HomeMy WebLinkAboutG2-25 Ordinance G2-25
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 6.45 ENTITLED"PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS"
OF THE ELGIN MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS,Chapter 6.45 of the Elgin Municipal Code,entitled"Peddlers and Solicitors,"
sets forth certain regulations with respect to activities defined as peddling and soliciting within the
City of Elgin; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.45.040 further sets forth regulations with respect to the solicitation
of funds on public streets and sidewalks by requiring a permit for such solicitation and regulating
such solicitation activities by placing significant limitations on such activities with respect to time,
location, and manner; and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Reed v. Town of
Gilbert, 135 S.Ct. 2218 (2015), which generally held that a regulation that depends on the
communicative content of any speech activities in a public forum must be narrowly tailored to
serve a compelling governmental interest; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the regulation of speech in an
area considered to be a non-public forum for purposes of First Amendment analysis is subject to a
lesser standard of scrutiny whereby the regulation of speech must be reasonable in light of its
purpose and viewpoint neutral; (See Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators'Assn.,460 U.S. 37
(1983); Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985); United States
v. Kokinda,497 U.S. 720(1990); Int'1 Society of Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672
(1992); Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 2239 (2015) (decided
the same day as Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, 135 S.Ct. 2218 (2015)); and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court in Int'1 Soc'y of Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505
U.S. 672 (1992) upheld a solicitation ban in a non-public forum applying the reasonableness
standard; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court in Int'1 Soc'y of Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505
U.S. 672 (1992) further recognized that in-person solicitation for the immediate receipt of funds
creates a risk of fraud and duress that is different in kind from other forms of expression and
conduct, that such in-person solicitation has been associated with coercive or fraudulent conduct,
and that such solicitation is an appropriate subject of regulation (see Int'1 Soc'y of Krishna
Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. at 684; Id. at 705 (Kennedy, J., concurring)); and
WHEREAS, the city has determined that it is advisable in light of the decision in Reed v.
Town of Gilbert, and its progeny to amend and clarify its existing regulations on solicitation
including enacting certain reasonable restrictions on certain in-person solicitations for the
immediate receipt of funds in areas that the city has determined to be non-public forums,consistent
with the decision in Reed v. Town Gilbert and other the authorities referenced here; and
WHEREAS, section 11-80-2 of the Illinois Municipal Code(65 ILCS 5/11-80-2)provides
that the "corporate authorities of each municipality may regulate the use of the streets and other
municipal property;"and
WHEREAS, section 11-80-9 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/11-80-9)provides
that the "corporate authorities of each municipality may prevent and regulate all amusements and
activities having a tendency to annoy or endanger persons or property on the sidewalks, streets,
and other municipal property;" and
WHEREAS, section 11-80-20 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/11-80-20)
provides that "the corporate authorities of each municipality may regulate traffic and sales upon
the streets, sidewalks, public places, and municipal property;" and
WHEREAS, section 1-179 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/1-179) defines
"roadway" as "[t]hat portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular
travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder;" and
WHEREAS, section 1-188 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/1-188) defines
"sidewalk" as "[t]hat portion of a street between the curb lines, or the lateral lines of a roadway,
and the adjacent property lines, intended for use of pedestrians;" and
WHEREAS, section 11-1007 of the Illinois Vehicle Code(625 ILCS 5/11-1007), pursuant
to Article X of the Illinois Rules of the Road entitled "Pedestrians' Rights and Duties," provides
that"where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian
to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway;" and
WHEREAS, Illinois courts have held that pedestrians are not the intended and permitted
users of street medians, finding that "it would be unreasonable to allow pedestrians to use the
dangerous area between lanes of traffic flowing in opposite directions;" Roberson v. City of
Chicago, 260 I11. App. 3d 994, 998 (1st Dist. 1994);see also Krampert v. Village of Mt. Prospect,
323 Ill. App. 3d 41, 44 (1st Dist. 2001); and
WHEREAS, since 2015 the number of reported accidents at those intersections where
solicitation is limited under the Elgin Municipal Code has increased by more than sixty percent
(60%), from 114 accidents in 2015 to 184 accidents in 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City of Elgin is a home rule unit authorized to exercise any power and
perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs; and
WHEREAS, regulations relating to the use of city roadways and streets and the activities
thereon bear directly upon public health, safety, and welfare, and pertain to the government and
affairs of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ELGIN, ILLINOIS:
Section 1. That Chapter 6.45 of the Elgin Municipal Code, entitled "Peddlers and
Solicitors,"be and is hereby further amended by adding a new Section 6.45.005 entitled"Purpose
and Intent:"to read as follows:
"6.45.005: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
This Chapter 6.45 is intended to be narrowly tailored to the City of Elgin's legitimate
interest in preventing fraud, the privacy of its residents, the prevention of crime, the
protection of vehicular and pedestrian safety, and conserving the police department's
resources. This chapter is expressly not intended to interfere with the exercise of free
speech and free exercise rights protected by the First Amendment within public forums
including, but not limited to, religious proselytizing, political speech, and the distribution
of handbills. This chapter is also not intended to regulate or restrict the content of any
personal solicitation other than to prohibit false or misleading speech that is not protected
under the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution, and to restrict the immediate receipt of
funds in certain non-public forums. This chapter shall not be construed, applied.
interpreted, or enforced in a way that is based upon the content of or the views expressed
in any personal solicitation."
Section 2. That Section 6.45.010 of the Elgin Municipal Code, entitled '`Definitions,"
be and is hereby further amended by adding to the listing of definitions therein the additional
definitions for"Median," "Public Forum," and "Roadway," to read as follows:
"MEDIAN: Any area in the middle of a roadway separating two or more lanes of travel
and designed to provide a barrier or separation to keep traffic on one side of a roadway
from going to the other side of the roadway.
PUBLIC FORUM: Public property that has traditionally been open to the public for speech,
assembly, and debate including public streets, sidewalks, and parks, but not including
roadways as defined herein.
ROADWAY: That portion of a public right-of-way,improved,designed,or ordinarily used
for vehicular travel, inclusive of any medians, crosswalks, or pedestrian areas within the
boundaries of such roadways that are improved, designed, or ordinarily used to facilitate
the crossing of such roadways by pedestrians. A public roadway shall not be considered a
public forum for any purposes."
Section 3. That Section 6.45.020 of the Elgin Municipal Code, 1976, as amended,
entitled "Permit Requirements and Exceptions," be and is hereby further amended by amending
subsection F thereof to read as follows:
••
"F. Any solicitation made upon any public street or sidewalk requesting the contribution
of funds or anything of value; provided further however, it shall be unlawful for any
person to engage in such activities within a public roadway pursuant to section 6.45.040
of this chapter."
Section 4. That Section 6.45.040 of the Elgin Municipal Code, entitled "Permit for
Solicitation of Funds on Public Streets or Sidewalks,"be and is hereby further amended to read as
follows:
"6.45.040: PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITIES WITHIN PUBLIC ROADWAYS
PROHIBITED:
A. No person or entity shall be permitted to stop or stand within any public roadway,
including but not limited to on any,median, crosswalk, or other pedestrian area located
within the roadway, for the purpose of remaining upon or engaging in any activities
within such roadway.
B. No person or entity shall engage in any activity from within any public roadway, or
from any sidewalk or other area adjoining a public roadway, in any manner that
interferes with or obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and shall comply with all
applicable traffic regulations."
Section 5. That Section 6.45.050 of the Elgin Municipal Code, entitled "Permit
Application:" be and is hereby further amended by amending subsection B thereof to read as
follows:
"B.Every person subject to the provisions of section 6.45.030 shall file with the city's chief
financial officer an application in writing on a form to be furnished by the chief
financial officer, which shall provide the following information:"
Section 6. That Section 6.45.070 of the Elgin Municipal Code, entitled "Denial of
Permit:"be and is hereby further amended by amending subsection A.6 thereof to read as follows:
"6. The applicant or a person the applicant proposes to sponsor as a peddler or solicitor
pursuant to section 6.45.030 has been denied a permit under this chapter within the
immediate past year, unless the applicant can and does show to the satisfaction of the
chief financial officer that the reasons for such earlier denial no longer exist"
Section 7. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance be and are hereby repealed to the extent of any such conflict.
a
Section 8. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its
passage and publication in the manner provided by law.
David J. Ka n, yor
Presented: February 12, 2025
Passed: February 12, 2025
Omnibus Vote: Yeas: 9 Nays: 0
Recorded: February 12, 2025
Published: February 12, 2025 • a-_.t
r ,,F,
Att st: /(-(/'/A %`\ri,y"t0 ,
f
imberly De is,' C erk ok z--5ct>',,
5