The BCC Weekly – Taking the “Blind” out of the BCC
Just like elected officials and public officials are supposed to do, let me say upfront here that I have a conflict of interest in this “story” as a shareholder in American Mineral Research, the company discussed in this article. Consider the following an opinion piece, although like any article I have ever written I stand behind all comments in this article that are expressed as fact.
This story is now just the latest chapter of a story that is six years in the making. Almost exactly six years ago, American Mineral Research (AMR) submitted an application to Josephine County for a Mineral Exploration Permit on a 76-acre County-owned timber property east of Wolf Creek. Even in this initial exploration permit application, AMR cited its desire to help Josephine County generate more revenues for County Law Enforcement.
Local mineral research company sued Josephine County after Commissioners reject mining lease application that could bring County millions in royalties, seeks $2.4 million in damages
American Mineral Research, Inc. (AMR) has escalated its legal battle with Josephine County, filing a formal Petition for Writ of Review in circuit court seeking to overturn the Board of County Commissioners’ 2–1 decision to deny a mining lease application that the company says could have generated up to $20 million in royalty revenue to Josephine County law enforcement programs over the life of the project.
The lawsuit filed about two weeks ago against Josephine County accuses the county commissioners of illegally denying their application for a mining lease on county-owned land after a two-and-a-half-year delay that forced the company to obtain a court order just to get a hearing as required by the county code. AMR filed a Petition for Writ of Review in Josephine County Circuit Court, asking a judge to overturn the Board of County Commissioners’ September 23, 2025, 2–1 vote rejecting the company’s proposed mining lease on a 76-acre timber property Josephine County owns east of Wolf Creek. The lawsuit claims the county violated its own mining ordinance, ignored unanimous recommendations from its Mining Advisory Committee, and failed to make any factual findings to justify the denial.
Under county code, holders of a valid mineral exploration permit who discover commercially viable mineral deposits on county-owned land are entitled to an “exclusive right” to a subsequent mining lease if they meet all code requirements. AMR says it checked every box.
According to the petition: In 2020, the county granted AMR a three-year mineral exploration permit after a unanimous recommendation from the Mining Advisory Committee.
Between 2020 and 2023, AMR spent approximately $100,000 on surface prospecting and validated historical core drilling that showed high-grade gold values. In May 2023, the company submitted a 200-plus-page mining lease application containing extensive geological data. The Mining Advisory Committee again unanimously recommended approval within the required 30 days. Despite county code requiring “public consideration” of the lease “upon receipt” of the committee’s recommendation, commissioners took no action for two years and never scheduled a public hearing.
Frustrated by the delay, AMR filed a rare writ of mandamus in early 2025. In May 2025, the court signed the writ ordering the county to act after the parties reached a stipulated agreement that the county would hold a public hearing and issue a decision by the end of August (later mutually extended to September 30, 2025). The BCC held another meeting with AMR in a Q&A type workshop meeting on September 17, 2025, and six days later voted 2–1 to deny the lease without issuing any written findings.
AMR met every requirement for an “exclusive right” to the lease under JCC § 5.15.070.
The decision is unsupported by substantial evidence and contains no findings that would legally allow the denial of the application. Commissioners improperly interpreted their own code when they denied the application despite clear evidence of a valuable and highly economical mineral discovery.
AMR says not only does it meet every requirement — but also twice earned unanimous approval from the county’s own Mining Advisory Committee — yet commissioners Chris Barnett and Ron Smith voted to deny the lease on September 23, 2025, without issuing any written findings.
The lawsuit, filed November 13, accuses the county of:
- Illegally delaying action on the application for more than two years, forcing AMR to obtain a court-ordered writ of mandamus just to get a hearing.
- Violating mandatory “shall” language in the county code that entitles exploration permit holders to a lease.
- Rendering a decision unsupported by substantial evidence and devoid of required findings that could allow the County to deny the application.
AMR is asking the court to reverse the denial, order the county to issue the lease, and award up to $2.4 million in damages for delays, legal costs and lost opportunity.
“We followed every rule. They ignored the rules.”
AMR spent approximately $100,000 validating historical drilling data and conducting its own exploration under a three-year permit issued in 2020. In May 2023, it submitted a 200+ page lease application with extensive geological evidence of a valuable gold reserve.
The Mining Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval within the required 30 days. County code states the Board “shall publicly consider” the lease upon receipt of that recommendation. Instead, commissioners took no action for two years.
Only after AMR filed (and won) a mandamus court action earlier in 2025 did the county agree to hold a hearing as required by the County Code. At a September 17, 2025 workshop, required by the mandamus case settlement and additional mutual agreement of the parties, Commissioner Ron Smith appeared sympathetic and even suggested County Commissioners didn’t act on this application in a matter required by code for reasons other than found in code requirements:
Commissioner Ron Smith on September 17: “So, so here’s, here’s my basic opinion of this whole thing. We’re looking at 70 acres. It probably has a value of something like $200,000, which really doesn’t mean much for the county because there’s no timber left on it. So what, what are we haggling about here?
I mean, is there an opportunity here to actually bring some significant revenue to the county? I mean, I mean, what in the world that could happen. I mean, as long as we’re indemnified, sure ensure that we’re not going to be liable for anything.
What do we as a county, what problem do we have? I kind of I’m sitting here thinking, you know, it’s sort of like other properties that we’re we don’t want to do that.
We don’t want to sell this property, even though that’s the value of the property.
We don’t want to sell it because it’s them.
It has nothing to do with the property or nothing to do with the value.
So I’m kind of sitting here wondering what do we have to lose?”
Six days later, Smith joined Commissioner Chris Barnett in voting to deny the lease. Commissioner Andreas Blech voted no on the denial motion in support of the lease application. No reason was given by the two commissioners for the denial, which may prove costly to the County in this lawsuit.
A blessing in disguise, a revenue stream the BCC says they desperately need
Josephine County has struggled with law enforcement funding since the loss of the majority of federal timber payments more than a decade ago. Multiple commissioners — including Ron Smith — have publicly called for creative ways to generate revenue from county-owned natural resources.
AMR’s final lease proposal offered royalties that it conservatively projected would deliver $6–10 million to the county based on $2,000/oz gold. With gold currently trading over $4,000 per ounce recently, the actual revenue to Josephine County has the potential to approach or exceed $20 million over the life of the small-scale micro mine.
County Legal Counsel Wally Hicks, who represented the county during the mandamus phase earlier this year, resigned from representing the County in the mining-lease matter immediately after AMR’s August 2025 presentation to the BCC. No reason was given.
Next steps in court
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink. But perhaps a Judge can force the County Commissioners to follow the rules and accept what will likely be a very good project that is financially beneficial to both the County and a local private mineral development/research company.
