Washington County advances '2038 Museum Plan,' staff propose $830K annual stewardship budget and draft RFP

Washington County staff presented a multi‑year plan Dec. 16 for the county‑owned museum building and collection formerly operated as the 5 Oaks Museum, recommending a phased approach that preserves public access while seeking a private operator through a nationwide request for proposals.

What the county proposed: Marnie Kyle, assistant county administrator, and Joe Nelson, director of assessment, taxation and records, described the "2038 Museum Plan," which has three concurrent objectives: (1) community stewardship and a research center to preserve public access to collections; (2) reconstitution of the museum through an RFP to identify private ownership/operation; and (3) a comprehensive inventory and implementation of a collections management policy. Staff asked the board for direction to move forward with the plan and associated near‑term budget proposals.

Lease and facility: Staff reported that the museum building sits on a ground lease with Portland Community College that was set to expire in 2028; conversations with PCC produced a verbal agreement to extend county use through 2038 with a $1‑per‑year lease rate and permission to change the use to prioritize imaging and research on site. "They have agreed to allow us to change the use type ... focusing on imaging and research on‑site," a records manager summarized.

Inventory, operations and costs: Staff described a substantial backlog of materials—records and objects measured in thousands of cubic feet—and presented a staffing and cost model for county stewardship and inventory. The plan recommended hiring a program coordinator and two administrative specialists to conduct inventory work, with annual personnel costs of about $366,000, materials around $25,000 and internal services fees (cost allocation) of roughly $438,000, producing a total estimated stewardship/inventory cost of approximately $830,000 per year if the county must operate the function itself. Staff said an RFP could shift some or all responsibilities to an operator, which would reduce the county’s budget need.

Board reaction and budget context: Several commissioners voiced strong concerns about the size of the proposed county budget commitment. One commissioner said, "I won't approve an $830,000 budget… I'm not willing to spend another $830,000," citing an existing county budget shortfall discussed earlier in the session. Staff acknowledged the county faces a broader structural budget imbalance and agreed to provide more detailed options. Commissioners suggested alternatives including contracting out parts of the inventory work or offering a transitional subsidy to a private operator (one commissioner suggested a four‑year $350,000 annual subsidy as an RFP option) to reduce county personnel and fringe obligations.

RFP process and timeline: Procurement staff explained how a nationwide RFP would be structured and that the county can include mandatory terms (for example, protections for records or a requirement to keep the collection in Washington County). Staff also emphasized that certain county administrative records are subject to public records requirements and that the inventory must distinguish county administrative records from historical records before transfers are finalized. Staff proposed a decision checkpoint in 2033 (five years before the lease sunset), and committed to return to the board with a draft RFP, scenarios and budget options in early February.

Next steps: The board directed staff to continue developing the plan and to return in early February with a draft RFP and clearer budget scenarios showing options to reduce the fiscal impact on the general fund if a private operator is found.