HB 3175 amends Oregon law governing the Public Land Corner Preservation Fund and county recording fees. Under current law, county governing bodies may create a fund used by county surveyors to establish, reestablish, and maintain government survey corners. The bill keeps that structure in place but removes the existing statutory cap of $10 on the additional fee counties may charge for recording instruments under ORS 205.130(2), allowing counties to set the fee by resolution or order after public notice and a public hearing.
The bill also continues to require that all revenue collected from the fee be deposited with the county treasurer and credited to the Public Land Corner Preservation Fund. In practical terms, HB 3175 gives counties more flexibility to raise revenue for survey corner preservation work, which supports land records, boundary certainty, and related surveying functions.
Impact
HB 3175 directly amends ORS 203.148 by eliminating the $10 ceiling on county recording fees dedicated to the Public Land Corner Preservation Fund. This changes county authority over fee-setting and may increase the amount collected from recording instruments, affecting property owners, title companies, lenders, and others who record documents with county clerks. The bill does not change the permitted uses of the fund, which remain limited to county surveyor expenses for government survey corner work.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support. It passed the House committee unanimously, cleared the House on a 46-10 vote, passed the Senate committee unanimously, and passed the Senate 24-2. The vote pattern suggests general agreement that counties should have more flexibility to fund survey corner preservation, with only limited opposition.
Contention
The main point of contention is the removal of the statutory $10 cap on the additional recording fee. Supporters likely view the change as necessary to keep funding adequate for survey corner maintenance and related county surveying responsibilities, while opponents may be concerned about higher recording costs for the public and for industries that rely on frequent document recording, such as real estate, lending, and title services. The bill preserves the public notice and hearing requirements, which may have helped address concerns about local accountability.