Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 341.045 (2026)

Feasibility study; hearing

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

      341.045 Feasibility study; hearing. (1) The Higher Education Coordinating Commission shall examine the petition to determine whether it is complete. If the petition is complete and if formation of the district is consistent with the overall plan for all education in the state, the commission shall undertake a study of the feasibility of a community college in the geographical area proposed by the petition, including but not limited to:

      (a) Educational needs of the area.

      (b) Potential enrollment levels.

      (c) The rate of operating taxes that is required to meet the local share of operating and capital expenses and that would, if adopted, be the district’s permanent rate limit for operating taxes, including whether the proposed rate bears a reasonable relationship to the permanent rate limit of operating community college districts of similar size and circumstance to the proposed new district. If the proposed rate is substantially below the rate of similar operating districts, the feasibility study shall explicitly detail how the proposed new district intends to provide a comprehensive community college program.

      (d) Relationship of the proposed district to the overall plan for all education in the state.

      (e) Boundaries of the proposed district.

      (f) The appropriateness of the proposed name of the community college district or the community college, if a name is proposed, in order to determine that the proposed name is not misleading, confusing or grossly inappropriate.

      (2) Upon completion of the study, the commission shall set a date for a public hearing on the petition and study and shall give notice of the hearing in the manner provided in ORS 341.357.

      (3) The notice of hearing shall state:

      (a) A study has been conducted on a proposed district.

      (b) The boundaries of the proposed district.

      (c) Whether the proposed community college district specifies providing its courses through contract with agencies authorized to enter into such contracts.

      (d) The time and place set for the hearing on the petition. [Formerly 347.730; 1967 c.465 §1; 1969 c.673 §2; 1971 c.513 §74; 1991 c.397 §1; 1997 c.541 §378; 2013 c.747 §50]

 

      341.050 [Repealed by 1965 c.100 §456]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1966–2006 · leading case: Larsen v. Bd. of Parole, 138 P.3d 16 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Larsen v. Bd. of Parole, 138 P.3d 16 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “130(8); ORS 341.045(2); ORS 823.031(2). The board finally argues that requiring it to comply with the contested case procedures of the APA — in particular, the provisions requiring final orders to contain findings of fact and conclusions of law — is contrary to ORS 144.”
Barclay v. State Bd. of Educ., 417 P.2d 986 (Or. 1966). “With respect to the claim that the proceedings were void because only one member of the Board was present at the hearing, it is necessary to mention that ORS 341.045 provides that when a petition is filed with the Board by the requisite number of residents of an area to create…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 341.045(2) — 1 case
Larsen v. Bd. of Parole, 138 P.3d 16 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “130(8); ORS 341.045(2); ORS 823.031(2). The board finally argues that requiring it to comply with the contested case procedures of the APA — in particular, the provisions requiring final orders to contain findings of fact and conclusions of law — is contrary to ORS 144.”
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.