Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Sumner council to preserve Ryan House; critics and supporters clash during public comment
Summary
Multiple residents urged the Sumner City Council on May 19 to halt plans to demolish the Ryan House, marking the 150th anniversary of the Ryan family’s home; others defended the council’s authority and financial choices. Speakers said litigation and court filings remain part of the process.
Several residents used the public‑comment period at the May 19 Sumner City Council meeting to urge preservation of the Ryan House on Main Street and to criticize the city’s handling of the site; some speakers defended the city’s actions and budgetary decisions.
Tina Burnett, a Sumner resident, described the Ryan House as a “silent witness to our city's history” and noted that May 18, 2025 marked 150 years since George and Lucy Ryan moved into the house. “The Ryan House is woven into the very fabric of Sumner,” she told the council.
Other speakers detailed legal and procedural concerns. Melissa Fox, a resident, said she submitted meeting materials to the city and asked that court documents be posted on the city website; she also cited a stipulated proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed in Pierce County Superior Court on April 8, 2024, and called for clearer public documentation of the city’s processes. “There are always more than one side to a story, and the only side being told is that of the city attorney, staff, and council,” Fox said.
Randall Adams, who said he had distributed a statewide historical‑preservation magazine featuring the Ryan House, criticized what he described as a lack of transparency and said he believed the city expedited demolition to avoid an environmental impact statement. “Procedures matter,” Adams said, urging the city to follow court‑ordered processes and to work with community groups.
Several residents also said the city’s public outreach and record keeping have been incomplete. Nick Bierman said he sought civic involvement and described barriers to participation he has encountered when attempting to join city commissions and committees.
Not all public commenters opposed the city’s direction. Julie Norris, who said she lives on Trevanka Avenue, said she supported the city’s decision to pursue demolition of the red‑tagged structure and argued that publicity campaigns by grassroots groups were pressuring staff and council. “I believe the decisions to demolish the red tagged structure on Main Street are correct, and the responsible actions to take to protect the city long term,” she said.
Speakers referenced ongoing litigation and court filings related to the site; the council closed its regular meeting and moved into a 15‑minute executive session at 7:32 p.m. to discuss “pending or threatened litigation” under state law (RCW 42.30.110(1)). The executive session itself is exempt from public minutes, but the session’s stated purpose indicates litigation is an active part of the matter.
Council members did not take formal action during the meeting on the Ryan House; public comments chiefly served to record community positions and to request greater transparency about court paperwork, demolition permitting and restoration proposals. Several residents noted the Ryan House is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (1976) and asked the council to weigh preservation in its decisions.
The council and staff did not issue new findings or votes on May 19; residents said they plan continued public outreach and legal follow‑up.
