HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/03/10 City Council Item No. 10CITY OF
LADE LSINORE
`u DREAM EXTREMEn
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 10, 2009
SUBJECT: GRAFFITI ACTION PLAN 30 -DAY PROGRESS REPORT
Background
On February 10, 2009, the City Council adopted the recommendations of the Graffiti
Task Force as contained in the Graffiti Action Plan. The Council directed staff to return
in 30 days with a progress report on cost reduction efforts and plan implementation.
Discussion
In adopting the Graffiti Action Plan, the City Council directed the Task Force to take a
second look at potential cost - saving measures, including:
1. Comparing a video surveillance system used by the City of Garden Grove to the
Task Force's proposed "hot spot" surveillance pilot project;
2. Determining the feasibility of substituting a custom graffiti tracking database
developed by the City of Garden Grove (available at no cost "as is "), instead of
licensing the proprietary Graffiti Tracker solution;
3. Comparing camera and database successes in other cities to validate Lake
Elsinore's Graffiti Action Plan recommendations.
Findings:
Objective 1. Comparing a video surveillance system used by the City of Garden Grove
to the Task Force's proposed "hot spot" surveillance pilot project.
Action: Task Force members met with
Kloess (GG IT Dept.) in Garden Grove
surveillance system.
Sgt. Joe Gallardo (GGPD, ret.) and Geoff
for a demonstration of the Axiom video
Agenda Item No. 10
Page 1 of 8
Graffiti Action Plan Progress Report
March 10, 2009
Page 2
Description: Garden Grove actively monitors six intersections, parks and commercial
locations using a commercial video surveillance system. The system is based on a
successful project by the City of Montebello in Los Angeles County. Garden Grove
concedes its implementation was bumpy because a project scope of work was not
included with the equipment order and because of reliance on slow cellular wireless
versus a broadband video connection for data transmission over their remote network.
Conclusion: Lake Elsinore's proposed surveillance pilot study cannot be compared
with the system used by the City of Garden Grove because of differences in video
versus digital photo technology. Garden Grove's video system is used by the GG Police
Department for real -time surveillance. Lake Elsinore is not proposing video surveillance.
Lake Elsinore's proposed photo surveillance system is designed as a mobile deterrent
that can be deployed at City parks, public facilities or other known graffiti "hot spots" on
a rotating basis. This system has effectively been used by other cities to reduce
vandalism in problem areas.
Garden Grove surveillance system Proposed Q -Star surveillance system
LIVE VIDEO, SENSOR ACTIVATED I STILL- PHOTO, MOTION TRIGGERED
a) Multiple video camera system on
wi -fi network
b) Video cameras w/ remote control
and live action monitoring
c) Fixed mount, not portable
d) Power supplied to each camera
e) Real time monitoring activated via
remote sensors
f) Video feed via cellular wireless
g) NA
h) NA
Stand alone day /night camera
units (not networked)
b) Still- camera, no remote control or
live monitoring
c) Portable, units are self- contained
d) Solar powered, no hard - wiring
e) Passive monitoring, data must be
downloaded within wi -fi range
f) Data downloads via wi -fi PC card
g) Audio warning triggered by motion
h) Night photo capability with flash
i) Controlled by GG Police Dept at
headquarters and dispatch center
i) Data is downloaded by City or
LEPD personnel using wi -fi
enabled PC laptop computer
Recommendation: Testimonials from the City of San Jacinto and news reports of other
cities validate use of the Q -Star portable surveillance camera system as an effective
deterrent to graffiti vandalism. However, to cut costs, the original Graffiti Task Force
recommendation for purchase of five Q -Star surveillance cameras will be modified.
Cost savings can be achieved by:
1. Preparing a Request for Proposals (RFP) and scope of work for competitive bids
on Q -Star, or equivalent, portable photo surveillance equipment;
Agenda Item No. 10
Page 2 of 8
Graffiti Action Plan Progress Report
March 10, 2009
Page 3
2. Reducing Q -Star purchase from 5 to 3 units and substituting 2 dummy units (e.g.,
non - functional camera look - alikes) will maintain the statistical validity of the
proposed pilot study, saving up to $12,000;
3. Use of available Supplemental Law Enforcement Grant monies is still the
preferred funding source to avoid encumbering RDA funds or CIP- General Fund
revenue in FY 2008 -09.
Objective 2. Determining the feasibility of substituting a custom graffiti tracking
database developed by the City of Garden Grove (available at no cost "as is "), instead
of licensing the proprietary Graffiti Tracker solution.
Note: alternatives to Garden Grove's database system are also under review. Namely,
licensing of Orange County's T.A.G.R.S. or City of Santa Clarita's tracking systems.
Action: City IT /GIS staff met with Sgt. Joe Gallardo (GGPD, ret.) and Geoff Kloess (IT
Dept.) in Garden Grove for a demonstration of a custom -built graffiti tracking system.
Description: The City of Garden Grove's IT Department has custom -built its enterprise
and police administration computer systems using open- source architecture (non -
Windows based). Their graffiti module is tightly integrated with the City's enterprise
information systems. The Police Department is responsible for data entry, photo entry,
graffiti analysis and evidence collection. It is an impressive, one -of -a -kind solution and
served as the model for a new shared system launched by the Orange County Sheriff's
Department called T.A.G.R.S. Tracking Automated and Graffiti Reporting System.
Conclusion: The good news is that Garden Grove has given Lake Elsinore a
promising lead on Orange County's new T.A.G.R.S. software, which could save money
and is available for use by City as an Internet -based graffiti tracking application
(attachment 'B'). Garden Grove's custom solution is not "system- ready" or adaptable to
Lake Elsinore's enterprise computing systems and would not function as a standalone
application in Lake Elsinore's computing environment.
Recommendation: Staff has arranged a demonstration of the T.A.G.R.S. system
through the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Staff has also obtained a graffiti
database tracking system service agreement developed by the City of Santa Clarita,
which involves both one -time and annual maintenance /support charges.
Cost savings can be achieved by:
1. Deferring purchase of Graffiti Tracker proprietary database solution, saving
between $7,000 to 12,000 for the annual license;
2. Not purchasing 2 Ricoh digital GPS cameras that work with Graffiti Tracker, for a
savings of $3,000;
3. Running a cost - benefit analysis of the Orange County T.A.G.R.S. versus City of
Santa Clarita database tracking system, or other solutions; Agenda Item No. 10
Page 3 of 8
Graffiti Action Plan Progress Report
March 10, 2009
Page 4
4. Recommending a database solution for City Council consideration in early April.
Objective 3. Comparing camera and database successes in other cities to validate
Lake Elsinore's Graffiti Action Plan recommendations.
Action: Staff reconnected with the City of San Jacinto and extensively interviewed
Garden Grove to test the conclusions that were originally part of the Graffiti Action Plan.
These technology -based strategies are sound and competitive pricing is available.
Description: The goal of the Graffiti Action Plan is to be flexible using existing labor
and new technology to increase graffiti incident tracking for increased restitution, as well
as increasing public awareness and outreach about the City's graffiti laws using a
variety of online and traditional PR strategies.
Conclusion: The Task Force has followed the City Council's directive to cut the cost of
implementing the new Graffiti Action Plan. Avoided licensing fees to acquire Graffiti
Tracker could be the most beneficial shift, assuming, for example, that the T.A.G.R.S.
database delivers similar functionality for less. Purchasing 3 instead of 5 surveillance
camera units and 2 dummy systems will avoid up to $12,000 in one -time costs.
Recommendation: The solutions that have been re- examined over the last 30 days
demonstrate how Graffiti Action Plan strategies can successfully be modified to save
money without sacrificing the plan's effectiveness.
Graffiti Plan Implementation Status
The City Council requested a progress report on plan implementation after 30 days. The
following actions have occurred, which will enable the City to hold to the proposed
schedule through June 30 (end of fiscal year 2008 -09).
1. Activate Graffiti Hotline. On March 9, 2009, customers will be able to dial (951)
674 -2701 for graffiti service requests. This automated phone line is patterned
after the City of Santa Clarita's hotline. The intent is to give customers the ability
to report graffiti information 24/7, which City staff will then enter into a work order.
Publicity using the Web site, printed material, a news release and other materials
will promote use of the new hotline and the Web for reporting graffiti incidents.
2. Initiate meeting with LEUSD to coordinate graffiti- fighting efforts, especially with
regard to education and outreach. Staff has made contact with the School District
to outline strategies for communicating with students, faculty and parents about
graffiti laws and the consequences for offenders who are caught.
3. Commercial Outreach. Staff is working with Code Enforcement/Building and
Safety to integrate graffiti outreach and compliance monitoring with the existing
business license inspection program. GIS is preparing mailing data for a targeted
Agenda Item No. 10
Page 4 of 8
Graffiti Action Plan Progress Report
March 10, 2009
Page 5
mailing about the Graffiti Abatement Ordinance requirements (LEMC 9.52) to
businesses where regulated graffiti implements (e.g., spray paint) are sold.
Fiscal Impact
Last month, staff presented a $68,000 cost of implementing the Graffiti Plan in FY 2008-
09. Attachment `A' has been revised to show the potential savings that may result from
substituting the proprietary Graffiti Tracker solution with a less costly alternative, such
as T.A.G.R.S., not purchasing 2 Ricoh GPS cameras (which work with Graffiti Tagger),
and lowering the Q -Star surveillance camera purchase from 5 to 3, plus 2 dummy units.
Conservatively, the estimated savings is between $12,000 and $24,000, a range of 18%
to 35% below the proposed budget request. This range allows for contingencies or cost
unknowns until final RFP -based quotes are in hand.
The identified funding sources in Attachment 'A' (General Fund, CIP and Supplemental
Law Grant) would cover these program costs in the current fiscal year.
Recommendation
Receive and file.
Prepared by: Mark Dennis 'X///-5L --
Information /Communications Manager
Approved by: Robert A. Brady n(�,
City Manager �/�J/
Agenda Item No. 10
Page 5 of 8
Attachment'A'
Graffiti Action Plan
Budget Recommendations Revised
No. Item
Notes
1
Graffiti Tracker tracking software
Annual licensing range $7K-12K
7,000
(7,000)
2
Alternative database system
T.A.G.R.S.+ 6 cellular smart phones
4,320 (1)
3
Surveillance cameras
Q -Star or equivalent
35,000
22,954 (2)
5
GPS Cameras
Hardware
3,000
(3,000)
6
Education & Outreach
Graphic Design, Printing, Mailing
23,000
23,000
Subtotal
68,000
40,274
Net Savings
$ 27,726
SAVINGS RANGE Contingency allowance until quoted $ 12,000- 24,000
FUNDING SOURCES General Fund FY 2008 -09 23,000
Supplemental Law Enf. Grant 38,000
CIP (paid from RDA accounts) 35,000
Subtotal 5 96.000
NOTES
(1) Purchase 6 smartphones @ 4 months pro -rated service; TAGRS maintenance or one -time fees not included
(2) Per quote #13296, 3 full & dummy units includes accessories @$7,651.43 /promo package (1 unit /1 dummy)
(3) Contingencies include T.A.G.R.S. maintenance charges, if any, and adjustments after RFP quotes received
(3)
Agenda Item No. 10
City Council March 10, 2009 09 Plan Budget reftdo(bf 8
New weapon to fight graffiti unveiled I graffiti, system, sheriff, county, orange - News - 0... Page 1 of 2
Attachment B
TMGISTER
acregMeccam
Monday, September 8, 2008
New weapon to fight
graffiti unveiled
Automated reporting
system has already reduced
tagging in Stanton and on
county buses, officials say.
By ERIC CARPENTER
The Orange County Register
STANTON — Orange County sheriffs, city
and transportation officials unveiled a new
weapon today in the ongoing — and often
frustrating — fight against graffiti.
he Sheriffs Departments system, called
Tracking Automated Graffiti Reporting
System, or TAGRS, uses cell phones
equipped with cameras and positioning devices devices to document and track
graffiti.
The system has been tested since earlier
this year and has already proven to be an
effective tool in reducing incidents of
tagging, Orange County Sheriff Sandra
Hutchens said.
"This gives us hope that tagging will be
removed from the list of crimes that
commonly go unpunished," Hutchens said.
Using the new system, information about
the type of graffiti, its size and location, and
the cost to remove it is entered into a
countywide database before its wiped out,
so that investigators can compare the
information across cities and jurisdictions.
Investigators can use the information to
identify graffiti vandals by name, moniker
and gang or tagging crew, officials said.
When a suspected graffiti vandal is arrested,
the database can be checked to see if
the person might be responsible for other
tagging.
About 15 agencies have signed on to
participate, including La Mirada, in Los
Angeles County. O fficials hope that other
wi ll sign up. said Assistant Sheriff Mik
J ames. There is no cost to join, other than fo
agencies to pay for their own cameras to
t rack the graffiti, he added.
The Orange County Transportation
Authority helped develop the technology and
has used it since April. Along with the use of
cameras inside buses, the new system has
Advertisement
http : / /www.ocregister.com /articles /graffiti- system - sheriff - 2149693- county -orange 3/4/2009
Agenda Item No. 10
Page 7 of 8
Print Powered By td, rn i" = t?ynamics
New weapon to fight graffiti unveiled I graffiti, system, sheriff, county, orange - News - 0... Page 2 of 2
Attachment B
� �ai xre ebua-rr
1STM
already helped reduced incidents of tagging
on county buses by 46 percent this year
compared to last, said Carolyn Cavecche, an
OCTA board member and mayor of Orange.
OCTA spends about $300,000 a year on
graffiti removal and repairs, Cavecche said.
The U.S. Justice Department has estimated it
at a $12 billion annual problem nationwide.
"Our buses are like moving targets for
taggers," she said. 'This used to result in
stacks of paperwork and photos at the end
of each day. Now it's a much easier process
to upload the information directly into the
system.... And we're already seeing the
impact."
Private companies have offered similar
technology in the past. Sheriffs officials said
that having an in -house system allows better
co-operation throughout the county.
The sheriffs program was unveiled today at
a news conference in a Stanton
neighborhood, near Stanton and Lessue
avenues, that is often marred by graffiti.
Stanton has participated in the program
since February.
Phil Balon, 47, who grew up in the
neighborhood, said he has some doubts
about how much it will help, but he welcomes
the effort.
" I think as long as there are spray cans,
there will be graffiti — it's like an ancient form
of communication," Balon said. "But once you
let it go and people cross it out, graffiti can
become gunfire. And we definitely don't want
that around here."
Contact the writer: 714 - 704 -3769 or
ecarpenter @ocregister.com
Advertisement
http : / /www.ocregister.comlarticles /graffiti- system - sheriff - 2149693 -county-orange 3/4/2009
Agenda Item No. 10
Page 8 of 8
Print Powered By Aj of .na* Dynamics