City attorney proposes civil penalty for graffiti; ordinance would allow $1,000 fines plus restitution

City Attorney Anne Davison presented legislation to the Seattle City Council Public Safety Committee on June 24, 2025, seeking new civil tools to hold prolific graffiti taggers accountable and recover cleanup costs.

The proposed ordinance, Council Bill 120,995, would add a civil cause of action to the Seattle Municipal Code (new section 10.07.055) that allows the city attorney to file a civil claim in Seattle Municipal Court against individuals or entities who apply illegal graffiti. The civil remedy would permit judgments of $1,000 per violation plus restitution for labor and materials; the bill would allow courts to convert monetary damages into community service hours in lieu of payment.

Davison told the committee the proposal is intended to supplement criminal prosecution and target the most prolific offenders when criminal evidence is insufficient to secure convictions. “What I’m bringing to you is a legislative strategy that you can be partners in the support for this topic, in regards to, our city, the illegal graffiti action, that we see happening so much and is so prevalent throughout our city,” Davison said. She told the committee the city recorded more than 28,000 graffiti incidents in 2024 but received only 35 referrals to her office for potential prosecution that year, and that the City spends roughly $6 million annually to clean up graffiti.

Deputy City Attorney Scott Lindsay and Greg Doss of Council Central Staff joined Davison for the presentation. Central staff noted the bill as drafted lacks an explicit reporting requirement and suggested the council could add reporting language or request regular updates on case volume, judgments and restitution collected. Lindsay said the office intends to prioritize the “top 20 or so” prolific taggers the city has already identified through investigative and abatement work.

Committee members asked questions about likely case volume, age and demographic patterns and revenue expectations. Davison said the civil remedy is not expected to generate significant net revenue for the city because many defendants could convert penalties into community service; instead, she said, the goal is deterrence and cost recovery for abatement. Central staff and the city attorney’s office agreed to follow up with more detailed age-based referral analysis and with clarification about how the bill’s “encouragement” language would apply to third-party online behavior.

Public commenters included business representatives and residents. Erin Goodman, executive director of the SODO Business Improvement Area, testified in support of both the nuisance-property proposal and the graffiti bill, saying graffiti near nightlife venues creates pedestrian and vehicle safety problems and imposes cleanup costs on neighboring businesses.

No committee vote was taken on the ordinance at the June 24 meeting; the bill remained under committee consideration for next steps, including possible amendments for reporting and definitions clarifications.