Council hears revised solicitation ordinance; legal counsel flags First Amendment limits and enforcement issues

City legal counsel presented a broad rewrite of the solicitation ordinance intended to cover transient merchants, itinerant vendors, peddlers, panhandling and related activities. Counsel prefaced the discussion by saying much of the regulation is constrained by First Amendment decisions and that the draft emphasizes implementation discretion where the law allows.

Counsel said: “Probably my answer, to the overwhelming majority of those questions is gonna be the First Amendment,” and noted that U.S. Supreme Court precedent has treated panhandling as protected speech. That legal framing led councilors to ask detailed questions about exemptions for youth fundraising, whether a five‑year criminal history lookback is adequate, how no‑solicit lists for private property would be made available, and whether revocation authority should rest with the police chief, the city administrator or a designee.

Chief Stevens, representing enforcement perspective, called the draft “about as clean an ordinance as you’re gonna get in this area,” but cautioned enforcement becomes difficult if officers must parse many technical exceptions in the field and recommended practical implementation guidance to prioritize common complaints. Council asked staff to refine language on hours, exemptions (nonprofits/youth fundraisers), conviction lookbacks, and to propose an administrative‑revocation process (police chief or designee plus administrative review). Staff said they will return revised language based on council direction.

No formal ordinance was adopted at the committee meeting; the draft will be edited and come back for further consideration.