CC Minutes - 04/21/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

being able to require a property owner to abate graffiti if they decide not to have the City do it. The third option would define graffiti, declare it a public nuisance, and require commercial, industrial, and multi-family property owners to remove graffiti. Failure to remove the graffiti would initiate removal by the City for which the owner would be charged. The abatement program would continue on single family houses. Mr. Lankston said the Interdepartmental Cooperation Action Team (ICAT) has recommended that the City adopt Option 3. Ms. Nathanson wondered if it were possible for the City to keep an inventory of paint donated by retailers to give to those property owners who cannot afford it. Mr. Lankston cited paint storage as a problem but agreed it would be something staff could research. Mr. Kelly agreed that graffiti degraded property, but expressed concern that allowing property owners do their own abatement would extend the time graffiti is visible, exacerbating the problem. He asked for more information on charges for removal to ensure it recovered the costs and also on how other similar communities were dealing with it. Mr. Kelly said he wished to add the .5 FTE proposed regardless of any other changes. Mr. Johnson said staff would prepare the additional budget item for consideration by the Budget Committee. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to direct staff to draft ordinances defining graffiti, declaring it a public nuisance, and requiring property owners, under certain circumstances, to abate graffiti on their property; and to bring to the council an explanation of funding an additional half-time position for graffiti abatement. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern that those creating the nuisance would go unpunished. Mr. Johnson said staff could provide information on what happens to individuals caught creating the nuisance. Ms. Taylor said she opposed the motion because it was like penalizing people who are victims of a crime. Mr. Meisner disagreed, noting it did not apply to residential property owners. He said unabated graffiti, which is mostly gang tagging, encouraged gang activity. Mr. Fart called for the question. The motion passed, 5:2; with Mr. Rayor and Ms. Nathanson opposed, and Mr. Lee having left the meeting. Ms. Nathanson ascertained that the draft ordinance would be reviewed by the council before a public hearing was called. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0, Mr. Lee having left the meeting. Mr. Rayor wondered if the City could require insurance companies to cover graffiti incidents. City Attorney Glenn Klein will research the possibility. VI. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT This item was postponed due to time constraints. Minutes--Eugene City Council April 21, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m.