CC Minutes - 05/24/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap8 arrived at the meeting at 5:38 p.m. Mr. Torrey called on councilors and staff in turn to comment on the ordinance and ask questions. Mr. Meisner was pleased with the penalty element of the ordinance and the possibility of restitution. He asked if transgression of the ordinance constituted a violation or a misdemeanor. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated it would constitute a violation. Mr. Kelly stated his belief that the majority of graffiti was an eyesore and he favored prevention and prosecution of those defacing others' properties. He said that if graffiti was not quickly abated, it increased. However, he was concerned about the ordinance. Mr. Kelly wondered whether the City was trading one cost for another. Instead of having a City employee abating actual graffiti, Public Works Department employees would instead be enforcing the ordinance by sending out notices, following up on those notices, and abating the problem. Mr. Lankston said that the program as proposed would be self-funding. The administrative overhead would cover the cost of notices and/or inspections. Mr. Kelly expressed concern that at the current time the City abated graffiti within four days, and the ordinance gave property owners ten days, and beyond that there was the potential of further delay. Mr. Lankston said the City's experience with the vegetation removal program was that the problems were often addressed before the City had an opportunity to act. He said that once property owners have gone through the abatement process and know it was their responsibility to remove graffiti, he believed that they take care of the problem without the need for notice. Mr. Kelly was unsure if the vegetation removal program was analogous to the graffiti abatement program, as it was his experience that property owners abated the problem just before the City came out and mowed, and further that the property owners received annual notice. In this case, property owners would not have an annual notice. Mr. Kelly questioned the definition of graffiti, asking if it could refer to handbills. Mr. Kelly said that page 2 of the ordinance indicated that enforcement of the ordinance may result in the imposition of an administrative penalty, and asked if that was a penalty over and above the cost of abatement. Mr. Lankston said that currently, Chapter 6 provides for an administrative penalty that was beyond the fine. That was included as a possibility in the notice provided to property owners. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the amount of the proposed penalty. He said that the current code identified tagging as criminal mischief in the first or second degree, depending on the value of damage. He asked why the City needed a new penalty for such offenses. He said that the only difference he could perceive was the addition of the restitution and community service language, and suggested that language instead be added to the current criminal mischief laws. Mr. Lankston said it was staff's intention to bring such offenses into the Municipal Court system, as the restitution and community service penalties must be imposed through that venue. Mr. Kelly liked the concept of adding the concepts of community service and restitution to the existing code to provide judges with greater flexibility. Mr. Kelly said he would like input from the Neighborhood Leaders Council, John Brown, and the Rotary Club. He acknowledged a letter to the council from Richard Crawford regarding the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m.