HB 4130
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
HB 4130 clarifies that land under certain farm crop and farm product processing facilities qualifies for farmland special assessment (farm use valuation), defines key statutory terms, and establishes application requirements for owners of both exclusive and non-exclusive farm use zone land. The measure applies to property tax years beginning on or after July 1, 2027, with no projected state or local revenue impact.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Enrolled; Fiscal Impact Statement 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 resolve statutory ambiguity regarding whether on-site commercial processing activities disqualify land from agricultural tax benefits, thereby supporting vertical integration and biofuel production without triggering reassessment. This hypothesis is derived from the text’s explicit expansion of the “processing facility” definition to include ORS 215-approved crop and biofuel processing, alongside the removal of floor-area restrictions for qualifying facilities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Gain clarified eligibility for farm use assessment if they file required applications demonstrating facility compliance.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Enrolled
Must review new application requirements, verify facility definitions against ORS 215 standards, and process valuation changes for qualifying land.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Enrolled
Oversees standardized application forms and ensures consistent interpretation of “processing facility” across counties.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Enrolled
May experience minimal fiscal impact if additional land qualifies for special assessment, though official analyses project no revenue change.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; IS_Impact HB 4130 2
Eligibility & Obligations: Owners must file applications by April 1 of the first assessment year, attach affidavits, and provide facility details proving compliance with ORS 215 definitions. EFU land owners face specific application triggers under ORS 308A.056(3)(g), while non-EFU land owners must include processing facility verification in standard applications.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Enrolled
Costs & Access: Minimal fiscal impact per legislative analysis. The measure reduces administrative uncertainty for qualifying operations but imposes upfront compliance costs (application preparation, affidavit notarization, assessor review).
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Enforcement: Assessors must distinguish between statutory “processing facilities” and general commercial/industrial uses, relying on floor area exemptions and ORS 215 approvals rather than production volume or zoning.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Enrolled
Vertically integrated agricultural operators
A large-scale operation with on-site crop processing and biofuel production successfully maintains farm use assessment across thousands of acres, avoiding catastrophic tax reassessment that would otherwise force land sale or operational shutdown.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Commercial food manufacturing entities
A non-farm commercial facility reclassifies its large-scale industrial processing plant as a “farm use processing facility” under the broad statutory definition, securing agricultural tax rates and permanently reducing the local property tax base for public services.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
The text legally permits on-site processing of farm products and biofuel to qualify for special assessment without regard to floor area or commercial scale, provided it meets ORS 215 definitions. A potential unlawful outcome could arise from weak assessor enforcement or misclassification, where non-agricultural commercial facilities exploit the broad “processing facility” definition to secure agricultural tax rates. Duty creep may occur if assessors are compelled to evaluate commercial viability or production metrics rather than strictly verifying statutory compliance and ownership records.
Sources · Enrolled
Clarifying eligibility for farm use assessment on processing facilities reduces administrative uncertainty and supports agricultural operations, but risks expanding the special assessment pool in ways that could gradually reduce local property tax revenues if not strictly monitored.
Broad definitions may inadvertently capture commercial or industrial facilities, potentially eroding local tax bases over time.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Enrolled
Requires assessors to interpret ORS 215 commercial processing standards, increasing administrative complexity.
Basis: Official analysis · Source: Enrolled
The enrolled version is substantively identical to the House Amendments to Introduced version. No material changes exist to statutory definitions, application requirements, effective dates, or qualifying conditions. The only differences are procedural formatting, committee action labels, and header metadata. Both versions amend ORS 308A.056, 308A.062, and 308A.077 identically, with an effective date of July 1, 2027.
No substantive change identified.
Tradeoff: None. The measure's scope, obligations, and fiscal projections remain unchanged from the prior version.
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the enrolled bill text and official legislative revenue/fiscal/staff summaries. No speculative claims are presented as findings.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
If adopted, the amendment would explicitly classify land under certain farm crop and product processing facilities (including biofuel operations) as qualifying for Oregon’s agricultural property tax special assessment. It establishes April 1 application deadlines for exclusive farm use (EFU) landowners, requires non-EFU landowners to submit facility definition proof, and removes the introduced bill’s restriction requiring a majority of processed products to be raised on-site. The change would lower effective property tax rates for qualifying agricultural processors while standardizing county assessor review procedures.
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 responds to inconsistent county assessor interpretations regarding whether on-site processing infrastructure qualifies as farm use under existing law. By explicitly defining processing facilities, removing the on-site crop majority requirement, and adding standardized application steps, the measure appears designed to eliminate assessment ambiguity for value-added agriculture and biofuel operations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Gain explicit eligibility for farm use special assessment on land under processing buildings, reducing property tax burdens. EFU owners must file new applications by April 1; non-EFU owners must attach facility definition proof to applications.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Receive standardized statutory definitions and application requirements, reducing discretionary interpretation but increasing initial administrative workload for verifying facility classification and affidavit compliance.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Explicitly included in farm use eligibility under specific conditions (own crops, on-farm use, or custom processing), clarifying tax treatment previously left to statutory inference.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential minimal revenue impact if additional land qualifies for special assessment, though official fiscal reviews indicate no measurable state or local revenue change.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; IS_Impact HB 4130 2
Behavior and obligations shift from passive qualification to proactive application. EFU landowners with processing facilities must file by April 1 of the first assessment year; non-EFU owners must attach facility definition documentation. Failure to apply results in loss of special assessment for that tax year.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Eligibility expands to processing facilities regardless of floor area or location outside exclusive farm use zones, provided they meet the statutory definition. This lowers compliance uncertainty but requires assessors to distinguish agricultural processing from commercial manufacturing.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Enforcement relies on county assessor verification of affidavits and facility definitions. The removal of the introduced bill’s majority-on-site crop requirement broadens eligibility, increasing the volume of claims assessors must review.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Multi-county custom biofuel processor
Successfully claims farm use assessment on all processing facility land across multiple jurisdictions, significantly reducing operational costs and enabling rapid expansion of rural renewable energy infrastructure without triggering commercial property tax rates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Non-agricultural commercial food manufacturer
Classifies a large-scale industrial food processing plant as a qualifying facility under the broad definition (which explicitly disregards floor area limits), securing farm use assessment on land that should be taxed commercially, eroding the local tax base and creating unfair competition for genuine farmers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
The amendment incorporates Oregon statutes (ORS 215.255, ORS 315.141) and federal standards (USDA grading) by reference, but remains an Oregon property tax law change. The jurisdiction of the assessment remains state/local, while definitions are borrowed for consistency.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Expanding explicit eligibility for on-site agricultural processing lowers compliance uncertainty and supports value-added farming but risks broadening tax base erosion by classifying large-scale or commercial-adjacent facilities as agricultural under a definition that explicitly disregards facility size.
Clearer statutory guidance reduces assessment disputes and litigation risk for farmers investing in processing infrastructure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Financial relief for rural biofuel and value-added agriculture operators, potentially encouraging agricultural diversification and renewable energy development.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential overqualification of non-farm processing operations could reduce local property tax revenues and create market distortion between agricultural and commercial processors.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Increased county assessor verification burdens due to standardized application requirements and the removal of the on-site crop majority restriction.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The amendment text is explicit in its statutory changes, application deadlines, and definitions. Official fiscal and revenue statements confirm minimal/no impact. The analysis relies solely on the provided proposed amendment and supporting legislative documents.
32 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 4130 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available.
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.
Selected document summary
Targeted changes
What the document says to change
On page 1 of the printed bill, line 2, after the semicolon delete the rest 2 of the line and insert “creating new provisions; and amending ORS 308A.
Official records (1)
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Representative Shelly Boshart Davis, Representative E. Werner Reschke, Representative Hai Pham
Regular sponsors: Representative Bobby Levy, Representative Susan McLain, Representative Mark Owens, Senator James Manning Jr.
House carrier
Representative E. Werner Reschke
Third Reading Of House Bills · Version A
House carrier
Representative Shelly Boshart Davis
Third Reading Of House Bills · Version A
Senate carrier
Senator Kim Thatcher
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.
32 events
Full timeline
32 entries shown.
Chapter 115, (2026 Laws): Effective date January 1, 2027.
Governor signed.
President signed.
Speaker signed.
Neron Misslin, Patterson, Pham, granted unanimous consent to change vote to aye.
Third reading. Carried by Thatcher. Passed.
Ayes, 29; Excused, 1--Hayden.
Second reading.
Recommendation: Do pass the A-Eng. bill.
Staff Measure Summary · Version A
Public Hearing and Work Session held.
Public Hearing and Work Session
Heard and Reported Out · Agenda item 3 · Room HR C · Allows property tax special assessment for land under processing facilities.
IS_Impact HB 4130 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Referred to Rules.
First reading. Referred to President's desk.
Rules suspended. Third reading. Carried by Boshart Davis, Reschke. Passed.
Ayes, 57; Excused, 2--Hartman, Valderrama; Excused for Business of the House, 1--Diehl.
Rules suspended. Second reading.
House Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be printed A-Engrossed.
Staff Measure Summary · Version A
Revenue Impact Statement · Version A
Fiscal Impact Statement · Version A
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 4 · Room HR A · Clarifies the meaning of "preparing" products or by-products raised for human or animal use on a farm unit for purposes of the definition of "farm use."
IS_Impact HB 4130 2
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -2 adopted
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 4 · Room HR A · Clarifies the meaning of "preparing" products or by-products raised for human or animal use on a farm unit for purposes of the definition of "farm use.
Referred to Revenue.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
“Chapter 115, (2026 Laws): Effective date January 1, 2027.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.