Conference committee retreats on two amendments to Senate File 88, keeps clarifying exception and approves conference product

The conference committee on Senate File 88 spent its session refining how the law will treat the proximity of registered sex offenders to child-care facilities, then approved a committee product while agreeing to pursue technical and substantive cleanup before the law takes full effect.

The committee’s co-chairs opened the meeting saying they would review amendments one by one. Members debated a House-drafted change that would require applicants seeking a child-care facility license to determine whether the proposed facility would be located within 1,000 feet of a registered sex offender’s residence and would direct the Department of Family Services to verify that information. Mr. Co-chairman said “the whole purpose here is to try to protect children,” but several members questioned how a licensing verification duty would be implemented if it is placed inside the criminal statute rather than the child-care licensing code.

Representative Chestic defended a separate amendment as a narrow, case-by-case protection intended to avoid displacing people from homes without individualized review. Representative Chestic said the compromise preserves the grandfather clause for residents who lived near a child-care facility before the bill’s effective date and adds that when someone living near a child-care facility is later convicted, “the person who knows the facts is the sentencing judge,” who will have a presentence report to determine whether the restriction should apply.

Several lawmakers raised practical concerns. One member argued the verification requirement reads like a regulatory duty better placed in the licensing statutes (discussed in the transcript as falling under title 14) where the department could potentially deny an application if necessary; as written in the bill the requirement would give notice but “has no teeth.” Others warned creating different standards for schools and child-care facilities could complicate enforcement for law enforcement and judges, particularly in small rural towns where properties and buildings are arranged differently.

On a technical drafting point the committee reinstated clarifying language on page three that would require consideration of whether the bill’s listed exceptions apply (the insertion follows WS62320E3 and adds a reference to WS62320 A5). That motion was moved and carried.

The committee also voted to withdraw the House’s position on the first amendment (removing that provision from the committee product for separate consideration) and later moved to delete the Haroldson third-reading amendment after members said the measurement/definition issues it raised need a broader statutory cleanup. After the procedural votes and the insertion of the statutory-exceptions language, the committee approved the conference product on a recorded voice/roll call recorded in the transcript: five members recorded “I” and one member was excused.

Members repeatedly noted that the bill as drafted leaves policy and implementation questions that merit further work: harmonizing measurement standards used for schools and child-care facilities, clarifying which exemptions apply, and considering a broader classification approach for registry entries that pose a specific risk to children. Several members suggested adding the cleanup to interim committee topics or drafting a committee bill to resolve drafting inconsistencies before the bill’s effective date discussed in the transcript as July 1, 2026.

The committee adjourned after the final voice vote.