Umatilla County schedules second reading of ATV ordinance after public hearing on permits and safety

Umatilla County commissioners held a public hearing Oct. 12 on the first reading of an all‑terrain vehicle (ATV/UTV) ordinance that would permit on‑road, on‑county‑road operation of certain off‑highway vehicles within a defined area of the county. Commissioners voted to set a second reading for Oct. 15, advancing the ordinance process.

Staff explained revisions since earlier drafts: the ordinance’s geographic area was clarified (the northern boundary begins at Highway 11 and proceeds south toward Pendleton, with an eastern/western boundary defined in the draft) and the permit requirement was narrowed so that the county permit would apply to Class 1 vehicles only. County staff said the county permit is intended to provide enforcement officers with a locally issued decal and to document insurance for vehicles using county roads; staff also said the permit process helps correlate use with distribution of gas‑tax funds.

Public commenters questioned whether the county permit duplicates the State of Oregon sticker and testing, the proposed fee (staff noted a $10 fee had been discussed), operator versus vehicle permits, and enforcement during burn bans. Alan Stibler of Athena asked how the mapped area was chosen and whether street‑legal, out‑of‑state vehicles would be affected if the ordinance were adopted. Other speakers raised safety concerns on narrow rural roads, the potential for increased crash and fire risk, and whether Forest Service lands and forest roads would be affected; staff said the U.S. Forest Service has been engaged in discussions but federal staff were not present because of the federal shutdown.

A resident raised the question of permitting for passengers and whether permits attach to the operator or to a specific vehicle; county staff replied the permit is intended to be vehicle‑based but noted some details remain to be defined in the implementation plan. Commissioners asked staff to prepare the ordinance for a second reading; a commissioner also requested a written recap of program details.

Outcome: commissioners moved, seconded and approved scheduling the ordinance second reading for Oct. 15 (motion passed). No ordinance adoption occurred at the Oct. 12 meeting; further changes may be made ahead of the second reading.

Why it matters: the ordinance would change where and how certain OHVs may operate on county roads, with implications for public safety, enforcement workload, coordination with state and federal land managers and potential impacts to local traffic and emergency response.

Direct quotes in the record are limited by the public‑hearing format and multiple speakers. County staff stressed the ordinance is meant to provide an enforcement mechanism and to document insurance and permitting status for county roads; residents repeatedly urged a focus on safety, signage, and clarity about burn‑ban restrictions and Forest Service access.