Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0575.093, November t.., 1993 THE HONORABLE CITY COu"NCIL Palo ~to. California Attention: Policy & Servi~es committee Anti-Graffiti Program tolfe'll"obers of the Council "; Report in Brief Thie report provides the Policy and Services Committee information on the scope I cost/resource impact and timing of anti-graffiti program elements~ The information is based cn guidance given by the Comndttee at its August 3, 1993, meeting. It is difficult to accurately forecast the effecti veness of each element or combination of elements. Therefore. staff recommends a moderat.e cost r one .:md one half year tl"ial period anti-graffiti progra.m u.tilizing temporary personnel. This ...-ill allow sufficient time for staff to evaluate the efficiency and coat effectiveness of the trial program. The findings will guide staff in recommending a permanen~ program for possible inclusion in the FY 1995-~6 budget. The trial program implement.a.tion costs for the remainder of FY 1993-94 would be approximately $82~500. The FY 1994-95 annual cost would be $165.000. Overyiey of Recommended Elernen~ Please no~e that the elements contained in the July 29~ 1993~ staff report to the policy and Services Corr~ittee have been rearranged and grouped under three general categories: removal. pub~i c support/outreach and enforcement measures. The proposed tria.l program a.ddresses !';r_ffiti reJDOval on City, other agency and private pl"Operty for a total annual cost af $128,000 as follows:: Staff recommends establishing a dedicated graffiti ~emoval unit utilizing temporary help for $55.000 which would increase removal on City property and on other agency property. OVer the next year, an evalua.tion would be made of convex-ting to p.ermanent staffing or to contracting for this ser7ice. Staff also recommends a $10;000 pilot program to apply sealants and anti-graffiti paint at chronic graffiti City sites in --------------------- -' -'fI.- !-,' an effort to redu:::e l::-emoval costs. Fer priva-:e property, staff recommends adopting an ordinance re~.liring t.imely graff it i removal, together with a pilot $10, OCO incentive program, which would reimbt.irse $50 to com~,l:i ant property owners. Administrating the graffi ti abatement ordinance 'Would :r-equire a temporary enforcement officer for $2(), 000. A $10,000 8tar.dby City contract is also recommended for City graffiti removal on non-compliant property. Finally, staff recommends hiring a ternporary' coordi!1ator to manage 'Jolunteers performing graffiti rett,,:;rval on public and private property for S23,000. The proposed program addr~sses public Bupport/outraach on graffiti issues for a to'tal annual cost of $)S~ 000 as follows: Staff recommends estal:>li6hinq a City t'".otline utilizing temporary staff for $22,000; creating graffiti removal kits for $J~OOO and preparing removal tec~ique brochures for $10,OCO. The brochures would provide informati~n on recycled paint and sealants; and would be distributed through the hotline and t~e Police Department's C::.-ime Prevention ::Ii visio::on. Also, the Youth council would be used to educate students on the consequences of performing acts of graffiti. The proposed program addresses enforc..-nt mea8ures for a total anm:al cost of $:2.000 as fo110W8: Staff recommends adopting a restitution ordinance which holds parents civilly 1 iable for property cefacement by minor9 acd expanding_ the City~ a Juvenile Divereion prog=am to require graffiti removal by youth offenders on private property. The overtime cOSt to administer the expanded program would be $2,000. Detailed Dis£llSl#iQn of Recqrnmended Eler.'terts Following i.e a mere detailed explanation of the thirteen anti­ graffiti program elements recommended for the next one and one hall years at an annual estimated cost of $165,000. The program would be financed by the General Fund and Utility Funds, depending on the locat.ion of the graffiti. and by reiml:mrsetTIents from other agencies and private property c·wners as discussed later. A table summarizing the cost of program elements is included in Attacranent A. The table al.so includes a priority designation of "1-or -2· for each element.. The '"1" elements are incerrelated and fit together as a package. They have the common attribute of addressing graffiti removal quicklYt a characteristic which the Policy and Services Committee indicated as a high priority. The -2-elew~nts# while generally having a longer term impact~ are most important in promot ing comm1,l.,ity awareness a.nd involvement. This i.nformation may be. useful t.o the Commit.t~e if it 'Wishes to phase in program implementation over the ne~t one and one half years. JIBIIOVAL CMR:575:93 -1- ---------_._ .. , .- 1. ~Dcr~.a6d graffiti remov«l tor City parka and buildings. Sta.ff recommends that all City g:cafiiti rerr.oval be centralized under the Public: Works Department, including buildings, parks a!1d utili::ies, to improve efficiency and reduce overlapping responsibilities beh .. een departments. (An interfund transfer between the Utility rund and General Fund would be made <rihe:r~ appropriate,) It is not possibl~ to accurately establish a lev~l of service and cost that will ensu.re all graffiti remova.l within a specified time fl.-arne. as it is dependent or. many factors beyond slaff's control. One complicat.ing factor is that increased graffiti rE:mo· ... al frequencies provide even more opportunities for r"!'occ-.;.rrences. Over the last six month!i~ the City has experienced approximately 110 incidents of graffiti per month en City property~ including parks, streets~ utilities and build2.ngs, Depending on the location" the removal took from one-half bour to four hour9 to complete. In orde:>: to minimize graffiti removal costs, staff recommends a prog~am with particular emphasis on quick ~omplaint response, The program would have a goal of removing non­ profanity graffiti vithin five working days~ baaed on a rate of four to six locations per day, If the program includes substantial work on school sitee, Santa Clara Valley Water Discrict property a."ld tl;ain stations. as discussed in Element 2 ~ the :t'eGponse time could increase t.o ten calendar days. The ten day limit is consistent with the requirements of 3 proposed private propert.y graffiti remoyal ordinance discussed in Element 3. Profanity-type graffiti would be removed within two days. Staff recommends establishing a dedicated graffiti 'removal unit. The total annual cost would be approximately $55,000. including $25,000 for a...Tl hourly lahorer~ $~a,QOO for supplies and $12, ODD for equipl1tent. An existing City truck would be utilized. The City's cost would be reduced, dep~ndent 'Upon the extent of reimbursement receiv~d from other governmental agencies participating in a joint. program, as :.:iiscussed in Element 3. Implementation of this element would take three months. Over the next year staff "iIio .... ld evaluate the program' B effectiveness based on actual experience, examining such options as utilizing permanent staff, leasing/purchasing new equipment or entirely contracting out th~s service. Absorbing this anti-graffiti eleme.nt into. the existing workload with no additional funding would result in a $55,000 reduction in the street signing and striping p1:Qgrarn. St.aff also recommends implement.ing a $10,000 pliot program to apply sealants and/or anti-graffiti paint on various City facilities prone to graffiti abuse, such as restrooms, bridge -)- .. r 'J 1"'> .-... / .. " abutments. etc. The application -::>f the sealant material would be perfor~ed by the laeoreL from the City's graffiti removal unit at ::l cost of approximately $100 per site. This pilot progra;n would be reviewed ov~r th-e next year tc determine whether gealants and anti-graffiti paint tr;,;,ly make a difference in tbe overall cost of removal. z. Xnt~r.gency cooperative .ffort. Staff has contacted representcH. i ves from the Falo Al to Unified School District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, U.S. Postal Service, Santa Clara County T~ansportation Age:lcy, S:tn Mateo Transit District. Joint Powers Board (Caltra:ln,i and Cal Trans to determine interest in a cooperative graffiti removal effort. All agencies have existing programs t-., remove offen.sive graffiti ·".:ithin a week. The School District, San~a Clara Valley Water District and Joint Powers Board are very interested in pursuing cooperati .... e agreements ..... ith th~ City due to the increase and amount of graffiti. The agreement would address Auch issues as cooperative funding, liability insurance requirements and access arrangements. etc. Staff would pureue full cost: recovery for City work performed within other agencies~ property. The impacts of this element are extremely difficult to estimate due to lack of graffiti records. Depending on the number. type and size of graffiti incidents reported, this added responsibilitf ~uld reduce staff's availability for responding to graffiti calls on City property. Staff does not recommend absorbing the coat of thie element in the existing budget. as the work is beyond the scope of services normally provided by the City. HO"" .. ever~ staff does recommend including this effort as part of the graffiti removal from City parks and buildings discussed in Blement 1. Impl~mentation of this element would take six monthe. 3. Or~nanc. to require graffiti reaoval OD private prop.rty. Based on a review of 35 existing abatement ordinances, and feedback from the palo ~to Board of Realtors and Chamber of Commerce, staff recom:nends adopting an ordinance that is simple to administer and encourages compliancE. through an incentive !eature. The incentive provision is intended to a·foid the "double penalty" that many prO-:Jel:ty owners~ once victimized by graffiti vandals, may feel when ordered by the City to remove the damage. I\!ElO, the ordinance .... ould incorporat:e a reactive approach. that is, requiring abatement only on a complaint basis. The incentive program rewards owners with $50 if graffiti abatement. is perfom,ed within five days of receiving a notice from the City. Alternatively. the owner may permit the City -4 - , \ to re!r;oVe the graffiti at an agree~ price through a standby contract which is discussed in Element 4. If the owner takes no action within ten days to remc,ve the graffJ..ti, the City would pr'cceed with an abatement proces'3, .... hiC'i1. ultimately r':'!sults in lie-ns b~ing placed on the propert.y, if other coll~ction me~hod.e are unsuccessful. prope:z:'ty owners could appeal the amo"..mt of the lien through an annual public hearing. similar to the weed ab~tement process. The administrati-"e steps req-L.l.ired to OiIbate gra::fiti and cost analysis are included in Atta.:::hment B. The analysis indicates -=.hat the Cit)"s adrtllnistrative cost: for the incentive program is approximately $150 per case. This compares favorably with the $leO ad..'liinistrative cost for City graffiti removal on private property. or a minimum $400 administrative cost fOr pursuing the full abate~ent process on non-compliant properties. In order to cont.rol incentive program costs, staff reco!tLltlends an annual cap be established of $10;000. This would provide a $50 reimbursement to approximately 15 properties per month. Due to the uncertainties of whether the incentive program ~ill successfully promote graffiti removal by property owners, staff recommends including a -sunset clause w in the ordinance which terminates the program in one and one half years ~~1~69 specifically extended by Council. Staff also recommends hiring a half-time temporary enforcement officer at an annual cost of $20,000. The enforcement officer would respond to graffiti compV:lints on private property and folloW' up with site visits to ensure complianccl as part of the abatement pz:ocess. The recommendation ia based on an estimate rangl.Dg from 20 to 4-0 cases per month. Implementation of this anti-graffiti element would take approximately three months. Staff would evaluate the effectiveness of both the enforcement officer and the incentive program o .. ~er the next year. Absorbing the enforcement offi~er responsibilities into the existing workload, with no additional funding, would result in a 50 percent reduction in available resources to respond to all other code compliance issues. t. seandby co~tra~t Staff recommends that the Public Works Department establish a prearranged agreement with a contractor (a standby can!:ract) for graffiti removal on private property4 The contract would be used to abate gz:'affiti in the event that an owner did net comply with the graffiti removal ordinance. It would also be ~sed if the owner entered into an agreemen~ with the City for graffiti removal~ -5- .. As it is extr~T'1ely difficult: t..o establisi"", a cost for this program element! staff recommends a mcdeet initial funding af $lD.OOO a~~ually. which ~o~ld cover rhe cost of -approximately 30 locations at 53.30 apiece (three to four hours per location). Mir:o.I' additional costs 'WOllld be incurred to prepare the necessary liability waivers to allow a City contractor access to private property and tor City staff to supervise the contractor's work. 7he City would recei'\re reiml::mrsement for gr.:tffH.i removal from the property owners. Implementing this anti-graffiti element would take approximately two months. Staff does r:.ot recommend absorbing t.he cost of d standby contra::t in the existing budget. as the work is beyond the scope of services now bei~g pErformed by the City. 5 _ Voluo.t.ere Staff recommends t~'at the Communit}~ Services Department expand the existing Adopt-A-park program to in~lud~ the use of volunteer groups and individuals, corporate entities and the husiness community to remove graff1ti. currently, there is no coordinat~r for the Adopt-A-Park program. !n order to assume J:he added responsibiliti' of graffiti .t-emoval. staff recommends hiring a 3/4 time temporary volunteer coordinator at. an annual cost of $2:3,000. The position ""ould be responsible for public outreach for the program, volunteer grcup cocrdination. as well as, volunteer training, scheduling and recognition. Graffiti removal would focus OD public property and be coordinated closely with the Public Works and Police Depart~nta. It would take six ~onths to establish ar~ effective volUrlteer program. During the next year j staff will evaluate the effectiveness of using temporary peraor~el. If this responsibility was absorbed into the existing wor)Cload~ with no additional fundirtg, it would seriously affect staff's ability to adequately monitor Human Services contracts, aseist East Palo Alto in gl:ant writing. and provide support to the Human Relations Corr.mission, the Disability Awareness Task Force and the Youth Council. 6 • City botline Staff recommends that the Public Works Department be established as the City poirtt of contact for reporting incidents of graffiti on public or private property~ responding to inquiries, disseminating graffiti information and receiving anonymous tips. Staff -"<'I1ould fo~low up by contacting the responsible agency or City depal:tment for cleanup and by tracking the graffiti removal through a work - 6 - , orcler sys.tem. The boeline ~ervice5 and phone n'...lmber would be advertised in graffiti broct.!.lres; utility bill inserts ar;d in the newspapers. The hotline would be in service 24 ho~rs per My throu.gh t.he use of an ans. .... 'ering machine or a!"~s\olerin'3 servlce. Staff reccmmenda that a temporary clerk initially be I.lsed as the hotline coordinator at a cost of $22,000 and a workload evahtation based on actu:;tl e><'''Perience, be made over t:.he next year. The ho!:l:i..no; coordinator wOi,lld be responsible for responding to telephone calls. r·;:>uting 'Work orders, dispatching and follow-up. The posit jon would also provide support for the interagency cooperative effort discussed in Element 2. l'nplementation of this anti-graffiti elemenc would take two months. The PUblic Works Department could not absorb this function without se-riously compro!T'ising current day to day operation9~ including responding to treeS I streets and storm drain calls. 7. Gr.~fit~ r~.l technique hrochur ••. Staff recommends that the ~lic works Department administer the design, printing and distributio.c of broch\.6res which describe the methods. products and precautions for re~ving graffiti from various types of surfaces. The brochure wo11ld include the City hotline telephone number and additional information on such items as recycled paint and sealants, which are discussed in Elements 9 and 10. Aleo l the hrcchures would be: dist.ributed by the Police Department' 5 Crime Prevention Division as indicated in Element 11. The design of the brochure is est.imated to cost $1,000. Printing and distribution costs 'Would be S9; 000. Staff would review the most cost effective me .... ns of disseminating the information to residents~ including Utility Bill inserts and Palo Alto Weekly inserts. The: brochures would be available for mailing or distribution wi~hin two months. If the brochure costs were absorbed in the existing budget; there 'Would be a $1.0;000 reduction in the tree maintenance. street maintenance or sidewalk repair budget. 8 . a~val k1 t. Staff recommends that the Community services Department create graffiti removal kits, which would include such items as non-toxic chemical cleaner, paints, cloths; brushes I paper towels~ safety gloves, disposable bags and "Graffiti Buster­ vests. Brochures would be created explaining the use and safety requirements for the materials. Volunteers using t.he kits would be required to receive training on proper graffiti removal tecl'l..niques and materials disposal, as well as, sign -7- "-----, 'r'~~· .' liil.hili ty release for-ma provided by the vol unteer coorair,ator. The cost would be approximately $3,000 3.nnually based on 100 kl.ts at $30 apie<:e. The kits would 'be available ·oIIithin c,ne month. Abe:orbing the coSt of the ld ts i.n the existing budget ... o:..;.ld result j,n a 5 perceut reduction in supplies and materials available for park mainte~ance, 9. Re<:ycled paint Public works staff would provi.:!e information to private businesses and voluntt!ers on how to obtain inexpen~ive recycled paint from Iocal sup~liers. This would be done 2.8 part of the hotline and graffiti removal technique brochures discussed in Elements e: and 7. In addition, staff is looking into obtaining recycled paint through 'Lhe City's Household Hazardous Waste contractor and mak.ing it a\"ailable to the public at the Water ~Jality Con'Lrol Plant~ 10. Se • .lant. Staff recommends that the Pub] ic "ri"orks Depa:ctment prepare information for distribution to businesses on sealant coatings. Although coatings can make graffiti removal easier. less expensive Beal.u-~ts come off 'M'hen cleaned with hot pressurized water and, as a result, must be reapplied. Therefore. information 'WOuld be included on application techniques, product availability, cost and safety precau~ions. The information would be developed as part of the graffiti removal technique brochures discussed in Bleme.nt 7 and would be a,vailable within t\ttlO months. 11. C""""""t ty OUtr_"b/Bdu.c:atiOD staff recommends that the Crime Prevention Division of the Police Department distribute brochures which include graffiti information regardinq prevention, incident reporti'lg, removal techniques. sealants~ recycled paint and Clpplicahle laws. etc. The brochures would be distributed and the information discussed at neighbo.l"hood. watch meetings, schocls .and local business and neighborhood association meetings. 'the information would be created as part of other anti-graffiti elements discussed in this report~ As there would be minor additional staff time necessary to distribute the information I this anti -graffiti element could be abso~bed into the existing workload. The timing ("If distribution would be dependent upon the schedules of other anti-graffiti program elements. Also, the Police Department would provid~ inforT!'lation and special training to Adopt-A-Pari<: volunteers (discussed in Element S) regarding the so-::ial imp3.cts of gangs, the meaning of tagging and public safety precautions. -8- ---..... S't.a.ff recommends u..t i1 i;!ir.g ttle Youth, i::ouncil to educilte student.S on the cons~quences and iwpacts of performing acts of graffiti. The Council believt's that student s inclined to perform acts of graffiti would be dissuaded if they were made aware of the punish:'r.ent ~ The Council would make its peers aware of the City's aggressive ar.ti-graffiti program, emphasizing the city's commi tme.r::t to abating this problem. The program would be created and coordinate-d by staff without additional cost tnrough a shift in existing workload priorities. Implementation of the. progra'!t'. 'wlould be. ha.ndled by the Youth Council. Particular emphasis would be pla~-ed or.. t.he Greer Park area, which has been the subject of repeated graffiti incidents. 12. R •• titutian ordinance for graffiti removal Based on a review of other municipalities, staff recommends a restitution ordina:lce which reinforces California Civil Code. The code provides tp~t parents or legal guardians can be held civilly liable for up to $lOiOOO for damages caused by a minor~s defacement of property. The Police Department would work wit.h the City Attorney's Office to draft a restitution ordinance which reinforces state code, requiring adults to cleanup or pay fer graffiti removal upon conviction of the minor. The absorbed coat for drafting the ordinance would be approximc;.tely $2 .. 00-0. Enforcement cost could rang€! from $1.00 to $1.. 000 per case depending on the complexity of the situation_ The ordinance would be drafted and implemented within two to six months. 13. JuveDile Diver.ion Program 8Zpao.ion CUrrently .. youth offenders eligible for participation in thl! Police Department's Juvenile Diver9ion prograr."L remove graffi~i on public property_ Pe~ding the outcome ot a legal review on potential liability issues l staff recommEnds extending graffiti removal to private propel.-ty in instances where youth offenders are arrested for vandalizing private property. The I'olice Depart.rn.ent staff IfLf0111d arrange for the removal with the cooperation of the property owner. The cost impact for this anti-graffiti program element includes an officer's time needed for the supervision of the removal, Most of the removals are done on weekends and, because other workload precludes providing supervision during standard work schedules .. the officer 'wlculd be compensaced on an OV6rtime basis irfith costs approaching $2 1 000 annually. Staff recommends that in those instances where the offender is also the perpetrator of the vandalism t costs associated -9- ;.­ .... 1-_ . .. ,~-,,('; ,~'\ with paint and equ.,ipff1.ent be the responsibility of the offender and/cr parr:nts of the offer~der. The legal issues would b~ handled '-'ithin two mcnths. Utilization of the expanded prograM. "Quld be dependent upon the apprehensicn of offenders found to be responsible for privace property graffiti vandalism. Absorbing the overtime cost in t::he existing budget would significantly affect staff's ability to investigat'=! other juvenile and child abuse caseS. Oiscussion of non-recommended Elements; 14. orQin~ce co regulate the .torage and di8play of spray pai~t and marker pens. Staff believes that an ordinance regulating graffiti i!19tr',J.ments ("lock UD ordinance") would be ineffective, because of Palo Alto's relatively small geographic size and the availability cf spray paint and marker pens in nearby cities. Cities with such crdinances report that they have had a minimum impact on reducing graffiti. Other cities have considered similar crdinances. but have decided against them due to the problems th6y present for retailers. Based on this and feedback from the Policy and services Committee and the Chamber of ComIT~rce'a Governmental Action Council. staff does not recommend a -lock up· ordinance. This element would be considered again, if the Legislative Task Force of the Santa Clara County Cities Association i 8 successful in lobbying all cities to implement such an ordinance. If this element were included in the anti-graffiti program, the absorbed cost for the Atcorney's Office to develop the ordinance \liQuId be approximately $500. Th.e initial cost for the Police Department Code Enforcement Officer would be approximately $l~OOO and follow-up on complaints would range from $100 to $.200 per incident.. The ordinance would be drafted and impleme:lted within two to three month:;;;. While it is possible to absorb this additioual workload. delays in othel: duties assigned to the Code Enforcement O,tficer .... ould 'Occur such as street closure and other permits, taxicabs inspections, follow-up 00 complaints related to the smoking ordinance. etc. 15. MUral. at chronic graffiti location •• Sta.ff reviewed two options of creating murals at chronic graffiti locations such as in Rinconadfl. Hoover and Mitchell Parks and at City underpasses. First, volunteer groups such as neighborhood associations would be solicited to paint murals that capture the uniqueness of ~he neighborhood. The Public Arts Commission would review the design and a local -10- . , ;.-. artist would over~ee the painting. A secor.d option would be to commL'3sb.Jn local artists to paint the murals. Staff does not recommend this ~lement because recent surveys "",ith othe!'" cities show that their murals still become targets for graffiti abuse. Cities are left with the ~nenviable task of dealing with graf!'iti removal without damaging the underlyir:.g mural. The cost of the removal would make the program counterp1-""oducti ve. If this element ..... ere included in the anti-graffit:i program, the cost ot the first option vould be apprcxi~~tely $4,000 per mural including $2,000 for the services of an artist to oversee the painting and up to $2,000 for a sealant coating. There would be minor staff administration time involved. The cost of the seco~d option would be $5. 000 to $7. 000 per rr:ural including the artist paiating, sealant coating and staff administration. This element of the anti-graffiti program would take approximately one year to implement. Recent Anti-Graffiti Actiyities The Legislative Task Force of the Santa Clara County Cities Association is addressing the subject of graffiti. including ways in which Santa Clara County cities and other governmental agencies can work cooperatively to combat the problem. At. their September 23, ~993 meeting, the t~sk force identified anti-graffiti program elements which could be implemented on a countywide basis. These included 8tandardizi::'lg abatement and graffiti instrument storage regulation ordinances, sharing educational materials. networking, encouraging cooperative access and funding agreements, and strengthening state laws regarding consequences to offenders. Staff sent copies of the July 29, 1993 Anti-Graffiti Program staff repOrt to members of the City/School Liaieo~ Committee J alerting them to the City's activit ies. A presentation was made to the Committee at their October 13, 1993. meeting. The Committee responded fayorably to the program~ especially pursuing cooperative graffiti removal ap~roaches and use of the Youth Council to educate students. St.aff ro.et with representatives of the Barron Park Association. The Asscciation has an aggressive graffi ti removal program which can be considered a8 a model for other neighborhood organizations. Program elements include providing cash rewards, holding regular meetings with the Palo Alto Police Department and distributing graffiti removal kits. F).iture Actions Attached is a summary of the steps and timir.g for anti-graffiti program actions (Attachm6nt C) ~ After Council's conceptual -11- .. ", > < -, " ~,-;f.-.:;,." i" --'"""1--~ "'1.",' '0 ,~-\;:,., -" approval, staff would return to Council for adept ion cf the appropriate ordinances to implemer..t the trial program tor ::.he remainder of FY 1993-94. Ccntinuation of the t.rial pro<;'ram funding tor FY 1395-96 ".,[ould be considered as part of the budget process in spring .1994 . St.aff would rEt-urn to Council :in late 1994-. "lIIfitb an evaluation of the trial program elements and a recommendat ion on a permanent program for possible inclusion in the F¥ 1995-g6 operating budget. This would bE based on information collected over approximately one year including the following: • number of monthly rewards given under the incentive program • number ~ content and distribution of brochures and removal kits • number of offenders apprehended and damages collected under the restitution ordinance • number and location of graffiti removals performed under the Juvenile Diversion program • monthly volume and cost of graffiti removal on City, other agency and private property • a comparison of graffiti removal costs at similar sites with and without sealants • monthly volume and cost of aba.tement casas on p:r;ivate property • monthly volume and cost of graffiti removal by volunteers • monthly number and type of calla re-::eived on the hotl ine • description of anti-graffiti meetings and training perfc~ed by the Police Department, and educational meetings performed by the Youth Council ReCommendations Staff recommends that C01.lnr:il: 1. Approve recommended trial anti-graffiti program elements 1 to 13. 2. Direct staff to retuL(,. to Council for approval of anti­ graffi~i ordinances and Budget k7lendment Ordinances necessary to fund trial program implementation for the remainder of FY 1993-94. ·12- '-"":, .. • '\ 3. 4. Direct that trial ant;i-graffiti progra!!l f .. mding be considered for inclusion in the FY 1994-!.15 Operating Budget. Direct staff to report back to COuncil af~er twelve rnontb~. with an evaluati~n of the trial anti-graffiti prcqram and a recomrncn,jation on a p.erma:lent program for inclusion in the F'i 1995-96 Operating Budget. P.espectfully submitted .. /-' ( / {'/;, ,~~ , ___ lr4/t VZ:r'l"t...-- GEORGE!" BAGDON Assistant Public Works Director Ci t y Manage r GLENN S. ROSERTS Director of Public Works cc: Will Beckett. President Barron Park Association Susan Frank, Director Chawber of Commerce Jane Alhouse Gee, President Palo Alto Beard of Realtors Donna Devenc~nzi, California A~nue Area Development Assoc, John RUBSO Micki Schneider. Downtown Marketing Co~~ittee Richard SPOtswood Thomas Barry Kevin Oskinski Joan Sullivan Bob Moss John Joynt John Benza Robert Marinaro Jack Goldberg Attachment. A -Cost. Summary B -Abatement Process/Costs C -Future Actions Timing CMR:575:.93 -13 - BleJll8nt 1. Increased graffit.i r~moval for City parks a.nd buildings. 2. Interagency coo erative effort. 3. Ordinance to require graffiti r9moval on private property. 4. St.andby contract. s ~ Volunteers 5. City hotline 7. Gr~ffiti removal technique brochures. e. Re~oval kits 9. Recycled Paine 10. Sealant& info~tion 11.. COtM\uni ty CUtre~ch Education 12~ R.estitution ordinance for raffiti removal. 13. Juvenile Diversicn Pr ram e ansioo. Tota~ Priority 1 Total Priority ~ 'l"Ol'AL COST Annual Coat. Using T ora Per.onn.l Public WOrk.: $55,000 for hourly personnel, equipm~nt , 6uppliea. $10,000 foe ·pilot sealanc/anti-gratfiti paint (possible reil'r'bursement. from other a encies PUblic Wer •• : Included in "1". Building: $20,000 for 1/2 time temporary code enf~rcement officer. $lO~ 000 tor pilot Incentive I Pr ram. Pub11e Work.: S~O,OOO for contractor ireimbureement from ro ert owners' + Bu.an BerTie •• : $2],000 foe temporary 3/4. time ccordinat(Jr. Public Work.: $22,000 for full time h urI clerk. PUbl~c WOrk., $~O,OOO for printing and distri~utins brochure.s. Park,: $3,000 for ~its at ~3a.Oa a iece PUblic Work.: Included ~ith ·7" . PUblic WOre.: Inclu~ed ~ith '7' police ~ CoamuDity 8ervie •• t minor Attorney 'Police: minor Rolic.: $2,000 in officer overtime. $117.000 +8.000 Slr;S,DpO ( Priority 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 I .. I ! , Step 1. Step .2. Step 3 ~ step 4. step S. Step 6. Step 7. Step B. Attachment 8 -Page 1 Abat~ment Procedure Complaint received from ho~line coordinator (He) regarding graffiti on private property initiating a field inspectio4o Enforcement officer (EO) researches ownership prior to perforT!'.ing inspection 103 fer prior incidents at site. property and checks EO performs field inspection, post.s n-.Jtice of violation, photographs nU~S3nce, gives tenant/occupant packet of materials which includes: Notice to Abate Graffiti within 10 days~ flyer on incentive program, and a.n agreement with City for removal (if owr_er ~xercises this option) EO sends registered letter to owner along with informatlcn described above. If owner elects to participate in inC6rltive program i EO inspects to verify removal within,S days. If owner elects to utilize the City contractor, EO sends agreement to He for action. If the 10 day notice is not complied with, a hearing is held by the Chief Building Official. Following the hearing, a Notice Df the Hearing Officers' decision is sent by certified mail to the owne~ with a copy for the He. He proceeds with the abatement. of the nuisance utilizing standby contractor if so deemed necessary by the Hearing Officer. HC prepares bill cont.ractor. implemented by delinquent. for work performed by City' s standby Fol1o~ up collection procedure Financ.e Department If bill is , Scenario 1: Scsnario 2: Scenario 3: .. ;" Attachmen~ 8 -Page 2 Abatement Adwinistrative Cost per Case ~~er abates graffiti • • • • He receives complaint, logs call, refers to EO EO performs research, inspects, posts notice, follows up Finance issues check !ncent.ive check City abates graffiti for owner • • • • • He receives complaint. logs call, refers to EO EO performs research, inspects, posts notice, follows ~p EO coordinates propezty owner agreement He administers removal cont~act Finance bills owner City proceeds with full abatement process on non-compliant own~rs • • • • • He l,"eceives-complaint, logs call, refers to EO EO performs research, inspects, posts notice, follows up EO administers nuisance abatement procedure/hearing/appeal He administers removal contract Finance pursues collection of delinquent bill. (Additional costs if proceeds to court case or lien.) • S 10 80 10 S 10 80 30 50 -1Q $180 $ 10 80 150 50 lQQ. $400 , ., '." '," r\· :: . ATl'ACIIMIlNT C FU'ruRE ACTIONS 'rIMXNG 1993 1994 1995 AQtion ~ ________ -+ ____ + __ ._+I ___ ---"i-__ Q_tr-+_~~~ 1st Qtt l Council conceptual approval of trial pl.'ogram 4th Qtr 2nd Qcr 3rd 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr council approval of related ordinancea for remai r.der of FY ..,.::~~ Budget process conaideration of trial program for FY 1994-95 Council evaluation of trial program Budget process Consideration of permanent program for FY 1995-96 Dec I . I ...... , .•• , ... , ...... , •• ..J. •..•.•........•..•..•...... j-.................................... j ......... , ..... . I F6b I ! iii . ···············,'"·,,,l·,,···· .. ····· .. ··········I.·· .. ·,...., ........ (..,"" i May/June , I i j ... , , m.R .. l ..... w .. _. ; I ;···,·,"',················1·····,' ." .... " ... W ""'''~~'''' ••••••••• ;.".n ........ ".. . ..•. ". .""'''W'''''·. Dec ! I Ii. ··········1""", .. ,·· .. ······· .. ······1..... ....... ····· ..... · ..... , ....... ··········.·1'·"" r I I , ••••••• ,"" ... " .. w .......... + .. I I I I May/ June .. ... ,. " ,.-\.-: '.