HB 4153
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
Decision brief generation failed. The existing briefs were preserved and this version can be retried.
Latest analysis in progress. Showing the superseded House Amendments to Introduced brief.
Establishes farm stores as a permitted use on Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and mixed farm/forest zoned land, subject to acreage, income, and size thresholds. Permits agri-tourism activities, limited retail sales, and licensed food service while explicitly prohibiting farm stores for psilocybin-producing fungi or marijuana crops on EFU land. Material consequence: Diversifies farm revenue streams through commercialization while maintaining agricultural zoning protections, with local governments retaining siting authority but barred from effectively banning such stores.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The text expands allowable commercial activities on EFU land by increasing structure size limits to 10,000 square feet, lowering income thresholds for smaller tracts, and explicitly defining agri-tourism categories, indicating a legislative intent to support farm economic diversification while maintaining strict boundaries around controlled substances.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Gain permitted use for larger retail stores, agri-tourism facilities, and licensed food service, subject to strict acreage/farm-use ratios or $10,000 cumulative income thresholds.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Granted authority to adopt siting standards (access, traffic, noise, sanitation) but statutorily prohibited from applying those standards in a manner that prohibits farm store siting or operation.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Explicitly barred from establishing farm stores on EFU land for these crops, maintaining separation between agricultural retail and controlled substance operations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
May experience increased commercial activity, traffic, and noise from permitted agri-tourism events, mitigated by statutory caps on attendance (500 max), duration (72 hours), and vehicle limits.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Operators must verify acreage/farm-use ratios or meet the $10,000 cumulative income threshold. Retail items are capped at 25% of permanent enclosed floor area. Food service requires Oregon Health Authority licensing but cannot function as a café or drive-through.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Agri-tourism events require county authorization with strict caps (max 500 attendees, 72 hours, temporary structures removed post-event). Counties bear administrative costs for permitting and siting reviews. No state revenue impact noted.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: House Amendments to Introduced; IS_Impact HB 4153 3
Small-scale diversified farm operator
A <20-acre farm meeting the $10,000 income threshold establishes a 10,000 sq ft store hosting six annual agri-tourism events (500 attendees each), generating substantial supplemental revenue while retaining EFU tax status and complying with all temporary structure removal deadlines.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
County planning department or neighboring residents
An operator hosts 18 annual events exceeding attendance caps or fails to remove temporary structures, causing traffic/safety hazards and triggering county enforcement actions or neighbor litigation over siting standard violations, straining local resources and potentially prompting legal challenges over statutory prohibitions on prohibitive standards.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
bill_text
Sources · House Amendments to Introduced
Expands farm commercialization and agri-tourism revenue streams on protected agricultural land while imposing strict size, attendance, and siting limits to prevent conversion of EFU zones to general commercial use. Upsides include economic diversification for farmers and rural tourism growth; downsides include potential strain on rural infrastructure, traffic, and noise, alongside risk of regulatory creep if counties or operators test the boundaries of 'incidental and subordinate' farm use.
Economic diversification for farmers through expanded retail and agri-tourism revenue.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Regulatory clarity for permitted uses, reducing uncertainty around farm store and event operations on EFU land.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Potential strain on rural infrastructure, traffic management, and noise levels from increased commercial activity.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Risk of regulatory creep if counties or operators test the boundaries of 'incidental and subordinate' farm use, potentially undermining EFU zoning protections.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
The current version is substantively identical to the previous version. No material provisions, thresholds, or prohibitions were added, removed, or altered between these two published texts. Both versions contain identical definitions, acreage/income requirements, square footage limits, agri-tourism event caps, and explicit exclusions for controlled substance crops.
No substantive change identified.
Tradeoff: No change in legislative tradeoff or policy direction between versions.
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the provided bill text and official committee/staff summaries. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
The amendment creates a regulated farm store category on exclusive farm use (EFU) and mixed farm/forest lands, permitting limited retail sales, agri-tourism, and fee-based dining under strict size caps (≤2,500 square feet), revenue thresholds (promotional/incidental sales ≤35% of total), and county oversight. It simultaneously bars new farm stores or dwellings on EFU land tied to psilocybin or marijuana cultivation while preserving other commercial cannabis/psilocybin allowances under separate statutes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
To provide a structured pathway for farm income diversification through regulated on-farm retail and tourism while preventing EFU lands from being converted into commercial entertainment venues or controlled-substance dispensaries.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Gains a new permitted use to operate retail stores, host agri-tourism, and serve meals on EFU/mixed farm/forest land, subject to strict square footage limits, sales thresholds, and county siting conditions. Must retain ownership/operation and cannot rent facilities for private events.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Gains authority to impose siting standards (traffic, noise, hours, sanitation) and issue limited-use permits for events, but is prohibited from applying standards that unreasonably frustrate farm store operations. Bears administrative costs for permit processing and four-year permit reviews.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Explicitly barred from establishing new farm stores or dwellings on EFU land in conjunction with their crops. Other commercial activities (service centers, manufacturing, production) remain permissible under existing licensing frameworks.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Protected by mandatory traffic management plans, noise/sanitation conditions, attendance limits, and land-use stability requirements. Faces potential increased visitor volume during authorized events.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Operators must maintain financial records to prove promotional and incidental sales do not exceed 35% of total annual revenue. Structures are capped at 2,500 square feet unless pre-existing. Kitchen facilities require Oregon Health Authority licensing but cannot function as public cafes or drive-through establishments.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Counties must process limited-use permits for up to 18 farm-to-table meals or seasonal events annually, with permits lasting no more than 72 consecutive hours and remaining nontransferable. Permit holders undergo four-year reviews with public notice.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
No direct state or local revenue impact is anticipated. Compliance costs fall on operators for construction, health licensing, and county permit fees. The measure relies on county enforcement of sales thresholds and siting conditions rather than state-level monitoring.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Small or financially stressed farm operators
A farm operating on 20 acres with $10,000 in cumulative gross income converts a pre-existing barn into a compliant 2,500-square-foot store. By hosting 18 seasonal events annually and selling processed products alongside crops, the operator generates sufficient incidental revenue to cover property taxes and retain land without subdivision or sale.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Large agribusinesses or commercial developers
An entity acquires multiple contiguous EFU parcels, claims farm operation status, and constructs numerous 2,500-square-foot structures across the tract. By operating as a regional tourist destination that consistently hits the 35% incidental sales cap and maxes out event allowances, the operator effectively functions as a commercial retail district, forcing neighboring farms to absorb traffic congestion and sanitation costs despite the land-use stability clause.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits limited retail and agri-tourism. Weak enforcement could allow operators to misclassify commercial distribution centers or unlicensed food service venues as farm stores, bypassing zoning, health, or cannabis/psilocybin regulations. Duty creep may occur if counties use siting standards to effectively ban the use rather than regulate it, violating the prohibition on unreasonable frustration.
Sources · Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Expands rural economic opportunities for farmers through regulated retail and tourism while strictly capping commercial scale and explicitly excluding controlled substance cultivation from EFU land benefits.
Provides a clear, statewide framework for farm income diversification without requiring annexation or zoning exceptions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Preserves EFU zoning integrity by capping structure size, limiting promotional sales to 35%, and prohibiting private event rentals or lodging conversions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Shifts regulatory and administrative burden to counties, which must develop traffic/sanitation plans, track financial compliance, and conduct four-year permit reviews.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Creates regulatory asymmetry for cannabis and psilocybin growers, who are explicitly barred from EFU farm stores despite being permitted other commercial activities on the same land.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The amendment text provides explicit numerical caps, defined terms, and clear prohibitions. Official staff summaries and fiscal statements corroborate the scope and revenue impact. Analysis is limited to the proposed text as enacted; real-world implementation depends on county rulemaking and enforcement.
If adopted, the amendment would replace Oregon's existing farm stand regulations with a new statutory framework for "farm stores" on exclusive farm use (EFU) and mixed farm/forest lands. It authorizes larger permanent retail structures (up to 10,000 sq ft), explicit agri-tourism activities, prepared food sales, and county siting authority, while imposing acreage, farm-use, or income thresholds. Simultaneously, it explicitly bars these stores from being used for psilocybin-producing fungi or marijuana crops on EFU land, though it classifies those plants as agricultural crops for other statutory purposes.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure likely aims to standardize and expand rural agricultural revenue diversification by replacing fragmented farm stand rules with a unified commercial retail framework, while maintaining strict land-use separation for controlled substances. This is inferred from the explicit expansion of permissible commercial activities, standardized acreage/income thresholds, and the simultaneous classification of psilocybin/marijuana as crops alongside explicit EFU retail prohibitions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Gains eligibility to establish larger permanent retail structures, host agri-tourism events, and sell prepared foods under clear statutory thresholds, replacing prior restrictive farm stand rules.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Gains authority to adopt siting standards (traffic, noise, hours, sanitation) but loses veto power over farm store siting; must administer new permit tiers and event licenses.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Explicitly prohibited from using EFU farm stores for their crops; must rely on separate county permissions for production/manufacturing on non-EFU or differently zoned land.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Subject to new commercial activity, traffic, and noise impacts, but protected by statutory attendance/vehicle caps, temporary structure removal mandates, and county siting standard authority.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Operators must meet tiered acreage or income thresholds, secure Oregon Health Authority kitchen licenses, and comply with a 25% retail item display limit. Counties must process permits without prohibiting siting, manage three event authorization tiers (single, expedited, limited use), and enforce temporary structure removal rules.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
State fiscal impact is minimal. Local governments will incur permitting and enforcement costs. Operators bear construction, licensing, and compliance expenses.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Revenue Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement A
The amendment applies Oregon EFU zoning jurisdiction while incorporating definitions (e.g., "farm use," "local agricultural area") that reference state and adjacent-state boundaries, maintaining clear separation between Oregon land-use authority and external regulatory frameworks.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Small-scale diversified farm operator
A 15-acre dairy operation meets the $10,000 gross income threshold, constructs a 9,500 sq ft store, hosts weekly farm-to-table dinners and seasonal festivals, successfully pivots to agri-tourism, stabilizes its financial viability, and creates rural employment without triggering EFU rezoning or state tax impacts.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Commercial real estate developer or non-farm entity
An entity acquires contiguous EFU parcels, claims "farm unit" status via nominal leased income, constructs 10,000 sq ft of permanent retail space, and operates a de facto commercial shopping center with daily amplified events. Rural infrastructure is overwhelmed, accepted farming practices are displaced, and EFU zoning protections are functionally bypassed through technical compliance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits flexible commercial aggregation and temporary structures, but relies on county discretion to enforce the subordinate-use threshold. Without clear audit mechanisms, rural land could be functionally converted to commercial retail under the guise of permitted agri-tourism.
Sources · Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Expands rural agricultural economic resilience and regulatory clarity for farm retail at the cost of increased commercial activity, traffic, and infrastructure strain on exclusive farm use zones.
Diversified farm income streams and standardized permitting reduce regulatory ambiguity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Explicit EFU retail prohibitions for psilocybin/marijuana maintain land-use separation while classifying those plants as agricultural crops for other statutory purposes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Increased rural commercialization may strain local infrastructure, traffic management, and accepted farming practices.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
County permitting burdens and enforcement costs may rise without corresponding state funding or standardized audit protocols.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the provided proposed amendment text and official staff/fiscal summaries. No enacted status or unverified claims are included.
If adopted, the amendment would legally permit larger farm stores (up to 10,000 square feet) and expanded ancillary operations—including agri-tourism activities, prepared food service, and temporary structures—on exclusive farm use land, while lowering income thresholds for smaller tracts and granting local governments siting authority that cannot be used to ban such stores outright.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure aims to improve the financial viability of small-to-mid-sized farm operations by allowing larger retail footprints and broader revenue streams without requiring high baseline agricultural income.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Gain eligibility for larger permanent structures, expanded product sales (including processed items and retail goods up to 25% of floor area), and explicit permission to host agri-tourism events and use temporary/mobile units.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Receive authority to adopt siting standards for traffic, noise, hours, and sanitation, but are statutorily barred from applying those standards in a way that prohibits farm stores entirely.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Gain increased access to on-farm retail, fee-based dining experiences, and educational/agri-tourism activities in rural zones.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
OHA licensing requirements apply to on-site kitchens; existing psilocybin and marijuana crop restrictions remain separate but interact with store operations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Operators must ensure all retail items are displayed within permanent enclosed structures, limit non-farm retail display to no more than 25 percent of floor area, and maintain Oregon Health Authority licenses for any on-site kitchen preparing prepared food.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Lowering the gross farm income threshold to $10,000 over two years reduces financial barriers for newer or smaller operations. Increased square footage allowances may raise construction costs but enable economies of scale in retail and event hosting.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Local governments can regulate access, traffic, noise, hours, and sanitation, which may increase compliance costs for operators hosting frequent events. The explicit authorization of temporary structures and mobile vending units for agri-tourism expands operational flexibility but requires careful tracking of permitted uses versus prohibited commercial dining.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Farm operators on EFU or mixed farm-forest land
A 15-acre farm with $12,000 in gross income legally constructs a 10,000-square-foot enclosed store, hosts daily tractor rides and crop mazes, sells prepared meals via an OHA-licensed kitchen, and generates sufficient ancillary revenue to remain solvent without expanding acreage.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Farm operators on EFU or mixed farm-forest land
A county adopts siting standards that effectively require expensive traffic impact studies or restrict event hours to near-zero, creating de facto barriers that force operators into noncompliance or closure despite statutory permission. Alternatively, an operator misclassifies a commercial food truck as a permitted mobile vending unit without proper OHA licensing, risking public health violations and enforcement actions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits temporary structures and mobile vending units for agri-tourism and allows up to 25 percent retail display area. Weak enforcement or misclassification could allow operators to use these provisions to operate unlicensed commercial food service, unpermitted large-scale retail warehouses, or de facto commercial entertainment venues disguised as farm stores. The prohibition on counties prohibiting siting or operation may limit local tools to address cumulative impacts from multiple nearby stores.
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Expanding farm store size and ancillary revenue streams supports agricultural economic resilience but shifts land-use control to local governments while increasing potential for rural commercialization and infrastructure burdens. Upsides include financial viability for small farms, diversified income, and consumer access. Downsides include risk of rural commercial sprawl, enforcement complexity, and potential strain on local traffic and sanitation systems.
Financial viability for small farms
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Diversified income
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Consumer access
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Risk of rural commercial sprawl
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Enforcement complexity
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential strain on local traffic and sanitation systems
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The amendment text is explicit regarding thresholds, permitted uses, and local government authority. Fiscal impacts are officially documented as minimal/no impact. Remaining uncertainties relate to implementation costs and cumulative land-use effects, which require additional stakeholder data.
If adopted, the amendment would expand the allowable building footprint and lower the income threshold for establishing a permitted farm store on Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land, explicitly authorize prepared food sales and agri-tourism activities within those stores, and clarify that local governments may set siting standards but cannot use them to effectively ban farm store operations.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to improve the economic viability of smaller or lower-income farm operations by lowering the gross income threshold from $40,000 to $10,000 and increasing the allowable building footprint from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, thereby enabling more farms to legally diversify into retail and agri-tourism without violating EFU zoning restrictions.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Gain expanded rights to construct larger permanent retail structures, sell prepared foods and beverages, host agri-tourism events, and qualify with lower acreage or income thresholds.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Retain authority to adopt siting standards for traffic, noise, hours, and sanitation but lose the ability to use those standards to prohibit farm store siting or operation; must process permits under clearer state-level parameters.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Oversee licensing for on-site kitchens and monitor compliance with sanitation and waste rules tied to increased commercial activity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Gain legal access to expanded farm retail, prepared meals, and agri-tourism experiences in previously restricted EFU zones.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Farms must ensure sales are primarily of products they produce or grow locally; retail display is capped at 25% of enclosed floor space; on-site kitchens require OHA licensing and cannot operate as commercial cafes or drive-throughs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Lowered income threshold ($10,000 over two years) and increased square footage limit (10,000 sq ft) reduce barriers to entry for smaller farms but may increase construction, permitting, and infrastructure costs.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Counties must evaluate siting standards against the prohibition on prohibiting farm stores; compliance monitoring will shift toward traffic, noise, and sanitation rather than use bans.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Small-scale farm operator
A 15-acre farm with $12,000 in recent income legally constructs a 9,500 sq ft enclosed store, hosts weekly tractor rides and farm-to-table dinners, and sustains its operations through diversified revenue without rezoning.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Non-farm commercial entity or developer
An entity acquires a 45-acre EFU parcel, meets the $10,000 income threshold via minimal crop sales, builds a 10,000 sq ft store, and operates it primarily as a commercial retail hub with heavy traffic and noise, effectively bypassing EFU preservation goals while technically complying with the statute.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
inference
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
The measure trades strict EFU zoning preservation for expanded rural economic diversification by allowing larger commercial footprints and lower income thresholds on farm land.
Improved farm financial resilience through legalized retail and agri-tourism revenue streams.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Clearer regulatory pathways reduce permitting uncertainty for qualifying farm operations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Potential strain on rural infrastructure, increased non-agricultural traffic in EFU zones, and risk of de facto commercial development masquerading as farm use.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the supplied proposed amendment text and official staff/fiscal summaries. No enacted status or unverified claims are included.
If adopted, the amendment would expand eligibility and physical limits for farm stores on exclusive farm use (EFU) land, explicitly authorize agri-tourism and prepared food sales within those structures, and clarify local siting authority while prohibiting counties from using regulations to effectively ban such operations.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment appears designed to lower financial and physical barriers for smaller farms to establish commercial retail operations by reducing income thresholds and increasing allowable square footage, while clarifying that local siting rules cannot function as de facto bans.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Gain eligibility for farm store permits through a lower $10,000 cumulative gross income threshold or 10-acre farm use requirement.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gain explicit statutory permission to host fee-based dining, crop mazes, tours, and seasonal events within permitted structures.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Retain authority to regulate access, traffic, noise, hours, and sanitation but lose the ability to use siting standards to effectively prohibit farm stores.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gains explicit jurisdiction over on-site kitchen licensing for prepared food sales within these structures.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Operators must ensure retail items occupy no more than 25% of enclosed floor space and that prepared food service does not function as a commercial cafe or drive-through. Smaller farms must track cumulative gross farm income over two years to qualify.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Increased allowable square footage (up to 10,000 sq ft) may require higher construction costs but expands revenue potential through diversified sales. Counties must review local ordinances to ensure siting standards do not cross into prohibition, potentially requiring code updates.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Small-scale farm operators (<20 acres)
A 15-acre farm with $8,000 in annual gross income could legally construct a 9,500 sq ft enclosed store, host weekly farm-to-table dinners and weekend crop mazes, and sustain full-time commercial operations without violating EFU zoning.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Local governments and rural residents
A county could adopt siting standards (e.g., extreme parking ratios or noise limits) that are technically non-prohibitive but practically make any farm store operation financially unviable or logistically impossible, effectively nullifying the state permission.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits temporary structures and mobile vending units in conjunction with agri-tourism activities. Weak enforcement or duty creep could allow operators to use 'agri-tourism' as a loophole to operate permanent commercial retail or food service businesses year-round without proper zoning, health, or fire permits, misclassifying continuous commercial activity as temporary seasonal events.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Expanding farm store eligibility and size thresholds supports agricultural diversification and rural economic resilience but risks increasing traffic, noise, and land use pressure on EFU zones if local siting standards are insufficiently calibrated. Upsides include lower barriers for small farms and clearer regulatory pathways; downsides include potential strain on rural infrastructure and the risk of commercial encroachment into agricultural zones.
Lower financial and physical barriers enable smaller farms to diversify income streams and sustain operations without rezoning.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Explicit statutory authorization reduces regulatory ambiguity for agri-tourism and prepared food sales.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Increased commercial activity on EFU land may strain rural infrastructure, alter neighborhood character, and conflict with agricultural preservation goals.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Prohibiting counties from applying siting standards that 'prohibit' operation may limit local flexibility to address hyper-local traffic or environmental concerns.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The amendment text is explicit regarding thresholds, permitted uses, and local authority limits. Revenue impacts are officially documented as minimal or none. Inferences regarding economic viability and enforcement risks are bounded by the statutory language.
If adopted, the amendment would legally authorize larger farm stores on exclusive farm use and mixed farm-forest land by increasing allowable enclosed square footage to 10,000 feet, lowering gross income thresholds for small parcels, explicitly permitting agri-tourism and prepared food sales within those structures, and clarifying that counties may regulate siting but cannot use those regulations to effectively ban the operations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to expand economic diversification opportunities for smaller or mid-sized farms by relaxing size and income barriers while providing clearer operational boundaries for agri-tourism and food service.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Gain permission to build larger enclosed stores, sell prepared foods and beverages, and host agri-tourism events without separate nonfarm use permits, provided acreage or income thresholds are met.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Retain authority to set siting standards for traffic, noise, hours, and sanitation but lose the ability to use those standards to prohibit farm stores; must align administrative procedures with new state-level thresholds.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Gain expanded access to on-farm retail, dining, and entertainment options in previously restricted agricultural zones.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Face increased oversight responsibilities for food safety licensing and potential land use compliance monitoring.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Operators must ensure retail displays stay within twenty-five percent of enclosed floor space, keep prepared food service from functioning as a commercial cafe or drive-through, and comply with state kitchen licensing requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Lowered income thresholds reduce financial barriers for entry, while increased square footage allows more inventory and customer flow.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Counties must update zoning and administrative procedures to align with new state standards and verify acreage or cumulative income qualifications.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Small-scale farm operator
A fifteen-acre farm with twelve thousand dollars in prior gross income establishes a nine-thousand-five-hundred square foot enclosed store selling processed goods, hosting weekly tractor rides and farm-to-table dinners, generating substantial supplemental income without triggering commercial zoning or separate nonfarm permits.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Rural land use pattern
An entity acquires multiple contiguous EFU parcels just above the twenty-acre threshold, constructs ten-thousand square foot stores on each, and operates them as de facto commercial retail plazas with heavy traffic and noise, effectively converting agricultural land to commercial use while technically complying with acreage and income rules.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
inference
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The measure expands rural economic opportunities for farmers by streamlining state-level permissions for larger stores and agri-tourism, but it shifts land use pressure to counties by capping their ability to restrict siting while relying on local enforcement to manage traffic, noise, and commercial creep.
Provides a clear, state-level pathway for farm income diversification without requiring complex nonfarm use permits.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Reduces administrative friction by establishing uniform acreage, square footage, and income thresholds across jurisdictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Increases reliance on county enforcement to prevent commercial creep, which may strain rural planning resources.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Lowered income thresholds and larger square footage limits may accelerate land conversion pressures in high-value agricultural corridors.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The amendment text is explicit regarding thresholds, permitted uses, and county authority limits. Staff summaries corroborate the structural changes. Fiscal impacts are officially documented as minimal or nonexistent.
If adopted, this amendment would expand the size, income eligibility, and operational scope of legally permitted farm stores on Oregon’s exclusive farm use (EFU) land while clarifying definitions for agritourism and processed products. It increases the maximum enclosed structure size to 10,000 square feet, lowers the gross farm income threshold for smaller parcels to $10,000, explicitly permits prepared food sales and temporary mobile vending tied to agritourism, and restricts county siting authority to standards that cannot outright prohibit a store’s operation.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to reduce regulatory barriers for smaller or lower-revenue farms to legally operate commercial retail and agritourism facilities, thereby diversifying farm income streams. This inference is based on the explicit reduction of the gross farm income threshold from $40,000 to $10,000 for parcels under 20 acres and the expansion of allowable square footage and temporary vending options.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Gain eligibility to establish larger, permanent farm stores and sell prepared foods/agritourism experiences on parcels under 20 acres by meeting a $10,000 income threshold or 10-acre farm use requirement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Benefit from increased allowable enclosed square footage (up to 10,000 sq ft) and clarified permissions for temporary structures/mobile vending during agritourism events.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Retain authority to set siting standards (traffic, noise, hours, sanitation) but lose the ability to apply those standards in a way that effectively prohibits farm store establishment or operation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Gain expanded access to on-farm retail, prepared meals, and educational/entertainment activities directly at EFU-zoned properties.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Operators must ensure retail items are displayed within permanent enclosed structures (≤25% of floor area) while other uses may occur outside or in temporary structures. Kitchens require Oregon Health Authority licensing and cannot operate as cafes or drive-throughs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Lower income thresholds and larger square footage allowances reduce upfront capital barriers for new store construction but increase potential infrastructure costs (septic, water, fire safety) for compliant permanent structures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Counties must evaluate siting standards against a non-prohibition standard, shifting enforcement focus from denial to conditional approval. Consumers gain legal access to on-site dining and agritourism without needing separate commercial zoning.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Small-scale farm operator
A 15-acre farm with $12,000 in gross income legally constructs a 10,000-square-foot enclosed store, operates daily prepared-food sales, hosts weekly tractor rides and crop mazes, and uses mobile vending units year-round, transforming a marginal operation into a fully diversified commercial enterprise without violating EFU zoning.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
County planning authority
A county applies restrictive siting standards (e.g., requiring massive parking lots or extreme noise buffers) that effectively block all viable locations for farm stores on EFU land, triggering costly legal challenges and fragmenting rural agricultural retail networks while the statute’s non-prohibition mandate remains unenforced.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
The boundary between permitted agritourism and prohibited commercial development relies on county interpretation of 'temporary' and 'incidental,' creating enforcement ambiguity that could be exploited for unpermitted commercial scaling.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Expanding commercial and agritourism allowances on EFU land increases farm financial resilience and consumer access but risks diluting agricultural land preservation goals if siting standards are inadequately enforced or misapplied. Upsides include diversified income, rural economic activity, and regulatory clarity; downsides include potential strain on rural infrastructure, increased traffic/noise in farming zones, and enforcement ambiguity regarding the boundary between permitted agritourism and prohibited commercial development.
Diversified farm income streams and reduced regulatory barriers for smaller operations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Clearer statutory definitions reduce permitting uncertainty for operators and local governments.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Increased commercial activity on EFU land may strain rural infrastructure and conflict with statewide agricultural preservation goals.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Ambiguous enforcement of 'temporary' structures and retail area limits could lead to de facto commercial zoning without proper oversight.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The amendment text provides explicit numerical thresholds, structural limits, and jurisdictional boundaries. Staff summaries corroborate the economic intent and fiscal neutrality. Analysis is strictly bounded by the supplied proposed amendment and official legislative documents.
The amendment establishes a state-level permitting framework for farm stores on exclusive farm use (EFU) and mixed farm-forest land, replacing prior farm stand rules with standardized acreage, income, and square-footage thresholds. It explicitly authorizes agri-tourism, prepared food sales, and limited non-farm retail while capping permanent enclosed structures at 10,000 square feet, lowering the gross farm income requirement for small parcels to $10,000, and granting local governments authority to set siting standards (traffic, noise, hours) while prohibiting counties from using those standards to ban farm stores entirely.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment lowers the gross farm income threshold from $40,000 to $10,000 and expands permitted uses to include prepared food service and agri-tourism, suggesting a legislative intent to improve financial viability for smaller or newer farm operations by enabling diversified revenue streams through regulated commercial retail.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gain a standardized pathway to establish commercial farm stores with expanded revenue opportunities (agri-tourism, prepared foods) but must comply with new acreage/income/square footage rules and health licensing requirements.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Granted explicit authority to adopt siting standards for traffic, noise, and hours, but restricted from using those standards to effectively ban farm stores, shifting enforcement focus from denial to management.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gain legal access to on-farm retail, prepared meals, and agri-tourism experiences under regulated health and land-use conditions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Oversee kitchen licensing and sanitation compliance for on-site food preparation without direct new statutory mandates beyond existing frameworks.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Operators must track gross farm income over two years or meet acreage thresholds to qualify, creating administrative tracking obligations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Retail sales are capped at 25% of floor area and must occur inside permanent structures, limiting outdoor market expansion.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Food service is restricted to immediate consumption; operations cannot function as cafes or drive-throughs, requiring clear operational boundaries.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Counties can regulate traffic, noise, and hours but cannot prohibit the use entirely, requiring local governments to develop management plans rather than denial processes.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Farm operators on EFU land
A 15-acre farm with $10k+ gross income establishes a 10,000 sq ft store selling processed goods, hosting weekly hayrides and farm-to-table meals, transforming into a regional economic hub without violating EFU zoning.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Farm operators on EFU land
A developer acquires contiguous EFU parcels to aggregate acreage, operates a massive 10,000 sq ft retail complex with daily agri-tourism events and drive-through style food service disguised as farm store operations, overwhelming rural infrastructure while technically complying with the statute.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The statute's reliance on gross farm income and acreage thresholds creates a compliance gap where non-farm entities could aggregate parcels or inflate reported agricultural revenue to qualify, while the 25% retail cap and temporary structure allowances could be exploited to operate de facto commercial venues without triggering full zoning or licensing requirements.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Expanding farm store allowances diversifies agricultural revenue and supports rural economies but risks converting protected EFU lands into de facto commercial retail zones if acreage, income, and usage limits are not strictly monitored.
Stabilized farm incomes through regulated agri-tourism and direct-to-consumer sales.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Clearer state-level standards reduce permitting uncertainty for qualifying operators.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential infrastructure strain from increased traffic, noise, and event attendance in rural areas.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Regulatory enforcement burdens on counties to monitor compliance with income, acreage, and usage limits.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text and official staff/fiscal summaries. No enacted status or external speculation is applied.
If adopted, the amendment would replace existing farm stand regulations with a statutory framework for "farm stores" on Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and mixed farm/forest zoned land. It establishes explicit acreage, square footage (up to 10,000 sq ft), and gross income thresholds ($10,000 over two years for small tracts) to permit permanent retail structures, prepared food sales, and agritourism activities, while granting local governments authority to set siting standards that cannot outright prohibit the stores.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to modernize and expand rural economic opportunities by clarifying regulatory thresholds, allowing larger commercial footprints, and reducing income barriers for smaller farms to diversify revenue through retail and agritourism.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Gain eligibility to build larger permanent retail structures, sell prepared foods/beverages, and host agritourism events under clearer acreage/income thresholds.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Gain explicit authority to adopt siting standards (traffic, noise, hours, sanitation) but lose the ability to use those standards to effectively ban farm stores.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Gain access to expanded on-farm retail, dining, and agritourism experiences in previously restricted agricultural zones.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Face potential increased oversight or licensing requirements for on-site kitchens and sanitation associated with the new food service allowances.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Operators must ensure sales are tied to their own farm products (or local area), keep non-farm retail under 25% of floor space, and maintain OHA-licensed kitchens if serving prepared food. Small tracts (<20 acres) must prove $10k gross income or 10 acres of farm use.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Reduces the financial barrier for small farms from a previous $40,000 threshold to $10,000 and increases allowable building size to 10,000 sq ft.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Counties can regulate traffic, noise, and hours but cannot prohibit siting. This shifts compliance focus from land-use approval to operational standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Small-scale organic farm operator
A farm on a 15-acre tract with $12,000 in recent gross income establishes a 9,500 sq ft permanent store with an OHA-licensed kitchen, hosting weekly farm-to-table dinners and seasonal festivals, successfully transitioning from crop-only revenue to a diversified agritourism business while remaining fully compliant with acreage and retail caps.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Non-agricultural commercial entity
An operator acquires a 19-acre EFU parcel, generates $10,001 in nominal crop sales over two years, and establishes a 10,000 sq ft "farm store" that primarily functions as a high-volume commercial retail outlet or event venue, significantly increasing traffic and noise while displacing actual agricultural production.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
The statutory language permits ancillary commercial uses but does not define enforcement mechanisms for distinguishing legitimate farm-support retail from primary commercial enterprise, creating a duty creep risk where local inspectors lack clear metrics to halt non-agricultural encroachment.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
The measure trades strict agricultural land preservation for expanded rural economic development by permitting larger commercial footprints and lower income thresholds on EFU land. Upsides include clearer regulatory pathways and new revenue streams for small farms; downsides include potential erosion of EFU zone integrity, increased traffic/sanitation burdens on rural infrastructure, and risk of non-agricultural commercial encroachment.
Provides regulatory clarity and a streamlined pathway for farm diversification.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Reduces income thresholds, enabling smaller or newer farms to access commercial retail and agritourism markets.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Increases allowable permanent structure size and retail allowances, potentially diluting the agricultural character of EFU zones.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Shifts siting authority to local governments, creating potential for inconsistent enforcement and increased pressure on rural roads, waste systems, and emergency services.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit text of the proposed amendment, official staff summaries, and revenue impact statements. Inferences are clearly bounded by statutory thresholds and explicitly labeled.
If adopted, the amendment would replace existing farm stand regulations with a statutory framework permitting permanent farm stores and associated agri-tourism activities on Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and mixed farm/forest zoned lands, establishing specific acreage, square footage, income, and operational thresholds while granting local governments limited siting authority.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to modernize rural economic diversification by allowing larger, commercially viable farm stores and standardized agri-tourism operations while lowering financial barriers for smaller tracts.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A; Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gain eligibility to construct larger permanent retail structures (up to 10,000 sq ft) and host agri-tourism activities, provided they meet tiered acreage/farm-use ratios or a $10,000 cumulative gross income threshold for tracts under 20 acres.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Retain authority to adopt siting standards for access, traffic, noise, hours, and sanitation, but are statutorily barred from applying those standards in a manner that prohibits farm store siting or operation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gain expanded legal access to on-farm retail, prepared foods, and structured agri-tourism experiences in previously restricted agricultural zones.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
OHA retains licensing authority for on-site kitchens; LCDC rules continue to govern EFU zoning compliance and goal compatibility.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Farm operators must track gross farm income over two consecutive years for tracts under 20 acres and maintain OHA licensing for any on-site kitchen preparing food for immediate consumption.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Retail sales are capped at 25 percent of enclosed floor area and must occur inside permanent structures; prepared food service cannot operate as a commercial cafe or drive-through.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Counties may regulate traffic, noise, hours, and sanitation but cannot use siting standards to effectively ban farm stores, shifting enforcement focus from prohibition to conditional management.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Small-scale organic farm on a 15-acre tract with $12,000 in cumulative gross income
Could legally construct a 10,000 sq ft enclosed store, host daily agri-tourism events, and sell prepared meals, transforming into a regional economic hub without violating EFU zoning.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Marginal farm operators in high-traffic rural corridors
A county could adopt siting standards (e.g., extreme parking ratios or restrictive noise ordinances) that are technically permissible under the text but functionally make farm store operation economically unviable, effectively nullifying state permission.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The broad definitions of agri-tourism and processed farm products, combined with county siting authority limits, create ambiguity that could be exploited if local oversight lacks standardized compliance tracking.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The measure balances rural economic diversification and farm income stability against the preservation of Exclusive Farm Use zoning by permitting larger commercial footprints and visitor traffic on agricultural land.
Expands revenue streams for farmers through retail, prepared foods, and agri-tourism.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Standardizes eligibility thresholds, reducing regulatory uncertainty for rural operators.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Increases non-farm commercial activity and visitor traffic in protected agricultural zones, potentially straining local infrastructure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Relies on county enforcement to prevent zoning erosion, creating inconsistent implementation risk across jurisdictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The proposed amendment text is explicit regarding thresholds, permitted uses, and local government authority. Official staff summaries and fiscal statements corroborate the structural changes and revenue impact.
44 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Follow the official text for HB 4153 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available. Dotted links flag likely related proposals based on their text.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals. Dotted teal links are text-based early signals, not official amendment relationships.
Selected document summary
Substantial replacement
What the document says to change
delete lines 1 through 41 and insert:
Inferred policy relationships
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -2
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 215.010, ORS 215.203, ORS 215.213, ORS 624.010.
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -4
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 215.010, ORS 215.203, ORS 215.213, ORS 624.010.
This is a text-based early signal, not an official statement that one amendment changes the other.
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Representative Vikki Breese-Iverson, Senator Janeen Sollman, Senator David Brock Smith, Senator Dick Anderson, Representative Bobby Levy, Representative Sue Rieke Smith, Representative Jeffrey Helfrich
Regular sponsors: Representative Lucetta Elmer, Representative Emerson Levy, Representative Mark Owens, Representative E. Werner Reschke, Senator Anthony Broadman, Senator Fred Girod, Senator Mike McLane, Senator Todd Nash, Senator Chris Gorsek, Senator Mark Meek, Senator Suzanne Weber
House carrier
Representative Vikki Breese-Iverson
Third Reading Of House Bills · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Fred Girod
Third Reading Of House Measures · Version A
A carrier presents the measure or report but is not necessarily its sponsor or author.
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
No meaningful relationship to Yex Labs LLC was found in the supplied artifact.
74% confidence · deterministic fallback
44 events
Full timeline
44 entries shown.
Chapter 123, (2026 Laws): Effective date January 1, 2027.
Governor signed.
President signed.
Speaker signed.
Third reading. Carried by Girod. Passed.
Ayes, 21; Nays, 8--Golden, Jama, Neron Misslin, Patterson, Pham, Prozanski, Reynolds, Taylor; Excused, 1--Hayden.
Second reading.
Recommendation: Do pass the A-Eng. bill.
Referred to Ways and Means.
First reading. Referred to President's desk.
Vote explanation(s) filed by Nathanson.
Third reading. Carried by Breese-Iverson. Passed.
Ayes, 40; Nays, 14--Andersen, Chaichi, Fragala, Gamba, Grayber, Hudson, Kropf, McDonald, McLain, Munoz, Nathanson, Nelson, Sanchez, Tran; Excused, 4--Hartman, Levy B, Scharf, Valderrama; Excused for Business of the House, 2--Lively, Yunker.
Second reading.
Recommendation: Do pass.
Work Session held.
Returned to Full Committee.
Work Session held.
Assigned to Subcommittee On Capital Construction.
House Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Referred to Ways and Means by order of Speaker.
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments, be printed A-Engrossed, and be referred to Ways and Means.
Work Session held.
IS_Impact HB 4153 3
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -6 proposed
Amendment -3 adopted
Amendment -4 proposed
Amendment -2 proposed
Amendment -1 proposed
Public Hearing held.
Amendment -4 proposed
Amendment -2 proposed
Amendment -1 proposed
Public Hearing held.
Amendment -2 proposed
Amendment -1 proposed
Referred to Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources, and Water.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
an to Governor Kotek on February 11, 2025. During the 2024 legislative session, House Bill 4153 relating to artificial intelligence was passed and signed into law. House Bill
e Bill 4153 relating to artificial intelligence was passed and signed into law. House Bill 4153 (2024) established a fourteen (14) member Task Force on Artificial Intelligence
“Digest: Allows farm stores on farmlands. (Flesch Readability Score: 90.9). Allows counties to approve farm stores[ , instead of farm stands, ] as nonfarm use on lands zoned for farm use.”
Oregon updates this record in place. This page uses the latest text; an exact original snapshot is unavailable.
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.