Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Umatilla County delays final vote on ATV ordinance after questions on signage, insurance and map

Umatilla County Board of Commissioners · November 6, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Umatilla County commissioners continued a second reading of a proposed ATV/UTV ordinance on Nov. 5 and directed staff to return the item for a formal vote after clarifying signage, mapping and statutory citations.

Umatilla County commissioners continued a second reading of a proposed ATV/UTV ordinance on Nov. 5 after extended discussion over where off-highway vehicles would be allowed, how the county would notify the public of seasonal closures, and what insurance and equipment requirements would be enforced.

The conversation covered multiple technical points: the draft removes a local permit requirement, refines definitions for ATVs and UTVs, and proposes a mapped area of county roads that would be subject to the ordinance. Commissioners and staff discussed signage needs (county staff estimated funding for about 10 signs per year), which roads must be signed to show permissive ATV use, and how many signs would be required per road. One commissioner said the current draft’s map lacks road-level detail and urged staff to identify specific roads before adoption.

Josh Jarvis of the Umatilla County Sheriff’s Office said the sheriff’s office “stand[s] ready to enforce whatever legislation you guys enact,” and offered to run targeted patrols in known complaint “hot spots.” The board also noted that the county’s relationship with tribal lands requires clear boundary signage; a commissioner said he had “visited with the tribes” and that tribal representatives wanted signs on reservation edges so users know ATV use is not permitted there.

Commissioners asked staff to add explicit citations to Oregon statutes and administrative rules where the ordinance references state permitting, equipment standards and insurance. Discussion included reciprocity for out-of-state operators: staff noted that Oregon’s system recognizes some states but not others and that the ordinance, as drafted, would require an Oregon-issued ATV operating permit or the applicable state permit recognized by Oregon statute. Staff also raised the need to require spark arrestors and functioning mufflers to reduce fire risk.

No final vote was taken. Commissioners agreed to place the ordinance back on a future agenda for a vote after staff: (a) identifies the specific roads in the proposed mapped area, (b) provides draft statutory citations (ORS and OAR references) for permit, muffler/spark-arrestor and insurance requirements, and (c) proposes a signage plan and cost estimate for the roads to be designated.