Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Off Highway Vehicles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Crook County holds first hearing on ordinance to allow limited commercial OHV use on county roads
Summary
At a Dec. 3 first reading and public hearing, Crook County officials outlined Ordinance 356, which would let licensed commercial tour operators and certain agricultural vehicles use county roads under safety, insurance and training requirements. Public commenters sought clarity about which roads qualify and permit conditions.
At a Dec. 3 meeting, Crook County held the first reading and a public hearing on Ordinance 356, which would amend Crook County Code chapter 10 to allow licensed commercial entities to operate off‑highway vehicles (OHVs) on county roads to access nearby public lands.
Assistant county counsel (transcribed as 'Bridal Libel') told the board the ordinance would "prohibit OHVs on county roads except when a commercial entity has obtained a license under the county code or when an OHV operator is performing agricultural duties with a slow moving sign affixed to the vehicle." The counsel said the proposal identifies allowed OHV types and requires safety features, driver and passenger age limits, commercial liability insurance and safety training for drivers and tour guides.
The ordinance sets application and review procedures, allows the county to impose weather and traffic safety restrictions, and establishes terms for license appeals, counsel said. "The procedures allow the county to impose limitations or restrictions related to weather conditions and traffic safety," the counsel said.
During the hearing, resident Adam Kolsky asked whether the phrase "county roads" includes paved, gravel or dirt roads. Kolsky asked, "When you talk about county roads, are there paved roads, gravel roads? What kind of roads are included in that?" Counsel and commissioners replied the ordinance targets commercial licenses for businesses using county roads to reach public land and is not intended to permit routine recreational riding by private individuals. They also noted agricultural uses with slow‑moving signage remain governed by state law.
A remote participant who identified himself only as Tim asked whether the county would require proof that a commercial operator already holds a permit or authorization to conduct commercial activities on the public lands they access before issuing a county license, and whether permits would need periodic renewal. Counsel responded that the ordinance contains strict procedures, requires proof of insurance, and contemplates contracts that indemnify the county; entities must stay current with state requirements.
The board closed the first hearing after public comment and scheduled a second public hearing for Wednesday, Dec. 17, at the board's next regular session in the annex room.
Next steps: The board will take public input again at the Dec. 17 hearing before considering further action on adoption or changes to the ordinance.
