Sep 26, 2025 | AOC Advocacy, Natural Resources
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is analyzing potential changes to how the National Flood Insurance Program is administered in Oregon. The deadline to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and FEMA’s implementation plan of the new National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) Biological Opinion is Oct. 6, 2025. 
According to FEMA, the purpose of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is “to minimize the long-term risks to lives and property from the effects of flooding, while reducing costs of flood damages to taxpayers.” If a community chooses to participate in the NFIP, they are required to adopt and enforce regulations that meet the minimum standards of floodplain management.
The updates under consideration outline a “No Net Loss” standard which communities within the Oregon plan area would need to implement for continued participation in the NFIP. The new “No Net Loss” standard requires any adverse impacts to be avoided or offset through mitigation so “there is no net change in the habitat function from the authorized existing condition.” This standard would apply to development that occurs in an Oregon NFIP-participating community within the plan area; in the special flood hazard area (SFHA); or meets FEMA’s new definition of development:
[a]ny man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials. Note that the term ‘development’ for the NFIP is not restricted to a building with walls and a roof. It includes any disturbance (permanent or temporary) of the ground, which may include structures with walls, but would also include development such as a new or expanded culvert, road, or driveway. [1]
The DEIS has identified the following activities as potentially harmful, which would trigger the new ‘no net loss’ standard:
- Placement of fill, structures, and/or facilities that occupy space
- Adding surfaces like pavement or roofs, that prevent water from absorbing into the soil
- Removal of trees over 6 inches in diameter at breast height or larger near rivers, streams, and other bodies of water
The Draft EIS presents three potential alternatives that could be selected: Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative – status quo in Oregon; Alternative 2 calls for a “no net loss except for project specific Endangered Species Act Compliance”; and Alternative 3 calls for the No Net Loss standard for all projects.
A coalition known as Oregonians for Floodplain Protection has been actively pursuing both litigation to stop the Biological Opinion from moving forward as well as seeking additional public comment during this time. A framework letter template for submission to FEMA by Oct. 6 is linked below. County planning departments have been receiving regular updates on what the potential impacts of Alternative 2 and 3 would have on their ability to issue land use permits and approve any future development. Per direction from the AOC Board of Directors, AOC has been working with county planning departments for technical feedback and coordinating with Oregonians for Floodplain Protection to submit a comment letter urging adoption of Alternative 1.
Resources for submitting public comments by Oct. 6
FEMA Framework Letter Template
Oregonians for Floodplain Protection presentation slides
Contributed by: Branden Pursinger | Legislative Affairs Manager
[1] National Flood Insurance Program DEIS Executive Summary, p.ES-4
Sep 2, 2025 | AOC Advocacy, Transportation
Following the Legislature’s failure to pass a transportation package during the 2025 regular legislative session, Governor Kotek called a special legislative session which started Aug. 29. House Bill 3991, the special session transportation bill, moved out of the House on Monday, Sept. 1, and is expected to move to the governor’s desk for signature after a vote of the Senate on Wednesday, Sept. 3.
The Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) was in regular conversations with the governor’s office as this special session proposal was developed, to ensure that it met our adopted principles and longstanding priority to stabilize the State Highway Fund (SHF) and maintain the counties’ 30% share, and included a continuation of the Small County Allotment, which supports the lowest population counties.
HB 3991 would generate approximately $700 million a biennium in the SHF revenue (split 50/30/20), primarily through a $0.06 per gallon increase to the gas tax; a $42 increase to all registration fees, an additional $30 for electric vehicles and 40+ mpg vehicles; and a $139 increase to title fees. The proposal also includes a phased-in mandatory road user charge program for electric and hybrid vehicles beginning July 2027, updates to heavy truck and diesel taxes, and accountability measures at the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Initial revenue projections show that counties will benefit from a nearly 30% increase in funding over four years from HB 3991. This will allow most counties to maintain current services and operations and keep our roads and bridges open and safe.
One of AOC’s top policy priorities this year was the passage of a comprehensive transportation funding package prioritizing investments in operations, maintenance, and safety; incorporating diverse and modern funding mechanisms to ensure the growth and stabilization of the SHF; maintaining the 30% county share of SHF revenues; and reducing barriers to local revenue sources. Throughout the 18+ months of legislative discussions about a 2025 transportation package, AOC, the Oregon Association of County Engineers and Surveyors (OACES), and counties have shown up strong at every turn and consistently communicated the message that counties are the state’s partner in maintaining a safe and seamless transportation system, and shared SHF revenues support this partnership.
AOC supported HB 3991 in consideration of the critical new funding it will provide to counties and the inclusion of both the 50/30/20 funding distribution and the Small County Allotment. It is a compromise stopgap measure, not a comprehensive transportation package, will not meet long-term revenue needs, and does not fund progress on mega-projects from House Bill 2017 (2017). AOC will continue to advocate for a collaborative, meaningful process involving all partners and stakeholders and bipartisan legislators to craft a long-term transportation package that can lift our shared system into the future.
Photo credit: Gary Halvorson, Oregon State Archives
Contributed by: Mallorie Roberts | Legislative Affairs Director
Aug 29, 2025 | AOC Advocacy, Governance, Revenue, & Economic Development
House Bill 2089, which brings Oregon into alignment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, was deliberated between counties and consumer advocates over the course of eight amendments and ultimately was passed out of both legislative chambers with unanimous approval. The bill will go into effect Sept. 26, 2025, and the provisions will apply to property and claims for which the claimant received a one-year redemption period notice on or after May 25, 2023. The law is silent on property and claims for which the claimant received a one-year redemption period notice for on or before May 24, 2023.
Intro to Tyler v. Hennepin County
Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota (2023) case, Oregon was one of 20 states that statutorily allowed local governments to retain surplus equity from tax foreclosed properties after selling properties at a county auction. This meant that after a tax foreclosed property was sold to a new owner, counties and the local taxing districts within their jurisdiction were allowed to keep the surplus funds that remained after back taxes were recouped from the sale proceeds. This commonly took the form of taxing districts splitting surplus funds amongst themselves.
The Tyler decision, which was decided unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court, deemed that any retention of surplus funds from a foreclosed property sold by a county is a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. As a result, many states, including Oregon, were required to change the laws on their books to bring their statutes in alignment with the federal law.
In order to begin the process of aligning Oregon law with the Tyler decision, Oregon lawmakers drafted HB 4056 during the 2024 legislative session to address the matter, which brought out stakeholders from consumer-advocate groups and counties to engage on the legislation. Consumer advocates’ goal was to create policy that maximized the amount of surplus that counties could fetch for former owners, and counties’ priority was to come up with a surplus transfer process that complied with Tyler.
Ultimately, consumer-advocates and counties failed to come to an agreement on what a proper process would look like and, instead, lawmakers passed legislation that mandated a workgroup and report back by DOR and stakeholders to that would propose a uniform process by which counties could transfer surplus proceeds from the sale of a property to their rightful owners.
That 2024 workgroup eventually dissolved and no uniform process was agreed upon by counties or the consumer advocates.
Oregon’s 2025 Legislative Session
During the 2025 legislative session, the House Committee on Revenue, the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC), and consumer-advocates all indicated a need to find a resolution and end the uncertainty of how counties would deal with new foreclosures in a post-Tyler environment, but all stakeholders diverged in what they felt the solution should be, similar to the 2024 legislative session.
Lawmakers ended up playing a mediating role, using HB 2089 as the primary vehicle to work from, while AOC and county staffers worked to negotiate against a consumer-advocate coalition that had grown larger, and more powerful, since the 2024 session. While AOC partnered with the Oregon State Assessor and Tax Collector Association and Oregon County Counsel Association members to form the “county coalition,” the consumer-advocate coalition consisted of national civil liberties think tanks, AARP, bankers and mortgage lenders, and trial lawyers. Despite being heavily outgunned and outnumbered, the county coalition worked tirelessly to mitigate HB 2089’s harm to counties with each subsequent amendment that was drafted.
At the start of the 2025 legislative session, the consumer-advocate group had drafted a bill that would have made counties: provide additional pre-foreclosure notices to all owners and lienholders; have sheriffs physically post pre-foreclosure notices on properties prior to the redemption period expiring; send out notices in multiple languages; track down and send notice to all heirs of a property owner; use a realtor to sell all types of property; use an online bidding platform for foreclosure auctions; and appraise properties with a real market value or assessed value above $10,000.
Through negotiations with legislators and the consumer-advocate coalition, the following concessions were gained by the county coalition: removal of the additional pre-foreclosure notices and sheriff postings; moving the language notices to the Oregon State Treasury; removing notice to heirs as a requirement; the waiving of public procurement laws when counties contract with realtors or appraisers; limiting the use of realtors to certain residential properties; limiting the appraisal requirement to certain residential properties; and making online bidding platforms optional.
Additionally, definitions for a “claimant” were established to ensure that former owners of real property at the time of foreclosure are the ones who can make a claim to surplus funds, and not creditors, third-parties, or LLCs. There is also a mechanism within HB 2089 that allows counties to recoup any allowable costs associated with the new foreclosure requirements from surplus proceeds. Lastly, the Oregon State Treasury graciously offered to take on the responsibility of receiving the surplus funds from counties and placing them in their unclaimed property system. From there, the Treasury has a process by which it can reunite surplus property with the proper former owners and claimants.
While the final version of HB 2089 was far from ideal from the county point of view and multiple degrees beyond the scope of what Tyler called for, the provisions in Oregon’s law are much better for counties than similar versions of the law that passed in other states that needed to align their laws with the SCOTUS decision.
Implementing HB 2089
HB 2089 will go into effect Sept, 26, 2025. The information provided in this article is meant to be a high-level guide to navigating HB 2089 and the overarching changes that the new law makes on the county foreclosure process. For additional guidance and information on implementing HB 2089, or for official legal guidance on what is and isn’t required of your county, please reach out to your county counsel.
Below is a high-level overview of each section:
Sections 1–2
Make changes to notices of foreclosure proceedings and one-year notices of redemption period expiration, respectively. There is new and specific language that must be sent out in those notices, due diligence must be done by counties to ensure all owners are notified, information about legal and tax relief services are to be included, and a reference to the unclaimed property website where the notices are translated into Oregon’s five most commonly spoken languages is also mandated.
Section 3
Requires counties to provide notice of surplus within 60 days after the date on which a claimant could make a claim on their surplus at the Oregon State Treasury. Notices are to be distributed to other local municipalities and state agencies, in addition to the claimant.
Section 4
Requires counties to also provide foreclosure proceeding notices and one-year redemption period expiration notices to the Oregon Department of Justice, Oregon Department of Revenue, and local municipalities.
Section 5
Provides proper definitions for a “claimant”, which is to be used when implementing HB 2089. In short, a claimant is the individual who owned the property at the time the property was foreclosed on and subsequently deeded to the county.
Section 6
Makes changes to the county process of selling foreclosed properties. In order to simplify the various changes for each category of property, they are broken down here into three general categories that the law specifically touches on:
For Residential and Formerly Occupied Properties (appraisals required if the property has a $250k+ RMV):
- Make 3 attempts to contract with a realtor and sell the property via realtor
- If it doesn’t sell via realtor, move to an auction with a 2/3 FMV starting bid.
- If it doesn’t sell via 2/3 FMV starting bid, move to a minimum bid price sale (the minimum bid would be the sum of delinquent property taxes, special assessments, penalties, interests, and costs assigned to the property by counties).
- If it doesn’t sell via minimum bid price sale, the county can forgive all that is owed by the former owner and then may proceed to dispose/keep the property on books as they see fit. No surplus or proceeds exist, and so nothing is required to be sent out to former owners.
For Non-Residential Properties or Residential Properties that were not Formerly Occupied as a Primary Residence (no appraisals required):
- Go straight to an auction with a 2/3 FMV starting bid.
- If it doesn’t sell via 2/3 FMV starting bid, move to a minimum bid price sale.
- If it doesn’t sell via minimum bid price sale, the county can forgive all that is owed by the former owner and then may proceed to dispose/keep the property on the books as they see fit. No surplus or proceeds exist, and so nothing is required to be sent out to former owners.
For Properties that the County Decides to Retain for Public Use or for Lease to a Non-Profit
- Appraise the property
- Send surplus to the former owner (which is the greater of the appraised and RMV values, minus delinquent taxes and costs that counties can recoup).
Section 7
Allows counties to contract with realtors and third-party appraisers, for the purposes of HB 2089, without having to follow public procurement laws.
Section 8
Outlines how counties should calculate surplus amounts and requires the surplus to be determined within 60 days after the date on which the gross sales proceeds from the sale of the property are deposited in a separate, interest bearing account.
Section 9
Creates the provisions for how a claimant would file a claim with the Oregon State Treasury for their surplus proceeds.
Section 10
Officially establishes foreclosure surpluses as unclaimed property and requires counties to report and deliver surpluses to the Oregon State Treasury within 30 days after the date on which the surplus is determined.
Section 11
Makes a minor tweak to statues for reporting abandoned property to be aligned with the new requirements in Section 10.
Sections 12 to 15
Establish the effective date. HB 2089 will go into effect Sept 26, 2025 and the provisions within the law will apply to property and claims for which the claimant received a one-year redemption period notice for on or after May 25, 2023.
Contributed by: Justin Low | Legislative Affairs Manager
Aug 28, 2025 | AOC Advocacy, Natural Resources
The largest, most extensive program at the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) is the Fire Protection Division, which provides wildfire protection on approximately 16 million acres of private and publicly owned lands. Every county but one (Sherman) has at least a portion of their land within an ODF Fire Protection District, and to help establish where those protection districts are located, Oregon’s counties play a critical role. However, by 2026, 33 of Oregon’s 36 counties will no longer have timely classifications on file.
Oregon forestland classification is the statutorily mandated process by which a county-convened committee studies the lands within their jurisdiction to determine which parcels are “forestlands” for the purposes of wildfire protection.
Landowners within an ODF district who are receiving wildland fire protection pay the forest patrol assessment. When the forestland classification process is conducted on a regular basis, it improves the accuracy and equity of the forest patrol assessments. Aiming to ensure the appropriate acres are being assessed at the appropriate rates for wildland fire protection, counties are expected to complete this process every five years. This timeframe was adopted by the Board of Forestry in 2010 to ensure changes in land use, vegetation, mapping technology improvements, and any errors from previous attempts are factored in, corrected, and accounted for.
Set to occur every five years, the forestland classification committee is composed of six individuals, which includes a representative from OSU Extension, Oregon State Fire Marshal, and ODF, as well as three individuals who reside within the county and are appointed by the county commissioners/county court. The county-appointed individuals must include an owner of forestland and (if present within the county) an owner of grazing land.
Forest landowners are required by law to provide protection from fire for their lands. However, instead of landowners having their own firefighting force, most private landowners use ODF or a local fire protective association to protect their lands. To fund this service, they pay the forest patrol assessment.
Counties can review when the last classification process occurred for their area and begin the process of meeting with the local ODF district staff to begin this classification process. ODF and the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) will partner together this winter, following the conclusion of fire season, to strategize a plan to ensure all counties into compliance with the five-year cycle. More information regarding the forest land classification process can be found here.
As the citizens of Oregon continue to see assessments increase for a variety of reasons, the forestland classification process helps reduce the amount landowners pay for fire protection. If more lands are included through the classification process, the rate per acre paid by the landowner is reduced due to the total cost in that district being spread across more protected acres.
Photo credit: Gary Halvorson, Oregon State Archives
Contributed by: Branden Pursinger | Legislative Affairs Manager
Jul 1, 2025 | AOC Advocacy, AOC News, Legislative Committee
The 83rd Legislative Assembly adjourned sine die on Friday, June 27, at 11:50 p.m. after five long months that turned chaotic in the final weeks.
The 160-day legislative “long session” was marked by efforts to secure sustainable long-term funding for the statewide transportation system and wildfire response and mitigation, a bipartisan focus on increasing housing development efficiency, and comprehensive compromise legislation on behavioral health service improvements for some of the most vulnerable Oregonians.
The Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) and counties played a key role in all policy discussions. Together, county commissioners, county staff, and the AOC Legislative Affairs Department made significant progress on our policy priorities this session. We communicated a consistent message of solutions-oriented partnership, maintenance of local control, and the importance of considering on-the-ground implementation.
Unfortunately, significant work was left undone ─ the Legislature chose not to fully fund the community corrections cost study, legislative leadership could not find the votes to pass a transportation package, and the assessment and taxation funding modernization conversation was moved to the 2026 short legislative session. AOC will spend this summer and fall recalibrating our message on these key priorities and working with the Legislature in solutions-oriented partnership to ensure progress in the 2026 short session.
A record 3,400+ bills were introduced this session. The AOC Legislative Affairs team lobbied for/against over hundreds of bills and analyzed and submitted fiscal impact statements on nearly 600 bills with a potential impact to county budgets. Details on every bill on which the AOC Legislative Committee took a position will be included in the 2025 Legislative Summary, published in the coming weeks.
Please join the AOC Legislative Committee’s virtual meeting on Monday, July 7, to hear a comprehensive recap of the 2025 legislative session.
Contributed by: Mallorie Roberts | AOC Legislative Affairs Director
Jun 2, 2025 | AOC Advocacy
The “second chamber deadline” for the 2025 Legislative Session passed on Friday, May 23, at 5 p.m. Bills must have been voted out of the second chamber policy committee in order to continue moving through the legislative process toward becoming law. Nearly all of the Association of Oregon Counties’ (AOC) priority bills are advancing or are in committees not subject to this deadline. Most of the bills opposed by AOC have been amended to mitigate our concerns or will not move forward this session.
As the Legislature prepares its balanced biennial budget, policy bills with a fiscal component requiring state general fund allocations are sent to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means. If the budget writers intend to fund those policy bills, they will be referred to the appropriate subcommittee for further consideration before being heard in the full joint committee. Bills must pass both the House and Senate before the legislative assembly adjourns “sine die” – Latin for “without a day.” The presiding officers have identified Wednesday, June 18, as “target sine die,” and Sunday, June 29, is “constitutional sine die.”
Below are updates on AOC’s 2025 session priorities and bills on which we have been actively engaged. A comprehensive bill list is available on AOC’s Legislative Committee Website and is regularly updated throughout the session.
May Revenue Forecast
The latest revenue forecast was presented to the Legislature by state economists on Wednesday, May 14. As some expected, projected revenues available for the 2025-2027 biennium were revised downward from last quarter – due to a reduction in both revenue and resources – resulting in $755 million less than previously expected for the Legislature to allocate. However, the state’s kicker rebate has also been reduced to $1.6 billion providing a net General Fund balance of $35.7 billion. Paired with an additional $5.3 billion from lottery revenues, recreational marijuana excise tax, and Corporate Activity Tax, Oregon stands with just over $41 billion in total available funds, plus a 10.6% emergency reserve. Given Governor Kotek’s proposed 2025-2027 budget recommending $39.3 billion in funding, Oregon is in a reasonable position compared to our neighboring states to continue providing existing public services.
AOC 2025 Session Priorities Status Updates
Assessment and Taxation Funding
Ongoing conversations and negotiations with stakeholders and members of the House Committee on Revenue are taking place around AOC’s assessment and taxation funding proposal, House Bill 3518. AOC anticipates a final informational hearing in the House Committees on Revenue in the coming weeks and remains optimistic that a solution will move forward this session.
Community Corrections and Deflection Funding
The April corrections population forecast showed a substantial decline in the projected population for individuals on community supervision. This is both good and bad news. The baseline budget is substantially smaller, and the cost study is more affordable. However, because funding is allocated per person, it becomes even more critical to fully fund the study. Unfortunately, the Oregon Department of Corrections budget passed out of the Way and Means Subcommittee on Public Safety at the current service level amount, which is substantially lower than the governor’s request and does not incorporate any of the cost study.
AOC’s county deflection program cost survey yielded a statewide ask of $47 million, which is $7 million more than the governor’s recommended budget. The Criminal Justice Commission recently presented 2024 program results, current data as of April 2025, and evidence-backed best practices to the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Public Safety. AOC continues to be engaged with the budget writers, urging them to fully fund these integral public safety measures.
Health and Human Services
AOC is advocating for funding to meet counties’ statutory obligations for behavioral health, public health, and intellectual and developmental disabilities services; adequate statewide funding for effective deflection programs; and maintenance of homelessness response infrastructure and local coordination.
Senate Bill 610A, which improves transparency and coordination of Behavioral Health Resource Network grantmaking with the local behavioral health system passed out of the House this past Thursday and is on its way to be signed by the governor.
AOC’s remaining public health priorities including funding for Community Mental Health Programs, Oregon Health Authority residential treatment study, expanded substance use disorder prevention and treatment capacity, and local healthcare workforce development await action in Ways and Means.
State Forest Harvest Revenue
House Bill 3103A would require a sustainable harvest in the state forests, which in turn will provide a level of budgetary certainty for the 15 Trust Land Counties. The bill was moved to Joint Ways and Means for fiscal consideration following the May revenue forecast. Oregon Forest Industries Council, Special Districts Association of Oregon, Oregon School Boards Association, Coalition of Oregon School Administrators, and the Oregon Education Association have all leaned in to support this measure and urge its passage.
Transient Lodging Tax Flexibility
House Bill 3962-2 extends the permissible uses of net revenue from a new or increased local transient lodging tax to include public safety services and certain costs related to community infrastructure. HB 3962-2 received a hearing in the House Committee on Revenue on May 8, and remains active. AOC continues to provide support to legislators through ongoing negotiations.
Transportation Funding Package
Hearings on the 2025 transportation package moved to the newly created Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment. Membership of the committee is the same as the regular Joint Committee on Transportation, but it is not subject to deadlines, meaning a final package can be introduced, debated, and moved out of the committee up to the final days of session.
As this conversation and negotiation evolves, AOC staff will continue to advocate for the principles and priorities set by our Legislative Committee.
Tyler v. Hennepin Foreclosure Surplus Alignment
House Bill 2089 provides for a process by which former owners of real property deeded to the county for delinquent property taxes may claim the surplus value after the property has been sold by the county. This brings Oregon into alignment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County. AOC has been negotiating on this issue since early 2024 to mitigate many of the operational and financial burdens that the Supreme Court decision and early versions of HB 2089 would have created. A work session has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 3, to consider a final negotiated amendment.
Water
All of AOC’s priority water bills, including place-based water planning, were referred to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means for further consideration.
Wildfire
After successfully passing through its first policy committee, House Bill 3940, one of the Wildfire Funding Workgroup bills, was heard in May in the House Committee on Revenue. The AOC Legislative Committee voted to support Sec. 6-44 (programmatic changes that will save public and private landowners money going forward) at the May meeting. With AOC now officially in support, there will be greater leverage in negotiations as all members of the workgroup are united in ensuring there is fair and consistent funding to fight wildfires in Oregon.
Wolf Depredation Grants
Senate Bill 777A makes a series of changes to the Wolf Depredation and Compensation Grant Program housed at the Oregon Department of Agriculture – a longtime priority of AOC. Counties took the lead on the wolf depredation legislative concept, which will help bring additional deterrence to the landscape and more ranchers into the program. After over a decade of failed attempts at updates to the program, SB 777 passed out of the Senate with a strong 28-1 floor vote. The bill unanimously passed out of the House Agriculture Committee and is slated for a House floor vote the first week of June.
