Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Graffiti Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews ordinance requiring 12-day removal after graffiti notification
Summary
City council members and staff discussed a proposed ordinance to require property owners to remove graffiti visible from public rights-of-way within 12 days of receiving a city notice, add a definition of "graffiti," and a waiver allowing city removal with liability protections and potential reimbursement.
The Utica City Council discussed a proposed ordinance that would require property owners to remove graffiti visible from public rights-of-way within 12 days after the city issues notice.
Council members and staff said the draft ordinance (amending section 2-15-11) was revised to add a definition of "graffiti" and to describe an enforcement process including notice, an optional owner waiver and a city removal option. A Codes Department staff member said the 12-day clock begins from issuance of the city's notice, not the date the graffiti first appeared.
The ordinance matters because proponents said visible graffiti constitutes blight and sometimes cannot be addressed when property owners decline to press criminal charges. A Codes Department staff member said the city can issue a notice and, if the owner signs a waiver, the city will remove the graffiti; the owner may also remove it themselves and be reimbursed. The staff member said the waiver also protects the city from liability if damage occurs during removal.
During discussion, a council member asked whether the 12 days should run from the "appearance" of graffiti or from the city's discovery and notice. A Codes Department staff member responded, “As soon as they get notified of it, that's 12 days ... from the issuance of when they get that notification.” The exchange clarified that the enforcement timeline in the draft starts with the city's notice.
Council members and the public-safety staff described frequent, visible graffiti in multiple neighborhoods and said the city has in some cases been unable to pursue criminal remedies when property owners decline to press charges. One council member said the draft is not perfect but is a necessary step and can be amended after implementation if problems appear.
No final vote was recorded during the discussion; staff said the draft had been reviewed with corporation counsel and that the main substantive change since the prior draft was the added definition of "graffiti." Staff said they would continue to work with corporation counsel and the public safety commissioner to refine language if needed.
The council then moved on to other agenda items; the graffiti proposal remained a pending ordinance under consideration.
