The debate over Marysville's peddler-solicitation ordinance will continue for at least two more months.

The debate over Marysville's peddler-solicitation ordinance will continue for at least two more months.

City council members voted unanimously Thursday night to table the measure and send it back to its Public Safety Committee for further discussion. Members of that committee expressed displeasure with an amendment to the ordinance that, in their opinions, watered down the intent of the legislation.

That amendment was approved by a 3-2 vote at the March 12 city council meeting when two of the ordinance's sponsors were absent.

The proposed ordinance would require peddlers and solicitors to pay a fee, undergo a background check and obtain a license before conducting door-to-door business within city limits.

Council member John Marshall, chairman of the Public Safety Committee, took exception to an amendment to the ordinance by member Leah Sellers that removed the phrase "canvassers" from the legislation.

"With the amendment I felt that it had been degraded quite significantly," Marshall said. "It may indeed not accomplish the overall goal of the committee, which was for public safety."

He questioned whether, if the amendment remains in place, the new legislation would be much of an improvement over the city's existing ordinance.

"The way it reads right now," he said, "it opens loopholes big enough that it doesn't bolster or improve what we have at all."

Council member Nevin Taylor, the other committee member who was not on hand for the March 12 amendment vote, agreed. He called for the legislation to be returned to the committee for additional study.

Council member Mark Reams, the third committee member, said he too favored additional review of the legislation.

Sellers said she also favored tabling the ordinance so additional work on the appeals process could be done, but defended her move to amend the legislation.

" What I do with the amendment is I say, should we really make it a crime in Marysville for people who go to a door for charitable or religious purposes to make a noise at somebody's front door or knock on their front door," Sellers said. "Should we make it a crime for them to do that if there is a no soliciting sign on the door?

"I think a lot of people would say no, we don't want crimes for children going door-to-door who don't see a no soliciting sign if they are selling candy for their own profit. We don't want that to be a crime for them," she said. "Do we want it to be a crime for a person who goes door-to-door for charitable or religious purpose to knock on somebody's door with a no soliciting sign on it? We have to be very careful about creating new crimes in our city."

As part of the vote to refer the legislation back to the Public Safety Committee, council members agreed to review the issue again at their June 11 council meeting.