An Idea Worth Studying Is Not Yet a Solution
Over the last several days, a proposal has been circulating to move the Independence Public Library and Heritage Museum into the Event Center on the lower floor of the Civic Center.
When our community is facing a serious financial challenge, we should be willing to examine every reasonable idea. That includes consolidating facilities, selling property, sharing staff responsibilities, expanding partnerships and asking whether city-owned spaces are being put to their best use.
But there is an important difference between proposing something for further study and telling residents that it will save hundreds of thousands of dollars, keep every park open, preserve the Library and Museum and eliminate the need for additional revenue.
What the proposal gets right
If the Event Center is underutilized, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a better use for it. Or if it is being advertised appropriately so we can maximize our revenue potential. It is also reasonable to compare the cost of maintaining separate Library and Museum buildings with the cost of operating a shared facility.
But it is important for residents to understand that most of the ideas now being presented as a new alternative have already been discussed, evaluated and/or put into motion.
These are not new ideas
The City has already:
Combined the Library and Museum into one Community Services Department
Cross-trained employees and reassigned responsibilities
Reduced Library and Museum staffing and hours
Expanded the Museum Director’s role to include tourism and community events
Increased the use of volunteers and nonprofit partners
Evaluated city-owned properties and put several up for sale.
Have active offers on the museum property and sports park.
Discussed facility consolidation and alternative service models
Reviewed staffing, contracts, debt, administrative costs and other operating expenses
This work has taken place through Budget Committee meetings, City Council meetings, public work sessions, community presentations and the City’s published budget documents.
I understand that most residents do not have time to attend every meeting or read every page of a municipal budget. But anyone presenting themselves as ready to lead the City—and asking voters to reject an adopted funding plan based on a supposedly overlooked alternative—has a greater responsibility to understand the work already completed.
Had that occurred, it would have been clear that these questions have already been asked. It would also have been clear that some parts of this proposal are not proposals at all; they are existing City initiatives being presented to the community as new ideas.
That does not mean they should not be revisited. New information may lead to a different conclusion, and a fresh perspective can still be valuable.
But there is a meaningful difference between saying, “I believe the City should take another look at this,” and suggesting, “No one has considered this.”
Where are the hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings?
The adopted 2026–27 Community Services budget is approximately $893,000. That budget includes the Library, Museum, their collections, programs, public services and employees.
Approximately $690,000 of that amount is personnel. The remainder pays for books, electronic resources, museum exhibits, supplies, subscriptions, programs, repairs, utilities, insurance and other operating costs.
The identifiable utilities, insurance, telephone, rent and similar building-operating expenses total approximately $58,500.
Even if moving into the Civic Center eliminated every dollar of those expenses—which it would not—the savings would not amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Event Center would still need to be heated, cooled, cleaned, insured, secured and maintained. It might also require a significant remodel before it could function as both a public library and a museum.
The only apparent way to produce annual savings in the hundreds of thousands would be through substantial personnel reductions.
That leads to the next question: Which positions would be eliminated, and what services would go with them?
Sharing a building does not make the work disappear
Library and Museum employees do more than staff a front desk. Putting those employees in the same building would not eliminate the many varied and important responsibilities of either the library or the museum.
If the proposal is to reduce staffing significantly, residents deserve to know what that would mean:
Would Library hours be reduced further?
Would programming be eliminated?
Would fewer books and materials be available?
Who would manage the Museum collection?
Who would develop exhibits and educational programs?
Who would coordinate and supervise volunteers?
What professional and regional library requirements would still have to be met?
There may be opportunities to share some responsibilities, but those opportunities need to be identified and calculated. Simply labeling personnel costs as “duplication” does not make them duplicative.
If fewer employees provide fewer hours and fewer programs, that may reduce expenses. But it is a service reduction—not the same service delivered more efficiently.
Would everything actually fit?
The Event Center is described as approximately 4,300 square feet, but that is not 4,300 square feet of open space available for books, Museum exhibits and public programming.
The City’s published room information identifies approximately 3,082 square feet of distinct meeting-room space. The remainder includes restrooms, a catering kitchen, entrances, hallways, walls and support areas.
Into that space, the City would need to place:
Tens of thousands of library materials
Shelving and circulation areas
Public computers
Children’s and adult spaces
Museum exhibits
Secure artifact and archival storage
Staff work areas
Space for deliveries and material processing
Public programs and community gatherings
The Library’s current building was opened in 2003 because its previous location was too small. In 2022 alone, the Library recorded more than 74,000 visits and circulated more than 83,000 physical and digital items.
If the Library and Museum were moved into a much smaller shared space, something would have to give. The collection might need to shrink. Public seating could be reduced. Programs might have less room. Museum artifacts could require off-site storage, creating another expense.
Those are not reasons to refuse to study the idea, but they are reasons not to promise the outcome before the study has occurred.
What would it cost to make the space work?
An Event Center is not automatically equipped to function as a library and museum. A conversion could require:
Structural analysis for the weight of library shelving
New electrical and technology infrastructure
Specialized shelving and furnishings
Security and circulation systems
Climate controls for Museum artifacts
Secure collections storage
Fire-code or occupancy modifications
Accessibility improvements
Design, engineering and permitting
Moving and temporary storage expenses
The City would also need to understand its existing agreement with the Independence Hotel, the revenue and other value currently produced by the Event Center and where existing community and business events would go.
Until those questions are answered, we do not know whether the move would save money—or how long it would take for the annual savings to recover the initial cost.
More importantly, even a promising long-term facility change would not produce money quickly enough to address the immediate loss of fee revenue.
Volunteers are valuable, but they are not a complete staffing plan
Our Library and Museum already benefit tremendously from volunteers, Friends groups, nonprofit partners and community organizations. I am grateful for them, and I absolutely support expanding those partnerships where appropriate.
But volunteers must be recruited, trained, coordinated and supervised. They cannot be expected to assume every responsibility involving patron privacy, collection management, Museum preservation, regional library coordination, public safety and consistent operating hours.
A volunteer may help extend what professional staff can accomplish. Volunteers are not a dependable substitute for the entire professional operation of a public library or museum.
“Increase volunteers” can be part of a plan, but it is not, by itself, a budget.
Asking a question is not the same as discovering that no one asked it
One of the broader claims attached to this proposal is that City leadership started with fees and closures without first reviewing administrative and operational expenses. This is simply not accurate and is a huge disservice to the countless hours that have gone into looking at alternatives.
Since 2023, the City has eliminated or left vacant 11 positions. Library and Museum staffing and hours have been reduced. The departments were consolidated. City Hall reduced its public hours. Properties were identified for sale. Purchases were delayed, services reduced and responsibilities reassigned.
A community committee spent months studying the long-term sustainability of Parks, the Library and the Museum. The Budget Committee and City Council examined staffing, facilities, contracts, debt, service levels, property sales, partnerships and alternative revenue.
These were public conversations. The documents are available. The meetings were open, and many were recorded.
Before telling residents that City leadership failed to consider an “obvious” alternative, anyone making that claim should first review the record and explain precisely where the previous analysis was wrong or incomplete.
Leadership requires more than proposing an appealing concept. It requires doing the homework, understanding what has already occurred and presenting numbers that can withstand scrutiny.
The sequence of events also matters
The 2026–27 budget was adopted with the fee revenue included to support Parks, the Library and the Museum. The City Council then adopted the ordinance establishing the fee.
A referendum petition subsequently qualified the ordinance for the November ballot. While that referendum is pending, the City cannot collect the revenue included in the adopted budget.
The City also does not have sufficient reserves to replace that revenue until November. As a result, expenditures have to be reduced.
That is why services are closing.
People are free to oppose the fee. They are free to argue that other services should be cut instead. But the financial consequence of suspending nearly $939,000 in budgeted annual revenue does not disappear because we wish there were a less painful answer.
The parks are not being used as leverage. They are among the services supported by revenue the City can no longer collect. They can also be closed more quickly, while Oregon law requires a lengthy public process before a municipal library can be abolished. Our Heritage Museum has also been closed.
That may feel punitive. I understand why people experience it that way. But the City cannot continue spending money it does not have while hoping an unstudied idea eventually produces savings.
What a real feasibility study would need to answer
I would support giving this concept an honest preliminary evaluation.
That evaluation should answer:
Can the Library and Museum physically fit in the available space?
What collections, programs or public spaces would be reduced?
What would remodeling and moving cost?
What staffing level would be required?
Which positions, if any, are truly duplicative?
What would happen to the Event Center agreement and existing uses?
How much revenue or public value would the City lose?
What would be saved annually after all new costs are included?
How many years would it take to recover the conversion cost?
Would the savings be recurring and large enough to fund park operations?
Could the transition occur soon enough to address the current deficit?
Until those questions are answered, no one can responsibly promise that this idea will keep every park open, preserve both institutions and eliminate the need for additional revenue.
Ideas are welcome. The homework still matters.
I want residents to continue bringing ideas forward. City leadership should listen, test those ideas and be willing to change course when a better option is supported by evidence.
But people also deserve an accurate account of what has already been considered and accomplished.
Moving the Library and Museum into the Civic Center may produce some efficiencies. That possibility is not new. Facility consolidation, property sales, staffing reductions, shared responsibilities and expanded partnerships have all been part of the City’s public financial discussions.
A person does not have to agree with the conclusions reached through that process. But anyone asking voters to reject the City’s adopted funding plan has a responsibility to understand the process before claiming that basic alternatives were ignored.
Review the budgets. Watch the meetings. Examine the previous analysis. Then identify what was missed, provide the numbers and explain the consequences.
Study the idea? Yes.
Take another look at whether our facilities could be used more efficiently? Absolutely.
Present existing City initiatives as newly discovered solutions—and promise that an unstudied relocation will save hundreds of thousands of dollars, preserve every service, reopen every park and eliminate the need for recurring revenue?
That is not yet supported by facts.
Sent from my iPad