The issue of property owners failing to remove graffiti in a timely manner is once again a hot topic for the Chehalis City Council and staff, as the ordinance was back on the agenda during the council’s Monday night meeting.
While the council voted unanimously April 14 to approve the first reading of an ordinance declaring graffiti a nuisance, it was not brought back for a second reading and adoption during the next meeting two weeks later as outlined in the council’s procedures. Therefore, the ordinance was never adopted, but it returned for another first reading Monday.
The ordinance would add graffiti as a type of nuisance in the city’s municipal code, allowing the city to give owners an opportunity to remove graffiti. If they fail to do so, the city could take enforcement action. Although offenders who create graffiti can be charged with the crime of vandalism, the city ordinances do not currently address the issue of graffiti removal and the responsibility associated with it.
The council approved the first reading of the ordinance Monday, with Councilor Kevin Carns serving as the only opposing vote.
Chehalis Police Chief Randy Kaut told the councilors that some property owners are not taking care of the graffiti on their property even though some “have the means to do it.” The ordinance presented Monday included some changes from the one presented in April.
“This particular ordinance does several things. It holds the property owners accountable to clean up the property, and in this particular version of the ordinance that we’re presenting tonight, rather than the usual 14 days (to comply) for a nuisance, we’ve upped that to 30 days,” he said.
The first rendition of the graffiti ordinance said refusal to remove graffiti by property owners would result in a misdemeanor nuisance violation, but it has since been downgraded to an infraction, which includes a fine to help city staff remove it. Additionally, the updated proposal creates language defining what graffiti is and allows law enforcement to charge a person for having graffiti paraphernalia or intent to do graffiti, Kaut said. That charge in the updated ordinance proposal has been raised from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor from the original.
While Kaut said the issue of graffiti on property within city limits is increasing, the concern of property owners failing to remove graffiti is fairly rare. He told the councilors that the city’s community service office said zero nuisance violations were written last year and that the most there’s been in any year was between three and five.
“The purpose of the nuisance violation is not to penalize people and certainly not to gain money. It’s just to get people to comply. We actually have quite a few nuisance violations, and we try to work with people to get a resolve rather than to actually cite them,” Kaut said.
Councilor Bob Spahr asked Kaut what happens before the notice is sent to the property owner. The chief said the first thing law enforcement does is ask the property owner to comply with whatever their nuisance violation is, and if they don’t do anything “in a reasonable amount of time,” a letter is sent. If the property owner doesn’t comply with the letter of the violation, staff will check to see if they need more time to comply.
“If they need more time, then we add more time. It’s not a, ‘You have 30 days to do this or you get a citation.’ It’s typically working with a property owner to get the problem taken care of,” Kaut said. “Sometimes it takes longer than 14 days. We give that amount of extra time because, again, we’re not trying to penalize them. We’re trying to just get them to comply.”
Councilor Carns asked Kaut and City Manager Stacy Denham how city staff time to remove graffiti is calculated and to what degree the property owner is held accountable if they don’t comply with the infraction.
“It actually comes down to the amount of time that it takes to cover it up. I know that the street department has gone out and done some work and it takes them a few minutes,” Denham said. “They don’t even charge them. But if it takes hours and hours, they go back and they charge them the amount of time that it takes, not just a flat rate.”
The new proposed ordinance would allow the city to potentially receive reimbursement for graffiti removal from the property owner, if the owner fails to remove it and the city incurs costs subsequently abating the nuisance. The city may charge the property owner or the person in possession of the property the cost to the city for the removal or covering of the graffiti when the removal or covering is performed by city personnel or city’s designee. Property owners can also remove it themselves.
According to the proposed ordinance included in the council’s agenda report, any person cited for subsequent violations shall be fined a monetary penalty of $500 or twice the monetary penalty as set forth in the Chehalis fee schedule and Chehalis municipal court bail schedule, whichever is greater, for each subsequent violation.
Carns took to Facebook after the meeting to express his disapproval of the council favoring the ordinance, which will not go into effect until approval on second reading.
“I was the lone vote, not because I support graffiti, but because I will not support punishing victims of crime,” Carns wrote. “The ordinance includes a provision that allows the city to fine property owners if they don’t remove graffiti within 30 days of being notified. I believe this is wrong. There is no other law on the books in Chehalis where we fine someone for being the victim of a crime, and we shouldn’t start now.”
Graffiti is defined in the ordinance as the “visible result of defacing, damaging or destroying by spraying of paint or marking of ink, dye or other similar substances, or scratching, marking or marring with an implement on public or private buildings, structures, facilities, natural features, and/or places.”
The council is set to vote on the second reading during its next meeting at 5 p.m. Monday, June 23, at Chehalis City Hall.
