Josephine County’s ongoing search for reliable public revenue has led commissioners back to an issue that has remained largely dormant for decades but could carry lasting financial consequences for the county’s future. As elected officials evaluate possible changes to Chapter 5.15 of the Josephine County Code, the discussion has expanded well beyond mining regulations and into a broader conversation about how county-owned lands should be managed, what obligations public officials have in administering existing law, and whether valuable public assets are being left undeveloped.
The ordinance under review governs mineral exploration permits and mining leases on county-owned property within Josephine County’s timber portfolio. While commissioners have recently discussed whether the ordinance should be revised, American Mineral Research is urging county leaders to take a different approach, arguing that the existing ordinance has largely served its intended purpose for nearly four decades and that the greater problem has been how it has been administered.
In written comments submitted to the Board of Commissioners, the company challenged several statements made during recent public discussions, saying the current code has been incorrectly characterized as outdated and repeatedly amended over the years. According to American Mineral Research, Chapter 5.15 was adopted in 1988 and has remained essentially unchanged since its adoption. The company maintains that the ordinance continues to provide a workable framework for mineral development on county-owned land, although it agrees that permit and lease fees should be modernized because they have not been adjusted since the ordinance was first enacted.
The debate arrives as Josephine County continues to face long-standing financial pressures, particularly surrounding public safety funding. American Mineral Research argues that mineral development represents an opportunity to create a new revenue source for county government without increasing taxes. The company says a single 76-acre county-owned property where it previously completed exploration work has the potential to generate more than $10 million in royalty payments dedicated to county law enforcement programs over the life of a mining project.
Company officials further contend that the property is only one example of what may exist beneath county ownership. After nearly 18 years of geological research and exploration work, American Mineral Research believes additional county-owned properties possess similar mineral potential that has yet to be fully evaluated.
“We know of other County properties that have similar mineral development potential and deserve to be researched and invested in just as much as this one,” the company wrote in its comments to commissioners.
That position frames the discussion not simply as one involving mining, but as a broader economic development question. According to the company, county-owned timberlands should not be viewed exclusively as sources of timber revenue when significant mineral resources may also exist beneath the surface.
Exploration, however, requires substantial financial commitment long before any mining activity can occur. Geological mapping, drilling, engineering studies, environmental analysis, permitting, and feasibility work can require investments reaching hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars before determining whether a mineral deposit can be developed economically.
American Mineral Research argues that private companies are unlikely to assume that level of financial risk unless county regulations provide certainty that a successful exploration project can ultimately lead to a long-term mining lease.
“If you don’t guarantee a longer-term lease to a company that invests and finds a valuable and economically viable mineral deposit while exploring a property, no company will make that investment in the first place,” the company stated.
That guarantee is one of the principal features of the current ordinance and has become one of the central issues in discussions about possible revisions. According to American Mineral Research, removing that provision would discourage private investment and redirect exploration dollars toward privately owned land or federal mining claims instead of county-owned property.
The company also disputes the notion that the ordinance itself has created legal problems for the county. Instead, it argues that previous county officials failed to administer the code according to its own requirements, ultimately leading to litigation.
American Mineral Research notes that it filed two lawsuits involving the county’s handling of its applications. The company states that the first case concluded with a settlement after the county acknowledged errors in how its mining lease application had been processed, which the company views as confirmation that the dispute centered on administration of the ordinance rather than deficiencies within the ordinance itself.
“The code is good,” the company wrote. “The only thing that really needs to be updated in the code is the fee structure for exploration permits and mining leases.”
The letter also raises concerns about previous efforts to rewrite Chapter 5.15. According to American Mineral Research, an ordinance drafted several years ago by county legal counsel would have eliminated the lease guarantee that exploration companies consider essential before investing significant capital into county-owned properties.
The company argues that such a change would effectively halt mineral development because investors would have little assurance they could recover exploration costs after discovering valuable deposits.
Instead, American Mineral Research recommends commissioners consider revisions previously developed by the Josephine County Mining Advisory Committee. According to the company, that committee spent considerable time crafting recommendations that modernize portions of the ordinance while preserving protections for both the county and private developers.
The letter also questions whether commissioners have received complete information regarding previous interest in county-owned mineral projects. American Mineral Research states that at least two additional exploration applicants had expressed interest in county properties before the county imposed its earlier mining moratorium, suggesting that multiple investment opportunities may have been delayed.
Beyond the legal and regulatory discussion lies a larger policy question that commissioners will ultimately have to answer. Josephine County has historically relied on timber receipts and other traditional revenue sources to help fund county operations, yet changing economic conditions have forced local governments throughout Oregon to continually search for additional revenue without placing greater burdens on taxpayers.
Supporters of mineral development view county-owned mineral resources as an opportunity to diversify those revenues while creating private investment and employment. Others may weigh environmental considerations, land management priorities, and public oversight as commissioners determine whether existing county policy strikes the appropriate balance.
For now, American Mineral Research is urging county leaders to focus less on replacing the ordinance and more on consistently following it. The company describes itself as the only firm during the past two decades to successfully complete the county’s exploration permitting process, prove the existence of a significant mineral deposit on county-owned land, and submit an application for a mining lease after making that investment.
As the commissioners continue evaluating Chapter 5.15, the decisions made in the coming months could influence far more than future mining proposals. They may determine whether county-owned mineral resources become an active part of Josephine County’s long-term economic strategy, whether additional private investment is encouraged or discouraged, and whether public lands generate new revenue capable of supporting county services for decades to come.