07/27/1992 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1575, Minutes July 27, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Wagner also felt the city could not afford $100,000 a year am that Mrs. Schuman's ideas for a cooperative effort W'ere excellent. Mrs. Elsie Glickert, 6712 Etzel, said sociOlogists v.no have studied graffiti have canplimented University City for its forward starn on abolishirg it. She suggested that the refuse YJOrkers who leave early after canpleting their routes could YJOrk a full day by painting ewer sane of buildings with graffiti on them. She did not feel the city should deperrl on neighborhood voltmteers for this responsibility. In response to Mr. Adams, Mr. Ollerrlorff said the $100,000 figure included equipnent for large scale graffiti raroval, which the City does not now have. Mayor Majerus shared Council's conc:::en1S about graffiti, but did not believe the city should assume the private sector's responsibility. She felt staff has done an excellent job getting private owners to either reIlXJVe graffiti or reiInburse the City for its raroval. In the case Mr. Price raised, she felt the city should reIlXJVe the graffiti, but she 0R>0Sed reallocation of budget :fllOOs for this purpose am said transfers could be made when needed. Mr. Schoomer felt the City has done an excellent job of reIlXJVing graffiti on municipal property in a timely manner, am that no additional :fllOOs should be allocated at this ti1ne. Mr. Ollerrlorff sunnised fran the discussion that the City should consider un- usual situations such as the one Mr. Price pointed out, perhaps not more than two or three properties a year. He said resources within the budget were available to meet those needs with no special approval needed by Council. Mr. Price said since graffiti is considered a nuisance by the Municipal Cede, the City is obligated to see that it is eradicated in one way or another. He did not abject to getting the neighborhood involved, but said the City still has the final responsibility. Mrs. Schuman said Mr. Price made an excellent point regarding City responsi- bility, but she still felt the message to offerrlers is much stronger if they see the ccmnunity taking part in its eradication. In addition, if the City has to absoro the canplete cost of raroval, other city savices will suffer. Mr. Adams also felt the idea of using youths iran the Payback Program to re- nove graffiti was excellent am should be explored. Mr. Price asked about mention of a reward in the City Manager's report. Mr. Ollerrlorff said the Director of Public Works suggested a reward might help catch the perpetrators. Mr. Price asked that use of the Payback Program be explored, as well as the possibility of using a reward of up to $100 for apprehension am colWiction. '!he COUnty Payback Program was discussed briefly, with Mr. Price noting that the city can ask that university City youths be designated to do their ser- vice here. 'Ihe City Manager said he will look into that am also try to get local groups to donate $100 to be used as a reward.