Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 310.155 (2026)

Public school system limit; definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      310.155 Public school system limit; definitions. (1) For purposes of ORS 310.150, taxes are levied or imposed to fund the public school system if the taxes will be used exclusively for educational services, including support services, provided by any unit of government, at any level from prekindergarten through post-graduate training.

      (2) As used in this section:

      (a)(A) “Educational services” includes:

      (i) Establishment and maintenance of preschools, kindergartens, elementary schools, high schools, community colleges and the public universities listed in ORS 352.002.

      (ii) Establishment and maintenance of career schools, adult education programs, evening school programs and schools or facilities for persons with physical, mental or emotional disabilities.

      (B) “Educational services” does not include community recreation programs, civic activities, public libraries, programs for custody or care of children or community welfare activities if those programs or activities are provided to the general public and not for the benefit of students or other participants in the programs and activities described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.

      (b) “Support services” includes clerical, administrative, professional and managerial services, property maintenance, transportation, counseling, training and other services customarily performed in connection with the delivery of educational services. [1991 c.459 §214; 1995 c.343 §27; 1997 c.541 §264; 2007 c.70 §76; 2011 c.637 §101; 2015 c.368 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1998–2015 · leading case: Urhausen v. City of Eugene, 142 P.3d 1023 (Or. 2006).
Urhausen v. City of Eugene, 142 P.3d 1023 (Or. 2006). · cites it 25× “The city based its categorization of the funds in question on Measure 5’s implementing statute, ORS 310.155; specifically, subsection (3) of that statute.”
Urhausen v. City of Eugene, 18 Or. Tax 395 (Or. T.C. 2006). · cites it 33× “At oral argument, the parties agreed that ORS 310.155 1 applies to this case and petitioners conceded that they cannot prevail if that statute is constitutional.”
Glenn v. Morrow Cnty. Unified Rec. Dist., 14 Or. Tax 344 (Or. T.C. 1998). · cites it 4× “” ORS 310.155 Those statutory definitions presume an identity between the function of the governmental unit and the purpose for which the taxes are imposed unless “the sole purpose of a particular, voter approved levy” is otherwise.”
McGuire v. City of Portland, 22 Or. Tax 90 (Or. T.C. 2015). · cites it 4× “The city relied on the provisions of ORS 310.155(3) in taking its actions. Id.”
James v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2014). “1 ORS 310.155(1) further clarifies the category of taxes and that are to be levied to fund the public school system.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 310.155(1) — 2 cases
Urhausen v. City of Eugene, 18 Or. Tax 395 (Or. T.C. 2006). “At oral argument, the parties agreed that ORS 310.155 1 applies to this case and petitioners conceded that they cannot prevail if that statute is constitutional.”
James v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor (Or. T.C. 2014). “1 ORS 310.155(1) further clarifies the category of taxes and that are to be levied to fund the public school system.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 310.155(2) — 2 cases
Urhausen v. City of Eugene, 18 Or. Tax 395 (Or. T.C. 2006). “At oral argument, the parties agreed that ORS 310.155 1 applies to this case and petitioners conceded that they cannot prevail if that statute is constitutional.”
Urhausen v. City of Eugene, 142 P.3d 1023 (Or. 2006). “The city based its categorization of the funds in question on Measure 5’s implementing statute, ORS 310.155; specifically, subsection (3) of that statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 310.155(3) — 3 cases
Urhausen v. City of Eugene, 142 P.3d 1023 (Or. 2006). “The city based its categorization of the funds in question on Measure 5’s implementing statute, ORS 310.155; specifically, subsection (3) of that statute.”
Urhausen v. City of Eugene, 18 Or. Tax 395 (Or. T.C. 2006). “At oral argument, the parties agreed that ORS 310.155 1 applies to this case and petitioners conceded that they cannot prevail if that statute is constitutional.”
McGuire v. City of Portland, 22 Or. Tax 90 (Or. T.C. 2015). “The city relied on the provisions of ORS 310.155(3) in taking its actions. Id.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 310.155(4) — 2 cases
Urhausen v. City of Eugene, 142 P.3d 1023 (Or. 2006). “The city based its categorization of the funds in question on Measure 5’s implementing statute, ORS 310.155; specifically, subsection (3) of that statute.”
Urhausen v. City of Eugene, 18 Or. Tax 395 (Or. T.C. 2006). “At oral argument, the parties agreed that ORS 310.155 1 applies to this case and petitioners conceded that they cannot prevail if that statute is constitutional.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 310.155(6) — 3 cases
Glenn v. Morrow Cnty. Unified Rec. Dist., 14 Or. Tax 344 (Or. T.C. 1998). “” ORS 310.155 Those statutory definitions presume an identity between the function of the governmental unit and the purpose for which the taxes are imposed unless “the sole purpose of a particular, voter approved levy” is otherwise.”
Urhausen v. City of Eugene, 142 P.3d 1023 (Or. 2006). “The city based its categorization of the funds in question on Measure 5’s implementing statute, ORS 310.155; specifically, subsection (3) of that statute.”
Urhausen v. City of Eugene, 18 Or. Tax 395 (Or. T.C. 2006). “At oral argument, the parties agreed that ORS 310.155 1 applies to this case and petitioners conceded that they cannot prevail if that statute is constitutional.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.