Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Sartori Trust topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter urges city to preserve Sartori Hospital bequest; Human Rights Commission introduces itself
Summary
At the Dec. 1 Cedar Falls council meeting, a public commenter recounted the 1912 Sartori Hospital bequest and urged the council not to divert trust funds or rename the trust; the council received the public comments and declined an extra-minute extension for the speaker. TW Ingram introduced the Cedar Falls Human Rights Commission.
TW Ingram, chair of the Cedar Falls Human Rights Commission, opened the public-comment portion by reminding residents the commission is available to receive discrimination concerns and provide education: “If they have any issues with discrimination within the city of Cedar Falls … contact us@human.rightsatcedarfalls.com,” Ingram said.
Kim Jordan addressed the council at length about the historical bequest that established Sartori Hospital and the obligations she said the city holds under that gift. Jordan traced the donation to Joseph F. Sartori in 1912 and repeated terms she said were part of the original bequest, including annual maintenance support and a requirement that “said building should be owned, prepared perpetually maintained by the city and the public hospice as the public hospital.” She urged the council to “please deny” what she characterized as reallocations of Sartori Trust funds and objected to prior trust board actions she said diverted monies to nonessential projects.
Jordan asked the council for an additional minute to continue; the council called for a motion and vote to grant extra time, and the motion failed.
Why it matters: Jordan framed her remarks as a request that the city honor the historical terms of the Sartori bequest and avoid repurposing funds or changing trust designations. The council did not take immediate action on the trust during the meeting; Jordan’s remarks were part of public comment rather than a formal agenda item.
What’s next: The council did not respond with a policy decision during the meeting. Any future staff or council action to review trust management, named funds or disposition of related city properties would need to be placed on a future agenda.
