Morrow County Clean Water Consortium board adopts streamlined budget process and names advisory board as budget committee

Morrow County’s Clean Water Consortium (CWC) board agreed to adopt a streamlined budgeting process and to use its advisory board in place of the residential budget committee typically required under Oregon law, the board said during a meeting to decide how consortium funds and subawards will be handled.

Legal counsel Eileen told the board that the consortium occupies a "gray area" under Oregon budget statutes and that, based on review and advice received from the Oregon Department of Revenue, the consortium does not appear to meet the statutory definition of a council of governments because it does not provide services directly to individuals. "It isn't clear at all that you have any statutory requirement to do a budgeting process," Eileen said, adding that she nonetheless recommended the group "substantially follow the procedures that apply to councils of government" to provide transparency.

Kevin, representing the county as fiscal agent, said the guidance he received was from the Oregon Department of Revenue and that the county will set up consortium funds on the county's books as a separate fiduciary (custodial) agency fund. He said those custodial funds "won't be included in the county's budget" but that the county can use its accounting systems to segregate and control the funds.

Board members debated whether to follow the full local budget law procedures, which include forming a budget committee of residents, public notices and multiple hearings. Several members, including Tamara and Lisa, urged a written, transparent process. Kelly argued the consortium should fully comply with Oregon budget law to bolster public trust, while others said a truncated process that preserves transparency would be sufficient.

Board members agreed on a working approach: draft a brief written budget process that requires at least one publicly noticed meeting to review a proposed budget, a public hearing for comment, and final adoption by the board. The board voted to proceed with a budgeting process that treats the advisory board as the budget committee (in lieu of the usual residential budget committee), directs staff to incorporate the approach into the consortium bylaws, and to present that language at the next meeting for adoption.

The motion to recognize the advisory board as budget committee members was moved and seconded; the board approved the motion with one member opposing. Kelly recorded her opposition during the vote. The consortium also discussed existing grant reporting constraints: staff said that when the county is the direct recipient of federal or state grants and intends to subaward funds to the consortium, the county must follow the grant terms and subaward contracting requirements, including federal drawdown and reporting rules for congressionally directed spending and EPA grants. Board members noted an EPA-funded project in which the county's application included a roughly $124,000 subaward to Umatilla County and said such awards are legally bound to the grant’s stated purposes.

Next steps set by the board included: Eileen and Matt drafting a written budget-process memo and proposed bylaw language, circulating it to members, and returning to the board for adoption. The board scheduled a follow-up meeting for the week of Oct. 12–13 (the board agreed on 2 p.m. on the 13th) to review the proposed bylaws and the draft budget process. Kevin, as fiscal agent, said the county will perform accounting and custodial functions to segregate funds in a fiduciary fund and will support whatever reasonable process the board adopts.

The discussion combined legal interpretation of ORS provisions, grant management constraints, and governance choices. Board members emphasized transparency and public notice for any budgeting process adopted, even if the consortium does not follow the full council-of-governments procedures in ORS.