Oregon's second try at county HOA dues died without a hearing
Oregon's second try at county HOA dues died without a hearing
2026-09-15 · Oregon · Legislation · Did not pass
House Bill 4064 asked the 2026 Legislature to settle who pays association assessments on tax-foreclosed land, and to hand $4.3 million to one specific Oregon homeowners association. It got no hearing, no testimony and no vote.1
Its entire recorded life is three lines: first reading and referral to the Speaker's desk on February 2, 2026; referral to the House Committee on Housing and Homelessness fifty-one minutes later; and “in committee upon adjournment” on March 6. It was referred on the first day of the session and never appeared on a committee agenda again.
The League of Oregon Cities summarised its fate in one sentence: “HB 4064 received no action during the legislative session.”2
What it would have done
The League's description of the mechanism: “HB 4064 would have required homeowner association (HOA) assessments for properties deeded to a county. The bill permitted HOAs to record a lien on impacted priorities. HOAs would be required to provide notice to the county on the assessment. Lastly, the bill would have appropriated $4 million to a specific HOA to pay back a loan used to pay a Department of Environmental Quality fee.”
The first three limbs are recognisably the 2025 bill. The fourth is new, and it is unusual.
The named association
The introduced bill appropriated $4,300,000 to the Department of Administrative Services for the biennium ending June 30, 2027, for distribution to Fishhawk Lake Reserve & Community, Inc., “to be used to repay a loan taken out to pay an outstanding fine imposed by the Department of Environmental Quality.”3
Legislatures do not usually name a private homeowners association in an appropriation. Fishhawk Lake is a 257-lot community straddling the Clatsop and Columbia county line that owns and operates its own dam, lake, water system, sewer system and roads — and that testified against the 2025 version of this same bill.
It is the 2025 bill, refiled word for word
House Bill 4064 is not a revision of House Bill 3545. It is that bill's A-Engrossed text filed again: the same relating clause, the same accrue-and-lien section 2, the same amendments to ORS 94.709 and ORS 100.450, and the same digest. The only textual differences are the session year and the cover page.
Which makes the contrast between the two sessions the story. In April 2025 the Oregon House passed that exact language 48–4. Eleven months later the identical text could not get onto a committee agenda.
The sponsor list is where the change shows. House Bill 3545 carried nine sponsors from both parties and both chambers — Representatives Javadi, Edwards, Pham H, Gamba, Mannix, Nelson and Scharf, and Senators Patterson and Thatcher. House Bill 4064 carried one: Representative Cyrus Javadi, chief sponsor and sole sponsor.
The Community Associations Institute opposed both, listing House Bill 4064 as one of its two priority bills for the session with the outcome “Failed — died in committee upon adjournment.”4 One caution if you read that report: it describes the bill as one that would have “permitted counties to defer community association assessments for six months,” which describes House Bill 3545 as introduced in 2025, not the accrue-and-lien text that was actually filed as House Bill 4064.
Why an association was asking the state for $4.3 million
The loan the appropriation would have repaid traces to an environmental enforcement action. In August 2019 Fishhawk Lake drained its reservoir to repair a broken dam drain. State biologists estimated the drawdown killed more than 30,000 fish, including more than 20,500 coho salmon. The Department of Environmental Quality sought a penalty of $439,200; the matter ultimately settled for $3.7 million, of which the community paid $250,000 and insurance carriers covered the remainder. The settlement required a new fish ladder and spillway, underdrain repair, and a water quality management plan.5
The association's own testimony to the Senate in 2025 described where that left it: it had “completed a $6 million spillway and fish ladder project” and was “developing a water quality management plan,” and it warned that the 2025 bill “could place FLRC at risk of defaulting on a $4 million loan balance used to finance the construction of a new spillway and fish ladder—vital infrastructure completed in cooperation with the State of Oregon.”6
That $4 million loan balance is what the 2026 appropriation would have retired.
What this tells an Oregon board
Three things, none of them about Fishhawk Lake specifically.
An association can be a utility. Where the association owns the water system, the sewer system, the roads and a regulated dam, it carries the obligations of a utility and the liabilities of a permit holder, funded entirely by assessments from a fixed number of lots. Its testimony states that about a third of owners are full-time residents and “many are retired and living on fixed incomes.”
Environmental liability is not covered by the usual association policies in the usual way. Carriers covered most of a $3.7 million settlement here, which is a better outcome than many associations would get. A board with common property that includes a dam, a pond, a stormwater facility or a wastewater system should know exactly what its policies do and do not respond to.
Delinquent lots owned by a government are a real exposure. The association's testimony names the concrete problem: “Currently, within FLRC, Clatsop County owns two properties and Columbia County owns one property.” Three lots out of 257 is a small number until the association is simultaneously servicing a multi-million-dollar infrastructure loan.
Its objection to the counties' conduct was sharper still: “Neither county contacted the HOA to discuss potential financial hardship before testifying in support of HB 3545. This lack of communication is deeply disappointing, particularly given the expected impact of the proposed legislation on our small, rural community.” Clatsop County's Board of Commissioners had filed testimony in support at the House hearing.
Where this leaves the law
Exactly where it was. Oregon has no statute addressing assessments on property a county holds through tax foreclosure. An association's lien rights under ORS 94.709 and ORS 100.450 operate as they always have, against an owner that happens to be a county, with all the practical collection difficulties that implies. Our Oregon foreclosure page covers the ordinary mechanics.
What to watch next
The 2027 long session. The concept has now been introduced twice, once passing a chamber 48–4 and once dying without a hearing, and the underlying facts have not changed: counties continue to hold foreclosed lots in associations, and associations continue to bill them. Whether a third attempt appears, and whether it deals with the “dues schedule” drafting problem the association lobby identified in 2025, is the thing to watch.
Related Oregon HOA Topics
- HB 4064, 2026 Regular Session — measure overview and history, OLIS ↩
- 2026 Legislative Session Bill Summary, League of Oregon Cities ↩
- House Bill 4064 as introduced — full text, including the appropriation section ↩
- 2026 Oregon End of Legislative Session Report, Community Associations Institute ↩
- Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Fishhawk Lake enforcement documents ↩
- Testimony of Nicole Case, Vice President, Fishhawk Lake Reserve & Community, Inc., May 18, 2025 ↩
Stay on top of Oregon HOA law
Every week: new Oregon legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.