Gary Public Safety Committee reviews CPO 2025-18 to curb graffiti, set fines and enforcement procedures

At a Public Safety Committee meeting, members discussed CPO 2025-18, an ordinance of the City of Gary sponsored by Mary Eddie Melton that would prohibit graffiti, define enforcement authority, and set fines and procedural steps for cleanup.

A city staff member presenting the ordinance said the mayor was "very serious and adamant about getting [it] passed to address the proliferation of graffiti within the city." The presenter described the measure as intended to "attack the problem" by defining graffiti to include spray-paint vandalism, unauthorized "snipe signs" placed in parkways or on poles, and possession of graffiti implements when there is evidence of imminent use.

The ordinance would make carrying or possessing graffiti implements a violation in situations identified by police, require stores that sell spray paint to post warnings and check minors, and increase duties for the police department and code enforcement to issue notices, citations and, where appropriate, criminal charges. The presenter said public works will track cleanup costs and pass those costs to noncompliant property owners.

Under the penalties outlined by the presenter, a first offense by a vandal carries a $300 fine. For property owners who fail to abate graffiti after notice, a first violation would be a fine not to exceed $150; a second violation within 365 days would be $250; a third violation $300, with subsequent violations assessed at $300 per day for failure to remove graffiti. The presenter cautioned that if an individual owns multiple properties each property may generate a separate violation.

The presenter said the city will provide an abatement procedure: the city will send property owners a notice of violation containing a release form. If a property owner signs and returns the release within five days and grants access, the city will abate the graffiti at no charge to that owner. The presenter said the city has acquired equipment to allow public works to remove graffiti from government buildings and other locations.

During public discussion, a resident raised the example of Roosevelt High School's stadium and asked whether the city would be responsible for cleaning graffiti on that public property; the presenter answered that the city would clean government buildings. The presenter also said that private property owners who notify the city promptly and sign the release would not be charged for cleanup, but absentee landlords who ignore notices would face citations and be responsible for cleanup costs.

Councilwoman Mary Brown said similar efforts had been attempted in the past and expressed support for including unpermitted signs in the prohibition. Councilman Ivey asked whether the city would supply the required signage for retailers and whether there would be a method for businesses to notify the city after they removed graffiti themselves. The presenter replied that providing signs to stores had not yet been decided, and acknowledged, "We do need to add that to our procedure," referring to tracking business compliance when a business removes graffiti on its own.

No formal vote on the ordinance was recorded in the transcript. The presenter said staff hoped to answer committee questions and implement the ordinance as soon as possible.

The discussion covered enforcement mechanics, penalties, retailer requirements, and the city’s abatement process; the committee identified remaining procedure work including distribution of retailer signage and a formal business-notification process to record compliance.