Resident urges Sumner to rescind demolition permit, alleges city misrepresented heir in lawsuit

Randall Adams, a Sumner resident, used public comment at the June 23 Sumner City Council meeting to urge the council to rescind resolution 1663 and the related demolition permit for the Ryan House, saying the city had misrepresented an heir in court filings and failed to follow the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

Adams said the city’s brief in the current lawsuit labeled “Nancy Ryan Dressel” as an “alleged heir,” which he called a misrepresentation because, he said, the city attorney knows she is a direct heir. “This is not simple gamesmanship to discredit the validity of an heir,” Adams said. He said the city’s actions amount to “presenting what some may say is a known lie to a judge in a court of law” to win litigation.

Adams asked the council to rescind resolution 1663 and described the demolition permit as improperly approved because, he said, SEPA was not complied with before the demolition permit was issued. “Because the city failed to comply with SEPA before approving the demolition permit, the demolition permit is rescinded for this reason too, and the matter is remanded to the city to follow proper SEPA process and the comprehensive plan amendment process before making any decisions regarding the Ryan House,” Adams read from his prepared remarks.

The comments were delivered during the public-comment period; the council did not take action on the statements during the June 23 meeting. The meeting later recessed into a 15-minute executive session to discuss pending or threatened litigation under RCW 42.30.110(1)(i); the mayor said there would be no action to follow from that executive session.

Adams framed his remarks as a broader critique of staff and council oversight. “You have way too much on your plate for the council members to have to spend time to verify what is being told to you,” he said. He urged council members to “step up and get that rescinded.”

No member of the council moved to rescind the resolution or the demolition permit during the meeting, and no vote on those matters occurred on the record that evening. The city’s legal positions and the underlying litigation were not debated on the public record during council discussion following Adams’ comments.

The council proceeded to new business after public comment. The mayor later announced an executive session to discuss pending or threatened litigation and cited RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) as the legal basis for the closed discussion. The mayor stated there would be no action to follow the executive session.