Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates peddlers' license changes, weighing state checks, fees and enforcement
Summary
Martinsville councilors discussed amending the peddler ordinance to require Indiana State Police background checks, a higher permit fee (staff suggested $40) and a $250 fine for noncompliance. Council members stressed exemptions for school fundraisers and nonprofits and asked staff to draft specific enforcement language.
Council members spent a portion of the Nov. 24 meeting reviewing proposed changes to Martinsville’s peddler (solicitor) ordinance, focusing on background‑check requirements, fees and enforcement.
Staff presented options and research indicating that the Martinsville Police Department can only perform local checks; Chief Rick Lang recommended accepting Indiana State Police background checks to validate applicants from outside the county. Staff noted a public cost estimate they found online of $15.70 for a state check; councilors discussed whether to require a more in‑depth national criminal history check (fingerprints) for non‑residents or those who frequently solicit in town.
Council members asked for protections and exemptions for school fundraisers, bands and nonprofits; several members emphasized not wanting to create unintended penalties for legitimate community groups. Staff suggested a $40 permit fee and a proposed $250 fine for failure to file the required background documentation. Members also raised enforcement hurdles: how officers would respond to door‑to‑door calls, whether permits would be enforced reactively by citizen complaints and how to prevent transient solicitors from simply moving down the street to avoid enforcement.
Mayor and staff directed Councilwoman Miller and Councilman Badger, with deputy chief input while the department searches for a replacement chief, to work on ordinance language and return with a draft in January for further consideration.
Ending: No ordinance vote occurred; council asked staff and designated members to craft revised language that addresses exemptions and enforcement before bringing the amendment back for consideration.
