Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Legislative committee narrows agritourism definition, sets 160‑acre threshold in bill 21‑11
Loading...
Summary
A legislative committee agreed to amended language for bill 21‑11 to create a "nonpublic registered agritourism location," adopt "160 acres or less" as the acreage phrasing and replace a requirement for an "agriculture education facility" with a provision that the site "provides learning opportunities related to agriculture activities."
A legislative committee agreed during its session to revise bill 21‑11 to define a new category called a “nonpublic registered agritourism location” and to use the phrasing “160 acres or less” for the acreage threshold.
The change is intended to protect working farms that become surrounded by urban development while allowing small-scale educational or agritourism activities to continue. Chair said the committee will have revisers prepare the precise statutory language so members can finalize acreage numbers and wording.
The committee debated whether to require a standalone "agriculture education facility" on the farm or instead to use broader language. Committee member advocated removing the phrase “and has an agriculture education facility,” proposing the alternative wording: “160 acres or less located on a working farm that provides learning opportunities related to agriculture activities.” The committee indicated tentative acceptance of that revision, with revisers to update the text.
Senator Francisco cautioned the language is broad and offered examples of farms that host interns or invite people for seasonal learning, saying those practices could be captured by the proposed definition. Francisco noted the draft does not specify age or whether activities are public or by invitation, warning that such breadth could affect how local ordinances apply.
Francisco also summarized a neutral testimony from the fire marshal, saying the marshal told the committee the bill "would transfer primary responsibility for compliance from a local ordinance to a state statute that the local fire chief would be then required to enforce." The fire marshal recommended adding language to allow locally adopted fire safety codes to be used in place of requiring district-court enforcement under state statute.
Members agreed to accept the revised phrasing for now and instructed revisers to finalize exact language. No formal roll-call vote was recorded in the transcript; members discussed collecting signatures to record agreement and indicated some signatures still were needed.
The committee said it may return in a later session to add more detailed definitions depending on how the measure operates in practice.
