Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Road Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deschutes County road code overhaul: staff to move road design and utility rules into Title 12; public hearing set for June 11
Summary
Cody Smith, county engineer and assistant road department director, briefed the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners on June 4 on proposed consolidations and updates to Title 12 (roads, sidewalks and public places), including moving county road construction standards from Title 17 into a new Title 12 chapter.
Get email alerts on the Public Works Road Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cody Smith, county engineer and assistant road department director, briefed the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners on June 4 on a package of proposed amendments to Deschutes County Code Title 12 (roads, sidewalks and public places). The briefing was a work session to prepare the board for a public hearing scheduled for June 11.
Why it matters: The proposal would consolidate and modernize the county’s road and public right‑of‑way standards, move engineering and construction specifications out of the land‑division code (Title 17) into the road code (Title 12), and update long‑outdated language and technical references so county practice and code align.
Key changes described - Consolidation: Staff proposes collapsing several utility chapters (current Title 12 chapters including permit procedures, administrative provisions, utility policy guidelines and specifications) into a single chapter (proposed 12.08 or consolidated utilities chapter) that codifies current utility permitting and operations in the public right-of-way. - Moving road design standards: County road engineering and construction standards currently located in Title 17 (chapter 17.48) would be retitled and relocated into a new Title 12 chapter (proposed 12.25), described as “road design and construction specifications.” That change moves implementation language into the road title, where the road department administers standards. - Table A and clarifications: The existing Table A (minimum roadway design standards) would be removed and its content reorganized into clearer, function‑classification‑specific text to eliminate variable standards, inapplicable state‑highway rows and numerous footnotes that staff said make interpretation difficult. - Technical and accessibility updates: Proposed code language would remove obsolete construction references (for example, transite pipe and direct‑buried cable), add direct references to federal public‑right‑of‑way accessibility guidance (PROWAG, U.S. Access Board), clarify bridge/structure design and load requirements, and align drainage requirements with the Central Oregon Stormwater Manual. - Driveways and access: Chapter 12.28 (driveways and access) would be consolidated to include spacing and sight‑distance requirements now embedded elsewhere and to clarify maximum and minimum approach widths tied to residential, commercial and agricultural access types. The proposal would also permit alternate turnaround facilities at cul‑de‑sacs where practical and where future roadway extension is expected.
Process and timing Smith told the board the package is in staff review and that the road department intends to hold a public hearing on the proposed Title 12 amendments at the board’s June 11 meeting. Staff said the intent is to align Title 12 adoption with the first and second readings of the clear‑and‑objective amendments to Title 17, with tentative readings targeted for June 25.
Board comments and staff clarifications Commissioners asked whether the proposed changes represent major policy shifts. Smith said the amendments are primarily organizational and codify current practice rather than change standards. He offered follow‑up conversations on site‑specific questions, including a commissioner inquiry about an unpaved 1,400‑foot stretch in the Cherokee/Deschutes Riverwoods area; Smith said he would discuss that case offline because the proposal is focused on standards for new development.
No formal vote was taken. The meeting item was a work session to prepare for the public hearing and gather commissioner questions ahead of the June 11 hearing.

