Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Administration topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County counsel seeks new Deschutes County Code section for contested‑case hearings in public‑health enforcement

Deschutes County Board of Commissioners · March 2, 2026
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

County Counsel told the Board of Commissioners a new Deschutes County Code section (DCC 2.35) is proposed to clarify contested‑case procedures for public‑health and environmental enforcement (food, pools, lodging, mobile vendors); staff recommended scheduling a public hearing and pursuing emergency adoption to meet ORS and OHA agreement requirements.

Bend — County Counsel and public‑health staff presented a work session to the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners on March 31 proposing a new chapter of county code (DCC 2.35) to govern contested‑case procedures for public‑health and environmental enforcement actions.

Dave Doyle, County Counsel, said the county has historically relied on code language designed for procurement and contracting that “doesn't really fit” enforcement hearings and recommended drafting a new, specific contested‑case procedure. Doyle told the board the change is intended to align county practice with Oregon Revised Statutes and the county's intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon Health Authority.

Public Health staff described scenarios the new code is intended to cover, including license revocation or restrictions, non‑payment of required licenses, temporary events operating without licenses, and mobile food vendors. They stressed the county has rarely used formal contested‑case procedures in recent memory (roughly 20 years) but that clearer procedures would provide consistent, fair processes for licensees and the public when disputes arise.

Staff requested the board schedule a public hearing (tentatively March 18) and said they would propose an ordinance that could include an emergency clause so the rules would be effective immediately if the board chooses emergency adoption. The board gave direction to proceed with formal public notice and staff drafting; no final ordinance vote occurred on March 31.