Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 26, 1995 <br />The Code Officer proposed that the City use the <br />exemption route for organizations such as Girl Scouts, <br />pointing out that the ordinance will not be as <br />effective if the ordinance is amended to exempt all <br />non-profits from licensing requirements. <br />Pedersen asked the rational in having this ordinance. <br />The Code Officer replied that it allows the City to <br />screen and regulate activities of solicitors within the <br />City. The $25 license fee covers staff time in <br />processing the license. <br />Pedersen suggested that the ordinance may screen out a <br />few solicitors. However, suggested that any solicitor <br />who is not legitimate would quickly work through the <br />City moving on to another city before it was discovered <br />that he or she were operating. <br />Scalze asked if this ordinance were typical of what <br />other cities have adopted. <br />The Code Officer replied that that is correct. The <br />majority of the proposed wording came from White Bear <br />Lake's ordinance. Ordinances from White Bear Township <br />and Shoreview were reviewed as well. <br />The City Attorney agreed that the ordinance was very <br />typical. Snformation that is required of solicitors <br />will be helpful if the City receives complaints. <br />The City Administrator indicated that the ordinance <br />gives the City the ability to go to the Sheriff with <br />complaints and have violations enforced. The current <br />ordinance provides little authority to regulate certain <br />types of solicitors. <br />Morelan asked if the information provided by solicitors <br />was public information, pointing out that the <br />information would be helpful if residents had a <br />complaint about a product they purchased from a <br />solicitor. <br />The City Attorney was not sure whether the information <br />was public. The City Attorney again stated that he <br />would like to review the ordinance in more detail with <br />regard to religious solicitation issues given the First <br />Amendment protection to such organizations. <br />Morelan withdrew his motion, and LaValle his second. <br />l0 <br />