Board asks staff for more analysis on museum collection after 5 Oaks closure; seeks options for transition and community ownership

Joe Nelson, director of Assessment, Taxation, Records and Elections, updated the board on Washington County’s stewardship of the former 5 Oaks Museum collection and facilities after the museum closed on Dec. 29, 2024.

Nelson said the county now holds two primary parts of the collection: paper records (including photos, maps and documents) totaling about 1,115 cubic feet, and physical artifacts occupying about 19,249 cubic feet. He described the scale to illustrate the inventory challenge: "If you're looking at 1,115 paper records, you're talking 63 of these raised gardens. If you're talking 19,249 physical artifact records, you're talking 1,200 raised gardens," he said.

Staff presented four broad options for the board to consider: - Option 1, deaccession to museum standards: a careful, museum‑standard disposition of artifacts (estimated about five FTEs over five years—roughly $5 million total). - Option 2, surplus under government-asset standards: a government surplus disposition with a shorter timetable (estimated three FTEs over three years—roughly $3 million), recognizing lower handling standards than a museum deaccession. - Option 3, imaging and research center: Washington County retains ownership, relocates records and imaging staff to the facility, adds one museum specialist FTE, offers research access (not exhibits), and preserves the collection while minimizing costs; staff said the county would need to confirm lease terms with Portland Community College (PCC), which owns the land and holds a facility agreement that expires June 30, 2028. - Option 4, private or community ownership and operations: solicit proposals from external operators to take the collection and operate a museum; under this approach, the county would seek proposals with sustainable funding and would not be obligated for future subsidy.

Board discussion: Commissioners expressed discomfort with options 1 and 2 as outcomes for historical materials and observed the collection is large and expensive to process. Several commissioners favored pursuing option 4 (private/community ownership) but acknowledged it may take many months and that a viable operator may not materialize quickly. Multiple commissioners said option 3 could serve as a transitional approach to preserve access, allow inventory work, and buy time while the county pursues option 4.

Staff and commissioners requested more detailed cost breakdowns and clarity about facility costs and cost-allocation assumptions. Nelson and assistant county administrator Marnie Kyle told the board that the current on-site maintenance and part-time staffing costs are roughly covered by an existing county allocation (about $180,000 in the current year) and that the county’s cost-allocation plan could add roughly $300,000 for facilities and overhead—raising the estimated full cost to roughly $400,000–$480,000 annually if the county continues operations in the near term.

Records and legal retention: Nelson emphasized the county’s records responsibilities. "The records for the museum would be part of [the county's records function]," he said, and added that county staff are experienced in records management; the paper records will be retained under legal retention standards even if artifacts are deaccessioned or transferred.

Next steps: The board asked staff to return with a more developed plan that further details option 3 (imaging/research center) and option 4 (RFP for private/community operator) and includes: a) clearer cost-allocation calculations; b) a facilities assessment and any deferred-maintenance needs at the PCC facility; c) a timeline and contingency plan should PCC decline to extend the facility agreement after June 30, 2028; and d) an explanation of which parts of the collection the county is legally required to retain.

Ending: Commissioners signaled a shared preference to avoid low-standard surplus dispersal of the artifacts. Staff will return with more detailed analyses of option 3 and a public solicitation plan for option 4, plus the requested financial and facilities detail.