Kentucky 2026 Regular Session

Kentucky House Bill HB195

Introduced
1/7/26  
Refer
1/7/26  
Refer
1/14/26  
Report Pass
3/11/26  
Engrossed
3/19/26  

Caption

AN ACT relating to the Kentucky Urban Youth Agriculture Initiative.

Summary

HB 195 creates the Kentucky Urban Youth Agriculture Initiative within KRS Chapter 247 and assigns administration to the University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. The initiative is designed to promote farming, agriculture, agribusiness, and efficient land use in urban counties, while also teaching youth about urban agriculture practices, consumer awareness, and agriculture-related career skills. The bill contemplates experiential learning opportunities such as internships and apprenticeships, and it allows the extension service to partner with other organizations and existing agricultural groups to deliver programming. The bill sets up a phased rollout. Beginning September 1, 2026, the extension service must start a pilot program in one or more offices. Beginning September 1, 2027, and as funding allows, the program may be expanded and evaluated across the Commonwealth, with potential scaling beginning September 1, 2028. Each program term lasts one year and is intended to be offered through extension offices located within or serving urban counties, defined as counties with populations of 150,000 or more based on the most recent federal census. Eligible participants must be ages 5 through 18, have parent or guardian permission, and be available for the full term. The bill would add a new statutory program and direct the University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service to administer it, but it does not create a separate standalone agency. Its practical effect is to authorize and structure youth agriculture education in urban areas, particularly through local extension offices, and to allow collaboration with state or local agricultural organizations. Because implementation and expansion are tied to funding and office discretion, the bill creates a framework for a pilot and possible statewide growth rather than an immediate universal mandate. Overall sentiment appears strongly favorable. The recorded House vote on the bill was unanimous, 97-0, indicating broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition at that stage. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to suggest significant controversy or reservations in the available materials. The main potential points of contention are practical rather than ideological: whether funding will be sufficient for expansion, how many participants each office can serve, and how the program will be administered across different urban counties. Another possible issue is the bill’s reliance on the Cooperative Extension Service and local offices to determine participation and implementation details, which may lead to uneven availability or capacity across regions.

Impact

HB 195 would create a new section in KRS Chapter 247 establishing the Kentucky Urban Youth Agriculture Initiative and assigning administration to the University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. It would authorize pilot programming in 2026, potential expansion in 2027, and broader scaling beginning in 2028, while defining eligibility, program duration, and the counties and offices covered. The bill primarily affects the University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, local extension offices, youth participants ages 5-18, and urban counties with populations of 150,000 or more.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests very strong support for the bill, with a unanimous 97-0 House vote. No committee discussion was provided, so there is no evidence of organized opposition or significant debate in the record supplied. The bill appears to have been received as a positive youth-development and agriculture-education measure.

Contention

No direct objections are documented in the provided materials. The likely areas of discussion, if any, would be implementation-related: funding availability, the pace of statewide expansion, office-by-office discretion over participation, and whether the program can be delivered equitably across urban counties. Another possible issue is the age range and parental consent requirements for youth participation, though no explicit opposition is shown in the record.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.