Council adopts solicitation ordinance increasing penalties after complaints about one company

Orrville City Council on April 7 adopted Ordinance B-25, amending sections 721.01 through 721.99 of the city's codified ordinances to update solicitor registration, restrict solicitation hours and increase penalties for violations. Council declared an emergency for the ordinance.

The change is intended to tighten enforcement after staff said one company repeatedly sent solicitors into the city and ignored the previous penalties. During the meeting Safety-Service Director Ryan Wheeler briefed council and described the amendment as focused on the penalty provisions "to put a little more teeth in it" and to discourage repeat violations. Wheeler said Chief Silas of the police department joined the presentation to answer department-specific questions about enforcement and execution of the ordinance.

The ordinance text presented at the meeting stated it amends the codified ordinances related to solicitors and repeals inconsistent legislation; it also included an emergency clause to make the ordinance effective immediately upon adoption.

Formal action: a council member moved that Ordinance B-25 be adopted "as read" (the mover was not identified on the transcript) and Council Member Wax seconded. The roll-call vote recorded on the transcript was: Carr — yes; Shanklin — yes; Squirrel — yes; Esparis (recorded as "Espers") — yes; Wax — yes; Davies — yes. The meeting transcript records the motion as passed.

Council discussion before the vote was brief; staff framed the amendment as a response to specific complaints and an attempt to strengthen deterrence. No numeric penalty amounts were stated aloud during the presentation. The ordinance as introduced said it "declare[d] emergency," which council adopted, making the changes effective immediately under the city code process.

The ordinance vote was the substantive action on the agenda; council also approved the March 17 meeting minutes earlier in the meeting (motion by Davies, second by Shanklin) and approved January and February fund-balance reports (motion moved by Carr, seconded by Shanklin), both recorded as passed in the transcript. The meeting adjourned by unanimous recorded vote.

The city attorney or staff did not read a revised penalty schedule on the record during the meeting; the ordinance description in the agenda and the adopting motion were the recorded actions. For details about the new penalty amounts and enforcement procedures, council members and residents must consult the adopted ordinance text as filed with the clerk.