07/27/1992 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1575, Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 4 Mrs. Schuman asked what ki.rrl of revenue will be generated by the new fee for the Natatoritnn. Mr. Ollerrlorff said the increase will be about $1,000, while the increase at Heman pool should be about $6,000. Noting Mr. Ollerrlorff' s preference for higher fees, Mr. Wagner asked what his recammendation would be. Mr. Ollerrlorff said he had no recammendation l'lOW, but fees should be examined again next year. Mr. Adams llDVed awroval as recx:mnerrled. Mr. Price sec::::orned the notion. Mrs. Schuman said when this is addressed next year, the city should consider ask.in:J the School District to operate the Natatoritnn. All voted Aye. TRANSFER APPROmIATION - GRAFFITI REMJVAL '!he City Manager said Council may wish to transfer :furrls to assist in the re- llDVal of graffiti fran private or public pt:q)erties. He said complete c0m- pliance would probably cost a good dealll'Dre than the City should be sperrling on this matter, pertlaps as much as $100,000 a year if equipment, labor arxi contractual seJ:Vices are taken into aCXX>UI1t. He felt most compliance was 0b- tained within a reasonable time, arxi he did not advocate sperrling much ll'Dre ll'Dney; however, any ll'Dney awropriated will be spent very carefully. Mrs. 'lharnpson said $100,000 seemed high considering businesses are responsi- ble for re:rocwing graffiti on their properties. Mr. Ollerrlorff said he had been asked for a cost estimate for the City to re:rocwe all graffiti on public property arxi any on private property not re:rocwed by the owner in 10 days. He was not suggesting that anywhere near that much be spent. He said the City tries very hard to see that the property owner pays for graffiti re:rocwal, but it often takes larger than 10 days, arxi sometimes the owner cannot be found. Mr. Price also thought $100,000 was too high. He circulated a photo of a house with graffiti on it that has been that way for two or three ll'Dnths. He said that was much too lorq, especially since it was detennined the owner could not be found. He felt this type of situation was rare, arxi the City must step in arxi remedy it. He said it was especially noticeable since the house is adjacent to a beautiful flower bed planted by U. City in Bloom. Mrs. Schuman said in this situation the graffiti could be covered relatively easily, arxi since the neighborllood maintains the flower bed, pertlaps neigh- bors might take the initiative by painting over the graffiti, with the City buying the paint. Another possibility would be for the COlmty Payback Pr0- gram to do the work. She felt either of those approaches was preferable to starting the precedent of the City tak.in:J responsibility for graffiti on pri- vate property. Mrs. 'lharnpson said police arxi others agree that graffiti should be re:rocwed as quickly as possible; othmwise, it invites ll'Dre. She agreed with Mrs. Schu- man that the cammunity could take part, but the City must also do its share.