Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Florence council defers in‑home child care ordinance after heated debate over safety and costs
Summary
Council heard staff recommendations to align city definitions with state fire code (reducing small in‑home child care from six to five children and defining 6–12 as large), faced concerns about regulatory costs and neighborhood impacts, and moved the ordinance to executive session for legal review before deferral.
City staff proposed amendments to the unified development ordinance to align the city's in‑home child care definitions with state fire-safety rules. The draft would redefine small in‑home child care to five children and classify 6–12 children as 'large' in‑home child care, subject to higher standards and review by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
"What we found is that we'll permit somebody ... that wants to care for six children under our small in‑home child care ordinance and then the state fire codes don't allow more than five," staff member Jerry explained. He said the ordinance change is intended to remove conflicts between city permitting and state safety rules.
Council focused on neighbor impacts, parking and traffic, and the potential regulatory cost burden for providers. Councilman McCall argued that additional regulation can raise child‑care costs: "the reason for the increased cost is the increase in government regulations." Other members said the distinction between small and large matters because state rules trigger added requirements—sprinkler systems, staffing ratios and other safety measures—once a provider exceeds the smaller threshold.
After extended debate and a failed effort to remove the 'large' category, council moved the matter into executive session to receive legal advice and later returned to defer the ordinance for further review. No final changes were adopted during the meeting.
Council asked staff to clarify specific standards (parking, drop-off, employee residency) and to consider whether targeted zoning limitations (for example excluding single-family neighborhoods) would address neighbor concerns without removing the state's permitted large in‑home option.
The item was deferred for further discussion; council indicated it intends to return the item for additional consideration after legal review and staff follow-up.
