Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Property Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Sumner council to resolve Ryan House disputes, cite costs, safety and process concerns
Summary
At the May 5 meeting, three residents urged the council to address ongoing Ryan House litigation and enforcement issues, warning of staff time and financial cost, alleging process failures including SEPA and comp-plan compliance, and asking the city to enforce red-tag safety measures at the house.
Three Sumner residents used the public-comment period at the May 5 City Council meeting to urge the mayor and council to resolve the long-running dispute over the Ryan House, focusing on fiscal impacts, staff morale, regulatory process and immediate safety concerns.
John Gammon, a long-time Sumner resident, told the council the local cost of dealing with the Ryan House extends beyond construction estimates. "The cost to the city to the of the Save the Rhine house effort is considerably more, in my opinion, than those direct costs associated with construction, engineering," he said, adding staff time, council time and anticipated legal challenges will consume resources that could otherwise address other priorities.
Bridal Adams told the council the city had not complied with deed obligations to the heirs and said the dispute turns on process failures. She said the city previously was found to have acted illegally and cited the need for an environmental review: "Process matters," she told the council, arguing the city must follow its settlement agreements and state environmental review requirements before proceeding.
Julie Norris raised safety concerns about the building. She said the house had been "red-tagged" and asked the city to ensure the red-tag signage and fencing remain effective barriers. "The fire department said they won't go have anyone go in there if there's an issue," Norris said, and she urged the city to prevent people from hanging items on the fence that could obscure warning signs.
Why it matters: commenters warned continued litigation and protracted decision-making could increase city costs, damage staff morale and pose safety risks if the site is not properly secured. Speakers urged the council to move decisively—either to use available grant funds to stabilize the house or to clarify process steps, including environmental review and historic-preservation procedures.
Specific claims and requests raised by speakers included: - Financial resources: Bridal Adams said the city had $1,500,000 in grants at one point and another $400,000 approved by the state, and asked why available funding was not used on the house; she summarized those sums as "about $1,900,000" available earlier. - Regulatory process: Adams asserted the city failed to follow parts of its comprehensive plan and must either convene a Historic Preservation Commission or change city code to comply with statutes she cited. She also told the council the settlement in the original lawsuit requires an environmental-impact study, which she said the city had not completed. - Safety enforcement: Julie Norris urged clearer enforcement of the red-tag and fence as a safety barrier, arguing signage should not be obscured by items hung on the fence.
No formal council action occurred during the public-comment period. Council members listened and later thanked speakers; there was no vote or directive recorded in the meeting minutes on May 5. Commenters framed their concerns as requests for staff and council follow-up rather than asking for immediate council action.
The public-comment sequence closed after three speakers; the council then moved to other business and later to an executive session on pending litigation.
