My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Legal Review Committee Agenda and Packet 2017 03 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
LEGAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
>
2006-2019 Legal Review Committee Agendas and Packets
>
2017 Legal Review Committee Agendas and Packets
>
Legal Review Committee Agenda and Packet 2017 03 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:20:38 PM
Creation date
3/17/2017 2:20:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
LCPKT 2017 03 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
SUBJECT: <br />DATE: <br />DOOR-TO-DOOR SOLICITATION <br />MARCH 16, 2017 <br />PAGE 2 OF 3 <br />also prohibits non-compliance with a "no solicitation" or "no trespassing" sign posted on <br />private property. <br />If the City determines that it wishes to revise Chapter 5.06, it has several options. The <br />City could choose to repeal section 5.06.020.A, the outright ban on door-to-door <br />solicitation, and otherwise leave Chapter 5.06 as is. Another option is to replace the <br />total ban with narrower restrictions on soliciting, such as creating a solicitation license or <br />permit process, or a creation of a "do -not -solicit" list. Any of these options comes with <br />additional administrative costs such as costs for processing and enforcing licenses or <br />permits, and creates new legal risks for the City. <br />The first option, repealing the total ban, would still allow individuals to post notices on <br />their private property or businesses which would prohibit any door-to-door solicitors <br />from entering the premises, as stated in Section 5.06.030. This practice is followed, for <br />example, in the cities of Lakewood, Longmont, and Parker (ordinances attached). This <br />option would have Tess administrative costs for the City; however, the City Police <br />Department may be called upon more frequently to enforce any violations of the no - <br />solicitation signs. <br />if the City chooses the second option, repealing the total ban and replacing it with <br />additional regulations such as licensing or permitting requirements, or creation of a "do - <br />not -solicit" list, it could adopt regulations similar to those used in Aurora, Boulder, Castle <br />Rock, or Parker (ordinances attached). If the City desires to pursue this approach, it <br />would need to determine the specific components of its regulations. For example, in <br />addition to an application or permit process, would the regulations include requirements <br />such as sales tax deposits, surety bonds, background checks, identification cards, or <br />the management of a "do -not -solicit" list, all of which have associated administrative and <br />legal costs? <br />Attached are copies of the solicitation ordinances from the cities identified above. The <br />foliowina briefly describes some components of their regulations. Aurora's rules for <br />licensing require a sales tax deposit, surety bond, and a valid identification card that <br />expires 90 days after issuance. Boulder prohibits door-to-door solicitation when <br />prepayment for the product is required. All other door-to-door solicitors must be licensed <br />by the Boulder City Manager, which license must be displayed at all times that the <br />person is engaged in solicitations within the City and expires in twelve months. In <br />addition to requiring each company to apply for a solicitation permit, Parker requires <br />every individual solicitor to pay for an identification badge. Castle Rock's application for <br />a solicitor permit requires a non-refundable application fee of $35, identification <br />photographs, the license plate number, make and model of the car used for the <br />business, employment references for the previous two years, and disclosure of all <br />licenses currently held by applicant within the last five years, among other requirements. <br />Staff will be available to answer any questions about these ordinances and options for <br />revision at the meeting. <br />CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.