Some as yet unidentified individuals or subcommittee of the SROA Rules & Regulations Update 2025 Task Force (the “R&R”) have — behind closed doors — proposed a horrific penalty on Sunriver owners who might dare to not pull a few weeds from their lot or commit other minor infractions. Here are the details …

Sunriver owners could be fined over $10,000 for not pulling weeds on their property

CURRENT RULES

1.05 Schedule of Fines

A. Except as otherwise provided in the Rules, the Scheduled Fine for violation of any Rule shall be an amount not exceeding:

1. $2,500 for a Class A offense and/or Suspension of Recreation access privileges.

2. $500 for a Class B offense and/or Suspension of Recreation access privileges.

3. $250 for a Class C offense and/or Suspension of Recreation access privileges.

4. $100 for a Class D offense and/or Suspension of Recreation access privileges.

5. $50 for a Class E offense and/or Suspension of Recreation access privileges.

6. $20 for a Class F offense and/or Suspension of Recreation access privileges.

4.01 Trees and Vegetation

B Privately owned properties

1.b. Failure of an owner to manage his/her privately owned property in compliance with SROA’s Noxious Weed Plan within thirty (30) days after written Notice of Deficiency constitutes a Class C offense. …

PROPOSED RULES

4. Enforcement and Fines: Failure to remedy a Notice of Deficiency within the stated timeline will result in escalating fines, as follows:

a) If not corrected within 60 days from date of notice: Class C offense. [$250]

b) If not corrected 30 days after the first fine or by the end of any approved weather extension: an additional fine equal to a Class B offense. [90 days = $750]

c) If not corrected 30 days after the second fine: an additional fine equal to a Class A offense. [120 days = $3,250]

d) For every subsequent 30-day period during which the violation remains unresolved: another fine equal to a Class A offense will be levied. [$5,750 … $8,250 … $10,750 …]

e) Fines are cumulative.

COMMENT

Note that 4(a) says “from the date of notice.” The current rules do not make clear what that date is; however, it appears to be when the SROA staff issues a “citation” asserting a violation. But the date on which the Magistrate or SROA Board makes a final, local determination that a violation actually occurred can be weeks or months later. So this proposal would royally screw owners as a result of the staff’s accusations only.

Obviously (you would think) this could not withstand appeal to the Deschutes County Circuit Court. But this is how the SROA Administration works to intimidate owners with potential budget-breaking escalation of fines and potentially large legal expenses so that most owners will simply comply, whether or not the citation was valid and lawful.

SROA ADMINISTRATION HYPOCRISY

In mid-summer 2025, my wife and I received a notice from the SROA demanding that we remove “Knapweed” from our two lots. I dutifully pulled about 10 small plants from our property, and over FIFTY Knapweed plants from the SROA “Common” area adjacent to our property.

Like so many other offenses (e.g., miles of barbed wire on SROA property lines along River Road), the SROA chooses to hammer owners, but refuses to accept comparable accountability.

ACTION

Send comments in an email to: infosroa@srowners.org
Include the following first sentence:
PLEASE FORWARD THESE COMMENTS TO THE RULES & REGULATION TASK TEAM AND THE SROA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Don’t forget to subscribe to this blog to get the latest updates. (See post above.)

If you currently have any form of fencing or other “physical” protection around your Quaking Aspen(s), even just “wraps” around their trunks, you are likely to be violating one or more SROA Design Manual rules and subject to a $250 fine, which may even double if you don’t submit an application and receive approval from the SROA Design Committee.

DISCLAIMER: This post is not legal advice. You should consult a licensed attorney if you have any legal questions or contemplate taking any legal actions. I am only providing my own, personal understanding of the SROA documents and actions.

The SROA recently sent one or more notices to a set of owners stating that the owners’ properties had “tree protection barriers” that did not conform to the requirements of the SROA Design Manual Sections 3.18.c and/or 3.18.d.

Some owners received a second postcard reminding them of their alleged nonconformance and setting October 31st as the deadline to remove or correct the nonconforming protection barriers. The postcard stated adamantly that there would be no further extensions for complying with the rules.

Consequently, each instance of a nonconforming protection barrier that remains in place at this time is a violation of the Design Manual and a Class C infraction, subject to a $250 fine. If you have four nonconforming protection barriers, that would be four infractions, subject to a total of $1,000 in fines.

Any physical protections around Quaking Aspen are a violation and
subject to fines unless you have applied for and received approval
by the Design Committee!

This may sound preposterous, but it’s true. Design Manual subsections 3.18.c.13 and 3.18.d.10 state: “Design Committee approval is required for continuous welded wire physical protection barrier (per the rules defined in this section) of any trees not listed in Appendix F of the Manual.” Appendix F Landscaping in Sunriver does not list Quaking Aspen in the “TREES” section.

In response to my request to SROA enforcement staff for clarification, I was told to submit a “Form E” for approval of our existing protections around several Quaking Aspen on our Sunriver lot. The Design Committee responded to my initial Form E and required a site plan showing each tree and providing a description of the type of protection for which I was seeking approval.

Click here to read my resubmitted Form E and the Design Committee’s approval (final page).

The “Takeaway” — As absurd as it seems, for now I strongly suggest you submit a Form E with a site plan showing the location of Quaking Aspens with existing or proposed protective barriers. Indicate whether each barrier is proposed under Section 3.18.c Tree Protection – Deer Browsing or Section 3.18.d – Beavers & Porcupines.

* * * * *

Click here to read an important follow-up message that I sent to Jacki Bue, Community Development Department Director. This puts the SROA on notice that unless they rigorously enforce the requirements of subsections 3.18.c.13 and 3.18.d.10, the SROA cannot (in my opinion) lawfully enforce any of the requirements under Sections 3.18.c and 3.18.d.

If you share my view that the addition of the “tree protection” rules is misguided and muddled and should be replaced with simpler, sensible, community-supported rules on the use of fencing, share your opinions with the SROA Board, either at a meeting, by email to infosroa@srowners.org, or by submitting the on-line Contact Form.

Stay Informed! Sign up to receive occasional updates by subscribing to my blog. See the pinned message above.

Here’s an email that I sent to the SROA Design Committee and Executive Board …

October 26, 2025

Dear Design Committee members,

On the advice of the General Manager, I’m submitting the attached analysis and recommendations regarding the Design Manual “tree protection” rules.

Since the adoption of these restrictions, the Design Committee made a “game-changing” decision to adopt rules allowing extensive fencing by commercial owners, including the Sunriver Resort’s use of fences to protect golf course grass (on greens) from damage by elk. (Similar provisions for fencing on “community” property were also adopted.)

As the attached document discusses, the Design Committee’s decisions regarding such fencing provide substantial evidence and a useful example to warrant reevaluation of what are at the core of the “tree protection” rules, i.e., fencing restrictions.

To my knowledge, no Sunriver homeowners oppose rules regarding fences and their use of fencing materials. However, there’s substantial desire among homeowners for two things:

1) To be treated with the same respect and consideration as the Resort and other commercial owners for our investment in the valuable assets of our native landscaping; and

2) To have clear, reasonable, and evidence-based rules on fencing, in a similar approach as the Design Committee has taken with commercial and community fencing.

Thank you for your consideration.

Paul Conte
7 & 8 McKenzie Lane

Click here to view or download the analysis document

To subscribe to receive regular updates, click here.

The October Sunriver Scene published a false and misleading response to my Letter to the Editor about the as-yet unappointed Rules and Regulations Task Team.

Click here for the truth!

A link to the list of members is posted here:
http://sunriverowners.org/owners/current-task-force-projects .

Neither the SROA Board President nor the General Manager has responded to repeated requests for important information about this recently established task team.

There’s no information about which members are voting members, the task team’s deliberation and voting procedures, or who will set agendas and preside over meetings. There’s neither a public engagement plan nor any way to  even submit comments to the task team. There’s no posted meeting schedule, location, or general agenda structure. In other words, this is another isolated, top-down approach that, unless redirected, is likely to fail to reflect broader owner values.

Looks like the “Design Manual Task Team redux, which was completely boloxed.

Two recent communications to me from SROA staff have agreed with my positions on use of trellises around plants and wrapped protection of tree trunks.

Trellises: In an email to staff, I argued that “trellises” around plants are permitted “Yard Structures and Ornamentation” as the following videos prove unequivocally that they are not “barriers”:

Yard Structures & Ornamentation Ref: IMG_3074

Yard Structures & Ornamentation Ref: IMG_3071

Yard Structures & Ornamentation Ref: IMG_3072

Yard Structures & Ornamentation Ref:IMG_3073

Staff responded: “[I]f you choose to elect to qualify these items as yard structures & ornamentation, they become subject to Section 4.02(F) of the Sunriver Rules and Regulations, as opposed to Sections 3.18c&d of the DCM.” Accordingly, they would not be considered “non-compliant” with respect to the “Tree Protection” rules.

Wrapped trunk protections: I received the following staff response regarding my use of EVERSPROUT Tree Trunk Protectors around the base of Aspen tree trunks.

“In regard to the second item, protective trunk wrapping, staff sees validity to tree wraps as you have described.  However, because they were not considered by the Committee when developing the tree protection rules and there is nothing clear in the Design Manual regarding such, staff will propose adding the use of wraps to the Design Committee for their consideration.  In the meantime, there will not be any enforcement of such until a decision is made.  It will likely take some months for such consideration/recommendation by the Committee.”