Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Childcare Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers bill to protect licensed home‑based child care from HOA bans
Summary
Assembly Bill 185 would bar homeowner associations from using CC&Rs to prohibit licensed in‑home family child care; proponents said the bill expands access in childcare deserts while opponents — HOA representatives and condo owners — warned it could create safety, liability and common‑area conflicts in denser developments.
Assembly Bill 185, introduced by Assemblymember Nathalie (Nathal) Anderson (Assembly District 30), would protect the right of licensed family and group family child care providers to operate in their homes without being blocked by homeowners association covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). The bill seeks to expand licensed home‑based care, which proponents call a cost‑effective way to increase capacity in Nevada's childcare‑short market.
Anderson said Nevada is a "child care desert" in every county and that licensed home‑based providers are a "small step" toward increasing options. Denise Tonata of The Children's Cabinet outlined data showing licensed care meets only about 36 percent of demand for children ages 0–5 with all parents in the workforce and reported a 55 percent decrease in family child care capacity from 2018–2024. Detre Stewart, a licensed family child care provider and president of the Family Child Care Association of Nevada, described an HOA attempt to shut down her licensed operation and urged lawmakers to protect home providers.
Supporters — including the Children's Cabinet, Nevada AEYC, Moms Rising Together, labor union CWA Local 9413 and other community groups — said licensed family child care offers flexible hours and culturally responsive environments for working parents and that many newly built housing units are inside HOAs, limiting options when CC&Rs bar providers.
Association and HOA industry witnesses opposed or asked for amendments. Garrett Gordon of Community Association Institute (CAI) and other HOA managers said associations vary widely in size and design and that condo and townhome communities in particular are not built for commercial child care. They asked for guardrails including insurance requirements naming the association as an additional insured, limits on common‑area use, protections for age‑restricted communities, and an exemption for condominiums with shared walls and common corridors. Several condo residents and board presidents testified about safety, dog encounters in hallways, pool and gym use, parking congestion and the risk of higher insurance premiums or litigation.
Committee members pressed sponsors on the distinction between single‑family neighborhoods and multiunit condominiums, ingress/egress and common‑area use. Anderson said amendments were submitted to address some concerns: removing a one‑mile outdoor‑space requirement for apartments, clarifying that HOAs may still enforce nuisance and common‑area rules, allowing HOAs to require licensed providers to add the association as an additional insured on liability policies (but not exceed licensing limits), and exempting federal age‑restricted communities.
No final committee vote was recorded on AB 185 in the transcript. Supporters urged further amendment to protect home providers while opponents asked for additional guardrails to protect homeowners and common facilities.
