CC Minutes - 07/12/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

abatement program as it exists. Noting that no action was requested during the present meeting, Lankston forwarded staffs recommendation that the council adopt the proposed ordinance. The council issued the following questions and comments concerning the proposed ordinance, staffs responses are in parentheses. · Meisner: To what locations were the "Graffiti is Not Art" brochures distributed? (The brochures were posted in City buildings, distributed to interested parties, and presented to community groups.) · Meisner: Suggest that the "Graffiti is Not Art" brochures be included in a future citywide mailing. It is important to recognize that neighborhood organizations may not be the most effective way to distribute the information to residents. Support the proposal that the City assess no charge against property owners whose property requires graffiti abatement a few times per year; however, do not support withholding a fee when the situation has become "abusive." Doing so might encourage property owners to simply allow the City to clean up the graffiti on their property. · Kelly: Pleased that this is a multi-faceted program. Noted that the "Graffiti is Not Art" brochure does not address the issue of graffiti prevention. Suggest that such information be included. With regard to the "graffiti wall" concept, opposed to discontinuing consideration of that option. Additional research is needed. · Kelly: Would vote in opposition to the proposed ordinance due to the definition of"graffiti" that is included therein. The proposed definition could result in fines being imposed on persons who, for example, post a sign on a telephone pole or write on a bathroom wall. The definition should be refined. · Nathanson: Pleased with the sanctions for graffiti violations that would result from the proposed ordinance. The ordinance would result in an increased prosecutability of graffiti violations. With regard to the City removing graffiti from private property, have been contacted by constituents who were displeased with the graffiti-removal methods used by a City of Eugene employee. How can the City ensure that it does not receive a claim as the result of acting prematurely in removing graffiti from private property? (The City would send to the property owner a courtesy notice alerting them to the planned abatement. The proposed ordinance would allow for a 10-day delay and a hearing, if requested by the property owner. With regard to the graffiti-removal methods used by employees, the City cannot guarantee a color-match when painting over graffiti.) · Papd: Satisfied with proposed penalties for graffiti violations. Agree with Mr. Kelly that the definition of "graffiti" should be refined. Perhaps the definition could include the phrase "exterior surface." With regard to a comment made by Mr. Meisner, graffiti is not the problem of property owners, but rather is a citywide problem. · Rayor: Disappointed with the costs associated with graffiti abatement. The burden appears to remain on property owners. · Torrey: How many graffiti-related citations are issued in Eugene each year? (There were 455 graffiti-related citations or arrests last year.) · Torrey: Suggest that the City issue a Request for Proposals for daily assessments of and painting in the areas of Eugene identified as having the highest level of graffiti application activity. This might be an effective way to address the problem on a daily basis and demonstrate to those applying the graffiti that graffiti will not be tolerated. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m.