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