Report to/Rapport au :

Transportation Committee

Comité des transports

and / et

Community and Protective Services Committee

Comité des services communautaires et de protection

and Council / et au Conseil

23 April 2007 / le 23 avril 2007

Submitted by/Soumis par :

R.G. Hewitt, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint,

Public Works and Services/Services et Travaux publics

and / et

Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint,

Community and Protective Services/Services communautaires et de protection

Contact Person/Personne ressource : John Manconi, Director / Directeur

Surface Operations/Opérations de surface

(613) 580-2424 x21110, john.manconi@ottawa.ca

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Susan Jones, Director / Directrice

By-law and Regulatory Services/Services des règlements municipaux

(613) 580-2424 x25536, susan.jones@ottawa.ca

City Wide

Ref N°: ACS2007-PWS-SOP-0001

SUBJECT:	graffiti management strategy
OBJET :	STRATÉGIE DE GESTION DES GRAFFITIS

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the joint Transportation Committee and Community and Protective Services Committee recommend that Council approve:

1) The Graffiti Management Strategy employing the 4E model of eradication, empowerment, education and enforcement as outlined in this report and including the items listed in Recommendation 3.

2) One-time funding in 2007 from the City-Wide Reserve in the amount of $65,000 to develop and implement a public awareness campaign providing education and promoting the prevention and removal of graffiti to private and business property owners, and to support the implementation of the by-law proposed in Recommendation 3 iv).

3) Subject to the approval of Recommendation 1, implementation of the following items be contingent upon approval of funding through the 2008 Budget Process:

i. That four (4) zero tolerance zones, as described in the report and Document 2, be added to the existing Graffiti Management Program in 2008 at an annual cost of $350,000;

ii. That the Director of Surface Operations be delegated the authority to approve future zero tolerance zones provided that,

(a) the area is one with high graffiti occurrence as determined by the volume of calls to the City and consultations with City staff involved in removal of graffiti;

(b) the area is located in a high visibility area of the City such as a business or tourist area; and

(c) there are sufficient funds in the budget to implement the zero tolerance strategy.

iii. That graffiti prevention and removal techniques be shared with private property owners and businesses through a public Graffiti Symposium in 2008 at a cost of $20,000;

iv. That the Graffiti Management By-law attached as Document 3, to take effect January 1, 2008, be enacted;

v. That expenses for increased eradication of graffiti on City owned and maintained assets be approved on an annual basis to support the implementation of Recommendation 3 iv at an annual cost for 2008 of $1,540,000;

vi. That expenses for enhanced volunteer programs be approved at an annual cost of $10,000.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que les Comités mixtes des transports et des services communautaires et de protection recommandent que le Conseil approuve :

1) La Stratégie de gestion des graffitis qui s’appuie sur le modèle d’élimination en quatre points 4E (Eradication, Empowerment, Education et Enforcement) qui est décrit dans ce rapport et qui comprend les mesures indiquées dans la Recommandation 3;

2) Le versement en 2007 d’une somme ponctuelle de 65 000 $ prélevée du fonds de réserve panmunicipal pour élaborer et mettre en œuvre une campagne de sensibilisation publique devant promouvoir la prévention et l’enlèvement des graffitis auprès des propriétaires de terrains privés et de commerces, et appuyer la mise en œuvre du règlement proposé dans la Recommandation 3) iv;

3) Sous réserve de l’approbation de la Recommandation 1, la mise en œuvre des mesures suivantes, laquelle mise œuvre dépendra de l’approbation du financement demandé, lors de l’exercice de budgétisation de 2008 :

i. Que quatre (4) zones de tolérance zéro, lesquelles sont décrites dans le rapport et le Document 2, soient ajoutées au programme actuel de gestion des graffitis en 2008, pour un coût annuel de 350 000 $;

ii. Que l’on confère au directeur des opérations de surface l’autorité nécessaire pour approuver les futures zones de tolérance zéro, dans la mesure qu’il s’agit d’endroits :

a) où il se dessine beaucoup de graffitis, ainsi qu’en atteste le nombre d’appels que la Ville reçoit à ce propos et les consultations du personnel municipal chargé de l’enlèvement des graffitis;

b) qui se trouve dans des secteurs très fréquentés et visibles de la Ville (comme les zones commerciales et touristiques); et

c) qu’il y ait suffisamment de fonds dans le budget pour mettre en œuvre la stratégie de tolérance zéro.

iii. Que l’on informe les propriétaires de terrains privés et les commerces sur les techniques de prévention et d’enlèvement des graffitis en organisant en 2008, pour un coût de 20 000 $, un Symposium sur les graffitis;

iv. Que le Règlement de gestion des graffitis, qui figure en annexe sous le nom de Document 3 et qui prendra effet le 1^er janvier 2008, soit édicté; et

v. Que les dépenses occasionnées par les efforts accrus consacrés à l’enlèvement des graffitis des biens qui appartiennent et qui sont maintenus par la Ville, soient approuvées sur une base annuelle, pour un coût de 1 540 000 $ en 2008, afin d’appuyer la mise en œuvre du règlement proposé dans la Recommandation 3) iv.

vi. Que les dépenses relatives aux programmes renforcés de bénévolat soient approuvés au coût annuel de 10 000 $.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the current Graffiti Management Program, identify existing gaps and recommend program enhancements.

On June 8, 2006, in a report presented to Emergency and Protective Services Committee (ACS2006-CCS-EPS-0002), staff was directed to investigate and enhance the current Graffiti Management Strategy so as to incorporate best practices from other Canadian Cities, address gaps, set out performance standards for the timely removal of graffiti from both public and private property as well as develop a network to help both property owners and businesses deal with the associated costs of removal.

The City’s Graffiti Management Strategy has been in operation since 2003, and is a partnership between the City’s Surface Operations Branch, By-law and Regulatory Services Branch, and Ottawa Police Services.

The impacts of graffiti on the community are numerous. Graffiti can reduce the community’s pride and appeal, have negative economic impact, negatively affect the community’s perception of safety and security, and impact on the City’s image as the nation’s capital. If left unchecked, graffiti spreads rapidly, and leads to the ‘broken window’ syndrome where people think that nobody cares, and nobody is in control. This attitude discourages business and shopping, poses threat, and in some cases, causes fear.

In order to effectively manage graffiti, it is necessary to understand the cultural drivers that cause its proliferation. Graffiti vandals typically see themselves as anti-establishment agents, do not respect the law and do not want to work on graffiti legally. Their primary motivation is for recognition amongst their peers – both locally and internationally. The graffiti culture is based primarily on two principals: “To Get Up” which means to place as many tags as possible; and “To Keep It Real” which means to keep it illegal. Because of the anti-establishment nature of the graffiti culture, graffiti vandals thrive on the adrenaline rush of the risk involved when doing it illegally. There are three main styles of graffiti: the ‘tag’; the ‘throw-up’; and the ‘masterpiece’, with each one being more complex.

Graffiti is a complex issue for which an effective sustainable solution cannot be tied to a single strategy or technique. To effectively manage graffiti, the City of Ottawa’s Graffiti Management Strategy follows the North American best practice of the “4E” model. This model addresses graffiti with a variety of proactive and reactive approaches, all of which must be present to be successful:

· Eradication: removing graffiti quickly and efficiently.

· Empowerment: maximizing use of available resources and relationships.

· Education: building awareness about how to prevent and remove graffiti.

· Enforcement: applying municipal, provincial and criminal code laws when necessary.

All elements of the 4E model have been implemented through the City’s Graffiti Management Strategy since 2003. The City’s graffiti removal crew proactively removes graffiti on city assets in five Zero Tolerance Zones in the downtown area. External and internal Graffiti Stakeholder Committees seek common solutions in graffiti management. Ottawa Police Service developed a brochure that provides tips on graffiti prevention. By-law and Regulatory Services and Ottawa Police Service enforce graffiti laws where necessary.

The Orléans Pilot Project was very successful to illustrate that success in graffiti management is greatest when the 4E’s are applied simultaneously. In 2005, 72% of the vandalized assets remained clean of graffiti as a result of a comprehensive strategy following the 4E model. In 2006, 87% of the vandalized assets remained clean of graffiti.

Despite the proactive application of the 4Es, the City’s removal efforts have more than doubled since 2004, with over 20,000 pieces of graffiti being removed from city assets in 2006. An enhanced Graffiti Management Strategy is required to reduce graffiti and its impacts. Extensive research and consultation were completed during the development of the enhanced Strategy. Lessons learned from the local Orléans Pilot Project have been incorporated into the enhanced Strategy. In addition, staff researched graffiti management programs of 17 major Canadian and U.S. cities such as Gatineau, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, New York, Philadelphia and Phoenix. This information was used to identify best practices in graffiti management including reporting mechanisms, performance standards, by-laws and enforcement, tools for businesses, public education, volunteer programs, and diversion programs. Extensive stakeholder consultation was a critical element of the development of the enhanced Graffiti Management Strategy. Through this consultation process, graffiti management directions and best practices from other communities were adapted to meet the needs and unique characteristics of graffiti in the City of Ottawa.

RÉSUMÉ

Ce rapport a pour but de fournir une mise à jour sur l’actuel Programme de gestion des graffitis et de permettre le repérage de ses failles et l’apport d’améliorations.

Le 8 juin dernier, dans un rapport soumis au Comité des services communautaires et de protection (ACS2006-CCS-EPS-0002), on a proposé que le personnel municipal examine et améliore la stratégie de gestion des graffitis municipale en y intégrant les pratiques exemplaires de gestion utilisées par d’autres villes canadiennes, corrige les failles de la stratégie, établisse des normes d’exécution pour l’enlèvement en temps opportun des graffitis des propriétés privées et publiques, et développe un réseau pour aider les propriétaires et les commerces à faire face aux coûts afférents à l’élimination des graffitis.

En vigueur depuis 2003, la Stratégie de gestion des graffitis de la Ville est appliquée grâce à un partenariat entre la Direction des opérations de surface, la Direction des services des règlements municipaux et le Service de police d’Ottawa.

Les graffitis ont de nombreuses conséquences néfastes sur la communauté. Ils réduisent l’attrait et la fierté des résidents dans leur ville, ont un impact négatif sur l’économie, affectent la perception que les résidents ont de la sécurité dans leur communauté et enfin nuisent à l’image d’Ottawa en tant que capitale nationale. Si l’on ne fait rien, ils se multiplient et suscitent une espèce de syndrome du « carreau de fenêtre cassée » où les gens ont l’impression que les lieux sont laissés à l’abandon. Une telle attitude nuit au commerce et au magasinage, pose un risque et, dans certains cas, suscite de la peur.

Afin de gérer efficacement les graffitis, il faut comprendre les motifs culturels qui nourrissent leur prolifération. Les vandales graffiteurs se voient généralement comme étant des rebelles qui luttent contre le pouvoir établi. Ils ne respectent pas les lois et ne désirent aucunement produire des graffitis dans un contexte où cela serait autorisé. Ils cherchent avant tout à obtenir la reconnaissance de leurs pairs, et ce, tant au niveau local qu’international. La culture du graffiti s’appuie sur deux principes : dessiner autant de « tags » que possible et « rester vrai », c’est-à-dire demeurer dans l’illégalité. En raison de leur culture de hors-la-loi, les vandales graffiteurs sont fortement attirés par le risque et la « montée d’adrénaline » qui accompagnent le fait de faire des actes illicites. Il y a trois principaux styles de graffitis : le « tagging »; le throw-up »; et le « chef-d’œuvre », chacun étant plus complexe que le précédent.

Le problème que posent les graffitis est compliqué et pour le résoudre de façon efficace et durable, il faut utiliser une variété de stratégies et de techniques. Pour combattre efficacement les graffitis, la Ville appuie sa stratégie sur le modèle nord-américain dit des « 4E ». Il s’agit d’un modèle en quatre points qui combine des approches proactives et répressives, lesquelles doivent être utilisées en conjonction pour être efficaces. Voici les quatre volets du modèle :

· Suppression des graffitis : Éliminer les graffitis rapidement et efficacement.

· Prise de responsabilité : Maximiser l'utilisation des ressources et des personnes disponibles.

· Sensibilisation du public : Sensibiliser les résidents aux moyens de prévenir et d’ôter les graffitis.

· Application de mesures concrètes : Appliquer les règlements municipaux et le Code pénal s'il y a lieu.

La stratégie de gestion des graffitis de la Ville comprend tous les éléments du modèle en quatre points, et ce, depuis 2003. Les équipes municipales d’élimination des graffitis ont pour consigne de les enlever rapidement du centre-ville. Les comités internes et externes de personnes concernées par les graffitis cherchent des solutions collectives au problème. À ce propos, le Service de police d’Ottawa a préparé une brochure qui contient des conseils utiles sur la prévention des graffitis.

Les Services des règlements municipaux et le Service de police d’Ottawa appliquent les règlements relatifs aux graffitis là où c’est nécessaire. Soulignons que le projet pilote d’Orléans a eu beaucoup de succès et montre que la gestion des graffitis s’avère plus efficace si l’on applique tous les volets du modèle en quatre points simultanément. En 2005, 72 % des biens vandalisés sont demeurés exempts de graffitis à la suite de l’application d’une stratégie globale fondée sur le modèle en quatre points. En 2006, ce pourcentage avait grimpé à 87 %.

Néanmoins, malgré une application proactive du modèle en quatre points, la Ville a dû, depuis 2004, doubler ses efforts de suppression des graffitis. Dans la seule année de 2006, elle en a enlevé plus de 20 000. Il fallait donc développer une stratégie de gestion améliorée pour réduire le nombre des graffitis et leur impact. Le personnel municipal a effectué des études et des consultations exhaustives pour élaborer la stratégie améliorée et y a incorporé les leçons apprises du projet pilote d’Orléans. Il a également étudié les programmes de gestion des graffitis de 17 grandes villes canadiennes et américaines, dont Gatineau, Montréal, Toronto, Vancouver, New York, Philadelphie et Phoenix. L’information recueillie a servi à repérer les pratiques exemplaires en matière de gestion des graffitis, y compris les mécanismes de signalement, les normes d’exécution, les règlements et leur application, les outils mis à la disposition des entreprises, les initiatives de sensibilisation du public, les programmes de bénévolat et de déjudiciarisation. Les consultations exhaustives menées auprès des groupes intéressés ont joué un rôle crucial dans l’élaboration de la nouvelle stratégie. C’est grâce à ces consultations que le personnel municipal a pu adapter les orientations et les pratiques exemplaires en matière de gestion des graffitis pour qu’elles répondent aux besoins particuliers de la Ville d’Ottawa dans ce dossier.

BACKGROUND

On June 8, 2006, in a report presented to Emergency and Protective Services Committee (ACS2006-CCS-EPS-0002), staff was directed to investigate and enhance the current Graffiti Management Strategy so as to incorporate best practices from other Canadian Cities, address gaps, set out performance standards for the timely removal of graffiti from both public and private property as well as develop a network to help both property owners and businesses deal with the associated costs of removal. The original Graffiti Management Strategy approved by Council on July 24, 2002 (ACS2002-TUP-SOP-0003) was designed as a three (3) year graffiti management plan to apply to all property and infrastructure managed by the City either directly or indirectly.

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the current Graffiti Management Program, and to identify existing gaps and recommend program enhancements.

The City of Ottawa’s Graffiti Management Strategy is successfully implemented through the “4E” model:

· Eradication: removing graffiti quickly and efficiently.

· Empowerment: maximizing use of available resources and relationships.

· Education: building awareness about how to prevent and remove graffiti.

· Enforcement: applying municipal and penal code laws when necessary.

The 4E model is the de facto standard in North American city governments to manage the spread of graffiti. This industry best practice model clearly recognizes that graffiti is not a one-dimensional issue and must be addressed with a variety of proactive and reactive approaches. It encourages the development of a comprehensive program through partnerships that bridge governments, police services, private sector businesses, as well as representatives from community and homeowner associations.

History and Culture of Graffiti

The term ‘graffiti’ generally means one or more letters, symbols, etchings, figures, inscriptions, or stains howsoever made or affixed to a property, or other markings that disfigure or deface a property. Murals that are sanctioned by the property owner and for which a permit has been obtained are not considered graffiti.

Graffiti vandalism is not a victimless crime. When graffiti is left to spread in the community, it can leave the impression that nobody cares or that nobody is in control, which is known as the “broken window” syndrome. When graffiti is allowed to spread, it can harm economic development and lead to further disorder and more significant crime to property. Unwanted graffiti defaces the surface of the vandalized property. Removal of graffiti is expensive and may cause damage to the original surface.

Graffiti has existed in varying forms for centuries. Although historically several different styles have existed, the most common style of graffiti known remains as ‘tagger’ graffiti. Its roots are based in the hip-hop culture in the early 1970’s. Tagger graffiti originated in the New York City area where “taggers” (or graffiti vandals) would use various styles and sizes to compete with each other and to gain recognition with the growing subculture.

Today, the tagger graffiti culture has grown to an international level. Graffiti vandals can access information about the culture from various sources around the globe including graffiti magazines and the Internet. Graffiti vandals often photograph their graffiti work and can post it on graffiti websites around the world. These web sites also educate graffiti writers on different aspects of the culture such as what products are more difficult to remove and how to mix products to cause the most damage.

Graffiti vandals do not respect the law and do not want to work on graffiti legally. The culture is based primarily on two principals:

· “To Get Up” which means to place as many tags as possible, and

· “To Keep It Real” which means to keep it illegal. Graffiti vandals thrive on the adrenaline rush of the risk involved when doing it illegally.

Graffiti vandals either work independently or as part of a ‘crew’. A crew is a small group of graffiti vandals with its own distinct name, which usually consists of no more than three words. Crews most often identify themselves by acronyms e.g. “Midnight Street Vandals” use MSV, “Art Violators” use AV, “Wasted Corrupt Talent” use WCT. The graffiti culture continues to grow in Ottawa and throughout North America.  Youth are bombarded with the culture through music videos, video games, television and the Internet.  It is important to reach out to youth at an early age to ensure they understand what graffiti really is and the negative impact it can have on them and their community.

Graffiti vandals come from a variety of different cultural and economic backgrounds, and are predominantly males in their early teens to mid twenties. There is however a common denominator that they share - the desire to win ‘fame’ within their subculture. The greatest fame goes to the vandals with the most numerous, long lasting and difficult tags. Difficulty can be based on where they place their tags (roof tops, bridges, overhead highway signs). Unfortunately this has lead to the death of some vandals around the world. There is a false perception that graffiti tags are related to gang activity.  The Ottawa Police Gangs and Guns Unit reports that instances of actual gang graffiti are extremely low in the Ottawa area. 

Graffiti vandals predominantly utilize three styles of graffiti. The most basic form is called a ‘tag’ that is the vandal’s stylized personal signature. A ‘tag’ is intended to be done quickly in one to three seconds. The second type is called a ‘throw up’ which in actual size is larger than a tag. It is comprised of bubble or balloon style letters utilizing one or two colours. A ‘throw up’ can be completed in a matter of minutes. The third and most time consuming and complicated type is a ‘masterpiece’ (piece) also known as ‘wildstyle’. It is constructed of interlocking letters and arrows, uses multiple colours and is the hardest style to master. A large masterpiece can take several hours or even days to complete.

Figure 1: Example of "tag"

Figure 2: Example of "throw up"

Figure 3: Example of "masterpiece"

Graffiti is not art.  The majority of the graffiti occurring in Ottawa is comprised of 'tags'.  It is illegal, done without the permission of the property owner, and negatively affects the community. 

As graffiti techniques become more sophisticated, vandals experiment with techniques that are more difficult to remove. One increasing trend is the use of etchings as a form of graffiti. In Ottawa, etchings are common on the Transitway, in the Transitway stations, and on storefront windows. It is extremely expensive to eradicate etchings since the asset that is etched cannot be repaired but must be replaced.

Current Graffiti Management Program

Grouped under the 4 “E” headings, achievements realized over the past three year implementation period (2003-2006) include:

Eradication

Graffiti vandals want their work to be seen. Prompt cover-up/removal is the most efficient method of combating the problem. If graffiti is covered-up/removed quickly, future acts of graffiti are discouraged. Also, the sooner removal is attempted, the easier it is to remove the graffiti. Prevention is also a key component in the eradication process. The graph below illustrates how quick removal of graffiti results in a lower recurrence rate. The graph suggests approximately:

· 15% recurrence if removed within 48 hours

· 50% recurrence if removed within 7 days

· proliferation if removed after 2 weeks.

Figure 4: Results of quick and effective eradication on recurrence rates (source: www.graffitihurts.org)

a) Graffiti Removal: The nucleus for the graffiti management activities is the “eradication” component of the 4E model. The graffiti season occurs year-round, with a concentrated effort from spring to fall.

Removal on City assets is completed primarily by two departments within the city: Public Works and Services and Corporate Services. The current annual budget for the comprehensive graffiti management program is $585,000. These costs do not take into account the costs that other agencies, such as the National Capital Commission, the federal government’s Department of Public Works, utility companies, private homeowners and businesses incur to remove and prevent graffiti within the City.

The Surface Operations Branch deploys a Graffiti Removal Crew year round, and works in partnership with Ottawa Police Service, By-law and Regulatory Services, and utilities to implement a successful eradication program. The City’s Graffiti Removal Crew performs eradication only on City owned and maintained property. Other agencies and property owners are responsible for graffiti eradication on their property, and perform removal subject to their own priorities.

Using state of the art methods, the City’s Graffiti Removal Crew provides services on City assets to Council-approved standards, including:

· 24-hour city-wide removal of any “hate, racist or offensive” graffiti

· Five (5) proactively patrolled zero tolerance neighbourhoods, generally described as the downtown core, Vanier, Glebe, Westboro and Britannia (refer to Document 2). A Zero Tolerance Zone is defined as an area where all graffiti on City owned and maintained assets is removed proactively by City Crews on a weekly basis. The Zones were established to recognize the highest graffiti areas in the city, which also correspond generally to the main business and tourist areas within the city. The area is selected based on high graffiti occurrence, calls to 311 and feedback from the City’s Graffiti Removal Crew. This concept is specific to city assets; however, it is encouraged that external stakeholders consider applying the same strategy on their assets within the defined zones.

· Citywide response by the City’s crew for removal of graffiti on city assets in non-zero-tolerance zones is on a request for service basis, and subject to availability of resources.

The City’s crew meets the 24-hour response standard for hate racist and offensive graffiti removal, and proactively patrols the zero tolerance zones on a weekly basis. Other than the 24-hour removal for hate graffiti, the City does not currently have specific standards for removal or response time either within the zero tolerance zones or throughout the remainder of the city.

Since 2004, the City’s removal efforts have more than doubled. This increase places significant pressure on the current resources available for graffiti removal. City crews have insufficient capacity to deal proactively in non-zero tolerance areas of the City. As a result, outside the zero tolerance zones, graffiti on City property is removed only once it is reported. It is expected that demands for graffiti removal will increase in the near future due to an increased interest in this subculture, as well as increases due to growth.

In 2006, the City’s Call Centre received almost 1100 calls from the public reporting graffiti. Forty-six percent of those calls reported graffiti on city assets, which was removed by City crews. The remainder of the calls were redirected either to the utilities or other asset managers or to By-law and Regulatory Services (private property) to pursue removal. In 2006, staff removed over 20,000 items of graffiti Citywide from almost 2,800 sites.  The majority of tags on City property are proactively removed by city crews.

Table 1: Graffiti related calls received by City’s Call Centre.

Year	# Calls
2002	46
2003	152
2004	265
2005	425
2006	1099

The public reporting of graffiti has increased annually since the program began. There are a number of reasons to explain this increase:

· Graffiti is increasing in the city;

· Climate change results in a shorter winter, effectively extending the graffiti season;

· The City’s 4E program increases public awareness of graffiti and encourages the public to report graffiti for quick removal; and,

· Projects such as the Orléans Pilot Project results in removal ‘blitzes’ thereby increasing removal numbers.

Through the proactive removal of graffiti in the zero-tolerance areas and the reactive response to public complaints, the City’s Graffiti removal crew removed almost 20,500 pieces of graffiti in 2006. This value is conservative, as data is not maintained by all departments involved in graffiti removal.

Table 2: Work completed by City’s Graffiti Removal Crew

Year	# Sites Cleaned	# Pieces of Graffiti Removed
2004	1,900	9,000
2005	2,400	12,465
2006	2,798	20,453

Data indicates that City-owned facilities in all geographic areas of Ottawa are affected by graffiti, including rural, suburban and urban area. On City facilities, community centres and field houses have the highest incidence of graffiti. There is a definite escalation of graffiti in the summer months.

b) Data collection: A database is used to monitor graffiti activity and to provide the basis for analysis of frequency and similarity of graffiti tags. Staff is able to understand the nature and scope of service requests as a result of the creation of an electronic database, which allows service providers to submit information around graffiti activities (location, size, removal solutions, equipment used, time spent cleaning, photo evidence, etc.) The information assists in determining costs more accurately, and is instrumental evidence in enforcement efforts.

c) Service request protocol: Since August 2002, the Call Centre refers service requests to field operations staff, to external stakeholders such as utilities, or to Police Services if the graffiti is hate-based or otherwise offensive. Priority is given to hate-based graffiti. Once investigated by Police Services, it is the responsibility of the property owner to remove the hate-based graffiti within 24 hours. Requests for service to remove other forms of graffiti from City assets have been managed efficiently, usually within 48 hours. Based on a review of best practices, Ottawa’s response times are comparable to those of other major Canadian cities.

d) Anti-Graffiti Technology: The City investigates and utilizes 'anti-graffiti' technology to discourage the return of graffiti in high-volume areas.  This includes clear coatings applied to surfaces to facilitate the easy removal of future graffiti. 

Empowerment

In a comprehensive graffiti management program, people are empowered to achieve results when they share information and understand the valuable role they can play. This was accomplished in a number of ways, both within the City and with its partners and related stakeholders.

a) Partnership with the Ottawa Police Service: The Ottawa Police Service plays an important empowerment role by encouraging business owners, community groups and individuals to report graffiti and by stepping up police visibility in the Zero Tolerance locations and in other areas, when required.

b) Graffiti management committees: The Graffiti Management Program is founded on the belief that removing graffiti is a collaborative effort with shared roles and responsibilities. To that end, stakeholders who have a vested interest in graffiti are invited to participate in one of two graffiti management committees established in September 2002: one committee brings together internal service providers, the other focuses on community partners and external stakeholders.

· Internal Stakeholder Committee: The goal of this committee is to share and exchange information about graffiti management, examine processes to improve call response times and prevention/transformation activities, take inventory of equipment and other resources, and to communicate information to targeted stakeholders. This group has been successful at maximizing resources to reduce and prevent graffiti. Internal stakeholders include: Public Works and Services (Surface Operations, Traffic and Parking Operations, Infrastructure Services), Community and Protective Services (By-law and Regulatory Services, Cultural Services & Community Funding), the Ottawa Police Service, City Manager’s Office (Corporate Communications), Corporate Services (RPAM, Client Services & Public Information), Planning, Transit & Environment (Transit Services).

· External Stakeholder Committee: The removal and prevention of graffiti is not exclusively a City effort. Other public and private property are also common targets. Therefore, a committee representing the interests of other public and private sector interests collaborates on ways to reduce graffiti and to share valuable information about how to prevent it in future. External stakeholders include: business community (Business Improvement Areas; Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce), other governments (National Capital Commission; federal Department of Public Works, Ontario Ministry of Transport), utilities, Canada Post, and the print media.

· To date, benefits of these committees include:

o Developing points of contact in each organization. For example, when the Call Centre receives a service request for graffiti removal that is on property other than that of the City, it can forward the information to the stakeholder directly.

o Working closely with the BIAs, business, and utility companies to encourage them to adopt a zero tolerance approach on their own assets.

o Demonstrating through direct contact that the Ottawa Police Service is committed to enforce vandalism laws and to provide surveillance as necessary.

o Providing stakeholders with information about how to remove and prevent graffiti.

c) Diversion Program: The Boys & Girls Club of Ottawa offers the Ottawa Community Youth Diversion Program (OCYDP). This program offers community based diversion opportunities to youth aged 12 to 17 years who are in conflict with the law. OCYDP acts as a coordinating body for the timely delivery of individualized interventions by a network of collaborative partners. The Ottawa Police Service and the City of Ottawa work in cooperation with the Boys & Girls Club of Ottawa to redirect youth involved in graffiti crimes to more productive opportunities. Through the OCYDP, the City also coordinates graffiti clean-up projects with youth as part of their requirements to undertake “community hours”.

d) Murals: Murals are defined as large-scale artworks done with permission of the property owner that can either be directly on the wall or attached to it. Currently, there are many murals across the city such as in Vanier, the ByWard Market, Westboro Village, and on the Preston Street Queensway underpass. Murals must comply with City by-laws such as the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law. Murals are non-permanent and require ongoing maintenance. In most cases, murals act to deter graffiti from recurring in high volume areas. The City of Ottawa’s Cultural Services Department will be updating its visual arts policy in 2007 to reflect its arts policy and programming since amalgamation. This policy update will include consideration of murals. Cultural Services is also developing a ‘Mural Guide”, a general document to assist members of the public who wish to plan and undertake a mural in their neighbourhood/community. In most cases, individuals interested in completing murals as an expression of art are different from those individuals engaged in tagging/graffiti.

e) Community Involvement: Community groups are able to access funding from the City to complete graffiti removal and prevention projects on public property through the City’s pilot Green Partnership Program. The City’s Community Pride Program (including the Spring/Fall Cleaning the Capital) assists volunteer groups to locate priority graffiti removal projects, and provides training and supplies for volunteer removal efforts. Groups can also Adopt-A Park, Roadway or Gateway, and commit to maintaining these assets as graffiti-free. Many community groups are active at monitoring graffiti in their neighbourhoods and reporting it to police and the City for enforcement and removal. Other funding programs that could assist communities to complete graffiti prevention education include the Crime Prevention Ottawa Funding and Community Project Funding.

Education

There are two primary audiences for graffiti related educational initiatives:

· Graffiti stakeholders – with a goal to build a comprehensive, sustained, effective program across the city;

· Graffiti vandals and potential graffiti vandals – with a goal to divert or prevent youth from engaging in graffiti related activities.

The education component of the 4E model is perhaps the most powerful because it takes a long-term view of the issue and focuses on prevention. The challenge on the education front is to increase general understanding about graffiti among identified stakeholders. Important aspects to promote include the cost of graffiti to the community, ways to remove and prevent it, and building awareness that the City is actively engaged in and committed to developing a sustained, effective program. Education to date has included the following initiatives:

· A new anti-graffiti brochure, developed by Ottawa Police Service in partnership with the City of Ottawa, focuses on removal, prevention and education. Information is available on the Ottawa Police Services (OPS) website at: http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/outreach/community_partnerships/success_graffiti_management.cfm

· The City’s web page located on the Community Pride Program site at: http://ottawa.ca/city_services/environment/community/community_pride/graffiti/index_en.html. The website includes content on what is graffiti and how to report it.

· The Ottawa Police Service’s existing programs and communication channels to reach the general community and youth in particular with information about the cost of graffiti vandalism and ways to prevent it. Youth of high school age as well as adults between 18-25, with some exceptions, tend to be the typical graffiti vandal. Research shows that education cannot begin early enough. The Ottawa Police Service meets with students on a regular basis as part of an outreach to schools. In addition, Police representatives are an active part of community associations, where they can instruct homeowners and small business owners on how to ‘graffiti-proof’ their property.

· Detailed media interviews given by the City and the Ottawa Police Service about the program, and responses to requests from organizations for speakers to discuss the City’s position on graffiti.

· Through the Site Plan Control process, the City encourages property owners to consider design elements to prevent or discourage graffiti from occurring.

Enforcement

Enforcement continues to play a key role in reducing graffiti occurrence and recurrence.

Ottawa Police Service:

· Under the Criminal Code of Canada, graffiti is considered vandalism and the appropriate charge is “mischief under or over $5,000. In the majority of cases, offenders are under the age of 18 and therefore subject to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Act clearly outlines a number of alternate measures to be taken with minor offences and first time offenders before actual criminal charges can be laid. These include verbal warnings, formal warnings and diversion programs. In many case, these alternate measures have proven successful in preventing recurrence of the offence. The Parental Responsibility Act may hold parents responsible for the damages caused by their youth. In the case of adult offenders, “mischief” charges are usually dealt with less severely than more serious or violent crimes. Depending on the situation, charges laid under the provincial Trespass to Property Act or a municipal by-law may be a more effective enforcement tool than criminal charges. Each item of graffiti removed by the City’s Graffiti Removal Crew is photographed and logged into a City database that is shared with Ottawa Police Service. Many graffiti vandals will leave the same symbol or “tag” when marking property and, by photographing each example, police are able to use information from the database to track and prosecute vandals.

· The Ottawa Police Service is a committed partner in the City Graffiti Management Program and will continue to investigate graffiti crime and take appropriate enforcement measures.

By-law and Regulatory Services:

· There are a number of by-laws in place currently that address “graffiti”, commonly referred to in these by-laws as markings or defacements. 

o The Property Standards By-law 2005-207, which applies to both residential and non-residential property, requires that unsightly markings, stains or other defacements on the exterior surfaces of fences, screens or other enclosures, as well as exterior surfaces of buildings and the like, be removed and that the surface be restored as nearly as possible to its original condition. The enforcement mechanism for this requirement involves the issuance of an Order to the property owner to remove the defacements, etc. Should the Order not be adhered to, the City may cause the work to be carried out and charge the costs thereof back to the property owner. The by-law also provides for an appeal process.

o The Parks & Facilities By-law 2004-276 prohibits any person from marking or writing upon, damaging or otherwise injuring any property of the City in a park including any part of the interior or exterior of a building, or any monument, fence, bench or other structure.

o The Fence By-law 2003-462 requires that unsightly markings, stains or other defacements on the exterior surfaces of fences be removed and that the surface be refinished as necessary.

o The Use and Care of Roads By-law 2003-498 prohibits any person from defacing any municipal infrastructure, including but not limited to, any post, surveyor's mark, bench mark, traffic sign, highway name sign, sign board, regulatory sign, traffic signal, traffic cone, or any other traffic control device, affixed or placed on a highway.

o The Encroachment By-law 2003-446 outlines specific provisions referring to graffiti and general references relating to maintenance; specifically, it requires that a customer service box (e.g. publication distribution or courier drop box) permit holder at all times keep the customer service box in a clean and sanitary condition and free of posters, signs and graffiti.

o The Parks & Facilities, Fence, Use and Care of Roads, and Encroachment By-laws are subject to the standard enforcement processes.

Based on the foregoing, it would be reasonable to harmonize graffiti related provisions into one by-law for clarity and to facilitate administration and enforcement.

Orléans Pilot Project

Success in graffiti management is greatest when the 4Es are applied simultaneously, which was clearly demonstrated by the 2005-2006 Orléans pilot project. The project has been managed by the Ottawa Police Service, delivered in partnership with the City, and based on the 4E Graffiti Management Strategy, and covered both public and private property. The pilot was introduced after a significant increase in graffiti levels occurred in the Orléans area. Research showed that graffiti in Orléans was drastically unreported and was not being tracked. As well, existing graffiti was not being cleaned. This led to the development of a comprehensive program encompassing all 4Es that was implemented in a pilot area within Orléans for two seasons. The geographic area covered by the pilot is illustrated in Document 2.

The pilot’s objective was to test a number of different approaches with a view to providing quantifiable data for future initiatives in suburban Ottawa. The project also aimed to encourage the community stakeholders to take responsibility for their community. City staff assisted by treating the pilot area as an unofficial zero tolerance zone complete with graffiti inspections and clean up. Project activities included volunteers and Police officers distributing information pamphlets, handouts, providing advice to building owners on their options for removal of graffiti, and the development of a graffiti presentation for the School Resource Officers. Over the two-year pilot, 37 suspects were identified and dealt with by police. No first-year offenders returned in the second year. 2007 will be the final year for the pilot project.

Table 3: Results of the Orléans Pilot Project

Year	Graffiti Tags counted before pilot launched	New tags appearing during pilot	% Reduction in tags	Suspects identified and dealt with
2005	999	278	72.2%	22
2006*	4618	608	86.9%	15

*Pilot area expanded in 2006.

A number of lessons were learned through the implementation of the Orléans Pilot Project that can be applied to a City wide program. These lessons were considered in the development of the recommendations contained in this report.

a) Eradication:

· A coordinated ongoing cleaning effort by all stakeholders confirmed the belief that removing graffiti quickly and effectively is the best way to reduce the likelihood of recurrence.

· The recurrence rate in Orléans has declined as the project continues.

· Stakeholders shared information on methods/products available and successfully reduced the overall costs for removal.

· The City has an effective photo storage, retrieval, and documentation system for graffiti occurrences. Currently this information is shared with Ottawa Police Services upon request. It would be beneficial for Ottawa Police Service to have direct access to their system.

· Stakeholder assets are sometimes difficult to identify. If the 3-1-1 system is to work effectively, stakeholder assets need to be properly identified with utility company names.

· Response times for various utility companies vary based on the contractors used. This creates confusion in the community.

b) Empowerment:

· The success of the project is largely due to the participation of all the stakeholders involved.

· When dealing with identified graffiti vandals, both the officers and the majority of parents believed the youths should clean up graffiti in the community. The Ottawa Police Service, the City of Ottawa, and the Boys and Girls Club partner to create a diversion program where identified graffiti suspects clean City approved properties.

· An organized volunteer program with stakeholder support would assist in reducing stakeholders’ costs.

· The Orléans skateboard park is an area where graffiti is tolerated by the City, similar to a legal wall. The pilot showed that graffiti spilled over into the community and was not contained to the tolerated area. Graffiti in this area was linked to graffiti vandals who were suspected of living outside of the Orléans area and were responsible for tagging in various neighbourhoods across the City.

c) Education:

· Education at all levels has attributed to the success of the project.

· Police confirmed the culture and demographics of graffiti in the City of Ottawa. This will be useful to the Ottawa Police Service and the City in developing educational initiatives.

· Presentations were done at the majority of high schools in the project area. When suspected graffiti vandals were questioned, some had already voluntarily ceased graffiti activity as a result of the presentations they heard in their schools.

· Presentations at school staff meetings explained the project, the culture and the indicators related to graffiti vandals. This information helped staff identify potential graffiti vandals to the Police.

· Parents of suspected graffiti vandals were unaware of the graffiti culture or the indicators related to persons involved in it. Parents were educated on the culture and their parental responsibilities. This information was also added to the new pamphlet and onto the OPS web site.

· There has been an ongoing increase in the use of 3-1-1 to report graffiti. Media releases and interviews have likely contributed to this increase.

d) Enforcement:

· The majority of offenders identified in this suburban area were young offenders. In many cases, there was not enough information to support formal charges; however, intervention with the youth and parents proved to be every successful in reducing rates of recurrence.

· Information identifying offenders mainly came as a result of the education of youth, parents and school officials.

DISCUSSION

In keeping with the June 8, 2006 motion, staff have conducted extensive stakeholder consultation, researched best practices of major North American cities, and considered the lessons learned from the Orléans Pilot Project in the development of the enhanced graffiti management strategy for the City of Ottawa. The objectives of the enhanced program include:

· Overall reduction in visible graffiti City wide;

· Incorporation of best practices into the program to address gaps and improve program efficiency and effectiveness;

· Improved coordination among both internal and external stakeholders;

· Development of efficient and effective ways to manage graffiti removal and the resources applied to it; and

· Enhancement of the essential relationships required to make the program truly successful across the community.

Staff reviewed graffiti management programs of 17 major Canadian and U.S. cities such as Gatineau, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, etc (Document 1). This information was used to identify best practices in graffiti management including reporting mechanisms, performance standards, by-laws and enforcement, tools for businesses, public education, volunteer programs, and diversion programs which have been considered as part of the development of the proposed Graffiti Management Strategy.

Proposed Enhanced Graffiti Management Strategy

In addition to the current initiatives, a number of enhancements are recommended for addition to the existing strategy. Respecting the 4E model, recommendations for the enhanced program include:

Eradication

a) Zero Tolerance Zones: In addition to the existing zero tolerance areas, four new areas are recommended to be added as zero tolerance zones due to the high volume of graffiti removals in those geographic areas. The recommended zero tolerance zones were determined based on volume of calls received by the call centre, and visual inspection by the city’s graffiti removal crew. The proposed Zero Tolerance Zones do not conflict with the proposed By-law. The proactive removal in the zero tolerance zones will provide an enhanced level of service beyond the requirements of the By-law. A map identifying current and proposed zero tolerance zones is presented in Document 2. The recommended new zones are generally described as:

· Cyrville/Carson Grove - Area bounded by St-Laurent Boulevard to the west, Highway 417/174 to the south, Montreal Road to the north and Blair Road to the east.

· Southgate - Area generally bounded by Lester Road/Davidson Road to the south, Hawthorne Road to the east, Johnston Road to the north and Bank Street to the west.

· Barrhaven- Area bounded by Strandherd Drive to the west, Fallowfield Road to the north, Strandherd Drive/Jockvale Road/the Jock River to the south and the Rideau River to the east.

· Orléans- The boundary of the Greenbelt to the west, the Ottawa River to the north, Cardinal Creek to the east and 4^th Line Road and a line extending from approximately 4^th line Road at Mer Bleue Road to Trim Road to the south.

It is recommended that the definition and approval of future zero tolerance zones be delegated to the Director of Surface Operations Branch. Budget adjustments for any additional Zero Tolerance Zones will be presented annually through the budget approval process. The following criteria are recommended for addition of future Zero Tolerance Zones:

· Highest graffiti occurrence areas. This would be determined based on the volume of calls to 3-1-1 and feedback from the City’s graffiti removal crew.

· Location: Located in high visibility areas such as business and tourist sectors. Proliferation of graffiti in these areas would have the highest impact on business, residents, and tourism. As well, these areas attract graffiti vandals as tags in these high exposure locations increases their chances at fame and recognition.

b) Partnerships with the private sector: Staff will investigate the most cost effective and efficient use of the City’s Graffiti Removal Crew, external contractors and volunteers to provide City wide graffiti removal services. The combination of services will ensure that graffiti is removed according to Council approved service standards, and in the most cost effective and efficient manner. Hiring of contractors will be done through the City’s procurement process. Staff will also investigate joint contracts in partnership with external stakeholders such as utilities to ensure cost effective services and consistent levels of service.

c) Reporting: Online reporting of graffiti will be implemented to offer an alternative method of reporting graffiti. Call Centre staff will receive additional training to address graffiti inquiries. Educational initiatives will encourage the public to report graffiti quickly.

Empowerment

a) Graffiti Management Committees. The success of the committees has been based on bringing the right blend of partners and stakeholders together to solve a common problem. A greater emphasis will be placed on inviting external stakeholders to play a more assertive role in reducing the volume of graffiti from their assets. Property owners will be encouraged to properly identify their assets to assist with community reporting of graffiti. They will be encouraged to develop and enforce their own “zero tolerance” policies. They will discuss opportunities for City-led and joint programs. They will guide participants on how to empower themselves to prevent graffiti from damaging property; and, offer suggestions about how to partner more effectively to keep public and private assets free of graffiti. Staff will continue to explore opportunities that bring together the City and youth. The internal committee will be expanded to Corporate Security. The external committee will be expanded to include school boards, Building Owners & Manager’s Association (BOMA), Eastern Ontario Landlord Association, and the Federation of Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa Carleton, and Crime Prevention Ottawa.

b) Legal Walls: Legal walls are areas, whether a wall or building, designated for legal graffiti activity. The concept behind legal walls is that if graffiti vandals are given an opportunity to do graffiti in an approved area, they will stop tagging other areas. This has proven not to be the case. Many North American cities have experimented at one time or another with legal walls, and to date, most have been ineffective at preventing graffiti. While well intentioned, legal walls send a mixed message and often cause more harm than good. They may appear to work at first, but after a period of time, the surrounding areas also become covered with graffiti – this is also known as ‘creep’. Data also shows no decrease in arrests for graffiti in cities where there are legal walls. This is because graffiti is not carried out for artistic purposes. In the eyes of the graffiti vandal, graffiti must be illegal to be ‘real’. In most cases, the same graffiti writer who has tagged property illegally has then placed a piece with the same tag on a legal wall. Legal walls may encourage graffiti crime and allow graffiti vandals to gain experience and exposure of tags. It sends a mixed message to youth that further erodes any measures in place to curb graffiti crime as youth see the graffiti and feel that as the City endorses it, then it must be acceptable. When a legal wall is covered in tags, graffiti vandals will look at adjacent areas to tag. This results in areas not authorized to be used by graffiti vandals, often resulting in increases of graffiti in the community (Source: Saskatoon Police Service). During the review of 17 graffiti programs of major Canadian and U.S. cities, only 2 have legal wall programs. The experience of the City of Ottawa and Police with the local legal wall located under the north side of at the Honourable George Dunbar Bridge and the “graffiti tolerated” skate park in Orléans adjacent to the Orléans Pilot Project showed that ‘tolerated’ graffiti spilled over into the community and was not contained to the target area. On these basis, incorporation of legal walls into the City’s graffiti management strategy is not recommended.

c) Enhanced Volunteer Programs: Currently, the City’s Community Pride (Spring/Fall Cleaning the Capital), Green Partnership Program, and Adopt-A-Park/Road/Gateway programs offer opportunities for volunteers to be responsible for graffiti removal and prevention in their neighbourhood. These programs could be expanded to include “Adopt-A-Spot” and “Community Wipe-Out Teams”. Additional funding for supplies and program coordination would allow these programs to be expanded into a more effective volunteer program. Through the City’s Community Pride Program, staff will investigate partnerships with local paint and graffiti cleaning suppliers and contractors to provide discounts and supplies to persons or businesses that experience graffiti. High school students are required to complete forty hours of community service, and will be encouraged to participate in graffiti removal in their neighbourhood. Health and safety protocols are followed for volunteer graffiti removal.

d) Murals: The City will finalize the Mural Guide, and seek opportunities to assist property owners with implementing murals for the purposes of deterring graffiti. Staff will work with the External Stakeholder Committee to develop tools and initiatives to promote the effective use of murals, such as an online tool where mural artists could register online to provide their services to potential property owners and property owners could register online to add their property to an inventory for potential murals. Property owners should be aware of the ongoing maintenance costs associated with murals. The City of Ottawa will consider opportunities to complete murals on city facilities, and monitor the impact it has on the amount of graffiti at the facility and neighbouring city facilities. Staff will also monitor implementation and maintenance costs of mural projects on city property, as well as interest of the community.

Education

a) Public Awareness Campaign: The proposed public awareness campaign will pursue activities that focus on graffiti prevention and empowerment. Special emphasis will be placed on reaching students and youth, business and private property owners. Partnerships with youth organizations such as Youth on the Move, Operation Go Home, and the Youth Services Bureau will assist with developing and delivering the activities and messages to the youth community. Crime Prevention Ottawa will be consulted on education and empowerment issues.

i. A broad based communications strategy for graffiti is required to ensure consistency in messaging, co-coordinated delivery and overall continuity with the City’s communication strategy for delivery of public works and by-law initiatives. The City will develop a comprehensive public education campaign designed to inform residents and businesses about the graffiti management strategy, which follows the 4E model, and the new by-law, its goals, objectives and enforcement. This campaign will use the tactics and mediums most effective to reach its target audiences, and will include earned, as well as paid, media advertising.

ii. The City’s website will be expanded to include: impacts of graffiti, tips for preventing graffiti, tips for parents who are suspicious of their children being involved in graffiti, tips and guidelines for effective graffiti removal, lists of available graffiti product vendors and removal companies, citizen reporting of graffiti (including online reporting option), registration of mural artists and properties available for murals.

iii. Many City of Ottawa programs offer funding and/or supplies to community groups to help prevent and clean up graffiti. These programs (Spring/Fall Cleaning the Capital, Green Partnership Program, Adopt-A-Park/Road/Gateway) will be promoted to the community, emphasizing assistance for community-based graffiti projects.

iv. Staff will investigate partnerships with media to effectively promote graffiti messages.

v. The City and the Ottawa Police Service will partner with school boards and youth groups to develop curriculum to incorporate graffiti education and prevention into classroom activities, after school programs, and youth group activities. The City will consider opportunities to offer artistic diversion programs to youth as a means of reducing graffiti activity.

vi. Police will continue to offer presentations to schools and community groups, and business associations.

b) Graffiti Symposium: The City will host a Graffiti Symposium, where graffiti removal specialists will demonstrate to the community how to prevent and clean graffiti from their properties. The event will reinforce the idea that removing graffiti as quickly as it appears discourages vandals from making repeat ‘tags’. The event will illustrate effective and inexpensive options for prevention and removal, as well as providing business owners and homeowners with a list of suppliers to contact for supplies and services. It will also be an opportunity to look for partnerships, and to promote the City’s volunteer programs.

Enforcement

a) Partnerships: The City will arrange for the Ottawa Police Service to have direct viewing access to the graffiti database – the photo storage and documentation system for all graffiti occurrences investigated by the Graffiti Removal Crew and By-law and Regulatory Services’ enforcement staff. This will ensure effective use of this tool for enforcement activities. Many businesses and community groups have shown interest in sharing their graffiti data with the City and Ottawa Police Service to assist with enforcement activities.

b) Graffiti Management By-law: The Graffiti Management By-law, attached as Document 3, is proposed to address graffiti related issues from a regulatory perspective, and covers enforcement, eradication, and education elements.

In the proposed by-law, “graffiti” is defined as one or more letters, symbols, etchings, figures, inscriptions, stains howsoever made or otherwise affixed to a property or other markings that disfigure or deface a property but does not include a mural sign permitted in accordance with the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law 2005-439.

Under the proposed by-law, property owners who fail to maintain their property free of graffiti may be given written notice requiring removal of the graffiti within a time period specified in the notice, that period being no less than seven (7) days. Failure to comply with the notice could result in the City making arrangements for the work to be done and recovering the associated costs by adding them to the tax roll associated with the property in question. This process is similar to that which has been in place for many years under the Property Standards By-law (PSB), the primary difference between this by-law and the proposed by-law being expediency; that is, the proposed by-law provides for a more prompt response requirement than the PSB which can be a lengthy process given primarily the statutory requirement for an appeal process.

The proposed by-law also provides the ability for By-law and Regulatory Services Officers and Ottawa Police to lay charges against persons who place or cause or permit graffiti to be placed on property. Charges under the by-law would be in accordance with the Provincial Offences Act, as opposed to the Criminal Code, which would facilitate enforcement significantly given constraints associated with the Youth Criminal Justice Act as it relates to the Criminal Code and young offenders.

The five (5) existing by-laws that address graffiti (i.e. markings and/or defacements) will be amended accordingly to ensure no conflict with and to support the proposed by-law.

The suggested effective date for the by-law is January 1, 2008, which will allow sufficient time to identify and train appropriate staff resources and to prepare the required materials for use in the education and enforcement program. The implementation plan for the by-law involves the use of existing staff resources, as approved by Council as part of the 2007 budget, as part of a phased-in approach. Education and information dissemination, as well as the warning period, would take place from January to March of 2008 inclusive. Enforcement, which will be proactive as well as reactive, would commence on April 1, 2008 thereby giving due consideration to weather related issues that impact graffiti activity and removal.

During the course of the 2006 discussions related to graffiti issues, a by-law to regulate the sale of graffiti implements, similar to that enacted by the City of London (Ontario) was suggested. That by-law prohibits any person from selling, exchanging, giving, loaning, etc. any graffiti implement – paint, markers, glass cutting tools, etc. – to a minor (person under eighteen (18 years of age) who is not accompanied by a parent or legal guardian, and requires that retailers selling such implements post a sign, in view of staff who are accepting customer payment, stating that such action is an offence with a fine of up to $5,000. London is the only known Canadian municipality to have enacted such a by-law, which origins are American. The United States has in place a legal system and framework of authorities significantly different from those in place in Canada. From staff’s perspective, administration and enforcement of a by-law such as this would be significantly onerous and expensive, and it would not prevent minors from purchasing graffiti implements outside the City of Ottawa (e.g. Gatineau) thus rendering our efforts ineffective and not cost efficient. Such a by-law does not seem to be consistent with the 4E model. Based on the foregoing, consideration of a by-law to regulate the sale of graffiti implements is not recommended.

Overall Program Coordination

The Surface Operations Branch of the Public Works and Services act as the coordinator of graffiti management activities on behalf of all City departments. Despite the multi-faceted nature of the graffiti management program, there is currently no dedicated staff for overall program coordination. It is recommended that one existing FTE from within the Surface Operations Branch be dedicated to the coordination of the enhancements described above.

The following table summarizes the recommended enhancements and associated annual costs for the City of Ottawa’s Graffiti Management Strategy. Some recommendations do not have a costs associated with them, as they will be implemented using existing staff and resources. Costs for increased eradication on City assets as a result of the proposed by-law are estimates only at this time, and are based on the proposed seven (7) day minimum response time. Staff will monitor costs during 2008, and adjust as required through the annual budget process.

Table 4: Summary of Recommendations

Recommendation	Department	Annual Budget
1. Addition of four Zero Tolerance Zones	PWS-SOP	$350,000
2. Graffiti Symposium	PWS-SOP	$20,000
3. Public Awareness Campaign	PWS-SOP	$65,000 (2007 only)
4. Enhanced volunteer programs	PWS-SOP	$10,000
5. Adoption of the Graffiti Management By-law	CPS – By-law
6. Increased eradication costs for City owned and maintained assets resulting from proposed Graffiti Management By-law	PWS-SOP PWS-TPO CS-RPAM	$1,000,000 $50,000 $490,000
Total value of recommendations		$1,985,000

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

The recommendations for an enhanced Graffiti Management Strategy apply City-wide.

CONSULTATION

Consultation continues to be an important component in the development of a sustained graffiti management program. The results of the consultation are contained in Document 4. The following stakeholders were invited to participate in consultation sessions and/or provide input during the development of this report:

· Internal Stakeholder Committee: Public Works and Services (Surface Operations, Traffic and Parking Operations, Infrastructure Services), Community and Protective Services (By-law and Regulatory Services, Cultural Services & Community Funding), Ottawa Police Services, City Manager’s Office (Corporate Communications), Corporate Services (RPAM, Client Services & Public Information), Planning, Transit & Environment (Transit Services).

· External Stakeholder Committee: Business community (Business Improvement Areas; Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce), other governments (National Capital Commission; federal Department of Public Works, Ontario Ministry of Transport), Utilities, School Boards, Federation of Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa Carleton, print media, Crime Prevention Ottawa, Building Owners & Manager’s Association (BOMA), Eastern Ontario Landlord Association.

· Business Advisory Committee

· Local Business Improvement Areas (BIAs)

· Graffiti removal contractors and suppliers.

In addition, for the general public, an advertisement was placed on March 6, 2007 in the daily papers (Ottawa Citizen and Le Droit) inviting written comments. An information session was held for the Mayor and Members of Council on March 29, 2007.

Altogether, seventy-four (74) participants attended the consultation sessions. As of April 4, 2007, the due date for public comments on the proposals, in excess of 33 written submissions were received.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The funding requirements to implement the report recommendations will require additional resources in the 2008 budget.

The expenditures required to support the graffiti management initiatives in this report are estimated to be $1.920 million and will impact a number of city branches as shown below.

2008 Additional Budget Requirements
Public Works and Services - Surface Operations Branch	$1,380,000
Public Works and Service - Traffic & Parking Operations	$50,000
Corporate Services - Real Property Asset Management	$490,000
Total	$1,920,000

These additional requirements will be incorporated into the 2008 Draft Budget for council’s consideration and approval.

In addition, the $65,000 funding requirement to develop a public awareness campaign in 2007 was not provided for in the 2007 budget. 

Subject to confirmation through the Council's Priority Setting Session and subsequent Council approval of the Graffiti Management Strategy report, it is recommended that the 2007 public awareness campaign be funded from the City Wide Capital Reserve Fund.  The additional 2008 requirements will be incorporated into the 2008 Draft Budget. 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 - Review of Graffiti Best Practices from major Canadian and US cities (issued separately)

Document 2 - Map illustrating current and proposed Zero Tolerance Zones (issued separately)

Document 3 - Proposed Graffiti Management By-law

Document 4 - Summary of Results of Stakeholder/Public Consultation

DISPOSITION

Public Works and Services, in consultation with the Internal and External Stakeholders Groups, as appropriate, to implement the recommendations as approved by Council.

Legal Services, in consultation with By-law and Regulatory Services, to process the by-law to Council for enactment.

By-law and Regulatory Services, in consultation with Public Works and Services, to implement the by-law as proposed.

DOCUMENT 3

BY-LAW NO. 2007-

A by-law of the City of Ottawa to prohibit the placement of graffiti on property and to require property be kept free of graffiti.

WHEREAS the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended provides that a municipality may prohibit and regulate with respect to public nuisances, including matters that, in the opinion of Council are or could become public nuisances;

AND WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Council of the City of Ottawa, graffiti is a public nuisance;

THEREFORE the Council of the City of Ottawa enacts as follows:

DEFINITIONS

1. In this by-law,

“City” means the municipal corporation of the City of Ottawa or the geographic area of the City of Ottawa as the context requires;

“customer service box” means either a publication distribution box or a courier drop box;

“courier drop box” means an unattended box into which any member of the general public may deposit letters or parcels to be delivered by courier companies;

“Director” means the Director of By-law and Regulatory Services in the Community and Protective Services Department of the City of Ottawa or authorized assistants or By-law Officers;

“graffiti” means one or more letters, symbols, etchings, figures, inscriptions, stains howsoever made or otherwise affixed to a property or other markings that disfigure or deface a property but does not include a mural sign permitted in accordance with By-law No. 2005-439, the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law;

“interior space” includes an interior wall, ceiling, floor and any other partition that defines the interior space of a property;

“mural sign” means a decorative mural that is painted directly onto the exterior fabric of a building and that serves as an expression of public art;

“officer” means a police officer or municipal law enforcement officer appointed by the Council of the City of Ottawa to enforce the provisions of this by-law;

“owner” includes,

(a) the person for the time being managing or receiving the rent of the land or premises in connection with which the word is used, whether on the person’s own account or as agent or trustee of any other person, or who would receive the rent if the land and premises were let;

(b) the lessee or occupant of the property who, under the terms of a lease, is required to repair and maintain the property;

“property” means a building or structure or part of a building or structure, and includes the lands and premises appurtenant thereto and all mobile homes, mobile buildings, mobile structures including customer service boxes and courier drop boxes, out-buildings, fences and erections thereon whether heretofore or hereafter erected, and includes vacant property.

INTERPRETATION

2. (1) This by-law includes the schedules annexed hereto and the schedules are hereby

declared to form part of this by-law and enact the regulation, the description or

the map they contain.

(2) The rules in this section apply to this by-law, unless a contrary intention is

evident from the context.

(3) Unless otherwise defined, the words and phrases used in this by-law have their

normal and ordinary meaning.

(4) This by-law is gender-neutral and, accordingly, any reference to one gender includes the other.

(5) Words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.

(6 ) It is declared that any section, subsection or part thereof be declared by any Court of Law to be bad, illegal or ultra vires, such section, subsection part or parts shall be deemed to be severable and all parts hereof are declared to be separate and independent and enacted as such.

(7) Headings are inserted for convenience of reference purposes only, form no part of this by-law and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of the provisions of this by-law.

INTERIOR SPACE

3. This by-law does not apply to an interior space on a property or to a thing located entirely within the interior space on a property.

GRAFFITI PROHIBITED

4. No person shall place or cause or permit graffiti to be placed on property.

5. No owner of property shall fail to maintain such property free of graffiti.

NOTICE TO COMPLY

6. An officer who finds a contravention of this by-law may give written notice to the owner of the property requiring compliance with this by-law within the time period specified in the notice but no sooner than 7 calendar days after the notice is given.

7. The notice may be served personally on the person to whom it is directed or by registered mail to the last known address of that person, in which case it shall be deemed to have been given on the third day after it was mailed.

8. If there is evidence that the owner in possession of the property is not the registered owner of the property, the notice shall be served on both the registered owner of the property and the owner in possession of the property.

9. If the address of the owner is unknown or the City is unable to effect service on the registered owner or the owner, a placard stating the terms of the notice and placed in a conspicuous place upon the land on or near the property shall be sufficient notice to the owner.

FAILURE TO COMPLY

10. No person shall fail to comply with a notice given under Section 6 of this by-law.

REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI

11. If the owner fails to comply with a notice, the Director of By-law and Regulatory Services or persons acting upon his or her instructions, may enter upon the lands at any reasonable time for the purposes of carrying out the work described in the notice.

12. Costs incurred by the City in doing the work required to be done by the notice may be recovered by action or by adding the costs to the tax roll and collecting them in the same manner as property taxes.

OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

13. (1) Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of this by-law is guilty of an offence.

(2) Every person who is convicted of an offence under this by-law is liable to a fine as provided for in the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O 1990, Chapter P. 33, as amended.

14. When a person has been convicted of an offence under this by-law,

(a) the Ontario Court of Justice, or

(b) any court of competent jurisdiction thereafter,

may, in addition to any other penalty imposed on the person convicted, make an order prohibiting the continuation or repetition of the offence by the person convicted.

SHORT TITLE

15. This by-law may be referred to as the “Graffiti Management By-law”.

EFFECTIVE DATE

16. This by-law shall come into force and take effect on January 1, 2008.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , 2007

CITY CLERK MAYOR

AMENDMENTS TO RELATED CITY BY-LAWS

1. By-law No. 2005-208, the Property Standards By-law

(a) Add the definition of graffiti contained in the Graffiti Management By-law to the definitions of this by-law

(b) Remove the reference to “unsightly markings, stains or other defacements” in subsections 10(2), 17(4), 44(2) and 51(4) and substitute the word “graffiti” for this expression.

2. By-law No. 2003-462, the Fence By-law

(a) Add the definition of graffiti contained in the Graffiti Management By-law to the definitions of this by-law

(b) Remove the reference to “unsightly markings, stains or other defacements” in Section 18, paragraph (a) and substitute the word “graffiti” for this expression.

3. By-law No. 2004-276, the Parks and Facilities By-law

(a) Delete the phrase “write or mark upon” from subsection 9(2) of this by-law.

4. By-law No, 2003-498, the Use and Care of Roads By-law

(a) Delete the word “deface” from Section 6 of this by-law.

DOCUMENT 4

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF STAKEHOLDER/PUBLIC CONSULTATION

This document summarizes the public comments received on the Graffiti Management Strategy, up to and including April 5, 2007.

The following stakeholders were invited to attend consultation sessions and/or provide input on the proposed strategy:

· Internal Stakeholder Committee: Public Works and Services (Surface Operations, Traffic and Parking Operations, Transit Services, Infrastructure Services), Community and Protective Services (By-law and Regulatory Services, Cultural Services & Community Funding), Ottawa Police Services, City Manager’s Office (Corporate Communications), Corporate Services (RPAM, Client Services & Public Information), Planning, Transit & Environment (Transit Services).

· External Stakeholder Committee: Business community (Business Improvement Areas; Greater Ottawa Chamber of Commerce), other governments (National Capital Commission; federal Department of Public Works, Ontario Ministry of Transport, Utilities, School Boards, Federation of Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa Carleton, print media, Crime Prevention Ottawa, Building Owners & Manager’s Association (BOMA), Eastern Ontario Landlord Association.

· Business Advisory Committee

· Local Business Improvement Areas (BIAs)

· Graffiti removal contractors and suppliers.

In addition, an advertisement was placed on March 6, 2007 in the daily newspapers (Citizen and Le Droit) inviting written comments from the general public. An information session was held for the Mayor and Members of Council on 29 March 2007.

Altogether, seventy-four (74) participants attended the consultation sessions. As of April 4, 2007, the due date for public comments on the proposals, in excess of 33 written submissions were received.

The most significant and commonly raised issues of concern identified throughout the consultation, both verbally at the meetings and in the form of written comments, and the staff response to those issues, are summarized below under the appropriate section. In general however, there appeared to be an understanding amongst most respondents that graffiti continues to be an issue requiring more attention from the City and police, and that, generally, the staff proposals serve to address that issue. The “graffiti artist” community is generally opposed to the recommendations; the business community (represented largely by the Business Improvement Areas), internal and external stakeholders, and community associations are generally in favour.

Eradication

1. Addition of zero tolerance zones for high volume graffiti areas roughly described as: Orléans, Southgate, Cyrville/Carson Grove, and Barrhaven.

The following summarizes comments received on this proposal:

· The majority of participants supported this recommendation.

· Please include the Albion/Heatherington community in the new 'Southgate' Zero Tolerance zone as this community is severely affected by vandals and the 'broken window syndrome'.

· Positive street art or murals may be more appropriate than implementing zero tolerance zones in areas of high graffiti traffic.

· It is unclear if the zero tolerance process is effective, or does it just move the illegal tagging elsewhere.

· Zero Tolerance Zones will only be effective when a complimentary suite of supportive arts-related measures accompanies them.

· Part of the reason why certain areas are prone to graffiti is due to their urban design. Blank spaces, certain materials and presence or lack of pedestrian traffic are all features of the urban environment to which graffiti vandals respond. Addressing the urban design component within zero tolerance zones will go part of the way to making these zones more effective.

· The City should provide support for those willing to invest in cleanup, such as financial assistance, free surveillance cameras, and police patrols. Every effort should be made to clean up graffiti as soon as it occurs, and catch the perpetrators.

· More attention needs to be given to graffiti removal in parks.

· Some participants found prevention coatings to be offensive since they often change the appearance of a structure, and will also peel with cold weather and numerous coatings. Paint patches are also offensive.

· Property owners have experienced graffiti scratched or carved into shop windows.

· There is general support for prompt removal of graffiti from all buildings, public and private.

· The City could consider a notification system for prompt notification of new graffiti on the property owned and managed by External Stakeholders.

The Southgate Zero Tolerance Zone was amended to include the Albion/Heatherington community.

2. Consideration of contractors for additional graffiti removal work if proven to be cost effective and efficient.

The following summarizes comments received on this proposal:

· The majority of participants supported this recommendation.

· Contractors should be required to use approved materials and meet environmental standards.

· Graffiti removal products make walls look worse than if the graffiti had been left there.

· There is support for the City to list local graffiti removal contractors and suppliers on the website for the benefit of private and business property owners. Contractors and suppliers should be required to pre-qualify before they are listed to ensure that they meet certain criteria such as use of non-toxic products, good business record, no damage to buildings, complete removal of graffiti and shadows, etc.

· The City should look for opportunities to partner with external agencies for increased effectiveness and cost savings associated with graffiti removal contracts.

· In addition to the proposed enhancements the City needs to consider a joint funding arrangement with private property owners who are burdened with the cost of removal.

The report has been amended to incorporate comments from the public.

Empowerment

3. Increased use of volunteers for graffiti removal:

a) promote through the City’s Spring/Fall Cleaning the Capital, Green Partnership Program, and the ‘Adopt-A-Park/Roadway/Gateway’.

b) promote through High school students’ requirement for community service.

c) City coordination of volunteer removal projects on both internal and external stakeholders assets.

The following summarizes comments received on this proposal:

· The majority of participants supported this recommendation.

· Working with community associations is key, and having the City provide funding/supplies is a great help.

· The City should encourage their partners such as Canada Post, Bell, Rogers etc to provide funding and/or supplies for community clean up efforts.

· The City could assist by ensuring synchronized cleanup efforts between the various partners. For example, Police, could follow up after a neighbourhood clean up to identify areas with return graffiti.

· High school students need to be educated on the issue before they can be encouraged to be part of the solution.

· The report’s ‘empowerment’ recommendations only empowers youth to remove what is considered ‘offensive’ and does little to allow them to be creative or take pride and ownership in their involvement.

· Many community groups and businesses take before and after photos of graffiti, and are willing to share this with the city and police to assist with enforcement activities.

The report has been amended to include additional youth initiatives and outreach. Groups are encouraged to share their photos with the City and Ottawa Police Service for the purpose of enforcement and eradication.

4. Murals are problematic and are not recommended for a city program. However, private property owners are encouraged to use murals as a method to reduce graffiti occurrence. Murals must be in accordance with the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law.

The following summarizes comments received on this proposal:

· The majority of participants supported this recommendation.

· Murals are an effective form of urban art, addressing difficult situations and encouraging youth to rethink their tagging. Murals, when done with community consultation and some artistic ability, have been proven to become tourist attractions, generating increased revenues for major cities.

· Murals are a challenge to commission, implement and maintain.

· Given the involved nature of commissioning a mural, it is only very few businesses who will find the capacity to commission them without a program that supports them in doing so.

· As long as this city allows billboards and other forms of outdoor advertising, youth learn early on that it's okay for our landscape to be disfigured with visual litter.

· The City could assist by providing a list of credible artists for completing murals.

· Murals on Preston Street have not been effective at reducing graffiti.

· A progressive management strategy must ensure that legitimate members of the graffiti art community are provided with designated spaces to display their work, such as the current "piece" wall located on the grounds of the old Ottawa Technical High School. Areas such as bridge abutments, city buildings and walls could be identified and designated as appropriate and manageable locations for the use of graffiti art, such as the City of Gatineau's program. Further to designation of city property for this use, partnerships should be sought with property owners throughout the city, to designate walls and buildings for murals or graffiti walls that reflect the unique and diverse make-up of the neighbourhoods and communities throughout the City.

· Staff should consider the City of Toronto's Graffiti Transformation program. The Graffiti Transformation Program is an annual community investment program addressing youth unemployment as well as neighbourhood improvement and revitalization issues.

The report has been amended to outline ways in which the City is currently involved in murals and youth art initiatives, as well as to provide some recommendations for future initiatives by which the City can support murals.

5. Ensure on-going consultation and implementation of recommendations with stakeholders through the Internal and External Stakeholder Committees.

The following summarizes comments received on this proposal:

· The majority of participants supported this recommendation.

· A solution will be not possible without the cooperation of governments, business and property owners.

· On-going consultation must occur with youth as an external stakeholder.

· Stakeholder engagement on a continued basis is a necessary component of an effective graffiti management strategy. It is important to effectively integrate comments into the Strategy.

· Crime Prevention Ottawa should be included as a stakeholder.

· One staff person should be allocated with the sole responsibility of managing the Graffiti Program.

The report has been amended to include additional consultation with youth and Crime Prevention Ottawa.

6. Legal Graffiti Walls have not been proven to be effective at reducing graffiti. Legal walls will not be considered as part of the City’s on-going program.

The following summarizes comments received on this proposal:

· The majority of participants supported this recommendation.

· Legal walls have been successful in other citifies and if done properly can be effective in high volume graffiti areas. The City should consider facilitating legal means of engaging in this art form so it can serve as a means of expression for young people.

· Legal walls offer the potential to concentrate graffiti-related activities, and inspire younger graffiti vandals to try their hand at mural art. At the moment, legal wall space is at a premium; young vandals don’t have enough room to express themselves and are in competition with the older more established vandals.

· Containment strategies to prevent spillage of graffiti into surrounding areas must be considered. If there are designated legal spaces within the city for such activities and it is very clear that these are the only areas where these activities should take place, stricter measures such as zero tolerance zones can be more easily justified and potentially be more successful.

· With the support of Councillor Monette’s office, a Legal Wall will be installed in 2007 in Orléans at the ORC Skate Park.

Based on the experience of Ottawa Police Service and research into the effectiveness of Legal Walls in other communities throughout North America, staff’s position with respect to Legal Walls remains unchanged. The report has been amended to include additional initiatives in support of murals, which may help offset the concerns raised with respect to legal walls.

Education

7. Proposed educational initiatives include:

a) update the City’s website to include: impacts of graffiti, graffiti removal tips, products and services available for graffiti removal, prevention techniques, list of local graffiti removal contractors and suppliers.

b) promote proper methods to report graffiti, to whom and how to identify the property that was defaced.

c) provide On-line reporting of graffiti.

d) host a workshop for private property owners and businesses.

e) send newsletters home with school children.

f) develop a presentation for community groups and youth organizations to be delivered by Ottawa Police Service and City.

The following summarizes comments received on these proposals:

· The majority of participants supported this recommendation.

· The most effective direction would be to educate youth by youth. For example, the workshops will be much more useful and constructive if they are developed by youth for youth.

· The proposed educational initiatives only focus on the negative aspects of graffiti - the treatment of the symptom. No mention is made of educating the youth involved by giving them alternative choices for their artistic talents, and encouraging them to be part of the overall community.

· Educational activities should be expanded to include lectures or other educational activities on public and mural art as well as on features of urban design that deter graffiti. By exposing youth to good examples of what’s possible in the arts world, could inspire them to pursue legitimate artistic activities, which could possibly eventually contribute in turn to our cultural identity.

· Education should be provided in schools and a hot line made available for those that wish to report a crime. There should be public service announcements on TV and radio.

· It is the responsibility of police, social workers, educators, and public policy makers to understand the youth culture.

· Education must include outreach to high schools and universities in the area, making the students aware that graffiti is a crime, and will be prosecuted. These students need to understand the impact of this crime, so that they can exert peer pressure on graffiti vandals. Those who are aware of acts of graffiti should be directed to contact Crime Stoppers to report it.

· The homeless and transient should be a target audience for education. The City should make use of existing programs such as Operation Go Home or the Youth Services Bureau.

· The health impacts of repeated use of spray paint should be shared with youth involved in graffiti.

· While the property owner values information on the techniques for removal or on services available, these have been emphasized to the extent that it is believed by some that the city has no interest in enforcement.

The report has been amended to include additional educational initiatives and messages.

Enforcement

8. Enact a Graffiti Management By-law with the following key elements:

a) definition of “graffiti”: one or more letters, symbols, etchings, figures, scratches, inscriptions, stains howsoever made or otherwise affixed to a property or other markings that disfigure or deface a property but for greater certainty does not include a mural sign permitted in accordance with By-law No. 2005-439, the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law;

b) definition of “property”: a building or structure or part of a building or structure, and includes the lands and premises appurtenant thereto and all mobile homes, mobile buildings, mobile structures, out-buildings, fences and erections thereon whether heretofore or hereafter erected, and includes vacant property;

c) the by-law does not apply to interior space;

d) a general prohibition: no person shall place or cause or permit graffiti to be placed on property;

e) an additional prohibition: no owner of property shall fail to maintain such property free of graffiti;

f) a removal clause: an officer who finds a contravention of this by-law may give written notice to the owner of the property requiring compliance with this by-law within the time period specified in the notice but no sooner than 7 calendar days after the notice is given; and,

g) if the owner fails to comply with a notice, the City may enter upon the lands at any reasonable time for the purposes of carrying out the work described in the notice and may recover the costs associated with the work by action or by adding the costs to the tax roll and collecting them in the same manner as property taxes.

By-law and Regulatory Services

The following summarizes comments received on the proposed by-law:

· There was general recognition that a by-law plays a role in graffiti management, particularly considering the 4E model.

· Staff should emphasize the part of the by-law that allows by-law and police officers to pursue perpetrators of graffiti.

· Those convicted of defacing property should be required to pay for the damages both financially and through additional community service.

· Fines issued to perpetrators should reflect the extent of the damage caused.

· The “graffiti artist” community expressed a number of concerns including: the by-law criminalizes creative youth and places an unnecessary burden on small business owners; the definition of graffiti is vague; it is unfair that a person is not allowed to have graffiti that they have allowed on their property; it is an extreme measure for the City to arrange removal of graffiti from the property of a non-compliant property owner.

· The business community (represented largely by the BIAs), internal and external stakeholders, and community associations are generally in support of the proposed by-law.

· Some respondents agreed with the minimum seven day period for removal of graffiti, that being a reasonable amount of time for business/property owners to do so, while others felt that seven days is too long to allow graffiti to remain and therefore, not sufficient to discourage recurrence of graffiti.

· It should be made clear to business/property owners that the seven-day period identified in the by-law for removal of graffiti is a minimum period and that enforcement officers will consider weather conditions, etc. in determining the compliance period applied.

· The term “scratches” can be excluded from the by-law’s definition of graffiti.

The report and draft by-law consider the comments received, which have been incorporated accordingly.

Ottawa Police Service

The following summarizes comments received in relation to enforcement generally:

· Graffiti is neither an art form, nor an expression of individuality. It is a crime to deface property and graffiti should be treated as such.

· There should be a reward for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for graffiti.

· Graffiti in Ottawa does not promote gangs, crime, drug use or other delinquent behaviour that may be associated with graffiti in some other regions of the world. More attention by Police is needed to deal with anti-gang programs.

· Those convicted of defacing property should be required to pay for the damages, both financially and through community service work.

· Police should patrol areas with late night activities such as clubs and bars.

· The prosecutors must not be allowed to plea bargain graffiti charges. Graffiti perpetrators must understand that they will be charged for this crime.

· This would be a good crime to use restorative justice methods to deal with perpetrators. The graffiti vandals should have to face the property owners, and make amends for their crime. Sending them to jail, or imposing fines they cannot pay would do little to stop the spread of graffiti in the City.

· More dedicated police officers are required to focus on graffiti. This would provide the ability to build relationships with students and get them on-side helping to defeat graffiti, as well as determining who the perpetrators are.

· There is support for Ottawa Police Services to make graffiti prevention and enforcement a priority, especially at sites which are affected multiple times with graffiti.

The Ottawa Police Service will consider these comments when developing its graffiti related programs.