Environmental Services i - 02-07-1995 - Page 0010
i
To: City Manager
City Council
From: Environmental Services
Director
Subject: Graffiti Removal Cost
Recovery
•
City of West Covina,
Memorandum
AGENDA
REM NO. F-1
DATE 2-7-95
® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
January 29, 1995
Summary: This is a report on recent State legislation as,
requested by the City Council. These new laws;
would allow a city more -options for cost recovery
from a.graffiti vandal.
On December 20, 1994, the City Council requested a report on
recent State legislation that allows a city more optionsQfor
cost recovery from a graffiti vandal. -Specifically, these
new laws would allow :a city to:
seek full recovery of costs from the vandal for
graffiti removal;
increase the�limits of the costs that a city may -
recover; and
place a lien on the property of a convicted minor's,,
parents to recover these costs.
The City Council .also requested a report on how we recover
our costs today. Staff has reviewed the new State laws and
evaluated what would be cost-effective for the City to,
employ. Staff is recommending the City Council request
preparation of a code amendment to allow the City to recover
from perpetrators and their parents all City,costs'
associated.with the prosecution and removal of graffiti by a
vandal.
Current Collection Program
Risk Management has the assignment to recover these costs,
not the City Prosecutor. The reasons for this assignment
are:
1. The dollar value of the graffiti vandalism is usually
well below $5,000. Staff cannot think of any past
cases of graffiti vandalism that exceeded this amount.
2. It is not cost-effective to use the more expensive City
Prosecutor in a small claims action. The use of Risk
Management's Account Clerk is more efficient use of AA our
limited financial resources.
1
e
VA
Q
H
3. The Risk Management Account Clerk has been -outstanding -
in obtaining cost recovery from vandals after they have
been caught and convicted.
4. The person convicted of graffiti vandalism can only be
required to pay the City if they have the ability,to do
so. This is the law followed by the Courts and the
City.
Risk Management is currently responsible for handling all of
the City's uninsured losses. An uninsured loss is defined
as any kind of damage to City property that is not covered
by insurance, for example, traffic signals, signs, trees,
vehicles, etc. Currently, we treat damage resulting from
graffiti as any other uninsured loss.
The City utilizes the following procedures in the pursuit of
reimbursement collection for damaged property:
• Review police report to determine.type of damage and
responsible party
® Ascertain.repair, clean-up, or replacement costs
® Invoice responsible party (we send an invoice toathe
parents -if a minor is involved)
Responsible party is given 30 days to pay in full or set
up a.payment schedule
Delinquent & final notices are sent to responsible -party
if no payment is received
® Cases are then reviewed to determine the feasibility of
proceeding to Small Claims Court
Following the above steps certainly does not guarantee
recovery of City losses. Often times, we are unable to
locate the responsible party. Risk Management does pursue
every avenue available to ascertain the location of the
responsible party. Staff makes many attempts to locate.the
responsible parties. After we exhaust all avenues, we close
the file. Many files are closed as uncollectable.
Even once we locate.the responsible party, collection is
still a .time consuming process. We must track the cases to
ensure monthly payments are being kept. More often than
not, we receive payment only after we send'a delinquent and -
final notice threatening court action to the responsible
party. Another stumbling block is the high rate of
transient parties involved. We may receive a few payments
but then parties move and it is necessary to try to re-
locate them.
We basically have three years to pursue collection from the
responsible party. In order to protect our right of
recovery, we must file a Small Claims Court Action prior to
the three year statute. Often, the responsible party has no
-means to pay for damages. This occurs because they are,
2 .
n
Y
unemployed, they have no insurance; --or have no other
assets. This basically renders them almost impossible to
sue.
Before proceeding to Small Claims Court, we review a case
carefully. When we file a case with the court, the City,
incurs additional costs. We can recover these costs as part
of the judgment. However, judgment alone does not always
guarantee payment.
Many times the party does not show up at court proceedings,
and/or they simply refuse to pay judgments. Often times 'we
then are unable to locate the party for future court
actions.
Losses pursued in Small.Claims have a limit of $5,000.00 lor
less. A judgment is valid for ten years.
The court may assign cases to the Probation Department for
recovery of losses when an individual is found guilty of la
criminal offense. This includes adults and minors. Upon
request.from Probation, we provide a "Statement of Loss" and
they in turn seek restitution from the offender.. Our
success rate for collection through Probation is much thee'
same as cases,handled by Risk Management. It has been our
experience that Probation encounters the same stumbling j
blocks as referenced above.
Often, follow-up by Risk Management on a case being handl',ed
by Probation is -almost impossible. Files handled by
Probation generally are.shifted from officer to officer.
Case loads are heavy, and subsequently we have had very
little success getting information on files that remain
unpaid.
Risk Management does not process a large number of graffiti
cases. The primary reason appears to be failure to.
apprehend and convict the vandals. We have a relatively
good success 'rate on collection of graffiti losses; however,
most are minuscule when compared with other uninsured
losses.
i
The current recovery amounts for graffiti clean-up are inlla,
memo between the Maintenance Director and the Police
Department (copy attached). We currently do not recover 11 the
actual cost of paint, indirect overhead, or law enforcement
costs of apprehending the vandal.
New State Legislation
i
There are five State laws that became effective January 1,
1995, that pertain to graffiti vandalism. The following is
a summation of these laws:
1. "Graffiti Removal and Damage Recovery Program"
The City:,may adopt an ordinance that requires the
probation department and juvenile court to collect
reimbursement for costs associated with a minor's
defacement of property with graffiti. The City is
3
t.
G
already recovering costs from any convicted graffiti
vandal. However, they are not the full costs as listed
in this law. The -City should amend the City's Code to
seek for full cost recovery.
This "new" cost recovery program is subject to the
ability of the minor to pay. The "new" cost recovery
program would allow the citation of the minor's parent
and seek reimbursement to the extent they have the
ability to pay. These reimbursement approaches are
what.the City and Courts follow today, except for the.
inclusion of the law enforcement and associated costs.
2. Lien on Propert
The City may place a lien on the property of a minor's
parents for the reimbursement of costs associated with
correction of graffiti vandalism. This assumes one can
.find the parents, their property, and ascertain if
there may be too many liens on the property already.
This process would require the use of legal counsel to
execute a lien. Most -of the cost recoveries are about
$100. Unless there was a large amount of graffiti done
by a vandal and they are caught and convicted, .the lien
approach does not appear to'be cost-effective. If a
person has vandalized a large number of sites or many
square feet of wall surface and they are caught and.
convicted, the lien approach may be more cost-
effective. West Covina has not experienced -this
circumstance. The City Council may consider this
approach and amend the Code if they.want to have this
option available. Staff is not recommending a code
change.
3. Increase in Parental Liability
This law increases the amount a parent may be
responsible to pay for any graffiti vandalism from
$10,000 to $20,000. This State Code Section is already
referenced in the City's current Municipal Code. We
may use this State law in conjunction with the City's
current Code.. This dollar amount is greater than that
allowed in. Small Claims proceedings. The City
Prosecutor would -have to take the lead. Our current
Code already gives us the ability to use this
approach if needed.
4. Graffiti Clean-up
The law would allow a.City the use of City funds to
repair or replace that part of a property from which
graffiti may not be removed cost-effectively. This may
be a useful tool for the City, but .we are not sure
there will be an instance where we could not remove the
graffiti some way. Under the current program, any
graffiti on private property may be removed by the
owner of the property. If it is not removed,. then it
could be removed by the Boys and Girls Club of the San
Gabriel Valley (the "Club") at a cost of $20 a site.
If a particular property becomes consistent target -for
4
graffiti, we would getwith a•.property owner to see
what has to be done to prevent the graffiti.` If a
property owner refuses to remove.graffiti or allow the
"Club" to remove it, the City can cite the property
owner for a maintaining a public nuisance. While this
is an option for the City Council, staff believes it
best to use this approach for large jobs rather than
using City funds.
5. Definition of Graffiti Vandalism.
This law has revised the definition of vandalism to
include the malicious defacing of another's property
with graffiti. This includes any unauthorized
inscription, word, figure, mark, or design that is
"written, marked, etched, scratched, drawn or painted
on real or personal property." Our current Code has
language that encompasses this revision. There is no
need to amend the Code.
Reality of Cost Recovery
Staff supports the concept of full cost recovery from
graffiti vandals and their parents. However, we must keep
in mind the reality of achieving this end. Staff has
reviewed the legislation and the Municipal Code for possible,
amendment. Any possible amendment should consider:
• In today's economy;, it is doubtful that the City will
have much success recovering losses under thisnew
legislation.
• As we.have seen with the City's Party Ordinance,
offenders will be reluctant to pay.the additional costs.
The graffiti vandalism full cost recovery has no formal
appeal process. Someone sent a bill for full cost
recovery still has the ability to appeal to the City
Council as any citizen may do.
• In addition, the legislation does not address the
responsible party's ability to pay. If the responsible
party has no means to pay -for damages, it is highly
unlikely they will own property upon which we can place a
lien special assessment. Although the concept is good,
the reality is not promising.
• The new legislation raises the cost recovery.limits from
$10,000.00 to $20,000.00. This would not appear to be of
significant interest to the City because we have yet to
have a graffiti loss above the recoverable amount in
small claims. Again, the higher recovery limits would
only be to our benefit if the responsible party owns
property.
• Should we have a loss that exceeds the small claims
limit, the court process could be more costly because we
would need to utilize attorneys.
0
This stated, City Staff, including.Risk Management,
recommends that the City Council consider full cost
recovery. Much to our consternation, graffiti is a realism
we must address. The ability of a person to pay is not
within our control. The ability to seek full recovery of
costs is our option. Staff believes we should seek full
cost recovery.
Options
,There are options available to.this recommendation. These
are:
1. Make no.change to the Municipal Code.
2. Change the City policy and not seek cost recovery for
graffiti vandalism.
3: Amend the Municipal Code to include a property lien
option.
4. Use City funds to remove persistent graffiti on private
property instead of forcing the property owner to do so.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to prepare
the necessary code amendment to allow the City to recover
all City costs associated with the prosecution and removal
of graffiti by a vandal.
Michael L. Miller
Environmental Services Director
Attachment
6