My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08-07-2017 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2017
>
08-07-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2018 11:10:08 AM
Creation date
8/8/2017 12:09:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
08/07/2017
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
261
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).
View images
View plain text
RELEVANT LINKS: <br /> <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 <br />Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 22 <br /> <br />Larson v. City of Shelton, 37 <br />Wash.2d 481, 224 P.2d 1067 <br />(1950). <br />Bonding requirements for commercial activities may be used to ensure <br />compliance with city standards, and to protect the public from fraud and <br />other crimes. The protection of the public is an obvious reason for states and <br />cities to require peddlers to post a bond to obtain a license or permit. These <br />merchants are often here today and gone tomorrow. Unless a bond or deposit <br />is required, local residents will have no remedy if fraud occurs. <br />A.G. Op. 59a-32 (Jan. 13, <br />1961). A city considering including a bonding requirement must proceed with <br />caution. Bonding requirements for non-commercial activities will likely be <br />deemed unconstitutional if challenged. A bond may violate the Equal <br />Protection Clause or the Commerce Clause if not imposed evenhandedly and <br />a city cannot properly require a solicitor to post a bond. Finally, the required <br />bond amounts should not be excessive in regard to the activity being <br />regulated. <br /> F. Denying license <br />State ex rel. Cook v. Bates, <br />101 Minn. 301, 112 N.W. 67 <br />(1907). <br />Where a Minnesota city has the power to regulate, it exercises the authority <br />and considerable discretion to decide what restraints will be imposed. For <br />operations that are nothing more than a fraudulent attempt to trap the <br />unsuspecting or the unwary, a consequence of city regulations may be to <br />prohibit those activities altogether. <br /> Grounds for denying a license may include: <br /> • A material misrepresentation in the application. <br />• An applicant with “poor” moral character. <br />• Circumstances where granting the license would harm the safety, health, <br />morals, and general welfare of the community. <br />Handbook, Chapter 11. A licensing ordinance doesn’t generally need to specifically define terms <br />such as “good moral character” or “professional misconduct”. However, a <br />city cannot generally disqualify someone from a licensed occupation, <br />including peddling or transient sales, based solely upon a prior criminal <br />conviction. A prior conviction must directly relate to the occupation for <br />which the person is seeking the license. A city should also consider the time <br />elapsed since the conviction when determining whether it justifies a denial. <br /> G. Registration <br /> As a less intrusive option, cities can, as an alternative to a full licensing <br />process, require all peddlers and transient merchants to register with the city <br />prior to beginning their operations.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.