Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AGENDA REPORT 1990 0919 CC REG ITEM 08AA
ILY © MOORPARK ITEM®t 1n•A • BERNARDO M. PEREZ o,P� <<,s STEVEN KUENY Mayor o°� °o City Manager SCOTT MONTGOMERY ragaa City CHERYL J. KANE Mayor Pro Tern MOORPARK. CALIFORNIA City Attorney ELOISE BROWN =��®.-- O' % RICK RICHARDS,A.I.C.P. Councilmember ° eo/' of / Director of CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. / 199 munity Development Councilmember `''° 4°` ACM, ' L,' i DENNIS DELZEIT PAUL W. LAWRASON,Jr. City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Councilmember / J Chief of Police City Clerk LILLIAN KELLERMAN �t % /,.,,- . . -D T. HARE City Treasurer MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works DATE: September 11, 1990 (Council Meeting 9-19-90) —, SUBJECT: Graffiti Removal Program Status Report OVERVIEW This report summarizes the City's Graffiti Removal efforts over this past Summer. DISCUSSION A. Background Last May, the City Council established a Graffiti Removal Program to respond to the growing Graffiti problem in the City. Over the Summer months City forces have been engaged in a variety of Graffiti Removal efforts. B. Program Description 1. Release: Much of the Graffiti has been found to be on privately-owned perimeter walls of residential properties. Prior to removing Graffiti from private property, it is necessary for City Staff to contact the owner of the property and request that the owner sign a Release Form. This element of the Graffiti Removal Response has proven to be the most time consuming element of the program. However, once a Release Form for a given property is on file, the Removal of second and third generation Graffiti can be accomplished in a more timely fashion. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 Graffiti Removal September 19 , 1990 Page 2 2. Techniques: When the program was first started, our Graffiti removal efforts relied heavily upon the use of the recently acquired water-sand blasting machine. More recently we have modified our approach to include more over-painting. We have used paint which has been donated to the City for this purpose, and we have purchased paint in standardized colors "earmarked" for specific areas. We have and are developing a more flexible response capability "tailored" to the specific problem (e.g. 1> painting of precision block, stucco walls and wood fences; and, 2> water/sand blasting of slumpstone, splitface block and concrete surfaces. 3 . Summer Youth Workers: The Graffiti Problem which faced us at the beginning of Summer was a substantial one. It required a substantial response in terms of Manhours. That response was made possible, in large part, by the additional manhours which were made available to the City through the Summer Youth Employment Program. This short- term pool of labor enabled us to apply the concentrated effort needed to properly address the problem. With the termination of that program for this year, our graffiti removal efforts will have to rely on available staff. 4 . Schedule: With the compliment of manpower now budgeted in Public Works, it is our intent to devote an average of eight manhours per week to the Graffiti Removal Program. C. Graffiti Removed Graffiti was removed from public property (mostly in parks) and from private property. The majority of the Graffiti was concentrated in the downtown area -- especially the Millard Street residential area. However, no neighborhood was exempt. Graffiti was removed in almost every part of the City. In addition, in some areas Graffiti reoccurred several times requiring removal each time the problem re-appeared. An estimate of the total volume of Graffiti removed during the months of June, July and August is as follows: 1 . Number of Incidents 82 2. Approximate Total Area (SF) 20,000 Graffiti Removal September 19, 1990 Page 3 D. Program Costs The estimated costs incurred for the Graffiti Removal Program for the three month period from June through August is summarized as follows: Man Hrly 1 . Labor Hours Rate Cost $ a. City Crews 221 12.70 2 , 807 b. Summer Youth Employees 95 00 00 c. Maintenance Supervisor 25 21 . 00 525 d. Director 20 30 . 00 600 Total 361 3 ,932 Hrly 2. Materials Oty Rate Cost $ a. Sand 3 ,900 # . 032 125 b. Water 28,000 ga . 001 28 c. Primer 70 ga 0 0 d. Paint 50 ga 10.00 500 e. Other 100 Total 753 Hrly 3 . 5quipment Hours Rate * Cost $ a. Hydro-Sand Blaster 95 4.00 380 b. Truck 200 1.50 300 c. Miscellaneous Supplies N/A N/A 200 d. Other N/A N/A 50 Total 930 . Cost Sub-Total 5,615 . Administration & Overhead (15%) 885 Total Cost 6,500 * Amortized Rate Graffiti Removal September 19, 1990 Page 4 E. Hidden Costs In addition to the actual costs noted above, the re-direction of Maintenance responsibilities to include Graffiti Removal efforts resulted in deferral of other Public Works Programs and Projects. RECOMMENDATION Receive and File.