Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mining Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Josephine County commissioners send draft mining ordinance for outside review
Summary
After debate over the county’s low volume of mineral lease requests, the Board of Commissioners voted to send a draft update to the county’s mining code to a third-party reviewer and seek a cost estimate before returning the draft for further board consideration.
The Josephine County Board of Commissioners voted to refer a draft revision of the county’s mining code to an external reviewer and to request a price estimate for that review, the board said during its regular session.
The draft updates would revise Josephine County Code chapter 5.015, the county’s mining code. Commissioners discussed whether to keep a codified ordinance that lays out rules for exploration and leases or to treat future requests individually. After discussion the board voted to refer the draft to the county’s Mining Advisory Committee (MAC) and to have county legal solicit a cost estimate for a consultant review; the motion passed on a recorded roll call with three yes votes.
Commissioners and staff debated the frequency and administrative burden of mining lease applications. Several participants said mineral lease requests have been infrequent; staff and commissioners described past applications stretching back decades and noted a prior moratorium had interrupted applications in earlier years. County staff and legal counsel emphasized that a written ordinance provides potential applicants a uniform set of expectations and a predictable evaluation framework, while some commissioners questioned whether an ordinance was necessary given the low number of applicants.
County counsel, staff and MAC representatives told the board the draft was developed after county-initiated amendments and subsequent MAC review. Staff said the existing code dates to 1988 and that prior applications in the early 1990s and later had raised concerns about whether the county’s rules adequately protected county interests. Counsel advised that asking a third-party mining consultant to review the draft would incur county expense.
After discussing frequency of applications, potential workload, and the benefits of a clear template for applicants, a motion to send the draft ordinance for third‑party review and return with recommendations was made and seconded. The motion passed on a roll call vote. The board directed county legal to contact a mining consultant for a cost estimate and to return to the board with that estimate; commissioners also discussed setting a cap on consultant costs, to avoid an unbounded expense.
Next steps: staff will request a cost estimate for the consultant review and bring that estimate and a recommendation back to the board; the draft ordinance will remain under review by MAC and county staff before any formal adoption.
Ending: The board’s action was procedural: it does not change county code. Any subsequent changes to chapter 5.015 would require the formal ordinance process and further board action.
