City Council Committee -
Community Improvement and Crime Prevention

February 28, 2007 Meeting Minutes

PLACE: North Hall, Civic Auditorium, 525 N. Center Street

ATTENDANCE:

Committee
Councilmember Rebecca Nabors, Chair
Councilmember Dan Chapman, Vice Chair
Councilmember Susan Talamantes Eggman, Member

Staff
Bob Murdoch, Dep. Public Works Director/City Engineer
Dennis Smallie, Police Lieutenant
Susan Gregory, Project Coordinator
Jamie Turner, Librarian
Kevin Hatano, Police Lieutenant
Rob Paoletti, Police Lieutenant
Carolyn Ragsdale, Sr. Community Serv. Officer
Brice Hammerstein, Sr. Community Serv. Officer
Karen Daly, Code. Enf. Field Manager
Cathy Hudlin, Police Recorder

Others
Jim Willett, District Attorney’s Office
Janet Smith, District Attorney’s Office
Stephanie Bays, San Joaquin County Probation
Rick & Rose Dimas, Concerned Citizens
Louis Van Anne, Concerned Citizen
George Checchi, Concerned Citizen
Steve Huerta, Concerned Citizen
John Piasecki, Concerned Citizen
Jerry Soria, Concerned Citizen
Margaret Noah, Concerned Citizen Fred Minor, Concerned Citizen
Loney Romero, Concerned Citizen
Barry Baxter, Concerned Citizen
Larry Angle, Concerned Citizen
Koreen Freitas, Concerned Citizen
Stef and Brad Ellis, Concerned Citizens
Sophia Ribali, Concerned Citizen
Florencio Hernandez, Concerned Citizen
Harry Montgomery, Concerned Citizen
Terry House, Concerned Citizen
Art and Rose Garbiso, Concerned Citizens
Brian McClory, Concerned Citizen

Background

The following issues were referred by a recommendation of the City Manager to the Committee Chair on January 24, 2007: New Graffiti Ordinance Update, Criminal Justice Process/Diversion Programs for Graffiti Offenders, Feature Neighborhood, Camera Update – Mayor’s Strong Neighborhood Initiative, and The Club Anti Auto-Theft Device Giveaway. The following issues were continuing discussions from the Committee meeting of October 25, 2006: Graffiti Update and Code Enforcement.

Committee Deliberations

The meeting was called to order by Chair Rebecca Nabors at 6:00 p.m.

• Requiring parents and guardians to pay for cleanup and other penalties for the actions of minors (with maximum penalties increased up to $25,000).
• Encouraging property owners to prevent graffiti by making architectural changes to property, installing lighting and cameras, and installing plantings that block access to graffiti-prone surfaces.
• Increasing fines and payment of damages, charging $250 for the first offense, $500 for the second offense, and an additional fine of $500 for administrative costs.
• Seizing vehicles or other means which are used in the commission of a crime.
• Reminding retailers about the penalties for failure to lock up implements used in the commission of graffiti and increasing inspections to ensure compliance.
• Increasing the reward to $300 for information leading to an arrest and conviction of those responsible for graffiti vandalism.

Councilmember Nabors asked what options are available if parents are fined and are unable to pay these fines, such as those at low-income levels. Staff replied there could be a judgment levied against them, but only civilly. She indicated we need to write something into the ordinance that will be effective in reaching the root of the problem. To further address this issue, Councilmember Eggman stated she has repeatedly requested that we look into developing a program which would require parents and children to attend a program together which would assist parents in dealing with an out-of-control teenager. She believes most of the kids who are responsible for graffiti vandalism fall into this group and simply fining parents is not a viable solution to the problem. A program such as this could be financed by charging parents a nominal $15-$30 fee through the Parks and Recreation Department or Probation Department.

Graffiti falls under the vandalism statutes and is charged as follows: For damage under $400, it is charged as a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of one year in county jail and a $1,000 fine. If the damage exceeds $400, it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony, with a felony carrying a potential state prison sentence. The state prison sentence would be a maximum of 3 years, with a lower term of 16 months and a middle term of 2 years. Graffiti is viewed by the District Attorney’s Office as part of the “broken window” theory and, therefore, must be fixed quickly. Otherwise, it degrades the entire community, which describes the case of a recent graffiti vandal who was convicted and sentenced to state prison due to the amount of damage he caused citywide. This 22-year-old graffiti vandal was extremely prolific as a tagger and that is the reason he ultimately received such a stiff sentence. Documentation was gathered on this individual starting back in 2004.

Graffiti is much lower on the list as compared to other, more-serious crimes, but by the same token, it still needs to be dealt with. The District Attorney’s policy regarding graffiti is that if Police catch a vandal, charges are filed against him/her. Juvenile matters, by law, are referred to Probation Department, with charges filed for adults depending on both the amount of damage and the criminal history of the offender. In the case of the 22-year-old vandal, they were able to put a dollar amount on the damage, and since it was astronomical, he was charged accordingly. He was given an “indicated sentence” by the ruling judge and once in prison, will be given a diagnostic term of 90 days, while they determine whether he is suitable for probation or should remain in prison. Once it is determined he’s suitable for probation, he will be placed in county jail to serve the remainder of his sentence.One of the reasons this individual was ultimately caught was because anonymous calls were made to the Police Department identifying him as this tagger, one of them being from a relative. This type of vandalism is occurring in neighborhoods all over the city, and an average tag takes about 10-15 seconds to put up. This is one reason it is so difficult to catch vandals in the act. The Deputy District Attorney who prosecuted the 22-year-old vandal required a guilty plea, so it could be used against him civilly, and encouraged citizens who have been victimized by him to file a civil suit against him using his guilty plea.

Diversion Programs for Graffiti Offenders

The Probation Department has many diversion programs available to help juveniles. The juvenile system is based on rehabilitation, and whenever a juvenile is arrested for vandalism, they receive a referral and assessment looking at factors such as criminal history, school history, mental-health issues, and involvement with drugs or gangs to determine the best course of action for the juvenile. If it is the first offense, they will be diverted from the court system and handled at the intake level. They have a variety of options and consequences they can use, one of which is the COPS program, which is a six-hour graffiti, auto theft, and vandalism diversion program. Teen Court is another program utilized, which requires the juvenile and his parent or guardian to go before a jury of peers, receiving a sentence which could include counseling or community service. One program no longer being used is the graffiti removal service. Several years ago, the City coordinated a program which required juveniles arrested for graffiti to remove it, but it was abandoned when these offenders began causing more graffiti by marking up Police vehicles. There are other community service programs that can be used, such as the Center for Positive Prevention Alternatives; however, Probation does not have the ability to take the juveniles away from the institution and into the community to work.

Another very effective program is the Youth Accountability Board (YAB) program, which is comprised of 16 panels throughout the county. Citizen volunteers, who live in the same neighborhoods as the juvenile offenders, sit on the panels and hear low-level offenses. Panels meet once a month. A Probation Officer facilitates each panel, with the citizen volunteers handing down a sentence with consequences. Panel volunteers also follow up by monitoring each case for a period up to six months, which includes home and school visits to ensure juveniles are complying with the conditions set forth for them. A separate County agency, Revenue Recovery, is used to collect money from parents who have been negligent in the payment of fines and fees charged against them. There are many tools available, including wage garnishment and tax interception.

Under Probation’s graduated sanctions continuum, there is a host of different consequences which can be used to bring juveniles into compliance, such as sending them to a four-six month camp in French Camp or removing them from the home and placing them in group or foster homes. Many of these juveniles have grown up as a product of their environment, and it is Probation’s obligation to look at the whole picture and provide them with options and programs, as well as consequences. Probation also has a parenting program provided free of cost, where they lay the basic foundation for parents, including components such as communicating, controlling anger, setting guidelines, and administering consequences. They provide this service regularly to parents as a condition of probation when dealing with juveniles. They also offer pre-delinquent programs, such as Crossroads, for juveniles who have not been arrested but are exhibiting out-of-control behavior. Probation has approximately 2,000 juveniles and 24,000 adults under its jurisdiction and works in collaboration with local law enforcement and community-based organizations, as well as the community itself.

Getting involved in programs such as the Youth Accountability Board falls in line with the Mayor’s request at his recent State of the City presentation, encouraging citizens to take ownership of their community by participating in making it a better place to live. Crime is not just the Police Department’s problem, but it requires community involvement as well.

In 2006, there were 2,321 calls to the Graffiti Hotline, compared to 1,773 in 2005. That is a 25% increase over the previous year. There are two teams which handle graffiti abatement, one north and one south. In 2006, they painted over 1,564,571 square feet of graffiti using 5,000 gallons of paint. Of that total, 2,738 locations were residential and 2,090 locations were commercial, at a cost of approximately $44,700. Personnel also worked 415 overtime hours to remove graffiti.

The Weston Ranch Organizing Committee originally began as an e-mail group and has evolved into its current organization, receiving support from the City Council, Police Department, Public Works, and community. Recently, they joined with the City to get involved in its Adopt-A-City program which addresses community blight issues. The group committed to take supplies provided by the City and paint over graffiti in their neighborhoods. The group is also working closely with the Community Watch Program and partnering with the Police Department and Weston Ranch High School to ensure that citizens are made aware of current crime trends in their areas by way of Crime Stoppers flyers. They have also been working with the Parks and Recreation Department to formulate programs that can be utilized by juveniles in their neighborhoods, to give them recreational options and keep them off the streets. The group is excited about a new library which recently opened in their neighborhood as a direct result of a joint effort between the City of Stockton and Manteca Unified School District.

Last year, Code Enforcement handled approximately 21,000 cases, of which 10,000 were new. Almost 6,000 were housing cases which involved substandard problems, such as plumbing, lighting, or electrical. They also handled approximately 12,000 public nuisance violations. A Rental Property Inspection program was recently implemented and, for ease of inspections, the city has been split into geographic sections. The inspections are based on a four-year cycle, since there are almost 65,000 rental units in Stockton. Code Enforcement completes approximately 4,000 inspections each month under this program. A letter is mailed to each property owner prior to inspections to advise them of the things staff will be checking. If property owners choose to conduct their own inspections and self certify, they indicate this on the inspection letter and send it back to Code Enforcement; however, if there has been a prior case against this location or a complaint has been received, this method is null and void and the City will conduct the inspection.

Civic Center District Commander, Lt. Kevin Hatano, is the Program Manager overseeing security cameras throughout the city. Through the Mayor’s Strong Neighborhood Initiative, funding was provided to expand this program, with City Council approval on January 16. Historically, the City had traffic management cameras at intersections, which assisted traffic engineers with issues such as the timing of lights.; Currently, we have approximately 32 security cameras, with an additional 44 cameras to be installed through the Initiative. The new cameras are wireless or remote, so they can be moved into neighborhoods and locations where problems are occurring and where they can be most effective. AT&T has been hired as the consultant and is moving forward with the project, with the first of these cameras installed at Airport Way and 10th Street on February 14. Ten site surveys were conducted on February 28. These cameras are another tool to help law enforcement enhance policing efforts, with retired Police Officers working as camera operators. It is still unsure how successful these cameras will be in neighborhoods; they may simply move crime around the corner. Input was received from both citizens and community groups, as well as staff, when the Police Department designated the proposed sites. Some of the criteria considered when looking at locations for installation: calls for service, viewing accessibility, cost effectiveness, and those locations had to fall within the redevelopment areas mandated by Council.

Four members of the audience received free anti auto-theft clubs.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

COUNCIL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT AND CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE

_____________________________________________________
Councilmember Rebecca Nabors, Chair

_____________________________________________________
Councilmember Dan Chapman, Vice Chair

_____________________________________________________
Councilmember Susan Talamantes Eggman, Member

(PD)