Everett council adopts civil-infraction ordinance for illegal graffiti with $250 fine and juvenile restitution provision

The Everett City Council on Aug. 20 approved an ordinance creating a civil infraction for unauthorized graffiti, setting a $250 fine per illegal graffiti violation and adding provisions for restitution and juvenile liability.

Council member Ryan, who moved the ordinance on third and final reading, read a package of amendments that tightened code language and added a provision holding parents or legal guardians liable for restitution when a juvenile aged 16 or 17 is found to have committed an offense. The amended language says the juvenile “is liable for any restitution imposed under paragraph c of this section,” and clarifies that community service cannot be assigned to another person.

The ordinance, introduced as Council Bill 2507-41, states: “in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties or other remedies authorized by law or equity, a graffiti tagger shall be subject to a civil infraction punishable by a fine of $250 per illegal graffiti violation and may further be ordered to make restitution to the responsible public agency or responsible private party of costs incurred… including but not limited to all labor and materials, costs of abating the illegal graffiti.” The council also amended the restitution language to allow judges to consider claims of financial hardship or other extenuating circumstances when ordering payment.

Council members discussed companion steps alongside enforcement, including developing a sanctioned “free wall” for legal public mural/graffiti art and strengthening prevention through property‑owner accountability and redirection programs. Council member Fosse said she wanted safeguards so the ordinance targets “prolific graffitiers” and not “kids doing chalk on the sidewalk.” Council member Ryan and others asked staff to pursue a free-wall option and map vacant storefronts and other places that may attract tagging.

The council voted unanimously—members present recorded “yes” votes—on the amended ordinance. The council president then directed staff to continue reviewing related code language and to return with additional recommendations and implementation details.