Chesterfield County Council on Oct. 24 voted to table an emergency ordinance establishing juvenile curfew hours and approved a title-only first reading of a permanent curfew ordinance, following a multi-hour discussion with law-enforcement officials, school leaders and municipal representatives.

Council members debated whether to enact an immediate emergency ordinance or proceed with the standard three-reading process. The standing Judicial Committee had recommended an emergency ordinance, but a task force of law enforcement, school officials and municipal leaders recommended delaying an emergency declaration to allow broader public education and to align municipal ordinances.

The debate drew direct input from Sheriff Campbell Streeter and Dr. Chris Ballinger, the superintendent who attended committee meetings with municipal police chiefs and school-district staff. Sheriff Streeter flagged drafting concerns about an exception in the ordinance’s definition of “parent or guardian,” saying it could create enforcement burdens. “I have no problem with A. Take B out,” Sheriff Streeter said, referring to a draft subsection that would allow a person “at least 18 years of age and authorized by a parent or guardian” to supervise a juvenile during curfew hours.

Dr. Chris Ballinger said the school district supported a curfew in principle but urged time to educate families and align municipal ordinances before broad enforcement. “I do support a curfew. I just think that we need opportunity to allow people to to have conversation about it and to discuss it,” Ballinger told the council, offering the district’s facilities and communications channels to host community meetings and share information with parents.

Councilman Eddie Kirkley moved to take no action on the emergency ordinance; Council Member Sherry Burns seconded the motion. The motion to table the emergency ordinance carried. After the vote to table, Kirkley moved — and the council approved — a motion to hold first reading by title only of an ordinance establishing juvenile curfew hours; the council said it will hear public comment and refine the draft in subsequent meetings. Council members discussed a possible schedule that could conclude the three-reading process by Dec. 5 if the body moves through the remaining readings at upcoming regular meetings.

Discussion in committee and at the meeting identified several drafting points that council members asked staff to correct before public hearings, including:
- The draft’s age language and the scope of the parent/guardian exception (a proposed subsection that would allow an 18-year-old authorized by a parent to supervise a juvenile drew concern from the sheriff).
- A likely typographical reference in the defenses section (the sheriff and others pointed to a cross-reference that appears to cite the wrong subsection).
- The need for consistent curfew times across municipalities so enforcement would not be complicated when juveniles cross jurisdictional lines.

Council members and the sheriff emphasized that an emergency ordinance would not force immediate harsh enforcement, but would provide law enforcement an additional discretionary tool. Councilman McClendon argued that adopting an emergency ordinance would set a countywide standard and not preclude later public engagement; other members preferred the task force recommendation to delay an emergency step and conduct outreach first.

The council directed staff to: (1) correct drafting errors identified by the sheriff and committee members; (2) schedule town-hall–style public meetings in municipalities and use school-district communications for outreach; and (3) continue work on a single countywide ordinance text so municipal ordinances can follow the county’s lead.

The meeting record shows the council opened and closed a public hearing earlier in the agenda (no speakers addressed the council on that item). The juvenile curfew discussion occurred later under standing committee reports and consumed the majority of the meeting’s substantive time.

The procedural outcome: the council tabled the emergency ordinance action and approved first reading by title only of the curfew ordinance, leaving detailed language, public hearings and later readings to follow.