Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Soliciting Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Centerton council opens discussion on no‑soliciting rules, asks staff to draft ordinance
Summary
After complaints about late‑evening door‑to‑door solicitations and a threatened legal challenge, the council directed staff to draft an ordinance updating hours and sign requirements. Council favored requiring a no‑soliciting sign and limiting solicitor hours to 9 a.m. until sunset, and asked staff to propose revised fees and permit rules.
Centerton — The Centerton City Council discussed changes to the city’s no‑soliciting policy on Sept. 13 after a company continued door‑to‑door activity in residential neighborhoods past the hours set by the city and the company threatened legal action.
Resident John Box raised the issue during public comment and recommended Centerton emulate Bentonville’s program of supplying free no‑soliciting signs to residents. Council and staff recounted repeated calls to the company and said the city had suspended the company’s solicitor permit after repeated violations.
Council members heard from city legal and administrative staff about constitutional and practical limits on regulating door‑to‑door speech. City staff noted the Municipal League’s view that a 7 p.m. cutoff — the city’s existing rule — may be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge and presented examples of nearby cities whose policies set limits such as 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. or sunrise/sunset approaches.
What council asked staff to do: Council members generally agreed to direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance for a future meeting that would (a) set solicitor hours using a test of 9 a.m. to sunset (sunset as published by NOAA or equivalent astronomical tables), (b) offer a standardized city‑issued “No Soliciting” sign free to residents while allowing homeowner‑supplied signs, and (c) review the solicitor permit fee and enforcement provisions. Council discussed stronger penalties and permit suspension for repeat violations and asked staff to research whether permit revocation should apply to individual solicitors or the company that employs them.
Legal context: City staff and the city’s legal representative explained the constitutional tradeoffs in restricting time, place and manner of speech; staff recommended a narrowly tailored approach and added transparency about how sign and hours enforcement would operate. The council asked the city attorney‑role staff to return with recommended ordinance language and fee adjustments.
What the city will do next: Staff will prepare a proposed ordinance for council consideration at a future meeting, including suggested permit fees, rules for background checks or permit conditions and draft penalty language for repeat violations. Staff also will research costs for a standardized city sign stock and options for distribution to residents.
Ending note: Council members emphasized both residents’ privacy after dark and the need for a clear, enforceable rule that balances constitutional considerations and neighborhood safety; the matter will return for an ordinance vote in a future meeting.
