Martinsville council tables review of peddler/solicitor permit, forms subcommittee

5792782 · August 29, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Martinsville Common Council voted to table consideration of changes to the city's peddler/solicitor permit ordinance and asked a small subcommittee and staff to research enforcement, fees and examples from other cities before returning with recommendations.

Martinsville — The Martinsville Common Council on Aug. 25 voted to table discussion of changes to the city’s peddler/solicitor permit ordinance and asked a small subcommittee and city staff to research enforcement practices and fees used by other municipalities. The issue was raised by a city staff member who said the current code requires individuals to obtain background checks and a $10, 180‑day permit but that the process is “pretty ineffective.” The staff member said about 90% of applicants never complete the process and that the city spends substantial staff time for little revenue. “We found that about 90% of them never complete the loop,” the staff member said. Council members discussed possible next steps, including forming a 1–3 person subcommittee to survey other communities’ ordinances, enforcement tools and fee schedules. One council member asked whether raising the fee would deter completion; the staff member replied that a $50–$75 fee would better match city staff time but expressed concern higher fees could further reduce completion. City counsel Coffey outlined the formal steps required if the council decides to amend the ordinance: preparation of a draft amendment, a public hearing on the proposed change and the ordinance-adoption process, which typically requires multiple council meetings. “If the subcommittee found some information, we can bring them up to the next meeting… and then we can put this on for maybe either the second meeting in September to start the process or the first in October,” a council member said. A motion to table the item until the council’s next meeting passed. The council asked staff member Dev and a volunteer council member to collect examples from other jurisdictions and report back at the next meeting. The council did not adopt any ordinance changes at the Aug. 25 meeting; the matter remains under study and will return to the council only if a draft amendment and public-hearing schedule are prepared.