Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee advances bill to protect family child-care providers in rental homes, amid insurance concerns
Summary
HB543 would bar landlords from prohibiting tenants from operating certified family child care homes in single-family rental units while allowing landlord protections (notice, insurance, security deposit). Members pressed on insurance lapses, grandfathering existing providers, and the policy's scope.
The subcommittee moved HB543 to protect tenants operating licensed family child care out of single-family rental homes while preserving landlord safeguards.
Committee counsel told members the bill prohibits landlords from banning family child care operations on leased single-family premises but allows landlords to require 60 days' notice and proof of liability insurance naming the landlord as an additional insured; the landlord would not be civilly liable for the acts or omissions of the tenant operating the child care.
Replicating concerns voiced at the public hearing, members asked what happens if a tenant's liability insurance lapses. "If there's a lapse in coverage on the policy," counsel said, "the tenant is required to cease operation of the family child care home for the duration of the lapse." Delegate Adams and others warned that uninsured operators pose risks to parents and questioned whether shifting liability exposure purely to tenants is adequate.
A committee witness (identified in the record as Ellie) said the sector is "one of the most regulated industries that we have in the state," and suggested the bill focuses on protecting providers who are already compliant and operating successfully from being forced to stop when landlords change. Supporters highlighted the state's child-care shortage as a rationale for expanding and protecting home-based options.
The subcommittee voted to move HB543 favorably. Several members urged further work between subcommittee and full committee on grandfathering, documentation requirements and whether any other commercial activities should receive similar protections.
Next steps: Sponsor and counsel indicated willingness to negotiate targeted technical amendments on insurance verification, grandfathering and consumer-protection safeguards before a full-committee vote.
