A dispute over a roughly $900,000–$1,000,000 bequest from the late Jim Victor dominated the finance discussion on Dec. 3, with residents, trustees and at least one alderwoman pressing for clarity about how the funds were handled and whether a proposed release required council approval.

The will’s language presented to the council reads in part: "5% to fund, build, and or support a new fountain within the city of Davenport. The project to be selected and managed by the Quad City Arts and Davenport Parks department." City attorneys read that language aloud at council request. The Victor brothers apparently approached the Figge Art Museum about acquiring artwork and the museum then accepted certain gifts; an attorney for the Victor estate provided a release for the city to sign that would relinquish the bequest to the Figge. The release and related activity were new to much of the sitting council and staff, who said they first became aware of the matter in mid‑August.

Public speakers raised several concerns: whether the transaction violated open‑meeting rules, whether a council member’s simultaneous service on the Figge board created an appearance of conflict, and whether estate actions had prematurely moved funds away from a city‑intended project. Alderman McGinnis, who served on a task force that met with the Victor brothers in 2019, described her limited involvement and said she had not participated in subsequent Figge acquisition discussions; she urged transparency about timelines and documented contacts.

City Attorney Huff warned that if the council rejected the release the estate could seek judicial relief (a probate court action invoking doctrines such as impracticability or cy pres) to expand the bequest’s meaning; he recommended an executive session to discuss legal strategy. Several members requested additional records, including the will, the attorney correspondence, and a fuller chronology of events, before acting.

Why it matters: the bequest’s intent (a fountain 'within the city of Davenport') and the proposed transfer to a private museum raised legal, procedural and trust concerns among residents and council members about donor intent and municipal oversight.

What’s next: council left the release on discussion and scheduled further review next week, with requests for documents and a potential executive session to consult legal strategy.