BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 486
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
AB 486 (Hueso) - As Amended: April 11, 2011
SUBJECT : Graffiti tracking system: funding.
SUMMARY : Requires 10% of any amounts received by a city or
county with the jurisdiction of the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) as part of the recovery of funds used to
remove graffiti or other inscribed material from publicly owned
or privately owned real or personal property and 10% of any
amounts received by a city or county as part of recouping costs
associated with defacement by minors of its property and the
property of others by graffiti or other inscribed materials to
be paid to SANDAG annually for the purpose of funding a graffiti
tracking system to be administered by SANDAG. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Requires 10% of any amounts received by a city or county with
the jurisdiction of the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG) as part of the recovery of funds used to remove
graffiti or other inscribed material from publicly owned or
privately owned real or personal property and 10% of any
amounts received by a city or county as part of recouping
costs associated with defacement by minors of its property and
the property of others by graffiti or other inscribed
materials to be paid to SANDAG annually for the purpose of
funding a graffiti tracking system to be administered by
SANDAG.
2)Requires these provisions to become operative only upon the
establishment and operation
of a countywide graffiti tracking system administered by SANDAG.
3)Provides no reimbursement is required by this act because the
only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district are the result of a program for which legislative
authority was requested by that local agency or school
district.
4)Declares a special law is necessary because this act will
serve as a pilot program for local governments in San Diego
County and, therefore, there is a need to enact this act on a
AB 486
Page 2
trial basis only prior to extending this act to other
jurisdictions.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows a city, county, or city and county to enact an
ordinance to provide for the use of city or county funds to
remove graffiti or other inscribed material from publicly or
privately owned real or personal property located within the
city, county, or city and county and to replace or repair
public or privately owned property within that city, county,
or city and county that has been defaced with graffiti or
other inscribed material that cannot be removed cost
effectively and to establish a procedure to recover city or
county funds used for the removal of the graffiti or other
inscribed material.
2)Authorizes a city, county, or city and county to provide for
the summary abatement of any nuisance resulting from the
defacement of the property of another by graffiti or any other
inscribed material at the expense of the minor or other person
creating, causing, or
committing the nuisance and by ordinance to make the expense of
abatement of the nuisance a lien against property of the minor
or other person and a personal obligation against the minor or
other person.
3)Authorizes a city, county, or city and county to establish, by
ordinance, a procedure to collect abatement and related
administrative costs incurred in the summary abatement of any
nuisance resulting from the defacement by a minor or other
person of the property of another by graffiti or any other
inscribed material, and to record a graffiti nuisance
abatement lien.
4)Allows a city, county, or city and county to establish, by
ordinance, a procedure for the abatement of any nuisance
resulting from the defacement by a minor or other person of
property of another by graffiti or other inscribed material
and to make the abatement and related administrative costs a
special assessment against a parcel of land owned by the minor
or other person or by the parent or guardian having custody
and control of the minor.
AB 486
Page 3
5)Provides that every person who maliciously defaces real or
personal property with graffiti or other inscribed material is
guilty of vandalism.
6)Authorizes a city, county, or city and county to elect, by
ordinance, to have the probation officer of the county recoup
for it, through juvenile court proceedings its costs
associated with defacement by minors of its property and the
property of others by graffiti or other inscribed material.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)A countywide graffiti-tracking pilot program commenced in the
San Diego region in January 2011, with the goal of linking
vandalized property to individual taggers. The County of San
Diego, 18 cities in the region, Metropolitan Transit System,
North County Transit District, and San Diego Unified Port
District are working together to test the 18-month pilot
project. The tracking system analyzes the symbols vandals
leave behind to determine a tagger's patterns or geographic
areas countywide. The intent is to coordinate law enforcement
throughout the San Diego region to aid in prosecuting vandals.
The County of San Diego and some cities in the region already
have used the services of Graffiti Tracker, a company that
uses a global positioning system-enabled camera to take photos
of graffiti and record the time, date, and location. The
company then creates a database of the photos for law
enforcement. Graffiti Tracker was first used in the City of
Escondido and was expanded to the City of Oceanside and areas
patrolled by the County of San Diego.
2)According to the author, graffiti is a real threat to public
safety and affects our local economy by scaring away
businesses and lowering property values. The author says
prosecutors can seek a larger restitution amount if they can
show more incidents involving the individual tagger. The
author says cities and agencies within the San Diego region
are finding it difficult to continue funding a
graffiti-tracking program, and AB 486 would provide a
permanent funding stream.
AB 486
Page 4
3)The current and ongoing graffiti-tracking pilot program is not
scheduled to end until June 2012. At the end of that period,
SANDAG will do an evaluation based on a number of factors,
including whether restitution money from graffiti crimes is an
appropriate way to fund a full-scale program and whether
restitution money is a sustainable source of revenue. AB 486
would become law on January 1, 2011. The Committee may wish
to consider whether AB 486 is ahead of its time and should be
tabled until after SANDAG's evaluation of the
graffiti-tracking pilot program.
AB 486 also only requires cities in the San Diego region and the
County of San Diego to pay for a graffiti-tracking program
that is established and administered by SANDAG. The other
local agencies in the region - such as the Metropolitan
Transit System, North County Transit District, and the San
Diego Unified Port District - are not required under AB 486 to
dedicate any funds even though they would benefit from the
program as well. The Committee may wish to consider whether
this is a fair and equitable way to fund a local program that
encompasses many different local agencies.
Furthermore, AB 486 binds the hands of future city councils in
the San Diego region and boards of supervisors for the County
of San Diego. While at this time, these municipalities
support handing over 10% of their restitution money from
graffiti crimes, future governments might not be so keen on
the proposition. To reverse this mandate, future legislation
would be required. The Committee may wish to consider whether
it is prudent to enact legislation to provide a permanent and
dedicated funding stream to a local program.
4)AB 528 (Aghazarian, 2007), which sought to establish the "Tag,
You're It" Graffiti Vandalism Prevention and Prosecution pilot
program through the Office of Emergency Services, Division of
Law Enforcement and Victims Services, and to appropriate $5
million from the General Fund, was held in Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
5)Support arguments: Supporters, County of San Diego, say
permanent funding will enable law enforcement to solve
graffiti crimes more efficiently and prosecute and seek
restitution from graffiti vandals.
Opposition arguments: Opposition might argue AB 486 is premature
AB 486
Page 5
because the graffiti-tracking pilot program started at the
beginning of 2011 and will not be completed until June 2012.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
County of San Diego �SPONSOR]
Honorable Steve Castaneda, Councilmember, City of Chula Vista
City of Chula Vista, National City
Honorable Louis Scanlon, Chief of Police, City of Coronado
San Diego Association of Governments (in concept)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer Klein Baldwin / L. GOV. /
(916) 319-3958