HB 4113
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
The bill directs the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to conduct a study on housing development opportunities conditioned upon land conservation, submit findings to legislative interim committees by September 15, 2027, and automatically expire on January 2, 2028. It creates no new regulations, funding streams, or mandatory conditions; it only imposes a temporary research and reporting obligation on DLCD.
Basis: Bill text · Source: 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 measure aims to evaluate whether incentive-based development models can legally align housing production goals with land conservation objectives, potentially informing future legislative action.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Bears the sole administrative obligation to design, fund internally, and execute the study, and to draft and submit a report by the statutory deadline without additional appropriations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Will receive the DLCD report for review and potential future legislative consideration, but face no immediate procedural changes.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Indirectly affected only if the study's findings trigger future legislation; currently experience no changes to zoning, permitting, eligibility, or regulatory obligations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
DLCD must allocate existing staff time and internal resources to conduct the study, creating an unfunded administrative burden. No immediate changes occur to housing credits, conservation easements, or development approvals. Public access to findings will depend on standard transparency rules governing report submission. The hard sunset ensures no lingering statutory authority after January 2028.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
State housing and conservation policy framework
The study identifies a legally sound, scalable model where density bonuses or tax incentives are exchanged for permanent conservation easements, significantly accelerating both housing production and ecological preservation without state expenditure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
DLCD operational capacity and local land use planning
DLCD diverts critical staff resources from core statutory duties to conduct the study, delaying essential land use planning support for local governments, while the final report yields only theoretical recommendations that trigger no legislative action before the January 2028 sunset.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
The text legally permits DLCD to research and recommend policy; it does not authorize mandatory conservation conditions on housing development or create new regulatory frameworks. A potentially unlawful outcome could arise if DLCD or future agencies misinterpret the study's scope as implicit authority to impose de facto land conservation mandates on private developers without legislative enactment, or if administrative duty creep expands the study beyond its statutory bounds into unappropriated rulemaking.
Sources · Introduced
The measure trades immediate unfunded administrative costs and resource diversion for DLCD against the potential long-term policy clarity of understanding how housing and conservation goals can be legally aligned. Upsides include evidence-based policy development and preserved legislative flexibility; downsides include delayed action on land use challenges, internal resource strain, and a hard sunset that may leave recommendations unimplemented.
Evidence-based policy development and preserved legislative flexibility.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Delayed action on land use challenges, internal resource strain, and a hard sunset that may leave recommendations unimplemented.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
high confidence. The bill text is explicit about its scope, deadline, sunset provision, and lack of funding or regulatory mandates. No supporting analysis or testimony was provided to expand the scope.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
The amendment would replace a legislative study with binding statutory authority allowing eligible owners of designated Metolius River Basin resort sites to develop up to 960 residential units in nearby rural counties, contingent on transferring conservation easements or title for stewardship, meeting strict affordability and environmental standards, and receiving county and DLCD approval. Material consequences include creating a narrow, highly regulated pathway for high-density housing in specific coastal and rural jurisdictions while permanently restricting the underlying resort lands, shifting development rights from historical claimants to projects with mandatory 60-year affordability covenants and sustainability mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — 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 balance rural housing supply with environmental stewardship by coupling new residential development rights with permanent land conservation and affordability requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Gain a statutory pathway to develop residential projects on nearby land by relinquishing development rights or granting conservation easements, subject to strict eligibility windows and DLCD notification deadlines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Assume conditional use review authority, conceptual plan adoption duties, public hearing requirements, and mandatory DLCD compliance coordination within fixed statutory timelines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Gain potential access to housing units legally restricted to purchase or rent at 130 percent or less of area median income for a minimum of 60 years.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Receive permanent protection of resort site lands through title transfers or conservation easements, mandatory public access to non-developed portions, and legally enforceable environmental performance standards for adjacent developments.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Developers must secure joint agreements with resort site owners, fund all infrastructure extension and capacity costs, and meet stringent reclaimed water, potable water reduction, stormwater management, and impervious surface limits.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Eligibility is locked to a narrow historical notification window (prior to June 29, 2010, renewed by June 29, 2017), limiting the pool of potential applicants to specific legacy claimants.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Counties must adopt conceptual plans after public hearings and consultation with the nearest city, then submit them to DLCD within 21 days for compliance review within 60 days.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Enforcement relies on DLCD approval or remand authority, county monitoring of affordability covenants and environmental operations manuals, and judicial review under ORS 183.484 standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Regional housing market and conservation trust
A qualifying resort site owner successfully transfers title to a conservation trust, permanently protects critical Metolius Basin habitat, and develops a fully compliant 960-unit community that resolves a regional housing shortage while generating long-term affordable inventory and meeting all sustainability mandates without public subsidy.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
County fiscal stability and intended residents
A county approves a project that narrowly meets the 35 percent impervious surface limit and 20 percent potable water reduction through costly technical fixes, but fails to secure adequate off-site resource enhancement funding or enforce the 60-year affordability covenant, resulting in long-term financial strain on the municipality, ecological degradation, and displacement of intended low-income residents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
The distinction rests on statutory enforcement mechanisms versus operational gaps in monitoring and classification.
Sources · Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
The measure trades permanent rural land conservation and mandated affordable housing for a highly regulated, narrow pathway to high-density residential development in specific coastal and rural counties. Upsides include guaranteed habitat protection, long-term affordability, and strict environmental performance standards. Downsides include restricted eligibility, heavy regulatory burdens on counties and developers, potential infrastructure costs passed to the public or project, and limited geographic scope that may not address broader regional housing needs.
Guaranteed habitat protection through permanent conservation easements or title transfers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Long-term affordable housing inventory restricted to households at 130 percent or less of area median income for 60 years.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Strict environmental performance standards including reclaimed water use, potable water reduction, on-site stormwater management, and impervious surface limits.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Eligibility restricted to a narrow historical notification window, excluding most current landowners.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Heavy regulatory and administrative burdens on counties and DLCD, including fixed review timelines and conceptual plan requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Infrastructure and sustainability costs may be passed to developers or municipalities, potentially limiting project viability.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Limited geographic scope restricts the measure to five counties and specific Metolius Basin resort sites, reducing broader regional housing impact.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text. No enacted provisions, fiscal data, or staff analysis were provided; all implications are derived from statutory language and standard implementation mechanics.
If adopted, this amendment would replace a study mandate with a binding statutory framework allowing counties to approve one conservation-offset housing opportunity per county. It ties eligibility to owners of undeveloped Metolius resort sites, mandates that at least half of the units remain affordable for sixty years, imposes strict environmental and sustainability standards, restricts development locations away from protected resources, and shifts the Department of Land Conservation and Development from a study role to a mandatory review and approval authority.
Basis: Inferred · 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 appears designed to convert existing land-use opportunities tied to the Metolius River Basin management plan into a structured mechanism for producing affordable housing while mandating conservation offsets, addressing both regional housing supply constraints and environmental stewardship goals.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Gain a statutory pathway to monetize or transfer development rights through conservation agreements, but must execute joint applications and grant easements that limit future use.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Gain authority to approve one such opportunity per county, process conditional uses and land divisions, adopt conceptual plans, and charge processing fees, while assuming mandatory review timelines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Gain guaranteed access to at least fifty percent of residential units priced at or below one hundred thirty percent of area median income for a minimum of sixty years.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Shifts from a study-only mandate to a binding oversight role with mandatory sixty-day review windows, approval or remand authority, and judicial review exposure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Benefit from permanent conservation easements, stewardship organizations, and habitat restoration requirements, but face potential development pressure on rural lands near urban growth boundaries.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Developers must secure joint agreements with Metolius resort site owners, meet strict geographic constraints (within two miles of an urban growth boundary or existing destination resort, excluding protected resources), and comply with elevated sustainability mandates including reclaimed water irrigation, twenty percent potable water reduction, on-site stormwater management, and environmental operations manuals. County processing fees are permitted, but affordability covenants and conservation easements will increase long-term compliance costs. DLCD oversight shifts to a mandatory approval process with strict sixty-day deadlines, creating potential administrative bottlenecks if review capacity is insufficient.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Regional housing and conservation stakeholders
A county successfully leverages a Metolius resort site transfer to construct nine hundred sixty affordable units in a sustainable, conservation-offset development. Permanent easements protect adjacent rural land, environmental monitoring ensures long-term ecological viability, and the sixty-year affordability covenant permanently addresses regional housing shortages without straining public infrastructure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Rural landowners and environmental resources
A developer exploits the joint-application requirement to pressure a Metolius site owner into an unfavorable easement. Development concentrates near sensitive ecological zones despite exclusion rules, affordability covenants degrade over decades due to weak monitoring, and conservation offsets become nominal paperwork rather than enforceable habitat protections, resulting in irreversible rural land conversion.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
The distinction rests on whether enforcement mechanisms (covenant recording, easement monitoring, DLCD remand authority) are actively maintained or allowed to erode through administrative inaction or creative land classification.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
The measure trades expanded rural housing production and permanent land conservation for increased regulatory complexity, higher development costs, and concentrated approval authority over DLCD and specific counties.
Guaranteed long-term affordability for half the units, mandatory environmental stewardship through baseline studies and habitat restoration, permanent conservation offsets via recorded easements, and targeted location constraints that avoid protected open space, estuarine resources, beaches, dunes, and prime farm soils.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
High compliance costs may deter developers, strict geographic limits reduce viable site availability, joint-application requirements create dependency on Metolius resort site owners, and DLCD oversight shifts to a binding approval role without clear fiscal backing or expanded administrative capacity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The amendment text explicitly defines eligibility, development standards, affordability requirements, geographic constraints, and DLCD review procedures. The analysis is grounded solely in the provided statutory language without external speculation.
If adopted, the amendment would replace the existing small-scale recreation community pathway with a conservation-offset housing opportunity program that allows counties to approve one or two developments per jurisdiction, increases the maximum residential unit cap from 240 to 960, mandates that at least half of those units carry 60-year affordability covenants for households earning 130 percent or less of area median income, and requires developers to secure permanent conservation easements on designated Metolius resort sites with guaranteed public access. Material consequences include expanded rural housing supply tied to ecological offsets, shifted infrastructure and sustainability compliance costs to private developers, and new conditional use review and fee-setting authority for participating counties.
Basis: Inferred · 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 text restructures a former recreation-focused land-use exception into a housing-and-conservation offset model, explicitly raising unit caps, imposing long-term affordability mandates, and requiring conservation easements with public access provisions. This structural shift suggests a policy objective to expand rural housing capacity while using permanent ecological protections and developer-funded stewardship as regulatory trade-offs for overriding standard land use goals.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gain a statutory pathway to transfer development rights and secure conservation easements that limit future resort-style development while enabling housing partnerships.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gain authority to approve one or two opportunities, adopt conceptual plans, review applications as conditional uses, and charge processing fees, but must enforce new affordability, sustainability, and ecological compliance standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gain eligibility for at least 50 percent of residential units priced or rented at or below 130 percent of area median income for a minimum of 60 years.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gains a 60-day statutory review window, remand authority for noncompliant submittals, and oversight of judicial review procedures under ORS 183.484.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Developers must execute joint agreements with Metolius resort site owners, fund conservation easements under ORS 271, meet a 960-unit cap, achieve minimum density of 10 units per net residential acre, and establish environmental operations manuals, volunteer management programs, and annual performance audits.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Private entities bear costs for off-site resource enhancements (previously $1.5M requirement removed), reclaimed water systems, potable water reduction infrastructure, on-site stormwater management, and 60-year affordability covenant administration. Counties incur administrative costs for conditional use reviews, conceptual plan adoption, and DLCD coordination but may recoup processing fees.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Only owners of land mapped eligible for destination resort siting under ORS 197.455 by Jefferson County who renew prior elections qualify. Public access is legally guaranteed to undeveloped portions of the conserved Metolius site.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Compliance relies on county conditional use permits, recorded conservation easements, DLCD submittal reviews, and judicial review limited to counties or owners under ORS 183.484. Long-term affordability and stewardship monitoring depend on covenant recording and developer reporting.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Rural communities and conservation stakeholders
A developer successfully pairs a large, ecologically sensitive Metolius resort site with a 960-unit conservation-offset housing opportunity in a constrained rural county. The project delivers middle-income and affordable housing at high density, permanently protects critical habitat through a recorded easement with public trails, meets all sustainability and water-reduction standards, and establishes a funded stewardship nonprofit that restores regional ecosystems while generating long-term tax base growth without impacting prime farmland or state parks.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Ecological resources and public utilities
A county approves an opportunity near a protected ecological corridor by narrowly interpreting significant resource boundaries. The developer minimizes actual conservation value through restrictive easement terms, circumvents affordability requirements via short-term rental classifications, fails to maintain mandated water-reduction or stormwater standards, and shifts infrastructure extension costs to public utilities while claiming statutory conservation-offset status, effectively undermining statewide land use goals.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The distinction rests on whether recorded easements, covenant enforcement mechanisms, and county plan compliance checks are rigorously applied versus exploited through narrow interpretations or administrative neglect.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The measure trades strict geographic and recreational restrictions for expanded housing capacity and mandatory conservation offsets, shifting regulatory burden to developers while guaranteeing long-term affordability and ecological protections.
Increases rural housing supply, locks in permanent conservation easements with public access, mandates substantial affordability, and enforces modern sustainability standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Removes protective geographic caps, imposes complex compliance and monitoring obligations on counties and developers, and creates potential for inconsistent enforcement of conservation and affordability requirements across jurisdictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Increases rural housing supply, locks in permanent conservation easements with public access, mandates substantial affordability, and enforces modern sustainability standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Removes protective geographic caps, imposes complex compliance and monitoring obligations on counties and developers, and creates potential for inconsistent enforcement of conservation and affordability requirements across jurisdictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text. No enacted status, fiscal data, or staff analysis was provided; all implications are derived from statutory language changes and standard land-use implementation patterns.
10 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 4113 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 4 through 9 and insert:
Inferred policy relationships
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -2
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 15, ORS 183.484, ORS 197.455, ORS 197.732, ORS 215.010, Program administration, Effective date.
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -3
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 15, ORS 183.484, ORS 197.455, ORS 197.732, ORS 215.010, Program administration, Effective date.
This is a text-based early signal, not an official statement that one amendment changes the other.
Official records (1)
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Representative Ken Helm
Regular sponsors: Representative Vikki Breese-Iverson, Representative Emerson Levy, Senator Dick Anderson, Representative Tom Andersen, Representative Kevin Mannix, Representative Court Boice
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
10 events
Full timeline
10 entries shown.
In committee upon adjournment.
Possible Work Session
Not Heard · Agenda item 4 · Room HR 40 · Requires the Department of Land Conservation and Development to study housing development opportunities conditioned upon land conservation.
Amendment -3 proposed
Amendment -2 proposed
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 3 · Room HR 40 · Requires the Department of Land Conservation and Development to study housing development opportunities conditioned upon land conservation.
Amendment -1 proposed
Referred to Housing and Homelessness.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
pportunity authorized under sections 2 to 5, chapter 636, Oregon 11 Laws 2009 [(Enrolled House Bill 2228), must meet the following development 12 standards]: 13 “[(a)] (1) [The communi
pportunity authorized under sections 2 to 5, chapter 636, Oregon 12 Laws 2009 [(Enrolled House Bill 2228), must meet the following development 13 standards]: 14 “[(a)] (1) [The communi
pportunity authorized under sections 2 to 5, chapter 636, Oregon 12 Laws 2009 [(Enrolled House Bill 2228), must meet the following development 13 standards]: 14 “[(a)] (1) [The communi
“Requires the Department of Land Conservation and Development to study housing development opportunities conditioned upon land conservation.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.