Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/27/2001 Adjourned Meeting / Study Session 12 9, . CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON ADJOURNED MEETING - STUDY SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 27, 2001 - 7:30 A.M. POLICE STATION /LEGAL CENTER - 200 SOUTH 3 STREET 1. ROLL CALL Present: Council: Mayor Mary Place, presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett, Henry Beauchamp, Lynn Buchanan, Larry Mattson, John Puccinelli, and Bernard Sims Staff: Glenn Rice, Assistant City Manager; Bill Cook, Director of Community and Economic Development; Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works; Denise Nichols, Parks & Recreation Manager; Shelley Willson, Streets/Traffic Operations Manager; Jeff West, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Police Chief Don Blesio; Nancy Fortier, Refuse /Recycling Manager; Bill Cobabe, Neighborhood Development Services Manager; Linda Rossignol and Nathan Thompson, Code Compliance Officers, Royale Schneider, Permit Technician; and Acting City Clerk Watkins 2. DRAFT LEGISLATION ON GRAFFITI ABATEMENT • Director of Public Works Waarvick acts as moderator and introduces the subject Chris Waarvick explained that today's meeting is to review a draft ordinance to provide a mechanism to take action against graffiti. He said the draft ordinance does not provide for any further criminal actions. Mr. Waarvick described the graffiti clean -up efforts expended by Parks, Streets, Refuse and Yakima Waste Systems that cost the City nearly $50,000 a year. • Council Member Puccinelli comments on being a victim twice Council Member Puccinelli expressed his concern about the ordinance making the citizen a victim twice by having to clean their own buildings. But, after thinking long and hard about that, he realized that whenever someone commits a crime against you, you are a victim twice. He used a smashed mailbox as an example where the victim would have to replace the mailbox in order to receive mail. Council Member Puccinelli also commented on the issue of enforcement and the additional workload this ordinance will cause the Code Enforcement Division. He related that as being similar to speeders, and that once you start enforcing the speed limit you see a reduction in the crime. 13 0. FEBRUARY 27, 2001 — ADJOURNED MEETING • Council Member Beauchamp has suggestions for obtaining volunteers Council Member Beauchamp said all the schools are now teaching service projects and suggested contacting them to see if they would take care of the graffiti in some areas. Chief Blesio reminded Council that schools throughout the valley have taken on the clean up of graffiti as a community service for the last three years and will be doing it again this year. Council Member Beauchamp suggested expanding and getting more schools involved. Mayor Place advised that the City is going to hold Paint Out Graffiti month again in April. There was concern expressed that with businesses closing down graffiti 'is going to get worse and with no ordinance in place there is no tool to enforce clean up. Council Member Beauchamp commented that history has proven that if businesses attack the graffiti quickly, such as the morning it is discovered, repeated graffiti goes away. It discourages the taggers from doing it again as there is nothing to show off. • Citizen's rights relating to graffiti There was discussion with regard to a business giving permission to "paint" on their building then there would be nothing the City could do about it. Council Member Buchanan said if that is true then all a business owner would have to do is say they gave their permission and then we couldn't enforce the ordinance to have them clean it up. Council Member Puccinelli agreed that there is the issue of property rights but emphatically said those businesses will be risking losing their customers by not cleaning up their property. If their building is the only one with graffiti on it and word gets around that they are giving permission for that graffiti to be there, they will pay by lost customers. • Seasonal component discussed Bill Cook, Director of Community and Economic Development, commented that it appears formal enforcement would start in the spring when the weather gets warm again. Code Enforcement's workload for other complaints peaks during that same timeframe. Council Member Puccinelli suggested that if the City did the major clean up in April with the Paint Out Graffiti month, the enforcement workload would then be reduced at the beginning of their busy season. Mr. Cook suggested there be broader language allowing them to serve notices any time of the year but letting the recipient wait until the temperatures allowed them to paint it out. This led to a discussion about temperatures and weather conditions. The comment was made that clean up in the colder temperatures may require going back and painting over it again when it gets warmer. 2 FEBRUARY 27, 2001 — ADJOURNED MEETING 1 • Department of Corrections Crews and other potential volunteers The discussion then centered around using DOC crews to clean up graffiti on public facilities. Denise Nichols, Parks & Recreation Manager, advised that she is using a DOC crew full time to deal with graffiti. Council Member Beauchamp suggested there is a crew available through the City jail that could be used, but that idea was negated due to liability issues. Council Member Beauchamp said he had recently been speaking with the Job Corps and they are looking for partnerships. He suggested getting in touch with Gilbert Calac who runs the Job Corps to see if something can be worked out. • Citizen comments Ron Bonlender, a member of the Community Review Board, suggested that in the beginning the target for this ordinance be businesses only. Once an example is set then extend it to homeowners. Michelle Wilson, a local citizen, lamented that Council is talking about businesses and homeowners having to address the graffiti issue but asked what is being done about the kids who are doing it. She suggested if the same places are getting hit over and over again, it might be wise to set up a surveillance to catch them. Council Member Barnett commented that it is a criminal act right now and that a recent letter to the editor in the paper was wrong. Kevan Montoya, a local attorney speaking as a citizen, said he had written the letter to the editor and that there is not a City ordinance making it illegal to commit or carry graffiti implements on public property. Jeff West, Sr. Assistant City Attorney, responded with options that are being done and others than can be done to deal with this issue. He referred to a memo he wrote 12/29/94 that outlined four actions that can be done: 1) Criminalize the act. He pointed out that Chief Blesio has advised of a change in the state law that will be presented to City Council soon because the City must stay in step with the state. The current law says that graffiti resulting in damages of $50 or less is a misdemeanor and if the damages are over $50 it's a gross misdemeanor. The revision will make all graffiti a gross misdemeanor with a year in jail and a $5,000 fine. 2) Create an abatement process, which is what this ordinance is about 3) Prohibit the sale and possession of spray paint by minors 4) Make parents civilly liable for the actions Mr. West advised that item 1) is being done and the revised ordinance can be ready for the next City Council Meeting and, item 2) is what we are working on now. 3 132. FEBRUARY 27, 2001 — ADJOURNED MEETING Mr. Montoya suggested that the City can make it illegal right now for a juvenile to have graffiti implements on public property. He handed out a model ordinance that has the language to do that. He also suggested passing legislation to make it a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor for juveniles to have marking implements and spray paint. He said if you only work on having it cleaned up by the property owner you are making it easier for the perpetrators to do it over and over again. Council Member Puccinelli was concerned that it would be unconstitutional to not allow young people to have paint. Council Member Barnett referred to two sample ordinances used in Toppenish and they say they are relatively unenforceable. Lynne Kittelson, 305 N. 9th Street, told Council that she has done research on the Internet on this problem, and that all the cities she researched provide graffiti removal with equipment and staff that go out and do the cleaning. They also have volunteer programs where people adopt areas. Her opinion is that the City is using a shotgun approach and needs to look at long term solutions using partnerships and fund raising to obtain the money to address the clean up problem. She referred to Mayor Daley in Chicago and how he refused to sign an ordinance that victimized the victim. Once that city cleaned up the graffiti about three times they didn't have to do it again. They had a graffiti hotline and would have it cleaned up within 48 hours. Mrs. Kittelson handed out the information she had gathered from the Internet. • Back to the proposed ordinance Mr. Waarvick brought the focus back to the ordinance. Council Member Barnett asked about high priority liens on page three as compared with other liens. Mr. West suggested the process go through the Community Review Board. He said we would be using the Community Review Board, not for the function authorized by state law for a high priority lien, but to simply act as a monitoring board. Mr. Cook recommends the enforcement policy on this be handled on the same order as a weedy lot. That would involve appeals going directly to Council rather than going to the Community Review Board. The Council would have two choices, to assess a. cost or not to assess a cost. It was noted that liens would be recorded in the title. Although this means added work, Mr. West expressed hope that the majority of citizens will act upon receiving the notice and clean up the graffiti. Council Member Beauchamp suggested giving people resource information when they are cited such as a list of who to call if they need help to avoid getting to the lien stage. Bill Cobabe, Neighborhood Development Services Manager, described how they dealt with similar problems with cleaning up yards. They added their phone number at the bottom of the citation and a statement that said if you are unable to clean up your yard to give them a call and they may be able to assist you. They have been able to supply resources for people without going through the Community Review Board. He said it is not a big administrative load because most of the people take care of the problems themselves. 4 133 FEBRUARY 27, 2001,- ADJOURNED MEETING Linda. Rossignol, C ode Complianc Office expressed concern about the three hardship limitatio citing an exam whe that could be exhausted quickly due to repeat offense against the sam home Council Member Barnett brought u the $100 appeal fee st ating it is wrong and that citizens could come to Council meetings and bring up appeals during audience participation for free. It was the consensus of the Council to remove the $100 fee and the three hardship limitation. When asked about streamlining the ordinance and having appeals come directly to the Council, they suggested the ordinance be modified and they will review it for agreement at that time. Mr. Cook commented that when the inspector is out in the field talking to someone about cleaning up the graffiti the first question they will be asked is what is the City doing about the person who committed the crime. They would like to be able to say that another process is coming that will deal with that issue. Council Member Mattson thanked Mr. Montoya and Mr. Cook for bringing up the criminal aspect of this issue and suggested another study session be held on that portion alone. 3. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 a.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: I — A ///' i / isUNCIL � EMBE' /BATE ' OUNCI 1 : R DATE ATTEST: ACTING 24/ ,a_., ACT CLERK Y PLACE MAYOR G C , Minutes prepared by Linda Watkins. An audio of this meeti g is available in the City Clerk's Office 0 r . 5