Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Code Solicitation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Indian Trail council adopts code amendment separating panhandling and door-to-door solicitation rules
Summary
The Town Council approved Municipal Code Amendment MC 2025-0014 to separate state-regulated solicitations (such as panhandling in rights-of-way) from local door-to-door solicitation rules; the change adopts statutory penalties including a class 2 misdemeanor where applicable.
Get email alerts on the Municipal Code Solicitation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Indian Trail Town Council on an evening vote approved Municipal Code Amendment MC 2025-0014, which separates local door-to-door solicitation rules from state-regulated solicitation activities such as roadside panhandling.
Town staff member Brandy, presenting the code change during a public hearing, told the council the amendment “separates those out” because “the state sets out a little bit different requirements for fees and bonds and insurance requirements and so it's much cleaner to separate those two out.” The amendment also incorporates the state penalty framework, including language creating a class 2 misdemeanor where state law provides that penalty.
Why it matters: council members and staff said the change clarifies when local rules apply and when state law governs permitting, bonds and insurance. Council members asked whether charitable groups — for example, Girl Scouts or church volunteers — would be exempt; Brandy said the code retains an exemption at the start of title 114 that allows those groups to solicit without the same permitting requirements.
During the hearing council members also raised enforcement questions. Council member Alsabrooks asked whether residents should call the sheriff's office if they see someone panhandling; Brandy said enforcement is coordinated between code enforcement and deputies and “they would know right off if a permit had been issued.” Brandy also said statutory insurance and bonding requirements apply in right-of-way solicitations and that the town followed state statutory language when drafting the amendment.
The council voted to approve the amendment as presented.

