After a two-month saga that included multiple first readings and council debates, the Chehalis City Council voted 6-1 Monday to add graffiti to its list of public nuisances and address the responsibility associated with removal.
The proposed ordinance came back to the council for the second and final reading following a first reading on April 14 and another on June 9. Councilor Kevin Carns was the only dissenting vote Monday, just as he was when it was previously presented to the council.
The ordinance allows the city to give property owners an opportunity to remove graffiti from their property. If they fail to do so, the city could take enforcement action as it would for any other type of nuisance.
Property owners will be given 30 days to remove graffiti from law enforcement notice prior to enforcement action. The original proposal requested 14 days and a penalty of a misdemeanor offense for not removing graffiti, but it was updated to 30 days and an infraction after the first reading in April.
The ordinance also creates language prohibiting the possession of “any graffiti implement or paraphernalia, in a matter or under circumstances demonstrating his or her intent to paint, spray, draw, etch, mark, scratch, mar or otherwise apply graffiti.”
This would be considered a gross misdemeanor offense.
Chehalis Police Chief Randy Kaut has told the council multiple times that the intent of the ordinance is not to penalize victims of graffiti but for them to comply and to help deter additional graffiti through quick removal. He has repeated the police department’s priority of working with property owners rather than fining them, adding that the department will extend the time period for removal upon request.
According to the ordinance, 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.
Councilor Robert Spahr asked Kaut at what point a victim becomes a perpetrator, and the chief gave an example of a business not taking care of graffiti.
“A perfect example is we had a business that had some graffiti on a wall and they didn’t clean it up. Quite frankly, it probably didn’t really make much difference to them because the wall wasn’t facing their business,” Kaut said. “It was facing a residence next door to them. Unfortunately, because it didn’t really affect them a whole lot, it was the person in the house next to them that had to look at it every day. We hope that people are good neighbors and that they’ll take care of issues.”
Carns asked Kaut how many property owners are currently failing to remove graffiti in the city, to which Kaut replied that it “happens all the time.” However, Kaut told councilors on June 9 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.
“Usually they’re not specifically saying, ‘I refuse to do it.’ Typically, what they’ll say is, ‘I’ll get to it eventually,’ and then they just don’t do it,” Kaut said Monday. “Then we contact them again and say, ‘Can you please take care of it?’ They don’t do it. I can’t think of a situation where someone just said, ‘I’m not doing it.’ Typically, they mean well and they just don’t do anything about it.”
Carns disagreed that a victim can become a perpetrator and requested to amend the motion to give 60 days of notice for property owners to remove graffiti rather than 30 days. His motion failed with a 3-4 vote, as he, Spahr and Mayor Tony Ketchum voted to approve. Kaut added that studies show that quicker removal of graffiti impacts other crime in the area but that changing the period from 30 days to 60 days wouldn’t have made a significant change.
Carns claimed that the ordinance is too ambiguous and doesn’t specify that the city will give property owners more time if requested.
“Process protects people, and this council’s process is broken,” he said. “Chief Kaut might not be the guy that writes that ticket and that gives those people that leeway. It might be a young, aggressive cop. It might be a new enforcement officer. Unless it is codified to protect that, then you can’t assume that that protection will automatically be in place.”
The ordinance allows the city to potentially receive reimbursement for graffiti removal from the property owner, if the owner fails to remove it and the city incurs cost 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.
It also allows the parents or guardians of minor children who commit an act of graffiti vandalism to potentially be held liable for the costs associated with graffiti removal.
