Kansas House Bill HB2111

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/28/25
• Refer: 1/28/25
• Refer: 1/29/25
• Report Pass: 2/18/25
• Refer: 2/20/25
• Refer: 3/7/25
• Engrossed: 3/11/25
• Refer: 3/12/25
• Report Pass: 3/16/26
• Enrolled: 4/10/26

Caption

Senate Substitute for HB 2111 by Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources - Exempting certain registered agritourism operations from local code and regulation enforcement.

Summary

HB 2111 creates a new exemption for certain “nonpublic registered agritourism locations” from city and county enforcement of building codes and other local ordinances or resolutions. The exemption applies to registered agritourism operations on working farms of 160 acres or less that provide learning opportunities related to agriculture and admit the public only by specific invitation. For those qualifying sites, local governments may not enforce regulations tied to health and safety, property maintenance, facility use, or permit, license, and fee requirements. The bill also amends Kansas’s Agritourism Promotion Act to clarify and update definitions used in the registration and liability framework. It revises the definitions of agritourism activity, inherent risks, participant, registered agritourism activity, registered agritourism location, registered agritourism operator, and secretary, while preserving the registration-based structure administered through the secretary of commerce. The measure is framed as a supplement to the existing agritourism statutes and repeals the prior version of the amended section.

Impact

The bill narrows local regulatory authority over a subset of agritourism businesses by preempting city and county enforcement of building codes and related ordinances at qualifying registered locations. In practice, this shifts compliance obligations away from local permitting and inspection regimes for small, invitation-only agritourism sites and toward the state registration framework under the Agritourism Promotion Act. It affects local governments, farm operators, and visitors by limiting the ability of municipalities and counties to impose or enforce certain operational requirements at these sites.

Sentiment

The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support. It passed the House by a wide margin initially, then cleared the Senate and both chambers again on conference reports, though with a noticeable number of dissenting votes in each chamber. That pattern indicates broad support for agritourism promotion and regulatory relief, alongside persistent concern about reducing local oversight.

Contention

The main point of contention is the extent to which the state should preempt local health, safety, property maintenance, and permitting rules for agritourism operations. Supporters appear to favor reducing regulatory burdens on small farm-based agritourism businesses and clarifying the statutory framework, while opponents likely worry about limiting local governments’ ability to protect public safety and enforce standards. The bill’s narrow definition of covered locations—especially the 160-acre cap, invitation-only access, and exclusion of sites selling unrelated goods or hosting unrelated private events—suggests lawmakers were trying to balance business relief with limits on the exemption’s scope.