City of Fernley to enact Graffiti Ordinance
Betty Aleck Leader-Courier
Posted: 9/26/2006 01:58 pm


FERNLEY — The City of Fernley is proposing an Anti-Graffiti Ordinance that would cost those convicted of the crime a fine of $250 for the first offense, or both a fine and jail time.
Further, minors must perform 100 hours of community service, and an adult or guardian would be required to be in attendance 50% of the time.
At last Wednesday’s City Council meeting, the council voted 4-1 in favor of proposing the ordinance, with Councilman Joe Mortensen voting against the motion.
Due to the number of graffiti incidents that have popped up in the area recently, city fathers are hoping stiffer penalties will deter offenders.
The purpose, according to Bill #77, is “to help prevent the spread of graffiti vandalism and to establish a program for the removal of graffiti from public and private property.”
Graffiti is defined by state statute, NRS 268.4075 as, “any unauthorized inscription, word, figure or design that is marked, etched, scratched, drawn, or painted on the public or private property, real or personal, of another, which defaces such property.”
Bill #77 indicates graffiti can be positioned on property by means of “aerosol paint container, a broad-tipped marker, gum label, paint stick, or graffiti stick, etching equipment, brush, or any other devise capable of scarring or leaving a visible mark on any natural or manmade surface.”
Further, the bill makes it unlawful for any person under the age of 18 to possess graffiti instruments on school property, or areas adjacent to a public facility or at a public facility.
The proposed law also reads, “any person violating this ordinance shall be punished by a fine of $250 for the first offense; $500 for the second offense and $1,000 for the each subsequent offense, or by imprisonment for a term not to exceed six months, or by both fine or imprisonment at the discretion of the court.”
Other penalties read, “1. The minor or adult shall perform at least 100 hours of community service. 2. At least one parent or guardian of the minor shall be in attendance a minimum of 50% of the period of assigned community service. 3. The entire period of community service shall be performed under the supervision of a community service provider approved by the Court. 4. Reasonable effort shall be made to assign the minor or adult to a type of community service that is reasonably expected to have the most rehabilitative effect on the minor or adult, including community service that involves graffiti removal.”
Individuals such as store clerks or any adult that sells, gives, exchanges, loans, or furnishes graffiti implements to a minor can also be fined. Adults that sell or furnish give such devises to a minor can be fined up to $1,000.
A suspect that is caught defacing public or private property will have 24 hours to remove the graffiti and pay for the cost of the cleanup.
“Failure of any person to remove graffiti or pay for the removal shall constitute an additional violation of this Ordinance,” reads the proposed ordinance.
Property owners whose property was defaced with graffiti must remove the graffiti within ten days.
“It is unlawful for any person who is the owner or who has primary responsibility for control of property or for repair or maintenance of property in the City to permit property that is defaced with graffiti to remain defaced for a period of ten days after first class mail of notice of the defacement,” reads Bill #77.
An exception to that provision would be if the property owner could not pay for the removal of the graffiti.
Councilman Monte Martin noted early on in discussion that he was uncertain if the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office could enforce the law, as there are only 12 deputies working out of the local substation.
He added he supported the bill if the city could enforce it and if the city was serious about placing such laws on the books.
“Putting laws in is one thing, but enforcing is something else. We have other laws we haven’t gotten around to enforcing,” Martin said.
Councilman Ralph Menke had problems with the provision that requires the property owner to foot the bill for the clean up.
Mayor David Stix Jr., however, pointed out that such language is already in the International Building Code, which makes it the owners responsibility and codes the city has adopted.
“I agree with Ralph (Menke) it places an undue burden on the victim (property owner),” said Mortensen.
Councilman Curt Chaffin, however, said, “The alternative of going in the other direction is to let the property owners not take responsibility. That’s unacceptable.”
Menke was also uncomfortable with the City fining store clerks for selling paint or spray pain. He noted it created another layer of government.
City Attorney Justin Clouser remarked it is already illegal to sell spray paint to minors.
Initially the Council felt the hours of community service, which were 30, should be 200 hours.
However, Chaffin noted, “I’m not sure about 200 hours,” and then Martin remarked that there are 2,080 hours in a work week, the 200 hours is about 10% of that and, “That’s overkill.”
Martin then suggested giving the judge latitude and a range.
He and fellow councilmen, with the exception of Mortensen, agreed on 100 hours.
Resident and mayoral candidate Todd Cutler, who served as school principal for many years, remarked that most minors that commit such crimes don’t have involved parents. He further felt it might be difficult to get parents to participate in the community service program. Cutler also agreed that 100 hours of community service was sufficient and more enforceable.
The City of Sparks, at its meeting in September, voted increases graffiti offenders community service hours from 50-250 hours.
The City of Sparks, however, will pursue, through a bill draft to the State Legislature 2007, amending state laws governing destruction property that includes graffiti having stricter penalties.
The bill increases the community hours in that city.
When asked if the City of Fernley’s Anti-Graffiti law was predicated on the City of Sparks BDR, Clouser indicated that the City’s ordinance includes graffiti as a nuisance and defacement of property, not destruction of property.