AN ACT relating to agritourism.
SB45 revises Kentucky’s agritourism statutes by expanding and clarifying the definitions of “agritourism,” “agritourism activity,” “agritourism building,” “agritourism professional,” “inherent risks of agritourism activity,” “participant,” and “working animal.” The bill broadens the list of activities that may qualify as agritourism to include a wide range of farm- and animal-related recreational, educational, cultural, and ceremonial uses, such as weddings and ancillary events, farmers’ markets, horseback riding, carriage rides, livestock shows, petting farms, rodeos, field trials, horseracing, and other activities involving working animals. It also makes clear that an activity may qualify whether or not participants pay to attend or participate.
The bill would add a new section to KRS 247.800 to 247.810 limiting local government authority over agritourism. Cities, counties, towns, and other political subdivisions would be prohibited from adopting or enforcing ordinances, resolutions, rules, or regulations that restrict agritourism activities or impose an undue burden that makes them unreasonable or impractical, so long as the activity complies with public health and safety requirements, planning and zoning rules, and other existing law enforceable through local police powers. Any local law in conflict with this provision would be void and unenforceable. The bill also expressly excludes dog fighting and animal fighting from the definition of agritourism.
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support in the Senate, passing third reading by a 26-11 vote. The text and context indicate a generally pro-agritourism, pro-business sentiment aimed at supporting farm diversification and rural tourism. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote margin suggests the measure was supported by a majority while still drawing some opposition.
The main point of contention is local control versus statewide preemption. Opponents may object to the bill’s restriction on cities and counties from regulating agritourism activities, especially where local governments want to address neighborhood impacts, traffic, noise, zoning compatibility, or event-scale concerns. Supporters are likely to argue that agritourism businesses need uniform statewide protection from burdensome local regulation and that the bill preserves core public health, safety, and zoning authority. Another possible issue is the breadth of the agritourism definition, which reaches into weddings, entertainment, and animal-related activities, though the bill narrows the scope by excluding dog fighting and animal fighting.