A safety question has hovered over Spokane’s River Park Square parking garage for more than a month, and a city hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday to hear preliminary results of a study by international experts hired by River Park Square. Is the facility, where a wall section broke loose with tragic consequences, safe? The answer, whatever it is, won’t be 100 percent credible unless city officials take all necessary steps to attain independent assurance that the public is safe.

For starters, the city must determine whether its own engineers have the specialized expertise to evaluate the information it will receive on Wednesday. If not, the city must hire people who do have the credentials necessary to competently review and confirm the findings. And if those findings are less than conclusive, the city should arrange for a separate and independent investigation of the garage’s safety and structural integrity.

Since April 8, when 62-year-old Jo Ellen Savage lost her life, a variety of claims have been made about the garage, and several inquiries have been launched. The attorney representing the Pullman woman’s family has urged Mayor Dennis Hession to close the facility. Former Spokane City Councilman Steve Eugster has filed a complaint, alleging the facility is a public nuisance and citing conclusions of a client who is a consulting engineer. Safeco Insurance Co., which insures the garage, undertook its own investigation. And the garage owners are conducting yet another examination.

But except for city police investigations after April 8, and reexamination of several studies that predated the accident – in some cases conducted more for valuation purposes than safety – the city lacks a source of impartial information to support an authoritative finding that will reassure the public about the garage’s integrity.

This is a good place to acknowledge the conflict of interest that forms a backdrop for this editorial. River Park Square, its parking garage and The Spokesman-Review all are owned by the same organization, Cowles Co. Discerning readers will consider that relationship when deciding how much weight to give this commentary.

Like readers, the city also needs to be aware of motive. The battery of opinions and assessments being pressed upon the mayor’s office come from stakeholders buttressing their arguments for a favorable outcome. Their representations call for scrutiny as city officials try to extract the truth from the predictably contradictory interpretations they are receiving.

Only the city can truly represent the public, and the cost of hiring independent expertise is justifiable for that reason. Otherwise, the city could be forced to rely in the end on educated guesswork about which body of information is most accurate. Any decision arising from that kind of process – whether to allow the garage to continue operating, to order upgrades or to revoke its certificate of occupancy – would be subject to perpetual second-guessing.

This is not a case for guesswork, by the city or by the public.

Having assumed the burden of rendering this important decision, the city also needs to assume responsibility for a separate, independent, impartial investigation that will assure safety and public confidence.