1. graffiti management strategy

STRATÉGIE DE GESTION DES GRAFFITIS

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS as amended

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.

4) That as part of the Graffiti Management Strategy the City of Ottawa use on a proactive basis the Parental Responsibility Act to recover costs of graffiti removal from graffiti vandals and/or their families.

5) WHEREAS the staff report on the Graffiti Management Strategy recommends against the implementation of “legal walls” in light of a number of issues including but, not limited to the high prevalence of graffiti in the areas surrounding such walls;

AND WHEREAS there are currently two “legal walls” within the City, one underneath the George Dunbar Bridge and another at the Ottawa Technical High School on Slater Street, both of which have been in existence and generally accepted for a number of years;

AND WHEREAS the enactment of the proposed Graffiti Management By-law would render these two walls illegal unless an exemption is provided;

AND WHEREAS, while the intent is to phase-out such walls, the two existing walls could remain in operation until such time as the phase-out is complete;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the proposed Graffiti Management By-law, attached to the staff report as Document 3, be amended to provide and exemption for the two existing “legal walls”, described as follows:

a. The Honourable George Dunbar Bridge as 1301 Bronson Avenue, specifically the north abutment, excluding the wing walls, which faces south, and the pillars/bridge supports immediately facing the abutment wall, as designated by sign;

b. The Ottawa Technical High School at 422 Slater Street, specifically the concrete retaining wall on the south side of the western portion of the property.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to monitor the two existing “legal walls” and report back to Committee in one-year on their status and effectiveness in deterring graffiti.

6) That staff investigate partnerships with local paint suppliers to develop programs such as:

§ discounting colour matching

§ discounting paint supply as developed in the City of Calgary

7) The staff investigate a program similar to the City of Toronto’s Graffiti Transformation Program where unemployed youth and community groups work in problem areas to create a mural.

8) WHEREAS several BIA’s spend in the range of $40,000 to assist businesses in removing graffiti;

WHEREAS there is a request for a 20% city contribution to the program;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that $140,000 be made available as an annual grant to the 14 BIA’s ($10,000 per BIA), to use for graffiti removal.

9) WHEREAS the last six to eight months have seen the appearance of an aggressive graffiti problem in the area surrounding the Manor Park School (K-6 elementary school), and;

WHEREAS the messages include threats of violence;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the proposed expansions to the “ZERO TOLERANCE ZONES” include the Manor Park area.

10) That House of PainT and Ottawa Tech Wall representative be included in the External Stakeholder Committee.

Recommandations modifiÉEs du comité

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^erjanvier 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 $.

4) Que, dans le cadre de la Stratégie de gestion des graffitis, la Ville d’Ottawa utilise de façon proactive la Loi sur la responsabilité parentale pour recouvrer les coûts de l’enlèvement des graffitis auprès des vandales et/ou de leur famille.

5) ATTENDU QUE le rapport du personnel sur la Stratégie de gestion des graffitis s’oppose à l’implantation de « murs légaux » à la lumière d’un certain nombre de problèmes, y compris, mais sans s’y limiter, la forte prévalence de graffitis dans les secteurs entourant de tels murs;

ET ATTENDU QU’il y a actuellement deux « murs légaux » dans la Ville, soit un en‑dessous du pont George Dunbar et un autre à la Ottawa Technical High School sur la rue Slater, les deux étant en place et généralement acceptés depuis un certain nombre d’années;

ET ATTENDU QUE la promulgation du règlement proposé sur la gestion des graffitis rendrait ces deux murs illégaux, à moins qu’une exemption soit présentée;

ET ATTENDU QUE, bien que l’objectif soit d’éliminer graduellement ces murs, les deux murs actuels puissent demeurer en place jusqu’à ce que l’élimination soit terminée;

IL EST DONC RÉSOLU QUE le règlement proposé sur la gestion des graffitis doit être modifié de façon à ce que les deux « murs légaux » actuels soient exemptés, tel qu’il est décrit ci‑dessous :

a. le pont L’honorable George Dunbar, soit le 1301, avenue Bronson, en particulier la culée nord, à l’exclusion des murs en aile, qui fait face au sud, et les piles/supports du pont faisant immédiatement face au mur de culée, tel qu’il est désigné par l’enseigne;

b. la Ottawa Technical High School, soit le 422, rue Slater, en particulier le mur de soutènement de béton du côté sud de la partie ouest de la propriété.

IL EST EN OUTRE RÉSOLU QUE le personnel doit surveiller les deux « murs légaux » actuels et faire rapport au Comité dans un an sur leur état et leur efficacité à décourager les vandales de faire des graffitis.

6) Que le personnel étudie la possibilité de créer des partenariats avec des fournisseurs de peinture locaux afin de mettre sur pied des programmes comme :

§ des services d’appariement des couleurs à prix réduit;

▪ l’approvisionnement en peinture à prix réduit, tel qu’il a été mis en place dans la ville de Calgary.

7) Que le personnel examine la possibilité de créer un programme semblable au Programme de transformation des graffitis de la Ville de Toronto, où des jeunes sans emploi et des groupes communautaires travaillent dans des secteurs à problème afin de créer une murale.

8) ATTENDU QUE plusieurs ZAC dépensent près de 40 000 $ pour aider les entreprises à enlever les graffitis;

ATTENDU QU’il est demandé que la Ville apporte une contribution de 20 % au programme;

IL EST DONC RÉSOLU que 140 000 $ seront remis à titre de subvention annuelle aux 14 ZAC (10 000 $ par ZAC), lesquels serviront à enlever les graffitis.

9) ATTENDU QU’au cours des six à huit derniers mois, il a semblé y avoir un problème de graffitis agressifs dans le secteur avoisinant l’école Manor Park (école élémentaire K‑6), et;

ATTENDU QUE les messages comportent des menaces de violence;

IL EST DONC RÉSOLU QUE l’expansion proposée des « ZONES DE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO » inclut le secteur de Manor Park.

10) Que les représentants de House of PainT et du mur de la Ottawa Tech fassent partie du Comité des intervenants externes.

DOCUMENTATION

1. Deputy City Managers’ Joint report dated 23 April 2007 (ACS2007-PWS-SOP-0001).

2. Extract of Draft Joint Minute, 03 May 2007

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.

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;

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 :

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 :

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.

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

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.

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.

Quick and Effective Eradication Yields Longterm Positive Results

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 (previously distributed and held on file)

Document 2 - Map illustrating current and proposed Zero Tolerance Zones

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 2

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.

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.

Graffiti Management Strategy

STRATÉGIE DE GESTION DES GRAFFITIS

acs2007-PWS-SOP-0001 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

The Committee received a detailed PowerPoint presentation from John Manconi, Director, Surface Operations, PWS, Susan Jones, Director of By-law and Regulatory Services, CPS, Eric Katmarian, Manager, Operations Planning, Research and Technical Services, PWS and Inspector Allan Burns, Ottawa Police Service. The presentation , a copy of whichis held on file, covered the following:

· Outcomes of graffiti management

· Impacts of graffiti; profile of taggers and tagger graffiti styles

· The four components of the Strategy - Eradication, Empowerment, Education and Enforcement

· The Orleans Pilot Project conducted in 2005 and 2006

· Proposed enhanced Graffiti Management Strategy

The following public submissions were received and are held on file:

a. M. Lo, Somerset Street Chinatown BIA e-mail dated 17 Apr

b. G. LePage, Bank Street Promenade letter dated 18 Apr

c. C. Parrott, Hintonburg Community Association letter dated 3 May

d. I. Dostaler e-mail dated 1 May

Councillor Wilkinson recognized that the by-law requires people to remove graffiti and she wondered if this would apply to utilities such as Hydro Ottawa and Bell. Ms. Jones explained that it is intended to apply to all property - public or elsewhere - and charges can be laid against anyone who contravenes it. The councillor indicated that the cost of cleaning materials is a major factor for communities and she asked whether the City could provide them with the necessary chemicals for this purpose. Mr. Manconi advised that through the symposium, staff would get an assessment of needs and include such cleaning costs as part of the budget. The councillor referred to the informal graffiti wall at the Valour Bridge in Kanata and asked whether this could be considered as a future location for a mural. Mr. Manconi confirmed that the goal of the mural program is to put them in highly visible locations (such as this) and they would work with staff in Cultural Services in this regard. He confirmed that the park infrastructure (play houses, assets within the park, et cetera) would be cleaned of graffiti whereas skateboard parks would be left alone.

Councillor Cullen referred to an incident where four juvenile girls vandalized a field house, but paid no restitution for the damage they caused. With the passing of the by-law, he asked whether the City would be able to go after the parents in such cases, in order to assure some follow-through on this anti-social behaviour. Inspector Burns advised that residential, school and community centre officers have the ability to meet with the parents, however, there is no legal authority to impose anything on the youth other than the warning process. The police have no legal authority to force the youth to clean up the graffiti. The Parental Responsibility Act requires that property owners takes civil action in small claims court against the parent and although this is not an enforcement tool, it is an educational one that can be used to educate parents.

Councillor Chiarelli asked why more consideration was not being given to increasing enforcement against the perpetrators, as opposed to what is presented. Ms. Jones advised that to do that, the City would need additional resources and the municipality is working under the provincial legislation that sets the maximum for enforcement. She did note that the City is going from reactive to proactive and staff intend to work with the police to deal with the offenders, including repeat offenders and to deal with property owners. Inspector Burns reiterated his earlier comment that the Police are meeting with parents and working with the youth to make them understand graffiti is not tolerable and charges are being made against adults and, in some cases, they are finding success under the Provincial Offences Act.

Councillor Legendre asked whether Quebec City was examined as a city that uses legal walls and Mr. Katmarian advised that while they had not included that municipality, they could look at their experiences. The councillor noted that they do not use their staff to deal with people, but have an arms-length group that deals with the youth. Mr. Katmarian agreed to discuss that too.

The councillor further indicated that in some cities (e.g. New York), simple possession of spray paint, without a reasonable explanation, can be a problem for someone wishing to vandalize and he thought Ottawa might impose something similar whereby being in a City park after hours with spray paint would be enough to lay charges. When asked whether this philosophy could be an avenue to pursue, Inspector Burns explained that there is no legal authority to do so. He added that if there was such legislation, the City could use it as a tool to assist with enforcement. The councillor presumed that the by-law might give the Police the tool that they are saying does not now exist and he asked that staff consult with legal on this issue and provide more information on the matter.

Councillor Leadman recognized that residents who use the City’s 311 line to report graffiti do not always get a response and may not call to report it. She was concerned therefore that zones designated for zero tolerance would be judged on the number of calls received by people in those zones. Mr. Manconi assured the councillor that the call center has been involved extensively in this and if there are other issues that need to be addressed they would be.

The councillor wanted to know how communities would be empowered and engaged to participate in this because she wanted it to be very clear that it will be easy to do. Mr. Manconi offered that the coordinator of the “Spring Cleaning the Capital” program would be responsible for developing that and he recognized it would be in the City’s best interests to make it easy and accessible to the community.

Councillor Holmes asked whether staff was familiar with a program in Calgary where a partnership was set up with paint supply companies to offer discounts on matching paints. Staff confirmed they were aware of this program and would discuss it in more detail as part of the symposium. The councillor also referred to Toronto’s “Graffiti Transformation Program” where unemployed youth are involved with community groups to paint murals and she wondered whether staff had looked into this as well. Mr. Manconi advised that when this strategy is in operation next year, groups such as Rideau Street Youth groups and others will be asked to put forward proposals. While he confirmed that the City’s goal is removal, he agreed that staff could discuss this program further with Toronto to inquire how successful their program has been.

Councillor Holmes recognized that the three BIAs in her ward, namely: Bank Street Promenade, Somerset-Chinatown and Preston Street, are spending approximately $40,000 each year to remove graffiti. She asked whether staff could look at providing $10,000 to each of them to assist with their cleaning of the graffiti.

Councillor Bellemare asked whether staff were satisfied with the level of cooperation they have received from their public sector partners in terms of turn around times and removal of graffiti. While he confirmed it is improving, Mr. Manconi noted that graffiti is increasing and has started to impact the City’s assets. He acknowledged the fact that this initiative is helping and having the external stakeholders would help even more. The councillor indicated that while Canada Post is one of the stakeholders being consulted, they were not included on the list. Mr. Katmarian confirmed that they are consulted with regularly and should have been included.

Councillor Bellemare asked whether the property owner realizes that if they do not clean up the graffiti on their property, that the City would do it and simply bill them for the work. He further inquired whether or not the City would take the extra step and seek enforcement under the Provincial Offences Act. Ms. Jones advised that the intent for the City to lay charges under this legislation would be against graffiti vandals; she did not see any circumstance where charges would be laid against the property owner, particularly when they were not responsible for the graffiti. The councillor remarked that the wording in the by-law appears to permit the City to lay charges against property owners. Ms. Jones explained that the intent is to get property owners such as absentee landlords, to clean up because otherwise it would be more costly if the City were to do it then bill them. She confirmed property owners would not be charged.

Chair Deans believed the City needs some measure to gauge how successful it will be with this strategy and to evaluate the value for the money being invested in this program. She referred to the success of the Orleans pilot and asked how staff knew they were successful. Mr. Manconi explained that the Orleans project was a pre and post assessment and staff is contemplating the same type of approach for the zero tolerance zones. The other performance matrix they will bring forward is data from the City’s call center (311), along with a scorecard their branch is developing that looks at performance indicators. He noted with interest that while graffiti is a big problem in most Ontario cities, OMBI is not measuring this. When asked how often staff would be reporting back to the Committee on this strategy, he advised that 311 calls are reported quarterly and the scorecard would be reported on a minimum of once a year. Staff in By-law and Regulatory Services would also report back regularly.

Following a brief lunch break, the Committee received the following delegations:

Rob Sproule, Chair, Business Advisory Committee applauded the efforts of staff and expressed the Committee’s enthusiasm to see the lessons learned from the Orleans pilot initiated in other areas of the city. The BAC had some concerns that the by-law penalizes the victim more so than the perpetrator and so, what appeared to be missed from the staff presentation was a coordinated effort to get the people inflicting the damage. He indicated that the business community would be anxious to learn what police help is available to deal with repetitive applications of graffiti in specific neighbourhoods and a better articulation of programs that respond to those that were suffering graffiti damages, as this is a significant additional cost.

Mike Young supported the artistic side of graffiti and spoke of his website where he displays photographs of graffiti art. He referred to the successful Graffiti Transformation Program in Toronto, stating it is an opportunity for youth to join the program and to get the community involved. And, the result of this program is a lower incidence of re-offending because murals are respected and they are not tagged, especially when they are done by youth. Therefore, there is no maintenance cost associated with murals because they are left alone. He suggested businesses be encouraged to have murals painted on the sides of their buildings, without having to go through the cumbersome signs by-law in order to do so.

Ryan Cassels and Jason Boyne, Goodbye Graffiti spoke about their graffiti-removal company, which is the largest of it’s kind in North America. They remove racial and hate graffiti on public and private property and would welcome the opportunity to share their experiences with City staff.

In response to a question posed by Councillor Leadman, staff confirmed that every group that the department is aware of would be invited to attend the symposium, which is planned next year.

Marty Holski, Sun Media supported this initiative and indicated their willingness to offer space in their publications free of charge for the City to advertise about this. He echoed the concerns voiced by the BAC representative, particularly the zero tolerance areas where response has to be quick in order to deter further vandalism of graffiti. He was somewhat concerned about the strategy in that if they are unable to remove the graffiti from their newspaper boxes quickly enough, the City would do it and charge the cost of removal back to them. He noted that graffiti tags are done so quickly after one is removed, the City might think it is the same tag and fine them accordingly.

Clarification was requested that the victim would not be fined and Ms. Jones confirmed they would not; staff would photograph each tag on the newspapers boxes, which would confirm if it is a new tag. Mr. Holski interjected that the wording of the by-law is not clear and suggested it be re-worded. Ms. Jones explained that the City would not fine property owners for something someone else has done to them.

Gordon Keith, President, Vanier BIA spoke in support of the proposed enhancements for the Graffiti Management Strategy, noting it will mean a more timely response when graffiti removal is required not only in a designated BIA, but throughout the entire city. Mr. Keith also spoke about the mural program, which Vanier began in 1998 and how effective it has been in reducing graffiti. He believed the proposed graffiti symposium planned for 2008 would be a good step to educate the public not only on how to prevent and remove graffiti, but also how graffiti affects the community and how much it costs. In an effort to reach graffiti vandals, the BIA suggests there should also be a strong program in the schools to ensure youth are made aware of the costly and negative impact it has on the whole city. A copy of his written submission and a brochure entitled “Murals and Points of Interest” from the Quartier Vanier is held on file.

Sabra Ripley, House of PainT advised that they work with the Ottawa South Community Association’s Graffiti Management Program and she deals with taggers. Of particular interest to her was the area under the George Dunbar Bridge, which has served as a legal wall for graffiti artists. It is a popular attraction for people wanting to view the art and regular events are held there. While she agreed with many things cited in the report, she believed that legal graffiti walls are important, especially when they utilize what otherwise would be considered ‘dead zones’. At the legal walls, artists can create some very impressive pieces, without the fear of getting fined and their yearly festival held at this location is an opportunity to see what new artists (youth) are producing.

Councillor Doucet acknowledged that the yearly event held by House of PainT has been successful and was concerned that staff are not supportive of this initiative. Mr. Manconi confirmed that staff are not in support of legal walls because, as was demonstrated in the staff presentation, that type of graffiti does not work because it encourages significant ‘creep’ (other graffiti around the designated wall/area) and sends mixed messages about the City’s policy. He illustrated this point in a series of slides taken at an overpass in Gatineau, which was covered in graffiti because of its proximity to a legal graffiti wall. He clarified this is not a debate about what is art, but what is vandalism.

Inspector Burns added that in his experience, legal walls do not work and he has letters saying similar things from other police jurisdictions across the province. By way of example, he indicated that the graffiti at the Orleans skate park is tolerated and is not removed; however, staff are having to continually clean the washrooms there because that is where the illegal graffiti is occurring. Following additional concerns voiced by the councillor, the Inspector emphasized that if the City provides a legal place for graffiti, it will encourage tagging on the surrounding area.

When asked to comment on the tagging occurring beside the area where the legal walls were, Ms. Ripley suggested that there was tagging in that area well before the wall was legalized. She agreed that House of PainT and other areas are tolerated zones and would benefit from having more aggressive removal of the tagging around the legal paint wall. Councillor Leadman asked whether the delegation realized that having taggers continually applying graffiti close to areas where the legal walls are, jeopardizes her program. Ms. Ripley recognized this and indicated that at their festival each year, one of their underlying themes is “respect the community”. She agreed that tagging is problematic and further recognized that when graffiti is applied on an illegal space it is vandalism. Therefore, she suggested that one of the ways they can work with the community is through their annual festival, but if that space (George Dunbar Bridge) becomes an illegal wall, she would lose contact with that community. She added that there are a lot of people who believe in the art - they do not do it because they want to do it illegally.

In response to additional questions posed by the councillor, Ms. Ripley indicated that every year prior to their event, volunteers gather to clean up that space, including cleaning up on the ground and generally tidying up the area. They have not cleaned the walls because the City usually does that and the illegal wall is painted over and redone. She added that they have discussed bringing a more environmental focus this year, to ensure artists put their used paint cans in the garbage, et cetera. She wanted to see graffiti artists being more responsible with their paint and to teach them that if they do not use the wall responsibly, they will lose it. She would be very interested in working with City staff to develop and to communicate this message. She has a list of artists who have expressed an interest in working with the community more formally.

Councillor Leadman was encouraged by these comments and hoped she would be able to change the opinion of staff with regards to the legal walls and to ensure their annual event proves itself and becomes part of the community in the proper way by keeping the area clean.

Councillor Legendre believed that Ms. Ripley would be of benefit to the external stakeholders group as she would serve as a connection point to this particular part of the community. Ms. Ripley indicated her willingness to be involved in this regard.

Responding to comments made by Councillor Thompson, Ms. Ripley indicated that the reason those walls have been legalized or tolerated is that they were spaces where graffiti was being applied, which is an important distinction because it underlines the fact that it was not the fact they were legitimized that made them that way. With regards to legalized areas, she indicated there might have been an increase in graffiti as a result, but recognized that there has been a general increase in this activity throughout the city. Therefore, she could not ascertain whether the increase is proportionally higher around the walls, if it is a general trend citywide. The councillor agreed it would be helpful if staff engaged the delegation to discuss her suggestions. In response to requests by Committee members, Ms. Ripley indicated the festival is scheduled the afternoon of June 23 and the web site is www.houseofpaint.wordpress.com.

Chair Deans suggested there be a one-year trial period for the legal walls to continue to operate, with a request that the delegation work with that community and others to convey the message that those walls will be left alone as long as there is going to be some respect for the boundaries. She added that the City has a significant goal to get rid of the taggers on public and private property. Ms. Ripley indicated that her agreement to a trial period would be based on how the City is going to perceive success. She indicated that some members of the community would probably not want to be involved and it may end up that a simple few might ruin it for the rest of them. If it was determined that incidents were down, that could be a value of success, but if the City is hoping for total elimination of the tagging around the legal walls, she did not that is a reasonable assumption because it would have to expect an entire community to act as one – which they generally do not. She agreed their annual event could provide an opportunity to be more proactive.

In response to a question about the Tech Wall, Mr. Manconi advised that if the report is approved it would no longer exist. Ms. Ripley added that this wall is considered by most people in the urban youth community to be an integral part of Ottawa history. For some, it is a monument that people come to Ottawa to see. It is a very important space to a lot of people.

Bob Brocklebank, Glebe Community Association supported the proposed strategy. They recognized that graffiti vandalism has become an insidious presence and the community needs the City to help eradicate it. It was believed that the message people take from seeing graffiti throughout a neighbourhood is that it does not care. The Glebe has reached out to its school community and the police and volunteers have identified and reported graffiti. And, while it is eventually removed after being reported, it reappears, so even in a zero tolerance zone (such as theirs), the current approach is inadequate. The specific aspects of the strategy that they support are:

· The introduction of fines for perpetrators

· The increased attention to the issue, including the addition of zero tolerance zones

· The City’s facilitation of partnerships with police and other stakeholders to ensure a common focus to address the issue

Mr. Brocklebank noted that they are concerned about the inadequacy of funding, especially as other zero tolerance zones are added. If timelines, funding and related commitments for removal of graffiti cannot be negotiated with stakeholders and the City, this strategy will be ineffective. He agreed that fining absent landlords will be necessary to get their attention to remove graffiti, but it is suggested that some small businesses which clean up graffiti may need the support of the City to ensure they do not continue to spend revenue on repeated fines and clean-ups. A copy of his presentation dated 3 May 2007 was distributed and is held on file.

Wolf Illing fully supported the by-law. He indicated that a working group in the Glebe Community Association was established to address the problem of graffiti in their neighbourhood and they have created a website inventory of the graffiti. They photograph and note the location of the graffiti for easy referral and clean up. He believed such an inventory was useful for maintenance purposes and could be shared with staff. Mr. Illing urged the City to continue any and all efforts to proactively deal with this issue, noting the following specific aspects in the proposed strategy, which he supports:

· The introduction of fines for perpetrators

· The increased attention to this issue, including the addition of other zero tolerance zones

· The City’s facilitation of partnerships with police and other stakeholders to ensure a common focus to address this issue

A copy of his written submission is held on file.

Peggy Ducharme, Downtown Rideau BIA spoke about the Ward 12 graffiti removal program pilot the ByWard Market, Downtown Rideau and Vanier Quartier BIAs have initiated and which has an integrated approach on a similar scale to that proposed by staff in the report. She indicated that continual and prompt removal of graffiti and tags sends a strong message that vandalism is not tolerated and the business community intends to address this issue in a very definite way. Details of this and other points are contained in her handout, a copy of which is held on file.

Councillor Bédard voiced concern about Canada Post, noting that their contractor will not remove graffiti from their mailboxes if the weather is too cold. Legal Counsel indicated that there is legislation for locating Canada Post mailboxes and the City owns the property where they are located. The councillor hoped Canada Post would comply with the by-law, once it is in effect.

Following on this concern, Councillor Holmes understood that it is at the staff level at the City that is granting approval for locations of mail boxes and phone booths. Mr. Manconi concurred that the locations are approved by Public Works and Services and Planning and Growth. The councillor was concerned that there was no public circulation or comments sought from others about such approvals and suggested there should be an ability to discuss whether or not the locations should be provided “for life”. With respect to Canada Post mailboxes, Valerie Bietlot, Legal Counsel, explained that the locations are specifically provided for under special federal legislation and regulations and she was unaware of how much influence the municipality has over these locations. For utilities such as hydro and telephone, most placements are through easements granted by the City. The councillor thought it would be helpful to know what role the City can play in each of these agencies, noting that if such approval is given, then the City should be able to insist that as part of such approval, they would be expected to maintain the box within established criteria. Ms. Bietlot agreed to confirm this information.

Sarah Weir supported legal graffiti walls and believed that while trying to solve problems of tagging, this by-law will cause Ottawa to lose some of its best street art which she posited was one of Ottawa’s most accessible and visible art forms. She believed the legal walls give graffiti artists an opportunity to create colourful murals for people to enjoy and they should be maintained to “showcase” their work. One of the things she appreciated about legal walls is the ‘living quality’ to these structures as they are constantly changing as they are painted over and over again. She posed the following question: What would happen if a business was a target of graffiti but the owner liked the work and wanted to keep it? Under this by-law, would they be forced to remove it?

Brendan Murphy spoke in favour of both the legal walls and an amendment to the by-law that would allow property owners to leave the graffiti in place if they like it. He indicated that murals can liven up drab and otherwise grey walls that do nothing to beautify the city. He posited that young creative people are an asset to the city and their quality of life will ultimately influence the quality of life for the whole city, through contributions to gallery art, literature, drama and intellectual life. He asked the Committee to consider the fact that famous artists like Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat got their start by applying graffiti in New York subways – a scene that produced an explosion of visual art in the then decaying city core. Mr. Murphy agreed that tagging is an annoyance - but he asked that even annoyances need to be tolerated in order for a greater good to be had. He read a statement from a street artist named “Max” who could not attend the meeting today. A summary of those comments is as follows:

· some people favour a denial of use approach to public space; however, removing benches, planters and windowsills will prevent their use by all in order to drive off a select undesirable few

· does the City really want to wipe away the last remaining examples of non-commercial cultural expression?

· while graffiti can be an eyesore, other things such as advertising billboards can be an equal or greater eyesore

· questions that need answering include: What is art? What is legal? Where do the boundaries between public and private space lie?

When asked to comment on the suggestion that property owners be given the right to maintain the graffiti on their property, the Director of By-law Services explained that such situations would be no different from that which exist under the City’s Property Standards By-law, whereby the City has the authority to regulate standards and it is expected that property owners maintain their property accordingly. Ms. Bietlot added that the by-law has been designed to regulate and control the spread of graffiti; it allows for an exemption whereby a property owner may obtain a mural sign permit and so, if the individual really likes what is on their wall, there is an opportunity to go through a process where they could get a permit to have it recognized legitimately. If such a formal mechanism is not in place, there would be situations where others would accept that as an option, rather than having to remove it.

Having been involved in a commercial area for over 14 years, Councillor Leadman did not think there was one piece of graffiti applied that a property or business owner wanted. She stated that this strategy is not being recommended purposely as an obstacle to creativity, noting that Council is very supportive of the arts and the arts community and have displayed this through different activities and programs. The Graffiti Management Strategy speaks to the rights of specific property owners and their ability to have pride in their property and in their communities and to continue to operate in a safe environment.

Moved by A. Cullen

That as part of the Graffiti Management Strategy the City of Ottawa use on a proactive basis the Parental Responsibility Act to recover costs of graffiti removal from graffiti vandals and/or their families.

CARRIED

Moved by C. Doucet

WHEREAS the staff report on the Graffiti Management Strategy recommends against the implementation of “legal walls” in light of a number of issues including but, not limited to the high prevalence of graffiti in the areas surrounding such walls;

AND WHEREAS the enactment of the proposed Graffiti Management By-law would render these two walls illegal unless an exemption is provided;

AND WHEREAS, while the intent is to phase-out such walls, the two existing walls could remain in operation until such time as the phase-out is complete;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Community and Protective Services Committee and the Transportation Committee recommend that the proposed Graffiti Management By-law, attached to the staff report as Document 3, be amended to provide an exemption for the two existing “legal walls”, described as follows:

b. The Ottawa Technical High School at 422 Slater Street, specifically the concrete retaining wall on the south side of the western portion of the property

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to monitor the two existing “legal walls” and report back to Committee in one-year on their status and effectiveness in deterring graffiti.

CARRIED, with Councillors Bédard and Bellemare dissenting.

Moved by D. Holmes

That staff investigate partnerships with local paint suppliers to develop programs such as:

§ discounting colour matching

§ discounting paint supply as developed in the City of Calgary

CARRIED

Moved by D. Holmes

The staff investigate a program similar to the City of Toronto’s Graffiti Transformation Program where unemployed youth and community groups work in problem areas to create a mural.

CARRIED

Moved by D. Holmes

WHEREAS several BIAs spend in the range of $40,000 to assist businesses in removing graffiti;

WHEREAS there is a request for a 20% City contribution to the program;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that $140,000 be made available as an annual grant to the 14 BIAs ($10,000 per BIA), to use for graffiti removal.

CARRIED

Mr. Manconi explained that such funding would come out of the envelope that is identified in the report.

Prior to voting on the following Motion, Mr. Manconi advised that ideally, staff would like to do an annual program where they would report back on statistics to quantify that the zero tolerances meet the warrants. Councillor Bloess believed that the entire city should be a zero tolerance zone and he was trying to determine how the line was drawn to determine these areas. Mr. Manconi explained that as a starting point they use the data from the call centre and their staff, as well as the number of responses they have dealt with; they would monitor these locations on an annual basis and hopefully, the call volumes will go down, but if incidents increase, staff would report back to recommend increasing the number of zero tolerance zones. The councillor hoped that at some point, Council could receive some better numbers so comparisons can be drawn and Mr. Manconi advised that such feedback would be provided quarterly at a minimum, including 311 statistics from the call centre, and other benchmarks staff have been doing.

Moved by J. Legendre

WHEREAS the last six to eight months have seen the appearance of an aggressive graffiti problem in the area surrounding the Manor Park School (K-6 elementary school), and;

WHEREAS the messages include threats of violence;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the proposed expansions to the “ZERO TOLERANCE ZONES” include the Manor Park area.

CARRIED

Moved by C. Doucet

That House of PainT and Ottawa Tech Wall representative be included in the External Stakeholder Committee.

CARRIED

In speaking to the report, Councillor Desroches believed the Strategy was an important idea and he recognized that staff are working diligently to respond to calls. He made note of the fact that responding to graffiti has a lot to do with families feeling safe in their community parks and for the City to remove offensive material. He made note of the very committed community groups that are willing to take on the removal themselves and thought staff mentioned they would try to make this easy as possible by providing funding or the necessary materials to assist them. Mr. Manconi confirmed the councillor’s interpretation and welcomed ideas from other councillors and community associations. He added that their goal is to have a symposium with everyone believing they can be part of the integrated program. He believed that while there are some minimum checks and balances, he suggested that if the community groups can achieve this faster and more effectively, which they have proven, staff are in support of encouraging such initiatives.

With respect to zero tolerance zones and public property, Councillor Desroches believed that if the by-law is enforced, staff would be observing those violations and there would be a higher likelihood of having a by-law officer or the police paying a person a visit because it is a zero tolerance zone. However, there is really no link between the public and private property enforcement in the zero tolerance zones and he suggested that businesses may feel they are going to be under a different scrutiny and therefore coming under a greater likelihood of facing these stricter enforcement standards. Mr. Manconi confirmed there is no direct link, but there will be complimentary activities; staff would be working with By-law Services and operations staff to address these issues and he believed there would be a number of by-law officers dedicated to this task.

With respect to the definition of graffiti, Councillor Legendre asked why it was not defined as someone’s interpretation of the work. He suggested that in Wilmington, they have a definition that does not depend on that and is legally more robust than that provided in the proposed by-law. The definition used in Wilmington reads as follows:

“Graffiti, which is defined as any unauthorized inscription, word, figure, painting or other defacement that is written, marked, etched, scratched, sprayed, drawn, painted, or engraved on or otherwise affixed to any surface of public or private property by any implement, to the extent that graffiti was not authorized in advance by the owner or occupant of the property, or, despite advance authorization, is otherwise deemed a public nuisance.”

Ms. Peck explained that the definition in the City’s proposed by-law has been used in other municipalities in Canada. She explained that one of the difficulties with the definition offered is that the City does not have a public nuisance by-law that indicates what is deemed to be a public nuisance.

1. That the Transportation Committee and Community and Protective Services Committee recommend that Council consider the staff report and approve in principle the implementation of the Graffiti Management Strategy with the following specific recommendations:

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 definition and approval of future zero tolerance zones be delegated to the Director of Surface Operations Branch, and that budget adjustments for any additional Zero Tolerance Zones be presented annually through the budget approval process;

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 approved;

v. That annual expenses for increased eradication on City owned and maintained assets be approved in 2008 at an annual cost of $1,540,000 to support the implementation of the by-law proposed in Recommendation 1(iv);

vi. That development of a public awareness campaign in 2007 for implementation in 2007 and 2008 be approved to provide education and promote the prevention and removal of graffiti to private and business property owners, and to support the implementation of the by-law proposed in Recommendation 1(iv), at a cost of $65,000;

2. That subject to Transportation Committee and Community and Protective Services Committee approval, the report be referred to Council for approval in principle of the recommendations subject to:

i. Implementation funding in the amount of $65,000 identified in Recommendation 1(vi) of this report, be approved in 2007 from City Wide Reserve as one-time funding; and,

ii. Implementation funding of all other recommendations in the amount of $1,920,000 be referred to the 2008 Budget process.

CARRIED, as amended

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS as amended

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

BACKGROUND

Current Graffiti Management Program

Eradication

Empowerment

Education

Enforcement

Orléans Pilot Project

Proposed Enhanced Graffiti Management Strategy

Eradication

Empowerment

Education

Enforcement

Overall Program Coordination

Total value of recommendations

DISPOSITION