Background
Washington County and Clackamas County sought judicial review of a funding formula that the Oversight and Accountability Council adopted in July 2024 for the 2025-29 grant cycle under Oregon’s Ballot Measure 110 program. The counties argued that the formula was an administrative rule and was invalid because the council neither followed applicable rulemaking procedures nor possessed statutory authority to adopt a funding formula.
After the council awarded the 2025-29 grants, the Oregon legislature enacted Senate Bill 610 in 2025. The legislation transferred grant-administration authority to the Oregon Health Authority and reduced the council’s role to advising the authority about the grant program, including funding priorities and distribution. The authority and council moved to dismiss the counties’ proceeding as moot.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals dismissed the proceeding as moot. The court concluded that a merits ruling would have no practical effect because the 2025-29 grant funds had already been awarded and could not be reallocated through this proceeding, while the council no longer possessed authority to award grants in future cycles. The counties’ asserted loss of funding was a direct consequence of the challenged formula, not a collateral consequence that a judicial decision could remedy.
The court also rejected the contention that the formula remained an existing rule merely because the council had not formally repealed it. The formula was adopted for the 2025-29 grant cycle and had expired; alternatively, Senate Bill 610 effectively displaced it by removing the council’s grant-awarding authority. The court declined review under ORS 14.175 because similar future action was not likely to evade judicial review: this challenge became moot only because the legislature intervened and revoked the council’s authority.
Key Takeaways
- A challenge is moot when a merits decision cannot produce a direct or collateral practical effect for the parties.
- An agency formula limited to a completed grant cycle does not remain an existing rule simply because the agency never formally repealed it.
- ORS 14.175 did not permit review because the challenged conduct was not inherently likely to evade judicial review in the future.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how completed funding decisions and intervening legislation can eliminate a live administrative-law controversy even when challengers allege that an agency acted beyond its authority. A claimed past loss of grant funding will not preserve review when the court can no longer alter the awards or otherwise remedy that loss.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.