The URL can be used to link to this page

Memo- Work Session Topic-Graffiti • Me1110��11C�.1�1'11 , -��, , �, .,� . To: Honorable Mayar and members of the City Council � � r �ir CC: Rick Getschow, City Manager �� . From: Chief Craig A. Reid � * � � Qat�: 01/14/2008 � �� Re: Work session topic-Graffiti ��Ip�� For the last several months, a cammittee of city staff has met to review current procedures for graffiti reporting, removat and enforcement in Hopkins. The staff conducted research both locally and nationatly looking for best practices and effective community programs. A review of current practices used Hopkins found that we do not have a program that insures accurate reporting of the events or a consistent system to insure removal of the graffiti quickly. Studies indicate that prompt removal of graffiti is a key to reducing additional or recurring damage in the same area. Graffiti gives community members an impression of disorder and orime; this perception is reduced by quick removal. Consistent efforts are necessary to insure that all events are reported for tracking and enforcement action. Successful progams require cross-department • cooperation and efforts. Currently the Police Department, Public Works Department and the City Inapector each handle different aspects of incident reporting. The committee has looked at our current process and recommends changes that: • Insure accurate reporting of all graffiti events in Hopkins. • Increase cooperation and information sharing with other jurisdictions to improve identification and charges against vandals creating this problem. • Improve information flow among city staffto monitor and track events. • Quicker and more personal contact with victims to help them with concerns about graffiti removal. • A program that provides discounted removal praducts at a local merchant for victim.s. With this memo I have included some study materials that our committee has reviewed. l. Report entitled Prevent Graffiti: Get the Facts produced by the Graffiti Hurts Organi7ation. 2. Report entitled The Role of Local Lawmaking in Community Anti-Graffati Plann�ng produced by the National Council to Prevent Delinquency. 3. A flow chart of the current city efforts along with the current brochure given to victims. 4. A flow chart of the proposed program along with a new brochure that includes a coupon for reduced costs for products. A number of staff from several deparnnents helped with the collection of materials and design of the • proposed plan. Investigator James Niemackl and Police Services Liaison Ann Marie Buck will join me at the wark session to highlight different aspects of the new plan. I look forward to our discussion on February 22. � Prevent Graffito: Get the Fact� www.graffitihurts.org 1. What is graffiti? You've probabiy seen gra�ti somewhere in your community. IYs the words, colors, and shapes drawn or scratched on buildings, overpasses, train cars, desks, and other surfaces. It's done without permission and iYs against the law. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program considers gra�ti vandalism. The term graffiti comes from the Greek word graphein, which means, "to write". Graffiti today ranges from simple, one-color monikers (like a nickname), called "tags", repeated on many surtaces to complex compositions of several colors. 2: How is a community really "hurt° by graffiti? Graffiti sends the signal that nobody cares, attracting other forms of crime and street delinqusncy to the neighborhood. ' Graffiti drains tax dollars. Funds that could be used for schaols, roads, parks, and other community improvements, are used for gra�ti clean up. Graffiti decreases a residenYs feeling of safety. Neighbofioods with gra�ti see a decrease in property values, loss of business growth and tourism, and reduced ridership on transit systems. • 3. What is the best way to prevent graffiti? The most effective way to prevent grafifiti is to remove it promptly. While this may be difficult, studies show that removal within 24 to 48 hours results in a nearly zero rate of reoccurrence. Consistent enforcement of local ordinances with strict penalties for graffiti vandalism is also effective. ln many communities citizens can report graffiti using a designated 800 number. Citizens can also "adopt-a-spoY' and keep it graffiti free. Or, turn a graffiti-piagued wall into a mural. Paint-brush murals are almost never hit with graffiti. 4. Do "legal walls" really work? Communities that have tried "legal" walls, an area that permits graffiti, fiind them ineffective at preventing graffiti. Over a dozen cities in California, Illinois, and other states have a{I found them to be "a failure". While well intentioned, legal walls send a mixed message and often cause more harm than good. They may appear to work at first, but after a period of time, the surrounding areas also become covered with graffiti. Data also shows no decrease in arrests for graffiti in cities where there are legal walls. 5. How do you remove graffiti? There are several ways to remove graffiti. The best method for removal is determined by the amount of graffiti, its location, and the vandalized sur#ace. The low-cost method is the paint- out, which is simply to paint over the graffi#i. Many city graffiti abatement personnel use solvents or chemicals to remove graffiti. Pressure washing the surface is also used. • Comc�nunities Primed to Stay Graffiti Free � ' First Response Team in Burlington, VT 1 Launched in December 2001, First Response Team repaired graffiti vandalism in over 90d ;� locations during 2Q04, racked up over 1,700 volunteer hours, painted seven murais in high-graffiti ; areas, and in a local survey found that 92% of respondents reported a decrease in graffiti in their � _ neighborhood. With an operating budget of $37,000, the program includes removal within 72 hours, weekly volunteer cleanups, volunteer training, youth service learning, adopt a block, mural � and other resforative activities, and community service for prosecuted graffiti vandals. � Operation Brightside, Inc., Kansas City, KS In 2003, to respond to an increase in graffiti, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, KS, built a coalition of public and private organizatians to assess the graffiti problem and design a solution. This Graffiti Task Force targeted ordinance changes, expanded public and youth education, and coordinated a new abatement effort. After one year, a total of 644 graffiti cleanup projects were completed, 96% of cails to the g�affiti hotline have been resolved, and the new code enforcement process is providing victims with free assistance. Ten Things You Can Do To Prevent Graffiti i 1. Get educated. Learn abou# graffiti, how it impacts your cornmunity, and who is responsible � for graffiti prevention and clean-up in your area. 2. Report graffiti to the appropriate authorities. 3. Organize a paint-out. Gather suppfies and community volunteers to remove graffiti in your neighborhood. L � ;:�� 4. Plan a paint-brush mural to cover a wall continuously plagued with graffiti. 5. Coordinate a grafFiti awareness campaign at your school or in the community. 6. Make a presentation on graffiti prevention to your school, class, or neighborhood group. 7. Adopt a spot in your school or community and make sure it stays clean and #ree of gra�ti. � 8. Plant trees or other greenery near a graffiti-plagued wall. This will help prevent access. i 9. Ask your community to install lighting in areas that are dark and often hit with graffiti. 10. Contact a local Keep America Beautiful affiliate (www.kab.orq) and volunteer to help keep your community clean. What's Graffiti Hurts IYs a non-profit, community-based graffiti prevention program. Graffiti Hurts was developed through a partnership beiween Keep America Beautiful, Inc., a non-profit organization dedicated to (itter prevention and clean communities, and The Sherwin-Williams Company, maker of Krylon� brand paint. Graffiti Hurts provides resources to help community leaders init+ate graffiti prevention activities, and to educate outh and adults about the im i act of raffiti van li Y p g da sm on neighborhoods. To learn more, visit www.graffitihurts.orq. [±G R/3�f tT� ' �v��t��.�t�A��. Produced by Graffiti Hurts� and Keep America Beautiful, Inc., 2006. � ----- - -- --� ;--� - - ---- i 1 • The Role of Local Lawmalcing in Community Anti-Graffiti Planning by Robert Hills, Executive Directo�^, National Council to Prevent Delinquency Introduction Legislation An Orderlv Anproach - A Word of Caution The Needs Analvsis A Basic Outline Resources • Introduction While acknowledging the existence of an organized graffiti "art" subculture, most persons experienced in the field agree that the greatest volume of graffiti vandalism has little to do with art and stems from larger and more complex problems in the society. Among these are the breakdown or absence of family structure; the lack of values education far the very young; and the inability of the system to convey, promote and . • enforce such fundamentals as paxental responsibility, respect for authority, respect for property and pride in community. As a consequence, long-term success in combating graffiti requires comprehensive programming that addresses each of these components as well as remediation for the damage and problems created by the vandalism, itself. That kind of programming can only be achieved through an act of collective political will on the part of the community -- institutions and citizens working together toward a common goal. In the following, we will explore the rale legislation can play in reaching that goal, reducing graffiti vandalism and attacking the crime at its roots. Also, we will outline the basics of a comprehensive community anti-graffiti ordinance and its application. • � Legislation : An Orderly Approach ��°� � Comprehensive anti-gr�ti planning encompasses three basic categories -- education, law enforcement an.d abatement (clean-up). In creati.ng a simple and workable program design, the proper order of planning activities is essential. . One logical order is to: • define the nature and size of the gra�ti problem; • identify, catalog and evaluate existing anti-graffiti activities; • set realistic program goals; � define changes required to reach those goals; and • ta.ke the actions necessary to bring about those changes. The best example of this planning order, or variations on it, in the development of anti- graffiti programs and legislation is the "task force" approach to the problem. Under this approach, municipal or county leadership — city council, mayor, county commission, coun.ty executive — brings together a multi-disciplined group of citizens, educators and involved government agencies to assess the gr�ti problem and design a comprehensive prograin to combat it. � The legislative needs that become apparent through this process are limited, for the most part, to filling perceived gaps in existing state and local law and to providing the � necessary powers to implement components of the program: i For example, task force research could reveal that most local gr�ti vandalism was committed by "taggers" and that rapid clean-up has been shown to reduce incidents of tagger graffiti. Logically, this finding would lead to a proposal for a comprehensive "blight ordinance" to assure the prompt removal or cover-up of publicly visible gr�ti on private properiy. In most instances, existing statutes and ordinances dealing with crimes against property can be applied to graffiti cri.mes. It is only in those situations in which that application is unclear or in which the ta.sk force consensus is that existing law requires strengthening or expansion that new legislation can be truly positive and productive. - Recently, the areas in which we have seen the most new local laws are penalties for vandals, parental liability and victim restitution. Legislation - A Word of Caution � . i � = F --- _ , -- _ _, - __ _ • There are few crimes a ainst ro e that enerate the an er frustration and fear g P Prt3' g g� triggered by graffiti vandalism. Both the victims and their neighbors axe outraged at the violation of property and by the image of vandal "gangs" roaming the neighborhood. . When this occurs, one of the first to hear about it wi11 be the neighborhood's elected representa.tive -- a city council or county commission member. With minor variations, the irate citi2en's request is always, and understandably, the same. Do sametlung! ry That request/demand from the voters creates a special dilemma for �lie elected o�cial. A major and highly visible function of pouncil and commission members is the formulation and passage of ordinances. It is one af the few tangible ways in which - elected legislators can respand to their constituencies. Consequently, in any issue area presenting widespread and heated voter sentiment, tlie pressure to "do something" frequently results in the introduction and passage of new law. The process provides many opportunities for public statements, testimony and media exposure.. Further, given the right level of fervor, virtually any Iegislation labeled "anti- • graffiti" stands a good chance of passage. Unfortunately, legislation produced in sueh an atmosphere often can have a certain "Ready! Fire! Aim!" quality to it and stands a Iesser chance of being an target. While this is nat news to readers in and around local government, including elected officials, it is intended not as criticism, but as a reminder that anti-gra�ti legislation is formulated in the real world of tocal politics. That means that the developing of ineaningful anti-graff ti legislation can and, often, will be affected by a number of subjective pressures quite separate from the problem and the community's Iong-term best interest. Among these axe: • the pressure to do to now rather than to do it right; • the pressure to do what will be papular rather than what will be effective; • the pressure for pubiic recognition- to be seen as the anti-graff ti leader rather then as part of the team; and � • the pressure of personal gain - to use the graffiti issue to steer more authority, money or staff ng to a favored person, department, agency, or can�ractor organization. � Whatever your roie in the process, you can contribute to the quality of policymaking by � being aware of these pressures, by not falling prey to them yourself, and by being � supportive of local elected officials who take a reasoned approach to the issue. Legislation - The Needs Analysis Earlier, we referred to an orderly approach to planrung - designing a program path from where we are to where we want to be. An important component of that plaruv.ng and program preparation is the enabling of government to set certain sta.ndards, to take certain actions, and to require certain behaviors to reach or sustain a collective community good. The appropriate enabling vehicle, in some cases, will be Iegislation. The needs analysis, audit or Iegislative inventory is simply the matching of existing law to the needs of the comprehensive anti-graffiti program and formulation of legislative language to fill the gaps or provide for strengtheni.ng or expanding the law to cover aspects of the programm;ng not addressed by the existing municipal or county code. This process is not as complicated as it may sound. The following outlines basic �`'�''` categories and the information required in each. The Crime - While most community ordinances define vandalism or property defacement, those defuutions may fall short of describing graff ti crime. Further, the community may want to deal with gr�ti vandalism differently than it deals with a broken window. : � �! Consequently, current law should be reviewed to assure that it contains: I • a definition of gra�ti; or • a definition of graffiti vandalism. � Further, if graffiti crimes axe going to include the possession of potential graffiti tools "with intent" to commit a crime or proscribe such possession in certain circumstances, i.e., on public property or on private pioperty without owner consent, it is essential to check the ordinance for definitions of graffiti tools. ' Finally, if the anti-graffiti plan restricts access to potential graffiti tools, i.e., prohibits sale of spray paint to minors, are these products currently defined by law? � If the existing co�e falls short in any of these areas, new legislation may be required. � � - - - - -- _ - - , :...:::_.,. . . i :; � . � _ ; � , _ _ _ _ _ � 'e - 'le existin ordinances will s eci enalties for vandalism it is unlikel Penaltt s Wlu g p fy p , Y that those penalties will be entirely responsive to the unique and repetitive nature of the ''� majority of graffiti crimes. For example, "tagging", the most common form of graffiti, places a high premium an the number of "tags" and their public visibiliiy. As vandals, "taggers" bear no particular animosity toward individual properties or property owners. Devoid of any respect for property rights, they select targets on the basis of location and risk. While many taggers are young adults, most start tagging or join crews in their early teens. . Because they begin cornmitting these crimes early, inflict such extensive damage, and are often difficult to catch, the penalty langua.ge in the ordinance provides a rare apportunity not only to mete out punishment for the crime, but aiso to right other wrangs. For exam.ple, penalties can include victim restitution; provide labor (community service) for clean-up; and, in the case of juveniles, force acceptance of parental res�onsibility. - If any or a11 those goals are in your programmin.g, they belong on your needs list in this category. • Abatement - While most communities have ordinances dealing with the accumulation of trash, overgrown lats and other eyesores and hazards, these laws often do not provide adequa.tely for the clean-up of graffiti defaced structures. A growing body of da.ta ind.icates that rapid and efficient remaval or cover-up of graffiti can substantially reduce the recurrence of graffiti crime. To assure timely and efficient clean-up, the Ioca.t needs analysis should review provisions for the removal of graffiti from private property and the payment for such removal. New Requirements - If the anti-graffiti plan contains actions or restrictions in areas in which the government has not previously been involved, those areas should be reviewed in the context of existing law and authority to deternune the need for new enabling legislation, if any. Legislation - A Basic Outline In drafting new local Iaw, the actual implementation results tend to be better if the authors are realistic and if they assume that those persons carrying out public policy have � a reasonable amount of good sense. � Legislative drafting is not the place for micromanagement. i ' As sta.ted eazlier, comprehensive community anti-graffiti programs usually contain three � � { elements or components - education, law enforcement and abatement. ; The education component deals with prevention -- teaching respect for property and pride in community -- thus directing or redirecting children and youth away from graffiti vandalism. The law enforcement component defines the actions which are proscribed as violations af property rights and commuxuty standards and metes out penalties for those violations. I The abatement or graffiti removal component provides the rules governing and the process implementing the removal or correction of damage inflicted by graff ti crime. As the organiza.tion of most local governments separates funding and manage�ient of the school system from the funding and management of government, it is the latter two elements ar categories on which most local legislation is focused. While there are certainly educationa7 aspects to the law enforcement and abatement portions of anti-graffiti programmin.g, they are almost always remedial ar rehabilitative in nature and not "educational" in a preventive sense in that they do not channel behavior before it becomes anti-social. The following outline is. provided for the reader who is am.ending an existing ordinance � i or blocking out a new anti-gr�ti ordinance. Your city, township, or county attorney will be familiar with existing law and will be proficient in drafting ordinance language. Form, style and authority vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I What the attorne nee y ds to lrnow from the anti-graffiti program planners is what, specifically, you want to do. The information you supply should includ�e the following: 1. Definitions - The new public policy is going to deal with subjects and terms which, in many cases, have not been mentioned previously in the law. You need to define them. Some examples would be: ' • Gra�ti - placing "graffiti" on the property of others is going to be a prosecutable offense. You need to state what the word mean.s; and ' • Graffiti implement - if your law is going to restrict possession of potential graffiti tools, it is important to define or innumerate what those are. � `+�✓ ---- -- - - - � .:..:_ :,.. _ . , �. � ; ; _ _ - - ,-- - . • 2. Prohibited Acts - This is the section that focuses on the vandal. The iwo principal. prohibited acts described in this section will probably relate to applying graffiti -- "defacement" -- and illegal possession of graffiti implements. In it, you will want to be sure to describe: � • the surfaces or property to which the application of graffiti is proh'rhited; and • the situations in which the possession of "graffiti tools" is prohibited -- public buildings, private pr�perty without permission, etc. If you are planning to implement retail sales or retail display restrictions for potential graffiti tools such as spray paint or markers, those restrictions should �e included in this section. Currently, the most common sales restriction is a ban on sa.le of spray paint to minars. If � your plan. includes this restriction, be sure to include terms such as "furnish" and "convey" as prohibited acts to cover the purchase of these items by persons over 18 years of age on behalf of minors. � 3. Penalties - Creating and applying penalties for graf�'iti crimes can be the mast complex • and frustrating aspect of anti-graffiti program development and application. It can also be the most challenging and rewarding. ., The area of most diff'iculty is usually that of juvenile penalties. While adult vanda.ls can be dealt with in a more straightforward �ashion, juven.ile justice processes tend to involve at least two jurisdictions (city and county}. They also contain additional steps intended to protect the juvenile and to offer counseling or rehabilitative a.iternatives prior to or in place of traditional sentencing, particularly for first offenses. This appraach is generally considered to be sound public and sacial policy, but if is somewhat maladaptive to the young graffiti vandal, particularly the "tagger." �1Jl�ile these young people most assuredly can benefit from intervention and juvenile services, a rnild response ta their "f�rst offense" is not necessarily in their best interest or in the best interest of the community, for two reasons: • graffiti vandals generally commit many acts af vandalism before being apprehended the first time; and • rnost gr�ti vandals subscribe to a value system so divergent from that of the society in general that they require substantial reorientation and redirection to a�oid recidivism. � Consequently, a productive sentencing package for the juvenile vandal who either pleads • guiliy or is found guiity of a f rst graffiti offense skould include a standard minimum combination of penalties that includes most or all of the following: . . ; • probation or other structured professional evaluation and counseling; ""` • community service; � • victim restitution; • parenta.l liability; and � • fine. � Further, all law enforcement or juvenile justice agencies involved in. intervention or diversion programs which, in effect, adjudicate juvenile crimes prior to or in place of formal proceedings should, as a matter of public policy, be educated to the serious and unique nature of graffiti crimes. These agencies should be further instructed to include the above sentencing components as part af any disposition made of the case or any agreement struck with the juvenile va.ndal aud his or her parents or guardians. If the vandal is an adult, the same cautions should be raised with respect to a"first offense." While ixad.ition and trust in the wisdom of the courts dictate that the law be � flexible with regard to fines and jail time, victim restitution should be an integral part of � sentencing, either through cash or clean-up, as should be coxnmunity service. . 4. Graffiti Removal (Abatement) - The rapid, thorough and efficient removal of gr�ti and repair of graffiti damage is the single most visible component in a cammunity anti- graffrti program. It is also a component that usually requires a great deal of community coordina.tion and, ;; "`" frequently, changes in or the establishment of a nuisance or "blight" ordinance. ; _ To get an idea of the potential complexity of an abatement plan, picture for a moment a single intersection in your neighborhood. Then picture a tagger moving quickly around the four corners of that intersection Ieaving his mark on every surface. In a few minutes, that vandal can tag light poles, stop signs, telephone poles, a mail box, a few sma11 businesses and maybe one or two private homes. . The property owners then responsible for removing that gr�ti or providing pernussion for its removal could include a public utility or public works department, the streets or highway department, the phone company, the U.S. Postal Service, one or two businesses and a few homeawners -- about eight separate a.nd diverse persons, organizations and companies. The abatement portion of the anti-graffiti plan. must include the methodology by which graffiti removal sites aze determined and approached while preserving the rights of property owners. Further, the plan needs to be reasonable and supportive of property owners or they will perceive themselves as twice victimized -- once by the vandal and again by the city or !, county. � � i � - - -- - i � - � -- -- -- ; - ; _ - - � -_, _ : Y � Loca1 abatement le 'slation an he is el t t victim ima e b rovidin an even- gi c lp d p ha g y p g handed approach to enforcement, a reasonable hearing and appeal procedure, and assistance to property owners who are repeat targets of vandals or in other unusual or di�cult circumstances. Yet another effective response to property owner concerns, and one that helps assure rapid uniform clean-up, is for the government to include, with the owner's permission, private property as well as public property in its systematic removal plan. However the actua.l graffiti removal is organized and implemented, a legal framework is required to enable the community to affect the cleaning or repair of vandal damage. To tha.t end, the basic abatement law, often referred to as a"nuisance" or "blight" ordin.ance, should include the following: • declaration of nuisance or blight - stating that the existence of graffiti is a public nuisance and a violation of the law; � • statement of responsibility - setting forth the respansibility for graffiti removal; (perpetrator, properry owner, manager, etc.) and exceptions; • rights/obligations of the government to: - determine violatians • - enter private property - eradicate graffiti - collect eradication costs - assure due process. More recent abatement ardinances also include provisions deveioped from practical experience in graffiti removal. For example, some might require above-ground fu�tures for utilities (phone, TV cable, electric) to use common colors; or developers to keep building sites graffiti free and/or provide for government access as a part of the huilding permit requirements; or graffiti prevention specifications in the requirements• for new construction or building renavation. Information of these variations can be obtained fram the organizations listed below unaer "Resources." 5. Other Components - While the above are the principal components of a commzulity anti-graffiti law, some cities and counties choose to include ather aspects of tlieir anti- . graffiti programming in Iocai ordinances. Two examples wauld be rewards for citizen informants and retail spray paint display standards. Specific information on these and other aspects of legislative development car� also be obta.ined fram the organizations described in the follawing sectian. � � �u' Resources '�' As more local governments establish web sites, informatian gathering and direct access to knowledgeable individuals should become easier and more cost effective. � However, in the development of local ordina.nces and their integration into comprehensive anti-gr�ti progra.iYUni.ng, the following are recommended as sources for information on the topic. � International Munacipal Lawyers Assvciation The first is the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA), formerly the ' National Institute of Municipal Law Officers (NIMLO}. Based in Washington, D.C., IMLA is a non-profit professional organization that has been an advocate and valua.ble legal resource for government attorneys since 1935. IMLA provides its more than 1,400 U.S. and Canadian members continuing legal education courses; research services; litigation assistance; the bi-monthly publication, The Municipal Lawyer; and a facsimile document on demand sy�tem, Muni-Fax. ' Uf particula,r value to local governments or attorneys dxafting new laws or amendments ; , will be the IMLA Model Ordinance Service. Combini.ng the, organization's extensive ;A reseaxch and legal drafting capabilities, the Service can provide assistance and direction � { in shaping ordinance language on virtually any subject addxessed by local governments. IMLA can be reached by phone: (202) 466-5424; by fax; (202) 785-0152; or by E-MaiL• � , imladc@aol.com. The National Council to Prevent Delinquency The second is the National Coun.cil to Prevent Delinquency (l�TCPD). The NCPD is a nonprofit corporation, funded by the paint and related industries, to combat the illegal or ' dangerous misuse of consumer products, particularly by young people. The Council's Anti-Graff ti Project maintains an extensive library of municipal program and ordinance information. NCPD also serves as a clearinghouse, collecting actua.l ordinances and program language from around the country and providing governments and community groups with copies of legislation enacted and in use in other municipal �� settings. The NCPD can be reached by phone: (410) 897-9209; by fax: (410) 897-9205; or by E- Mail: ncpdgraf@erols.com. , � Copyright 1997. AZI rights reserved. National Council to Prevent Delinquency, P.O. Boz 2975, Annapolis, MD 21404. - - - -- -- - - � ; - i - - _ _ _ __ _ . ::.. ,. ., - - : . __ f : _: . �._ _ f . -� � � -� t. � � � �7 � c� k i �. � C� � � � i. s �' .� �. p a �. a Citizen Repc�rts Gra�ti City Inspector Reports �ra�fiti Pubfic Works Ta Po(ic� Department To Poliee qepartment Locates Gra�ti ��cer meets with praperty Police Depar�menf C(earts up minar F'W requests PD awner & provid�s copy t�f PD generates report gra�ti withir� 24 respond & generate brochure on methods & hours of focating a report praducts #o use far c#ean up �ity lnspectvr sends letter ta PW scF�eduies clean up or property awner if no con#a�t is reports damage to MnDOT made ar if graffiti has not been or r�sponsible agency. removed wifihin 7 days Phone calls & visits from City Inspector & Ft3 canflnue until graffiti is cleaned up � � ! Hopkins GrafFiti Pian Current 2007 Incidents are reported by the following methods: 1. Citizen calls the Police Department to report an event. 2. City Inspector calis Police Department to report an event. 3. Public Works notices damage and does one of the foliowing: a. Cleans up minor graffiti within 12 hours of spotting or b. No�ify Police Department to respond and generate a report, then schedules clean up or reports damage to M-DOT or other� responsible agency. If OfFicer is called to scene and meets with property owner they provide a copy of the Department brochure on methods and possible products to use in clean up. City Inspector follows up with letter to property owner if no contact is made or if the graffiti has not been removed within 7 days. , Phone calis and personal visits from City Inspector and Police • Department continue unti! grafFiti is cleaned up. A representative from the Police Department meets monthly with Police Officers from St Louis Park, Minnetonka, Robbinsdale, Golden Valley, New Hope and Plymouth to compare reports and looks at possible connections between cases in different towns. City StafF meet informally as needed to compare reports or discus a problem property. Police Services Liaison meets with School Resource Officers from Hopkins Schools to discuss graffiti incidents and tagger symbols they may see. � , •• •' r:. � G raffiti Remova l Ti ps ., Over 400 graffiti events are reported in Hopkins each year. Graffiti breeds more graffiti! Immediate c%an up is recommended! General Tip: If you want to paint over graffiti, first prepare the surface with KILZ, which comes in spray can or brushing form. This wifl seai the graffiti and keep it from bleeding through the new paint. If the area is small, use KILZ first, then spray the small area with a color closely matching the originaL Brick, cement or Concrete: Use extra strength paint remover. Apply with a wire brush and scrub. Ailow to dry. Process may have to be repeated before area is ready to paint. Stucco: Apply extra strength paint remover. Seal area with KILZ and paint using stucco paint. Sand blasters can be rented for under $100 per day to clean large areas. , • Aluminum Siding: GOOF OFF works well on latex paint but not oil based. KLEAN STRIP or STRIP X clean oil based afuminum surfaces. Use small amounts and test areas before attempting entire area to be cleaned! Wood: On painted surfaces use KILZ to seal and paint over with color closely matching original color. Use KLEAN STRIP or STRIP X for removing grafFiti from stained or varnished surFaces. � Fiberglass: Use paint removers such as STRIPEEZE or�00PS full strength - and rinse completely. Glass or Plexiglas: Carburetor cleaner and cloth rag. Metal: Try carburetor cleaner first. If that doesn't work, use .STRIPEEZE or OOPS. A non-toxic paint remover is CITRISTRIP. It can be used safely indoors or in poorly ventilated areas. • All products listed above can be purchased locally at . Hance Hardware 903 Ho kins Center. 952-938-7367 The Hopkins City Code requires property owners to remove grafFiti from structures or equipment. � � Gra�ti is a constant problem. �ne vandal can damage dozens of struetures in a short period of time. The Police Department makes several arrests of perSons for vandalism each year. There is no crime lab analysis that can match damage from one structure to a suspect arrested at another scene. Tie-ins to old cases`are made primarily through interviews of suspects,and documenting similar signs and messages through photographic evidence. Almost all these persans arrested are juveniles and are adjudicated through the juvenile justice system rather than criminal court. The Juveni(e 7ustice System does not provide for repayment of costs as an automatic part of decisions. : -- �, In cases where it is possible the police try to link past graffiti acts to a suspect. The Police Department always notifies the luvenile Prosecutar of the estimated damage amount and asks for damages as a part of any decision, Most of the graff�ti remova( products ;are toxic. Please use with caution and � follow directions for storage and :disposal. 1 , - . •' i j Hopkins Ci�Ly Code 615.02 � Subd. 10. Graffiti. Any writing, printing, markings, signs, symbois, �gures, , designs, inscriptions, or otherdrawin�s which are scratched, painted, drawn or otherwise placed on any exterior surface of a buitding, wall, fence, sidewalk, curb or others structure . ; or equipment on' public or private property a�d which have fhe effect af defacing the ; property. {Added by Ord. #94-741) 615.03 Violations. Subdivision 1. No person shail, directly or indirectly,or by , omission, create a nuisance. Subd. 2. No owner or responsibfe party shall aiiow a nuisance to remain upon or ' in any property ar structure under h9s or her cantroL � � - •i; - ,., - _,. ..., . .. = :, , , , . , .,,,. ,: � :.,, ,.< <� .:�, . � - .. _ .. ..•. � a ° .. :�..�.� �ii�� .:� -� .. . .--.__ � . - ..., .�e. ��i�l - -' ._ _ ��": �.� 2 0 0 8 Ho kins �raf f i.ti. Plan p PSO checks 3 times/week far Citizen cails !'D to report City lnspector cal4s PD to Pubfic Works (ocates graffiti. event. Officer takes reporfi & report event. graffiti forwards to PSO far data entry ; PSO enters report & forw�rds to PSO enters repart & forwards to PSO enters repart ' PSL for foflow up PSL for foliow up & fonn►ards to PSL for Smal{ Large fottow up Scale Scale � if no contact has beett made if no cantact has been made City lnspector meets with ._._. I with the property owner, the PSL with the property owner, the PSL property owner, exptafiing pW photographs PW noti�es farwards info to the C�ty forwards info to the City need to remove & provide then cleans graifiti responsibte Inspec#or #nspector brochure w/discount for within 24 haurs. agency & forwar�s product from toca! Forward photo to to PSO for repar� businesses. PSO for report City lnspector meets wiproperty City Inspector meets w/property owner expiaining need to owner explaining need to remove & pravide brochure remove & provide brochure PSO enters report PSO enters report w/discount #ar product from local w/discount for product from local and forwards to & forwards ta businesses. businesses. P5L for PSL for follow up follow up Rolice Records receives paiice reports from all events and completes , data entry into shared re�or#ing system with Graffiti lnvestigations Group to include photos of all tagger markings � • i • r r • Hopkins Graffiti Plan Proposed 2008 Graffiti events give a perception of crime and disorder. They reduce citizen feefings of safety. Removing graffiti quickly prevents additional vandalism and problems in the area. City resources must be coordinated to identify and stop vandals. The goals of this plan are: 1. Accurately report and track all graffiti events occurring in Hopkins. 2. Reduce the visibie signs of graffiti in Hopkins. City control{ed events to be removed within 12 hours. Private property and property controlled by other government agencies to be removed within 7 days. Incidents are reported by the following methods: 1. Citizen calls the Police Department to report an event. Officer takes report and forwards to PSO for data entry. PSO forwards to Police Services Liaison for follow up. • 2. City Inspector calls Police Department to report an event. Officer or PSO take initial report. Forward to Police Services Liaison for follow up. 3. Public Works notices damage and daes one of the following: a. Photographs and cleans up minor graffiti within 12 hours of spotting. Photograph forwarded ta PSO for report. PSO forwards to Police Services Liaison for follow up. b. If a large graffiti e�vent on property under the control of another government agency or public entity is noted by Public Works rather than initiate clean up they will notify the responsible agency and the PSO to start report. Police Services Liaison will follow up. 4. Police Records receives police reports from all events and - completes data entry into the shared reporting system with St. � Louis Park to include photographs of all tagger markings. � If Officer is called to scene and meets with property owner they provide a copy of the Department brochure on methods and possible products to use in clean up. • If no contact is made with the property owner when an event is noted and a report is generated the Potice Services Liaison will forward information to the City Inspector so they can meet one an one with ` . � � i i '; property owner, explain need to remove and supply brochure with � discount coupon for product from loca{ store. I Phone calls and personal visits from City Inspector and Po(ice Department continue until grafFiti is cieaned up. For visibie graffiti that outside agencies or public entities are responsible for and not removing in 7 days the Mayor and Counci! will be asked to sign letters '� urging removal to be sent to political leaders for that leve! of government. (County Commissioners for county highways, State Senators and M-DOT Commissioners for state highways). An Investigator from the Police Department meets monthfy with Police Officers from St Louis Park, Minnetonka, Robbinsdaie, Goiden Vailey, New Hope and Plymouth. This Graffiti Investigators Group meets to compare reports and {ooks at possible connections between cases in different towns A city committee wif! meet monthly to review events and fo(low up. Membership shaff consist of the Police Services Liaison, Public Works Supervisar, Parks Supervisor, City Inspector, Investigator currently assigned to Graffiti Investigators Group. ,,,;; Police Services Liaison meets with School Resource Officers from Hopkins Schools to discuss graffiti �incidents and tagger symbols they may see. Department contacts with non-traditional schools in Hopkins are also directed to meet with staff and discuss graffiiti events. A communication plan wiil be impiemented to include press releases to local media, stories about graffiti efforts in the Highlights, e-newstetter and city web site. I �� ,�' ., � � .• . �� I, �i.Rl�.Yae ,.�'i�cr s . . , ' . � . . � � . . - . ' i - I � ' ! � j I I. � � .._ _. .__ _ ___._.__.___ ...... .. . . .. . .. . '_ . . _ . . ..._. ._. . ... . .. . . - _ _ _._"_ _ _ _. .__.___..,� __._._.. . _._ _-__ _ _... ___ _ _ _I _ .. .. - -___ _ -_-,;__ . . . . . ______ . f -: -- . _I__ _, I . .- _ _ _. ... _ _ � � � , Hopkins City Codes s ■ 615.02 �-----------------------, Subd. 10. Graffiti. Any � � � 1 I ��.DO OF'F PURCHASEI � writing, printing, markings, signs, I symbols, figures, designs, inscrip- ' � BUY �'� O OR MQR� � tions, or other drawings which are � OF' A1tiIY C.�I3AFFITI � scratched, painted, drawn or . i F��M4VAL j otherwise placed on any exterior . ' � � � � surface of a building, wall, fence, ' � PRODUGTS AI�ID � sidewalk, curb or other structure or I REGEIVE ��.0� OFF" AT: � equipment on public or private I 1 property and which have the effect �, � � of defacing the property. (Added by I � � I Ord. #94-741) ' � `� 1 ! �� I j �A�l[C� �A�L�VYAR� I 615.03 j �� I�� j Violations. Subdivision 1. No � I°IOP�I��, M� .5�� person shall, directly or indirectly or � ��2„��„�� by omission, create a nuisance. I I �� Subdivision 2. No �� — -- ----------------� owner or responsible party shall � allow a nuisance to remain upon or � -�. in any property or structure under ' � �--- his or her control. `� ►�� 0 ��'��ti v . _; ��,; �V�I�tS �1 �''� f �,�O�Y't�� .� � �� . ' g Hopkins Police Department �� ,, �y� �� 1 O 1 0 1 s t S t. S o. � � Hopkins, MN 55343 � 952-938-8885 www.hopkinsmn.com � � •• �� , �� . . �� x:.�l �� r . I w.. �� Th��k. � �-� � �� ..� �� ; • ,. . � r � �� .�� +C� p 1'"1 S � � _ ��r�� .� � � �. , � �usiness . E dn.Arts _ _ ..__ _ _ Graffiti breeds �ood: � Graffiti is a constant problem. One E� , vandal can damage dozens of structures � �. k; :, more graffiti On painted 5urfaces use KILZ to seal � a short period of time. The Hopkins ` Immediate and follow with paint in a color City Code requires property owners to �� ctean u is closely matching the original color. remove graffiti from structures or �� ., � � p � Use KLEAN STRIP or STRIP X for �`� = recommended equipment �� '� Y � .` � removing graffiti from stained or ��..� ��' varnished surfaces The Police Department arrests people for � .�: � '��`°�� vandalism each year. There is no crime ��`°' General Tip: lab analysis that can match damage from � If you want to Fiberglass: one structure to a suspect arrested at an- paint over graffiti, first prepare the Use paint removers such as OOPS or other scene. Almost all persons arrested ' surface with a stain blocker like KILZ, STRIPEEZE—full strength and rinse are juveniles and are adjudicated which comes in spray can or brush completely. through the �uvenile .Justice System form. This will seal the graffiti and rather than criminal court. The .Juvenile keep it from bleeding through the Justice System does not provide for - new aint. If the area is small, use Glass or Plexiglas: repayment of costs as an automatic part p of decisions. KILZ first then spray the small area Carburetor cleaner and cloth rag. - with a color closely matching the In cases where it is possible the Police try originaL Metal: , to link past graffiti acts to a suspect. The Police Department always notifies the , Try carburetor cleaner first. If that �uvenile Prosecutor of the estimated Stucco: doesn't work, use STRIPEEZE or damage amount and asks for damages Apply extra strength paint remover. OOPS. as part of any decision. , Seal area with KILZ and paint using , stucco paint. Sand blasters can be Brick, Cement or Concrete: rented for under $100 per day �to Use extra strength paint remover. clean large areas. Apply with a wire brush and scrub. �� Allow to dry. Process may have to be ��.� ��.�C� ' Aluminum Siding: repeated before the area is ready to �� paint. � �.� � �� ', GOOF OFF works well on latex paint � ° � - � � � � but not oil based. KLEAN STRIP or ,� , �+� �� ' STRIP X clean oil based aluminum ��• ,� Y r� �� _ b� surfaces. Use small amounts and test ,. �� r m; �. _ ,. areas befo e at�tempting to clean ' entire are�� ,--�.