Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake Oswego council backs two‑track, three‑phase approach to library site decisions after staff outlines $10 million repair estimate
Summary
Library Director Melissa Kelly presented a two‑track, three‑phase plan for a future library — criteria (June–July 2026), analysis (Aug–Dec 2026) and decision (Jan–Mar 2027) — and recommended a community task force to develop reuse options for the existing 1.1‑acre site. Staff said short‑term repairs would cost about $10 million but do not resolve long‑term site constraints. Council provided broadly supportive feedback and asked for more public engagement.
Melissa Kelly, the city’s library director, told the Lake Oswego City Council on May 19 that staff recommends a two‑track, three‑phase approach to deciding a future library site and reuse of the existing 1.1‑acre parcel. "We are seeking council direction on this approach to two tracks for decision making for the existing site and future site in three phases," Kelly said.
Kelly outlined the proposed schedule: a criteria phase in June–July 2026 to adopt decision criteria; an analysis phase in August–December 2026 to evaluate sites and reuse scenarios; and a decision phase in January–March 2027 to adopt a top site and a reuse recommendation for the current property. Staff recommended a community task force — including neighborhood representatives, downtown business owners, youth, board and commission members and a council representative — to develop reuse scenarios for the existing site.
Staff summarized the rationale for relocation and replacement: the current library building, originally rebuilt on the 1.1‑acre location in the early 1980s, has seismic, water intrusion, systems and accessibility deficiencies that limit safe, reliable and equitable service delivery. "Estimated costs to address our current safety and maintenance needs are approximately $10,000,000," Kelly said, adding that maintenance can extend operations in the short term but does not resolve core site limitations.
Councilors responded with largely supportive comments but pressed staff on outreach and analytical details. Councilor Wendland said she favored the two‑track approach and asked staff to provide historical maintenance spending for context. Councilor Afghan urged the council and staff to clearly distinguish programmatic "needs" from "wants" and to prepare straightforward messaging for residents. Councilor Corrigan emphasized careful engagement with neighbors in the First Addition area so those closest to the existing site are heard.
Mayor Buck and other councilors stressed keeping the community informed throughout the process so residents understand the trade‑offs and the fiscal rationale before any ballot or funding decision. Kelly said staff will return on June 2 with study sessions on the decision criteria and that the building consultant’s analysis will be presented at a July meeting.
The presentation did not include a formal vote; council feedback was recorded as guidance to staff. Kelly asked for direction and confirmed she would bring the proposed criteria and additional data back to the council at the scheduled study sessions.
