Item 12.4 - Attachment 1
Graffiti Management Options Paper - March 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F2008/03695 – D01144282
This Options Paper has been constructed on the premise that graffiti is an illegal activity and is unwarranted within the Parramatta LGA. It details what action Parramatta City Council could potentially take to further address the issue of illegal graffiti, and how Council could potentially work with the community and stakeholders to minimise the impact of graffiti vandalism within the LGA through sustainable graffiti management practices.
City Council is committed to providing a clean, vibrant, safe and welcoming
atmosphere for all residents, workers and visitors within the Parramatta Local
Government Area (LGA). As part of this
commitment, Council maintains a network of infrastructure to support the
community and ensure the LGA presents in good repair and condition. This infrastructure is regularly subjected to
vandalism in the form of graffiti, thus diminishing perceptions of
Graffiti management supports both Parramatta City Council’s Twenty-25 Strategic Plan destination to create neighbourhoods that are liveable and distinctive by improving perceptions of safety within the community, and Council’s City Centre Crime Prevention Plan (2008-2013) strategy for responding to, and reducing, priority crime.
Parramatta City Council has addressed the issue of graffiti vandalism in a
variety of ways. Council has, for
example, assisted residents to remove graffiti from their properties by
providing free graffiti removal kits, and has provided advice to businesses on
how to reduce the likelihood of their property being targeted by graffiti
vandals. Council has instigated artistic
diversion programs and approved funding for the establishment and maintenance
of several ‘legal walls’ within the LGA in an attempt to provide manageable
facilities that graffiti proponents could utilise with Council permission. Council has also previously established a
graffiti hotline telephone number, and has initiated a ‘Dob In a Graffiti
Vandal’ campaign in the Lachlan Macquarie Ward of the LGA. Graffiti in the public domain has been
removed generally as the result of information received via Council’s Customer
Request Management (
A recent review of graffiti management within Parramatta would suggest that Council’s past graffiti management practices have been insufficient to adequately address the issue of graffiti vandalism in the public domain, and several past initiatives have either served to exasperate rather than alleviate the problem of graffiti vandalism, or have been proven ineffective in reducing the instances of new graffiti in large metropolitan and suburban areas. This Options Paper suggests a range of strategies and partners involved in a coordinated response to graffiti vandalism. Such strategies include the potential utilisation of a range of cost neutral labour sources, and a commitment to additional Council resources and graffiti management practices that can be evaluated at regular intervals for effectiveness. The Options Paper provides details of Council’s current expenditure on graffiti management practices in conjunction with estimated costs associated with the implementation of suggested strategies and practices.
At its ordinary meeting on
The term ‘graffiti’ generally refers to illegally defacing private and public property with markings and/or graphics without the consent of the property owner. Graffiti vandalism can take multiple forms including designs, words or images applied to property via the use of paint, ink, chalk, chemicals and etching, and also includes the unauthorised posting of bills and placards.
The NSW Graffiti Control Act (2008) consolidates existing graffiti-related provisions contained within a range of other Acts into one specific piece of legislation. This Act covers all aspects of graffiti law ranging from graffiti related offences, including the possession of graffiti implements, through to the regulation of possession and sale of spray paint.
Part 4 of the NSW Graffiti Control Act (2008) makes provision for graffiti removal work by local Councils, and states:
In this Part, occupier, owner, private land and public place have the same meanings as in the Local Government Act (1993).
11 Graffiti removal work—by agreement with owner or occupier
A local council may, by agreement with the owner or occupier of any private land, carry out graffiti removal work on the land.
12 Graffiti removal work—without agreement of owner or occupier
(1) A local council may, without the agreement of the owner or occupier of any land, carry out graffiti removal work to property on that land if the graffiti concerned is visible from a public place.
(2) The graffiti removal work referred to in subsection (1) may only be carried out from a public place.
(3) The local council concerned is to bear the cost of graffiti removal work referred to in subsection (1).
(4) If a local council carries out graffiti removal work in accordance with this section, the council must, within a reasonable period, give the owner or occupier of the land concerned written notice that the work has occurred.
(5) A local council must pay compensation for any damage caused by the council in carrying out graffiti removal work in accordance with this section.
Note: Section 730 of the Local Government Act (1993) provides for the resolution of claims for compensation relating to damage under this section in cases of dispute between the person claiming the compensation and the council.
13 Register of graffiti removal work
(1) A local council must keep a register of graffiti removal work carried out in accordance with this Part.
(2) The register is to specify in respect of each incidence of graffiti removal work carried out:
(a) the owner or occupier of the premises on which the graffiti was situated, and
(b) the nature of the work carried out, and
(c) the actual cost, or an estimate of the cost at current market rates, of carrying out the work, and
(d) in the case of graffiti removal work carried out in accordance with section 11—the actual amount charged by the local council for carrying out the work.
Council currently uses both staff and contractors to remove graffiti from Council property including; administration buildings, libraries, town halls, public toilets, community centres, open space buildings and infrastructure, roadways, footpaths, Council owned bridges, bus shelters and seats.
Service requests for graffiti removal are raised in Council’s online system via information from residents and staff. The Graffiti Teams also do regular inspections of ‘graffiti hot spots’ removing any graffiti in the one process. Graffiti removal is prioritised by location and offensiveness of the graffiti.
Graffiti Removal Service Agreements:
Council has a partnership
with State Rail and Holroyd City Council to share responsibility for graffiti
removal in the
Council also has an
agreement with Integral Energy for
Since October 2008, information on graffiti removed is recorded in an Excel database, and digital photos are supplied by Council’s Graffiti Removal Team and external contractors which are downloaded to Council’s network.
The 2008/2009 budget is as follows:
Employee costs* $ 147,725.47
Contractors $ 85,000.00
Materials $ 24,712.00
Fleet $ 27,916.56
Miscellaneous (eg. phones, stationery) $ 1,863.00
TOTAL $ 287,217.03
* Employee costs were previously factored as less than 50% of relevant staff time however graffiti removal has become primary role since October 2008.
1. That Council consider providing resources to enable the removal from public property graffiti that is deemed racist, sexist, defamatory, inciting, threatening, politically inappropriate, vulgar or otherwise offensive within 24 hours of such graffiti being identified or reported.
2. That Council consider providing resources to enable the removal from public property all other graffiti within 48 hours of such graffiti being identified or reported.
Current: Since October 2008, Council has monitored graffiti management work closely and approximately half of all jobs are completed within 48 hours of notification and less than 5% of all jobs exceed 7 working days. Work undertaken in-house is completed quicker than contractor jobs, however, the type of work also varies. Council depends on contractors, for example, to remove graffiti from bare brickwork or sandstone as it does not have the necessary equipment. Council staff use chemical removal for small areas of graffiti but generally rely on painting over the effected area.
Proposed: Removing graffiti quickly can improve public amenity and deter further graffiti. In some areas, however, graffiti occurs very frequently and rapid response will only escalate resource requirements. Increasing the proportion of graffiti removal completed within 48 hours would require additional resources. Council could consider setting targets for improved rapid response depending on resources available as outlined below.
Cost: Council could target 75% of graffiti removal completed within 48 hours, for example, by increasing staff and reducing use of contractors. This would likely cost approximately $145,000 in employee costs, partially off-set by reduced contractor costs of approximately $50,000. Achieving more than 75% completed within 48 hours would, however, require Council to become equipped to do graffiti removal from brickwork etc. Preliminary costings, for example, for soda blasting equipment and vehicle indicate a capital outlay of approximately $95,000 and ongoing operating costs of approximately $190,000 p/a.
3. Where graffiti that is deemed racist, sexist, defamatory, inciting, threatening, politically inappropriate, vulgar or otherwise offensive is publicly visible on private property, that Council consider notifying the owner or occupier of such private property within 48 hours of such graffiti being identified or reported, requesting the immediate removal of such graffiti by the owner or occupier.
4. If such graffiti removal is not conducted by the owner or occupier within 72 hours of Council notification, that Council consider exercising its authority under section 12 of the Graffiti Control Act (2008) and take any reasonable measures to effect the removal of such graffiti within the confines of section 12 subsection (2) of the Graffiti Control Act (2008). (Section 12 (2) of the Graffiti Control Act refers to Council’s authority to remove graffiti from private property without the agreement of the owner or occupier so long as such graffiti removal work can be carried out wholly from a public place).
5. Where other graffiti is publicly visible on private property, that Council consider notifying the owner or occupier of such private property within 7 days of such graffiti being identified or reported, requesting the removal of such graffiti by the owner or occupier.
6. If such graffiti removal is not conducted by the owner or occupier within a reasonable period of time after Council notification, that Council consider exercising its authority, where practicable, under section 12 of the Graffiti Control Act (2008) and take any reasonable measures to effect the removal of such graffiti within the confines of section 12 subsection (2) of the Graffiti Control Act (2008).
7. That Council provides a new service targeting residential properties to remove graffiti that is publicly visible on private property with the consent of the owner.
Current: Council does not generally engage in graffiti removal from private property except on rare occasions when Council officers have attempted to notify owners of offensive graffiti to encourage its removal.
Proposed: Council could consider acting on offensive graffiti on private property as outlined above. Council could also consider notifying private property owners of other graffiti and consider taking action to remove such graffiti within constraints of the Graffiti Control Act (2008) as outlined in Item 6. Alternatively, Council could initiate a new service such as that outlined in Item 7.
Cost: The cost to Council of removing offensive graffiti on private property is difficult to predict but would represent an additional cost to Council’s current graffiti management activities. These costs would escalate substantially if Council were to include removal of other graffiti from private property, partly due to the large amount of such graffiti and partly due to the disincentive it would create for property owners to undertake such work themselves.
staff are not aware of other councils undertaking routine work on private
property except for Blacktown City Council.
It is understood
8. That Council consider continuing the supply of graffiti removal kits free of charge upon reasonable request of a bona fide and current resident or residential property owner of the Parramatta LGA.
9. That Council consider extending the availability of free graffiti removal kits to bona fide and current business owners and operators within the LGA.
10. Further, that Council consider maintaining accurate records of all property owners or occupiers that request and receive a free graffiti removal kit so as frequency can be monitored, potential abuse of the system be minimised, and problematic premises or locations identified with a view to receiving further attention in the form of a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) safety audit.
Current: Council currently provides free of charge a Taubmans ‘Guardian’ Gel Graffiti Removal Kit upon request to a legitimate resident or residential property owner within the LGA. Such kits are currently available upon validation of identification and status from Council’s Customer Service Centre and, from March 2009, all Branch Libraries. The current cost to Council for each graffiti removal kit is $24.34 (excluding GST), and Council expended approximately $3,000 on the purchase and supply of such kits during 2008 to residents and residential property owners only.
Proposed: It is envisaged that the availability of such kits, within reason, to business community members will assist the rapid removal process of graffiti from private property within the LGA. Information relevant to the availability and criteria for receiving such kits can be promoted by various means including a flyer in the quarterly rates notices and partnerships with Chambers of Commerce.
Cost: It is difficult to predict the potential uptake of such a service by the business community, however, as an indication, a cost in excess of $10,000 per annum, in addition to the current $3,000 per annum, would be anticipated.
11. Where Council employees or external parties are involved in the removal of graffiti, that Council consider, prior to removing such graffiti, the recording of all pertinent information and digitally photographing such graffiti.
12. Furthermore, where Council employees or external parties are involved in the removal of graffiti, the Council consider, upon completion of removing such graffiti, the recording of all information pertinent to such removal.
13. That Council consider entering such photographs and records as soon as practicable into a dedicated computer database to facilitate the provision of accurate statistical, intelligence and evidentiary information.
14. In cases where potential offenders are identified, or other investigative requirements dictate, that Council consider making such information available upon request to an appropriate officer of the NSW Police Force.
15. That Council consider purchasing the Australian Graffiti Register (AUSGR) computer database program as an integral part of Council’s strategy to maintain accurate records and photographic evidence relevant to graffiti within the LGA.
Current: Previous recording of graffiti was not systematic, however, since October 2008, information on graffiti removed within the LGA is recorded in an Excel database, and digital photos are supplied by Council’s Graffiti Teams and external contractors which are downloaded to Council’s network. Council officers are not aware of any of any requests to Council by Police for access to such data at this time.
Proposed: That consideration be given to the Australian Graffiti Register (AUSGR) computer database program to make the recording of graffiti-related information more efficient, reliable and accessible. This database is externally maintained, is currently utilised by more than 55% of Sydney Metropolitan Councils and complies fully with legislative requirements. A demonstration of the AUSGR can be arranged for Councillors and stakeholders if required.
Cost: The AUSGR database is available at an annual cost of $3,950 (excluding GST). Accompanying Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) devices are available at a one-off cost of $930 per unit, with an annual maintenance and upgrade cost of $395 per unit. A total of 4 PDA devices would be required to equip Council employees at a one-off cost of $3,720 and an annual cost of $1,580.
16. That Council continue its current agreements with private graffiti removal contractors to provide, on behalf of Council, the following graffiti removal and maintenance work:
Energy – Conduct monthly inspections of 241 Integral Energy owned electricity
boxes throughout Parramatta
18. Merrylands Train Station Underpass – Conduct regular inspections and maintenance of existing artistic murals throughout the Merrylands train station underpass and remove graffiti as required, at a cost to Council of $10,260 (excluding GST) per annum.
19. That Council consider actively encouraging action based partnerships with external government agencies, utility holders, and other stakeholders within the LGA to reduce the impact of graffiti vandalism, particularly on property owned and managed by such external partners. Where possible, such partnerships should involve a commitment to rapid removal, resourcing, funding, managing, or other appropriate support on behalf of the external partner, and be cost neutral to Council.
Current: As stated.
Proposed: As stated.
Cost: As stated. Staff time only to establish and maintain new partnerships and/or administer any resulting service agreements similar to the current Integral Energy agreement.
20. That Council make all reasonable efforts to facilitate graffiti removal within the LGA by virtue of potential voluntary and free labour resources, and Council employees in preference to private graffiti removal contractors in order to achieve desired service standards.
City Operations has an allocation within the budget of $109,712 per annum which
funds Council’s essential graffiti removal resources (paint/chemicals/coatings)
as well as the costs of utilising private graffiti removal contractors. Council currently engages
Proposed: As stated. Council could seek to reduce the use of contractors by increasing staff resources, however, equipment such as a soda blasting machine will be necessary if staff are to be equipped to manage much of the work currently allocated to contractors.
Cost: Preliminary costings of appropriate equipment such as soda blasting equipment and vehicle indicate a capital outlay of approximately $95,000 and ongoing operating costs of approximately $190,000 p/a. Additional employee costs of approximately $145,000 would be partially off-set by reduced contractor costs of approximately $50,000 and significantly increase the in-house teams capacity to respond ie. volume of work completed, type of surfaces managed, promptness of service, and ability to remove rather than paint over more graffiti.
21. That Council consider applying Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles in the assessment of commercial and large scale residential Development Applications to minimise the risk of graffiti vandalism at the site of new developments.
Current: Both Parramatta City Centre DCP 2007 and Parramatta DCP 2005 require safety, security and crime prevention requirements to be considered in the planning and design of developments. This includes the NSW Police ‘Safer by Design’ crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles. All developments are required to be assessed against these principles which includes minimising the risk of graffiti vandalism.
The majority of the staff in the Development Assessment Service Area over the last year have attended the NSW Police ‘Safer by Design’ training with the remaining two staff members to attend training this year.
Proposed: Continued application of CPTED principles in the assessment and determination of development applications.
Cost: Staff time only.
22. That Council consider re-launching the graffiti
hotline telephone number and promote the existence of this hotline throughout
the LGA. All information received by
virtue of this hotline to be forwarded to Council’s City Operations via the Customer
Request Management (
Current: While the
graffiti hotline exists, it has not been widely promoted in recent years except
in relation to the Reward Campaign initiated in the Lachlan Macquarie Ward in
2008. References to the hotline are
available on Council’s website, for example, calls are responded to by the
Customer Service Centre who either connect the caller with the Police and/or
report the graffiti via Council’s
Proposed: Council could develop strategies to more actively promote the graffiti hotline through an ongoing communications program. This would encourage community awareness of graffiti issues and likely result in increased reporting of graffiti. While it could be a specific project, promotion of the hotline would ideally be incorporated with other graffiti management and community awareness activities.
Cost: The cost of this specific action would be small involving small staff time and promotional materials. Council may also incur additional costs as a result of increased service requests.
23. That Council consider devising an information campaign encouraging community members to report all graffiti to Councils’ graffiti hotline, and to take ownership of their communities.
Proposed: Council could consider developing a broader information campaign to encourage community members throughout the City to take pride in their communities, and assist Council in eradicating graffiti vandalism and improving perceptions of safety within the LGA. The campaign would include a variety of communication and engagement strategies including, for example, web promotions, working with local community groups, generating regular media reports, and producing a graffiti hotline “magnet” to be distributed with Council’s quarterly newsletter.
Cost: A broader anti-graffiti campaign would require additional resources, both in staff time and promotional materials. The level of activity could be varied according to funds available and would ideally be in the range of $20,000 to $50,000 p/a. It is envisaged that such a program may also incur additional costs for Council as a result of increased service requests.
24. That Council consider funding a graffiti education program similar to that provided by the Warner Education Group Pty. Ltd. in all schools within the LGA for a period of three years.
Proposed: This ‘Graffiti Education Awareness Program’, as presented to Councillors and stakeholders on 20 November 2008, targets young school people in Year 5 and Year 8 with information pertinent to graffiti vandalism and its associated social, economic and legal consequences, as well as health and safety risks.
Cost: The program is available for delivery in the 44 primary schools and 20 secondary schools within the LGA at an annual cost of $68,900 (excluding GST), with a one-off initial set-up cost of $9,500 (excluding GST). This will comprise an estimated total of 106 education programs being delivered to an estimated 7,420 students within the LGA annually. The Warner Education Group Pty. Ltd. has established working relationships with a range of schools and other local councils and no alternate suppliers of a similar education program have been identified at this time.
25. That Council consider promoting to residents and businesses the free paint/chemical disposal service periodically offered by the Department of Environment and Climate Change.
Department of Environment & Climate Change bi-annually provides a free
paint/chemical disposal service that permits the disposal of unwanted paint and
chemical products at various locations throughout the metropolitan area. Current locations include
Proposed: Council could consider expanding its advertising of such services, and incorporating these activities in any wider anti-graffiti promotional campaigns.
Cost: Minimal cost in staff time and materials.
26. Where retail premises within the LGA are reasonably suspected as breaching section 7 of the Graffiti Control Act (2008) in respect of illegal sale of spray paint cans to persons under the age of 18 years, that Council consider immediately informing an authorised officer of the NSW Office of Fair Trading or NSW Police Force of such activity.
27. Where retail premises within the LGA are reasonably suspected as breaching section 8 of the Graffiti Control Act (2008) in respect of improperly secured spray paint cans, that Council consider immediately informing an authorised officer of the NSW Office of Fair Trading or NSW Police Force of such activity.
Proposed: As stated.
Cost: Staff time only.
28. That Council consider actively liaising, and encourage reciprocal information sharing relevant to graffiti management practices, with the neighbouring Council’s of Blacktown, Holroyd, Auburn, Ryde, Fairfield, Bankstown, Baulkham Hills and Hornsby in order to minimise the effects of graffiti vandalism displacement amongst the LGA’s.
Proposed: As stated. In additional to information sharing, advantages may arise from co-ordinating community awareness campaigns and the potential to share anti-graffiti collateral.
Cost: Staff time only.
29. That Council consider approaching local community groups, local school groups, and other identified local organisations within the LGA and actively encourage the involvement of such groups in the voluntary regular removal of graffiti from their property and/or Council approved property such as park facilities.
30. Further, that Council consider providing such voluntary groups with the appropriate resources in order to facilitate such graffiti removal.
Current: Council has previously encouraged some groups to support graffiti removal however this has been ad hoc.
Proposed: As stated.
Cost: Staff time to contact or establish groups, plan work program and provide necessary information and resources. Costs would depend on number of groups participating, level of Council supervision required and materials to be provided by Council.
31. That Council consider utilising NSW Department of Corrective Services - Community Service Order (CSO) participants in the removal of graffiti within the LGA.
32. That Council consider utilising NSW Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) – Youth Justice Conferencing (YJC) participants in the removal of graffiti within the LGA.
33. That Council consider utilising NSW Department of Corrective Services - Probation & Parole participants in the removal of graffiti within the LGA.
Proposed: CSO participants are available to undertake
graffiti removal work within
YJC participants may be available by way of consultation and agreement with DJJ
to undertake graffiti removal work within
detention participants are available to undertake graffiti removal work within
Costs to Council of participating in any or all of these community
service labour programs would include initial staff costs in establishing
partnership and then ongoing costs in maintaining the program, providing
appropriate supervisory staff and required materials and resources such as
34. That Council consider utilising MTC Work Solutions - Community Work program participants in the removal of graffiti within the LGA.
Proposed: Based in
Cost: Council would received funding to assist with the cost of providing work experience with a minimum of six persons to be accepted for each two day period. MTC can provide a trained supervisor for any accepted persons or alternately, Council can provide its own supervisor. Council is required to provide all other resources necessary for any projects undertaken.
Cost: Costs to Council of participating in such community work programs would
include initial staff costs in establishing partnership and then ongoing costs
in maintaining the program, providing appropriate supervisory staff and
required materials and resources such as chemicals, paint,
35. That Council consider initially identifying graffiti hotspots within the LGA and target such areas with a rapid removal response. Such area(s) to be regularly monitored to identify success or otherwise of the rapid removal process and to gauge repeat graffiti activity. Area(s) identified as problematic after a period of regular monitoring to be subsequently subjected to a CPTED safety audit.
Proposed: As stated.
Cost: The operational costs directly associated with rapid response would depend on the number of hotspots identified and level of graffiti experienced. Additional staff time would be required to monitor and analyse data and completed a safety audit. Costs may also be associated with any corrective actions arising from the audit although these many also assist in reducing future graffiti removal costs.
36. That Council seek funding to devise, manage, and monitor appropriate diversion programs, in consultation with appropriate youth services, for persons identified as potentially being able to benefit from such programs.
Current: Council currently supports a number of youth programs although none directly target graffiti offenders. Granville Youth and Community Recreation Centre currently receives funding for a Youth Crime Prevention project. The project is an intervention program that works with local schools targeting chronically suspended youth who have been linked to anti-social behaviour.
Proposed: Seek funding to create and deliver specific graffiti-related diversion programs.
Costs: Staff time in developing project ideas and appropriate funding proposals.
37. That Council consider undertaking a review of Council’s existing legal graffiti walls by way of consultation with appropriate youth services, NSW Police Force, and other interested stakeholders to determine the effectiveness of such walls in reducing the instances of illegal graffiti within the community, including in the vicinity of such walls.
38. Further, that any recommendations of such consultation be presented to Council for consideration.
Current: Council resolved on
Proposed: Such legal graffiti walls have been identified by NSW Attorney General’s Department research as exasperating rather than alleviating the problem of illegal graffiti vandalism within communities, particularly around the vicinity of the legal walls themselves. Issues such as poor management, poor maintenance, inappropriate environmental designs and locations, and lack of Council resources have all been seen to contribute to the failure of legal graffiti walls in reducing graffiti vandalism, however, it has also been identified that a key factor in the increase of illegal graffiti associated with legal walls is the exposure such walls give the public to this activity. Illegal graffiti ‘art’ is not the problem that Council’s are faced with, rather it is illegal graffiti ‘tagging’, and such legal walls, while catering for a small minority of genuine artists within the community, may inadvertently serve to promote graffiti to the wider non-artistically inclined community.
Cost: Staff time only for review.
39. That Council consider reviewing its existing ‘Dob In a Graffiti Vandal’ campaign operating in the Lachlan Macquarie Ward of the LGA.
Current: The ‘Dob In a Graffiti Vandal’ campaign was launched in June 2008 in the Lachlan Macquarie Ward. The scheme encourages residents to identify a graffiti vandal, and if such information leads to a conviction a monetary reward of $1,000.00 will be paid to the resident by Council through the Urgent Ward Works program. While no rewards have been paid to date, the campaign has resulted in an increase in calls to report graffiti activity.
Proposed: The value of the ‘Dob In a Graffiti Vandal’ campaign would appear to be in the increased community awareness and reporting of graffiti rather than as an aid to the prosecution of graffiti vandals. Similar campaigns have been identified as unsuccessful in reducing the instances of graffiti vandalism in metropolitan areas and have been criticised for the potential risk of claims, for unfairly targeting and victimising youth, and being open to potential abuse by graffiti proponents. A review of Council’s current program is proposed, particularly if Council supports broader community reporting and community pride campaigns.
Cost: Staff time only for review.
40. That Council consider undertaking monthly evaluations of Council maintained graffiti statistics to provide accurate information relevant to the amount of graffiti incidents presenting within the LGA, and to identify locations commonly targeted by graffiti vandals.
41. Further, that Council consider providing such statistics to the NSW Police Force on a quarterly basis via the Community Safety Precinct Committees (CSPC) of Parramatta, Rosehill and Eastwood.
Current: Removal statistics provided to Council on a weekly basis and as requested.
Proposed: As stated.
Cost: Staff time only.
42. That Council consider promoting graffiti management to all Council employees and encourage all employees to take a proactive role in graffiti management by reporting identified graffiti on property within the LGA.
Proposed: As stated.
Cost: Staff time only plus any additional operational costs as a result of increased service requests.
43. That Council consider the appointment of a dedicated person to coordinate and manage all aspects of Council’s graffiti management practices.
Current: Several Council staff are involved in different aspects of Council’s current graffiti management activities including City Operations staff and Council’s Crime Prevention Co-ordinator, all of whom have other work responsibilities. A dedicated graffiti management position is not currently required but would become necessary if Council adopts a number of the proposed strategies in this report such as initiating community reporting and community pride campaigns and increasing graffiti removal through using community service labour programs.
Proposed: As stated. A dedicated position could be created as either a short-term or ongoing position.
Cost: The cost of an appropriate officer’s salary, including on-costs, equipment and vehicle would be in the vicinity of $100,000 p/a.