County clerk flags title-fraud concerns, passport service options and a proposed PVAB fee

Jefferson County Clerk Kate told commissioners on June 4 that title-record fraud is an increasing national issue and that the Oregon Association of County Clerks has proposed legislation to address the problem. She described local options to help residents monitor recorded documents and outlined minor service improvements the clerk’s office is pursuing.

Key points from the clerk’s report: - Title fraud and proposed state legislation: The clerk said the county cannot currently challenge a deed that appears complete when presented for recording, and that a proposed bill from the Oregon Association of County Clerks (listed in the meeting as AB 2952) is intended to provide tools to reduce the risk of title fraud. The clerk said the office had been documenting notary details on recorded instruments and reviewing state-level proposals to protect against fraudulent filings. - Property-record monitoring service: The clerk described a third-party “property recording alert” service she reviewed; it would carry a startup fee (mentioned as $1,000) and an annual maintenance fee (about $500). She said the county’s online “digital research room” provides a way for an individual to check daily recordings but requires proactive action by property owners. - Passports and convenience services: The clerk’s office is processing more passport applications than during the pandemic (206 applications in a recent period) and suggested installing a camera and backdrop to offer passport photos in-house; she estimated camera and incidental costs in the several-hundred-dollar range and offered to work with facilities staff to add a keypad and paint the office backdrop for photos. - Property Values Appeal Board workload and fee proposal: The clerk reported five petitions in the past year (three stipulated, one withdrawn) and said other counties charge filing fees for property-value appeals (examples cited with fees ranging from $30–$75). She proposed the county consider a similar fee (she suggested $35 as an option) and noted the fee could be refundable if the petitioner prevailed.

Why it matters: The clerk’s office manages legally required public records and elections; title‑record fraud and voter‑registration accuracy were singled out as issues with state-level and potential local remedies. The clerk also flagged several election‑related bills pending in the legislature that could affect county processes, such as requirements around voter pamphlets and registration rules.

Next steps: The clerk said she will continue to consult with the state elections office and the Oregon Association of County Clerks and will work with IT and facilities on operational changes (passport photo setup, keypad for office access). She asked staff to consider bringing a fee for property-value appeals forward for board consideration.