. Responsiveness
One of the most impressive features of the Sylmar
program is its responsiveness. Graffiti problems are
identified and remedial is action before the paint
dries. This is made possible through the establishment
and use of a twenty- four -hour HOT LINE. It is known
that graffiti breeds graffiti. The decision to develop
the means to respond immediately to these problems, has
been very effective. The establishment and management
of such a HOT LINE here in Moorpark could be one of the
first goals of the volunteer group described above.
3. Sanctions
In addition to citizen support, the City could pursue
ordinances and development conditions which address the
graffiti issue. The Cities of Thousand Oaks, Beverly
Hills, West Covina and Long Beach have adopted
ordinances which make it unlawful to apply graffiti to
any property in public view, or to any property within a
public right -of -way. Such laws contain sanctions for
both the "applicator" and the property owner. Thousand
Oaks has filed complaints against property owners who
have not taken steps to removed graffiti on their
property within thirty days. City officials there feel
that these efforts have been somewhat successful.
4. Landscaping
Another preventative measure
plants (such as the creeping
quickly growing and covering
to be targets of graffiti.
D. FUNDING SOURCES
1. Community Support
could be the use of certain
fig) which are suited to
the walls which are prone
As discussed above, an active and well organized
community support group can be one of the most
successful methods to provide program funding. Such
organizations are well suited to undertake "grass- roots"
fund raising efforts. In addition, many cities have
found that business owners will support programs
designed to improve the aesthetics of their
neighborhoods and enhance the "shopping environment" of
their clientele.
Graffiti
May 16,1990
Page 4
2. Fines
The sanctions (ordinances) mentioned above could include
the imposition of a fine structure. Revenue derived
from such fines could be "earmarked" for the Graffiti
Removal Program.
3. Service or Use Fees
A service fee could be established which could be
charged to any property owner requiring the services of
the City's Graffiti removal services.
4. O & M Expense
Graffiti Removal Program expenses could be charged to
the Operations and Maintenance expense accounts
associated with the work area affected. In this way
work within the public rights -of -way would be charged to
Street Maintenance, work in the parks would be charged
to Parks Maintenance, etc.
E. GRAFFITI REMOVAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
1. Budget
A full analysis of the graffiti removal program will be
performed and provided to the City Council as a part of
the budget for Fiscal Year 1990/91. This analysis will
include a refinement of the hourly program costs
discussed below. It will also include a description of
the projected scope of the program (the demand for
services) and an estimate of the number of man hours per
year required to provide these services.
2. Skilled Labor
It should be pointed out that the use of the Hydro -sand
Pressure Cleaner requires a trained and skilled
operator. City personnel are in the process of becoming
familiar with the use of this machine and should be able
to master its operation within a relatively short period
of time. It is not recommended, however, that the
program be based upon an assumption that a high turn
over of operators is acceptable. A certain investment
of instruction and training will be required for each
new operator.
Graffiti
May 16,1990
Page 5
3. Program Costs
The cost per hour for the City to provide Graffiti Removal
Services is estimated as follows:
. Equipment Amortization $ 4.20
• Personnel (2 people) & benefits $39.00
• Water, Materials, etc. $40.00
Sub -Total
$83.20
. Administration and Overhead 0
Total
F. LIABILITY
$83.20
There is a significant risk of Liability exposure to the City
associated with City efforts to remove Graffiti from private
property. Should it be the determination of the City Council
that Graffiti Removal Services are to be provided to City
residents (whether or not a charge for the services is
imposed), staff would recommend that the risk of liability
exposure be mitigated through the use of an appropriate
release form. Attached is a copy of such a form in use by
other cities.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Direct the City Attorney to prepare a Release Form similar
to the one attached.
2. Direct staff to commence a trial program of graffiti removal
on selected private properties, subject to the following
conditions:
a. No work shall be performed on private property without
the permission of the property owner.
b. The property owner shall be required to sign a Release of
Liability Form as approved by the City Attorney.
I
Graffiti
May 16,1990
Page 6
c. The property owner (or occupant) shall pay to the City
an amount equal to the City costs incurred for said
work, said amount to be calculated at the hourly rate
for Program Costs cited above.
3. Direct staff to report back to the City Council on June 20
on the progress of this trial program.
4. Direct staff to give priority to the removal of Graffiti
from City property.
TO THE CITY 0'�'
CONSENT TO ENTER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY
The undersigned owner of the property, or agent representing the property owner at
the address opposite.my name, hereby consents to entry upon said property by personnel
and equipment of , as is necessary to remove, reduce or obliterate
the writing of graffiti on the
(insert: fence, wall, building or other improvement)
by using vapor steam, sandblasting, painting or use of solvents.
I understand that the cleaning may be in blocks or strips where the lettering appears
and that the cleaned or processed area may not match precisely but every effort will be
made to match colors to the remainder of the above improvement, that the cleaning will not
include the entire surface but only blocks, patches or strips thereof, and the Contractor
and the City assume no responsibility if colors do not precisely match; and that some
residue of the existing graffiti may remain.
I request and authorize the
with full knowledge of the above.
I hereby release the
to enter and use said equipment
and the City of , its officers,
agents and employees of and from any and all claims, demands, causes of action or
obligations whatsoever arising out of or relating to entry on my property, any incidental
damage to shrubs or plants, the cleaning operations herein above referred to, the appear-
ance of said improvements or otherwise.
DATED:
NAME
ADDRESS