Muckboots in the Capitol Recap of what happened in the 2026 Oregon State Legislature

TL:DR (but we hope you will!)

• The Oregon Legislature was in session 2.2.26-3.5.26
• Land Use was a major topic of conversation. FoFF opposed 2 major initiatives: 
  • HB 4153 (Farm Store Bill) – This bill passed. We believe this goes too far and opens up our farmland to non-farm event and retail businesses, while not opening the fixes we discussed to all farmers due to acreage and income caps. We will continue to bring the nuances and competing needs of our diverse farmer base to the table.
  • SB 1586 (Tech tax cuts and Hillsboro UGB expansion) – This bill failed. FoFF does not support the annexation of prime farmland for industrial use. Re-development of unused land within UGBs should be the priority for tax cuts for industries not dependent on natural resources and soil health.
• Budget cuts were not as extensive as anticipated.
  • The governor originally requested budget reduction options from agencies representing 5% cuts to general funds usage.
  • A more favorable revenue forecast during session and some re-organization led to fewer cuts than anticipated.
  • There were NO cuts to OSU statewides (including Extension) in the final budget despite more than a 7% cut proposed at the beginning of the session.
• The Anti-Hunger Package had mixed success:
  • Big Wins!
    • $2M dedicated to refugee and asylee support from groups who lost access to SNAP through federal legislation last year (HR1)
    • $111M dedicated to protecting Oregon’s SNAP program. This includes upgrading card security to prevent benefits theft, increased measures at the state level to prevent errors and avoid penalties from the federal government down the road.
  • We will have to come back in the future for:
    • School Meals for All (SB 1581) did not pass this session. Although 95% of Oregon schools provide some universal school meal option, the legislature chose not to appropriate funds to bring that to 100% free breakfast and lunch despite bipartisan support.
    • No additional support for the Oregon Emergency Food Network. This was a request for $5M for the food bank networks around the state to cope with the steep increases in demand for emergency food assistance Oregon has seen in the last 18 months.

Land Use

HB 4153 – The Farm Store Bill

What is in the bill?

This bill has had a long and winding road and we want to set the record straight about the many iterations this concept went through during the session. Confusingly, the version of the bill that the public hearing was held on was not the version that passed, so if the last time you read an update was during the call for testimony, things have changed!  Here is an outline of the bill that passed the legislature:

• HB 4153A KEEPS the existing farm stand statute untouched and ADDS a new type of permit called the farm store permit. Here is what you can do with each:
  • Farm Stand (current law, unchanged)
    • Open to all farmers
    • Requires that only 25% of revenue (at max) can be made up of fee-based activity (event and attraction ticket sales) and incidental retail sales (non-farm products such as tote bags, t-shirts or artwork)
    • All other sales must come from agricultural product: both your own farm’s produce, meat, eggs, wool, etc AND from the local agricultural area (defined as the entire state of Oregon and neighboring counties if you live on the border)
    • Subject to current vague county permitting structure with no consistent or clear lines on when a permit is required (although fee-based events, new permanent structures, and sale of incidental items usually signal to the county you need a permit)
  • Farm Store
    • Only open to farms based on their size and acreage in production. The applicant for this permit must be situated on a tract of: 
      • At least 80 acres with at least 45 acres employed for farm use; 
      • Less than 80 acres but at least 40 acres and with at least 25 acres employed for farm use
      • Less than 40 acres but at least 20 acres and with at least 15 acres employed for farm use
      • Less than 20 acres if
        • At least 10 acres are employed for farm use
        • The farm store operates in conjunction with a farm operation, including a farm operation on a separate tract from the farm store, that earned at least $10,000 in gross farm income in the preceding two years;
    • No limits on the amount of revenue you can generate from ticket sales or incidental item sales. Although you have to have farm product for sale, there is no requirement that it make up even 5% of the total. Under this permit operations can now be 99% event venue or roadside attraction with no meaningful farm production.
    • Limits the square footage of incidental item sales to 25% of the area of the farm store. Again, there is no limitation on the revenue that can be earned from these non-farm products.
    • Clarification on educational tours and farm to table dinners. These are things FoFF farmers want and have asked for, but now they have to qualify for a farm store permit to do them. New event types in the bill include:
      • (i) Farm tours;
      • (ii) Educational exhibits or classes;
      • (iii) Crop mazes;
      • (iv) Play structures;
      • (v) Farm-to-table meals;
      • (vi) Animal petting and feeding exhibits;
      • (vii) Hay or tractor rides; or
      • (viii) Other seasonal or holiday events.
    • Prepared foods for immediate consumption (hot food) are now allowed in unlimited quantities. You can also have a certified kitchen facility on site for your farm to table dinners. But the law also states that there cannot be a restaurant, cafe or drive through as these are not allowed uses of EFU land. This seems contradictory to us, and we are not sure what compliance looks like.
    • Allows up to a 10,000 sq ft structure to be built to house the farm store. While only 25% of this can be used for incidental retail item sales, the rest can be used for the sale of farm products, event space or prepared foods sales.

Why is FoFF opposed?

FoFF loves farmstands. We have members with farmstands. Our staff visit farmstands and have operated them on their own operations. We know they are a vital part of connecting people to the food they eat and the land that produces it. The farm stand law needed updates and changes. This bill went FAR beyond any of the conversations FoFF has engaged in during the last 18 months, was drafted without our input, and seemed to be pre-determined for passage since the beginning of the session despite more than 1100 people (farmers and community members alike) putting their opposition on the record. We know that this benefits some farmers and land owners in the state greatly, but it is FoFF’s job to look out for the system as a whole, and all the people that we serve, not only a few individuals.

First and foremost, this bill was sold to the public and lawmakers as a way to simplify the permit process. By the end of the session, not only did this bill not clarify anything about current law, leaving it untouched, but it also created an entirely new permit for similar businesses that counties are going to have to parse out. This will create additional strain and bureaucracy at our counties and create more work for farmers when deciding between and understanding the differences in these two similar sounding permit types. It also uses the language of agritourism, which is already defined elsewhere in law and already has a separate permitting process associated with it. This has the potential to confuse and complicate an already frustrating system. It is clear that the goal of this process was not ease or clarity, but the real goal was to provide a pathway for unlimited event income on EFU zoned land at all costs.

We wanted improvements for ALL farmers

But we have heard our farmers loud and clear that some things about current law are not working and need to change. We were excited to see some things that FoFF Farmers have been asking for included here. The things we like about the farm store proposal include:

• The inclusion of educational events (like farm tours, workshops, and speakers) in farm related fee based activity. This is something that FoFF farmers have been asking for over many years. Part of helping people understand why supporting local agriculture is so important is helping them understand the impact of the choices farmers are making in production, distribution, conservation practices, and community participation.
• The clarification that products made under the farm direct producer processed exemption are farm products, not incidental. A processed farm product is just made into a more usable form. We worked hard to provide the opportunity for our farmers to expand their offerings through the farm direct marketing law. These products should be included in the definition of farm products.
• Inclusion of farm to table dinners in fee based events. This is also something that FoFF farmers have told us loud and clear is a priority for them. Our one caveat is that the bill does not currently require any of the food at the dinner be produced by the host farmer, only in the local agricultural area (defined as the state of Oregon and adjacent counties). We proposed amendments that were not taken up to stipulate that at least one ingredient had to come from the farm hosting the dinner. We were told that was not possible and could not be included.

But under the bill as passed, these new advantages both only apply to land owners who can meet the production and revenue requirements and also come with a HUGE expansion in unpermitted events and agritourism activity on EFU zoned land in Oregon. 

This means that for large farms, the area in production could be 56% if the property is only 80 acres, but the same static acreage number is applied to all properties above this threshold, it could be as little as 1% if a landowner with thousands of acres chose to take advantage of this.

For properties 40-79.99 acres the percentage in farm use varies from 31%-62%. For properties 39.99-20 acres the 37%-75% in farm use and for all properties under 20 acres the percentage of farm usage starts at just over 50% and could be more than the total land they have. Making it very, very challenging for a property under 10 acres to ever qualify for a farm store. We heard from farms of all sizes about why they don’t qualify for the new permit with these rules. Some owned more than 20 acres, but only had water rights for 5. Some owned 45 acres, but more than half of it is in forest, steep slopes, or wet lands, and they are farming the only viable 7 acres. 

The different crop and management types make these standards much easier for livestock grazers to meet than labor intensive annual crop farming. Not only are these acreage requirements arbitrary and place a higher burden on smaller properties, it leaves the door open for someone who happens to own a lot of land to do nominal farm production and unlimited agri-tourism activity, which is not in the spirit of this law.

There is already a permit for agritourism

We already have permit structures that allow folks to host events and attractions on farms. These are called agritourism permits and they come with stipulations from the counties on how often, how large, and what types can occur. By putting unlimited fee-based events into this legislation, we are leaving the door open for abuse of our farmland. 

As stated before, the current law restricts the total of fee-based income (ticket sales) and incidental item sales to 25% of the revenue from the farm stand. This bill removes this requirement for farm stores and the only limit imposed on non-farm product sales is to limit the footprint of the incidental items in the farm store to no more than 25% of the square footage. The purpose of a farm stand or farm store should be to sell agricultural products. This bill removes that requirement. The farm store permit is a way for larger land owners to circumvent the current agritourism permit requirements.

FoFF believes that accountability for farm stands (and farm stores) should be in what commercial activities are conducted, not the size of production or amount of sales. By focusing on the size and scale of businesses to legitimize their farm stores we are fundamentally changing who is allowed to have on farm sales and putting small farms at a disadvantage.

Incentives for large structures on farms

This bill also introduces the 10,000 sq ft number for farm store footprints. The current law does not technically limit the size of a farm stand, it just stipulates that at minimum 75% of the revenue must come from the sale of your, and Oregon raised/grown, farm product. This is the limiting factor in current law. The farm store permit sets a goal of a 10,000 sq ft building for those seeking this permit. While folks can disagree about market forces and what farmland is worth we know some things unequivocally drive up property prices when land comes to market. Building a 10,000 sq ft building that is permitted for public use will add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the purchase price of a farm. This means that this farm will likely be out of reach of any farmer who has to rely on traditional farm loans in the future to purchase property. 

Farming is considered a risky business. There are natural forces outside your control that dictate how your crop does, whether your animals thrive, or whether you are able to meet your goals. This means farmers have traditionally relied on guaranteed and government backed loan products from sources like the USDA Farm Service Agency. FSA only takes your farm production into account when determining how much they will loan you. They want to see what your farm business plan can produce on a given amount of land. FSA rarely and minimally allows agritourism and event income to be included in the calculation. Building event facilities on farmland drives a wedge between what the land can produce and what the market says its worth. If we see a proliferation of facilities like this, while it may be good for the people who currently own the land, a working farmer doesn’t have a good chance of being able to get enough capital to purchase that land in the future using farm loans. This means that only wealthy investors or those with independent means will be able to afford farmland near our population centers in the future. This is not good for Oregon’s community food system. We need more farmers, not less in the future. We need pathways to get people on land, not encouraging large buildings for public events that will drive up prices and put farmland out of reach. Farmland needs to be accessible to those who want to produce food because eating will never be optional and we need to maintain our natural resources to feed Oregon in the future.

Did FoFF propose an alternative?

Yes. FoFF worked to craft an amendment to the current farmstand law that would have expanded event types, revenue from fee-based and incidental item sales, and kept reasonable standards for counties to ensure that there are safeguards to keep our ag lands in production and ensure neighboring operations can keep farming.

Read a summary of FoFF’s -6 Amendment here

Unfortunately, the House Ag committee did not even allow our amendment to be discussed during their process. Lawmakers have the power to give time to policy ideas to improve bills during committee hearings and work sessions. It was a conscious choice not to debate or discuss the solution we put forward. Since this bill was referred to Ways and Means after the House Ag Committee, despite requiring no state funds to be implemented (usually a requirement of Ways and Means), no more debate or discussion of amendments was allowed.

What happens now?

This bill was passed through the legislature and has been sent to the governor. The governor can choose to sign the bill and solidify its passage, she could choose not to sign it and it will be considered law after a waiting period, or she can veto the bill and block it from becoming law. The governor has been supportive of this effort from the beginning, has not answered any communications from us asking to meet with her team on this topic, and has not acknowledged any of the opposition from the farming community. It is truly disappointing to see an elected official completely ignore a large portion of the community that feeds our state.

If the bill is not vetoed, it goes into effect on Jan 1, 2027. There will need to be a rulemaking process at the Department of Land Conservation and Development to implement the bill. FOFF will continue to push for representation on that committee and bring our stakeholders to the forefront. We are not going to back away from the process just because the outcome was not what we think is best for Oregon. It is our duty to continue to engage and keep bringing our community’s voice to the table.

SB 1586 – Tech Tax Cuts and Hillsboro UGB Expansion

What is in the bill?

This bill was a lengthy package of tax cuts for the Advanced Manufacturing industry which included the annexation of a 1,700 acre parcel of prime farmland outside the Hillsboro UGB. Considering FoFF’s expertise is not tax law or high tech industry, we have limited our comments on this bill to the use of our farmland. Oregon’s land use system is very specific and seeks to keep the best farmland in production and close to urban centers where the people who need fresh, Oregon grown food live. This is one of the reasons for our thriving community food system in Oregon. While some other states have sprawling suburbs, no farm land in sight of their big cities and a heavier reliance on the centralized food system, Oregon has more than 160 farmers markets, hundreds of CSA farms and a thriving community of people who believe feeding people is not just a business. This is not an accident, a quirk of our Oregon personality, or simply a cultural choice, this is due to the land use system that was set up in 1955 to limit urban expansion and the re-development of natural resource lands. Part of that agreement is the process in place for land to be taken out of natural resource use and incorporated into a city’s urban growth boundary.

This parcel of land is currently designated rural reserves. In 2014, when the City of Hillsboro was given 1,000 acres of formerly EFU zoned land for industrial purposes, the agreement was that this land would remain untouched in the rural reserve until 2065. This is why the legislature has to get involved if it needs to be rezoned, because a bargain was already struck with the legislature for its preservation. At the end of the session, the bill had morphed to not bring all 1700 acres in at once, but to immediately annex about 300 acres and place the rest in urban reserves so that it could be brought in more easily in the future.

Why is FoFF opposed?

There have been attempts in 5 previous sessions to bring this particular parcel of land into the UGB of Hillsboro. There is little evidence to show that this particular piece of land is needed to attract high tech jobs to Oregon, in fact there were no committed companies at the time of the bills debate and no guaranteed jobs. There are plenty of available lands in surrounding communities, and nearly 500 acres of vacant industrially zoned land within Hillsboro’s UGB that could be used instead.

This conversation brings up yet again, what Oregon considers prosperous. Oregon’s agricultural sector produces $42 B of economic activity for the state with existing businesses, but land use choices in the legislature continue to view our ag land as an untapped resource. Why are we choosing to attract multi-national tech companies for the sake of prosperity, when we are not willing to invest in the infrastructure and intermediate businesses like meat processors, food manufacturing, and ag services like seed cleaning and feed mills to support existing industries? When we prioritize temporary investment from big companies that can afford to move their operations when tax breaks run out, we are sacrificing home grown businesses that are dependent on natural resources in favor of those who could be located anywhere. It does not make sense to sacrifice the soils, and water resources needed for ag to an industry that does not require those resources and has not guarantee of staying in Oregon to invest in our communities long term.

What happens now?

This bill did not pass. No further action is needed, but we will be sure to let you know if a proposal to bring this acreage into the UGB comes up again! Proponents of this misuse of our ag land may think the 7th time is the charm.

 

Budget outcomes were better than anticipated

Natural Resource Agencies

At the beginning of the session, FoFF joined many other advocates in bringing forward a list of crucial programs that we wanted to protect from cuts in the unfavorable revenue forecast that brought us into the short session. The governor asked agencies to prepare lists of 5% cuts across the board. This would have been the worst case scenario and we are happy to say it has not come to pass!

Thank you to everyone who helped us make the case to support our natural resource agencies and keep vital programs intact. Here is a list of the programs we highlighted and their outcomes:

Oregon Department of Agriculture

Vacancy savings in the Agricultural Water Quality Program and Vacancy Savings in Organics Positions

Outcome: There were ~$236,000 listed in vacancy savings in this agency budget, but this is far less than projected. More details on specific programs soon.

Oregon Farm to School Infrastructure and Equipment Grant

Outcome: No cuts listed!

Pesticide Stewardship and Monitoring partnership reductions

Outcome: No cuts listed!

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

Reductions to the Oregon Agricultural Heritage Program

Outcome: No cuts listed!

HECC 

Oregon State University Extension Service

Outcome: No cuts listed!

Oregon Water Resources Department

Water Measurement Cost Share Program

Outcome: No cuts listed! BUT there was a line item for some “reductions in services” so we will keep you posted if this program is included therein.

• •  

Food for All Oregonians’ Anti-Hunger Package

oFF is a proud member of the Food for all Oregonians Campaign because food producers know how crucial it is to be able to afford and access adequate food for your family to thrive. We have been involved with this campaign for several sessions and we proudly supported the policies and budgetary requests they put forward this year. 

Here are the outcomes for the 4 priorities:

• Big Wins!
  • $2M dedicated to refugee and asylee support from groups who lost access to SNAP through federal legislation last year (HR1)
    • This will be distributed through established refugee resettlement groups who already have relationships with this group of people.
  • $111M dedicated to protecting Oregon’s SNAP program. This includes upgrading card security to prevent benefits theft, increased measures at the state level to prevent errors and avoid penalties from the federal government down the road.
    • This includes staff positions at ODHS, additional protocols, and switching all Oregon Trail cards to chip cards for safety.
• We will have to come back in the future for:
  • School Meals for All (SB 1581) did not pass this session. Although 95% of Oregon schools provide some universal school meal option, the legislature chose not to appropriate funds to bring that to 100% free breakfast and lunch despite bipartisan support.
  • No additional support for the Oregon Emergency Food Network. This was a request for $5M for the food bank networks around the state to cope with the steep increases in demand for emergency food assistance Oregon has seen in the last 18 months.
    • There was discussion that legislators though the emergency appropriation for the delay in SNAP benefits last fall may cover this gap. The food bank networks say that the temporary infusion of funds at that time, while helpful, does not meet the increased demand they continue to see. We will have to think about Oregon based solutions to keep everyone fed if the federal government continues to roll back assistance.