Ryan House

What’s going on with the Ryan House?

In 2018, the City started a major rehabilitation of the aging facility and spent 5 years and approximately $250,000 to design the renovation and future uses of the house. The intended design called for a more accessible space open to the public on a consistent basis.

The City researched all available grants and successfully obtained funding for construction. The City thereafter started work on the house. In one of the first steps, structural engineers inspected the house and discovered the house was in a structurally poor condition and unsafe. It lacked key support and needed much more work than the City had anticipated. The inspections also cost more than the City had originally budgeted due to the unexpected discoveries. In 2023, staff asked the City Council to provide additional funding to finalize the expanded structural assessment. It was in deliberating that funding request that the Council determined the house’s needs outpaced what they were willing to invest of limited city resources. They instructed staff to pursue developing Lucy V. Ryan Park, as envisioned by the original deed, and removing the house. One local citizen group thereafter filed a lawsuit which resulted in the judge determining that the demolition permit contradicted certain provisions of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Judge acknowledged that the City had already begun its required comprehensive plan update process and directed the City to first amend those provisions of the comprehensive plan before demolition would be permitted.

The comprehensive plan was updated in January 2025. In February, the City applied for a demolition permit. In March, the City posted a notice of application for a demolition permit. On April 1, the SEPA official issued a mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) for demolition of the Ryan house (SEPA-2025-0001). A group named “Save Ryan House” filed two appeals of the MDNS, one administrative and one in Superior Court, among other legal claims.

Has anything changed in that time?

Not really. After the City Council directed staff to cease its own active fundraising in September 2023, we have repeated we would accept private donations to save the house. The City would need at least $2.2 million in private donations, with no strings attached, to reconsider tackling what’s now at least a $3 million project. The City has been informed that one or more groups are attempting to collect funds but never did receive any donations.

Would you take less than $2.2 million?

No. It is important that City parks and facilities are open to and usable by the public and kept in a safe condition. No partial or temporary fix will achieve this, particularly if the structure is not in a condition that can be safely accessed by the public. And, the City would not embark on a construction project without the entirety of the funds necessary to complete the job. (This is the primary reason the initial efforts by the City ceased when we discovered the project would cost far more than the grant funding would support.) We estimate a rehabilitation would now cost at least $3 million. The City has dedicated $300,000 to the Lucy V. Ryan Park, but any less than $2.2 million in private funds means we likely can’t renovate the house to a condition that it can safely remain.

Why didn’t the City take better care of the house?

The City has maintained the house for nearly 100 years. When the Ryan Family gave the house in 1926, the cabin portion was reportedly uninhabitable with ivy growing through the walls. The City has invested funding over the years for maintenance and renovation projects, including rebuilding the cabin, the porch, roofing, paint, repairs from earthquake damage, etc. We have also funded utilities, internet connection, phone service, etc. for the facility. In recent years, the increasing amount of items stored in the house hindered accessibility and made large projects and even inspections difficult. However, no amount of maintenance ever eliminates the need to address major structural failures on buildings.

Can you just let the house sit while you find more money?

No. Due to the severity of its condition, the building has been red-tagged as unsafe, the same determination the City’s Building Official would be tasked to make for any other building in this condition. City code requires any property owner, public or private, to remediate an unsafe structure and the City could not equitably permit itself to ignore a dangerous building without enforcing the same remediation or abatement requirements.

Can you stabilize the house with what funds you have and then renovate it later?

No because the structural engineer experts determined that the problems are not isolated in such a way as they can be fixed one after the other; instead, they all overlap each other. For example, water damage continues to erode what structural support does exist. To stop water damage, the house needs a new roof, but we can’t send a roofing company up onto an unstable structure. So much has to be done all at once that it really needs a full renovation. Perhaps some final finishes could wait, but those are not what’s driving the expense of this project.

Can you rebuild the house to look like the original?

No. The land the house is on was deeded to the City by the Ryan heirs for a park in memory of their mother Lucy V. Ryan. The deed anticipated the house being torn down in the 1930s and contains very specific covenants prohibiting any new structures being built or even additions to the house. There is no expiration date on a deed; the city must abide by its conditions.

What if we don’t like those conditions?

A deed is a legally binding document; it isn’t open for debate. A few people have commented that they believe Ryan House is now the “people’s house,” and that’s simply not the case. It was a privately built house that was donated with very specific conditions; even after 100 years, no one gets to contradict or ignore those conditions—not any surviving Ryan family descendants, not members of the public, and certainly not the City who accepted the property under the agreement that it would uphold the legally binding desires of the grantors.

Did you involve the public?

Yes. The 2019 feasibility and design study involved extensive public outreach to design a facility that would be more open and accessible to the public. The future park design will also be a fully public process. As for the question of spending more public dollars on the Ryan House instead of other City services, the 2025-2026 Biennial Budget survey asked that exact question. With over 700 responses, more people told the City to invest in roads and transportation or simply save City dollars rather than spending additional funds on the Ryan House. Any funding for the Ryan House structural renovations would need to come from private donations to cover the full project estimate, and without conditions.

Did the City return/reject funding that would have saved the house?

No, we did not. We secured approximately $1.5 million in grant funding for construction from a variety of sources. All the grants have conditions including what kind of work can be reimbursed, matching funds required and deadlines to spend the funding. When the structural assessment found larger issues than anticipated, and the City Council chose not to fund the full design, the City could not meet the grants' funding requirements or timelines.

Did the City ignore or not pursue potential funding that could have saved the house?

Not to our knowledge. We applied for every grant for which this project qualified. We asked the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Resources and the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation (twice) if we missed any grant opportunities, and they said no. We also asked the public in meetings and through the media if they had any other ideas. We received a few ideas, but each of the potential funding sources identified would have required the home to be used in a manner that would violate the deed restrictions.

Can’t you just use the money intended for the new library or Rainier View’s covered court or the Heritage Park improvements for Ryan House instead?

No, we cannot. The library isn’t even the City’s project and is funded by a voter-approved levy. The funding for the other park improvement projects came primarily from grants intended for those specific purposes. To apply for and then accept grant funding for those specific park projects and then spend that money elsewhere would be not only illegal but would also disqualify the City from receiving funds for any future important projects.

Could this be a public-private partnership?

Public-private partnerships are a highly complex area of law that is often misunderstood. However, the City’s intent when it set out to renovate the structure was to plan a future use that included a museum with accompanying café or retail farm store operated by a private entity under a services agreement – a combination of uses the City believed would attract more frequent public visitation to the Lucy V. Ryan park property. At this stage, the City would accept private donations if those donations could help reopen the public facility (see related question above), but even with donations, the City would retain all ownership of the property and control over the public’s use of the property just like all other City facilities and parks.

Why is it so expensive to renovate one house? It wouldn’t be that expensive to renovate my house.

This is not just a house, despite its name. It is a public facility owned and operated by the City for 100 years. As such, any construction project involving the structure must comply with all state bidding laws, public works construction laws (including paying prevailing wage for the labor) and the Americans with Disability accessibility requirements. These laws typically make any public project more expensive than private counterparts. Plus, because the Ryan heirs included a deed covenant that emphasizes the space must be open and usable by the public (with or without a house), the City must ensure the structure and/or grounds are safety to enter and accessible to all.

What’s going on with the Ryan House?

In 2018, the City started a major rehabilitation of the aging facility and spent 5 years and approximately $250,000 to design the renovation and future uses of the house. The intended design called for a more accessible space open to the public on a consistent basis.

The City researched all available grants and successfully obtained funding for construction. The City thereafter started work on the house. In one of the first steps, structural engineers inspected the house and discovered the house was in a structurally poor condition and unsafe. It lacked key support and needed much more work than the City had anticipated. The inspections also cost more than the City had originally budgeted due to the unexpected discoveries. In 2023, staff asked the City Council to provide additional funding to finalize the expanded structural assessment. It was in deliberating that funding request that the Council determined the house’s needs outpaced what they were willing to invest of limited city resources. They instructed staff to pursue developing Lucy V. Ryan Park, as envisioned by the original deed, and removing the house. One local citizen group thereafter filed a lawsuit which resulted in the judge determining that the demolition permit contradicted certain provisions of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Judge acknowledged that the City had already begun its required comprehensive plan update process and directed the City to first amend those provisions of the comprehensive plan before demolition would be permitted.

The comprehensive plan was updated in January 2025. In February, the City applied for a demolition permit. In March, the City posted a notice of application for a demolition permit. On April 1, the SEPA official issued a mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) for demolition of the Ryan house (SEPA-2025-0001). A group named “Save Ryan House” filed two appeals of the MDNS, one administrative and one in Superior Court, among other legal claims.

Has anything changed in that time?

Not really. After the City Council directed staff to cease its own active fundraising in September 2023, we have repeated we would accept private donations to save the house. The City would need at least $2.2 million in private donations, with no strings attached, to reconsider tackling what’s now at least a $3 million project. The City has been informed that one or more groups are attempting to collect funds but never did receive any donations.

Would you take less than $2.2 million?

No. It is important that City parks and facilities are open to and usable by the public and kept in a safe condition. No partial or temporary fix will achieve this, particularly if the structure is not in a condition that can be safely accessed by the public. And, the City would not embark on a construction project without the entirety of the funds necessary to complete the job. (This is the primary reason the initial efforts by the City ceased when we discovered the project would cost far more than the grant funding would support.) We estimate a rehabilitation would now cost at least $3 million. The City has dedicated $300,000 to the Lucy V. Ryan Park, but any less than $2.2 million in private funds means we likely can’t renovate the house to a condition that it can safely remain.

Why didn’t the City take better care of the house?

The City has maintained the house for nearly 100 years. When the Ryan Family gave the house in 1926, the cabin portion was reportedly uninhabitable with ivy growing through the walls. The City has invested funding over the years for maintenance and renovation projects, including rebuilding the cabin, the porch, roofing, paint, repairs from earthquake damage, etc. We have also funded utilities, internet connection, phone service, etc. for the facility. In recent years, the increasing amount of items stored in the house hindered accessibility and made large projects and even inspections difficult. However, no amount of maintenance ever eliminates the need to address major structural failures on buildings.

Can you just let the house sit while you find more money?

No. Due to the severity of its condition, the building has been red-tagged as unsafe, the same determination the City’s Building Official would be tasked to make for any other building in this condition. City code requires any property owner, public or private, to remediate an unsafe structure and the City could not equitably permit itself to ignore a dangerous building without enforcing the same remediation or abatement requirements.

Can you stabilize the house with what funds you have and then renovate it later?

No because the structural engineer experts determined that the problems are not isolated in such a way as they can be fixed one after the other; instead, they all overlap each other. For example, water damage continues to erode what structural support does exist. To stop water damage, the house needs a new roof, but we can’t send a roofing company up onto an unstable structure. So much has to be done all at once that it really needs a full renovation. Perhaps some final finishes could wait, but those are not what’s driving the expense of this project.

Can you rebuild the house to look like the original?

No. The land the house is on was deeded to the City by the Ryan heirs for a park in memory of their mother Lucy V. Ryan. The deed anticipated the house being torn down in the 1930s and contains very specific covenants prohibiting any new structures being built or even additions to the house. There is no expiration date on a deed; the city must abide by its conditions.

What if we don’t like those conditions?

A deed is a legally binding document; it isn’t open for debate. A few people have commented that they believe Ryan House is now the “people’s house,” and that’s simply not the case. It was a privately built house that was donated with very specific conditions; even after 100 years, no one gets to contradict or ignore those conditions—not any surviving Ryan family descendants, not members of the public, and certainly not the City who accepted the property under the agreement that it would uphold the legally binding desires of the grantors.

Did you involve the public?

Yes. The 2019 feasibility and design study involved extensive public outreach to design a facility that would be more open and accessible to the public. The future park design will also be a fully public process. As for the question of spending more public dollars on the Ryan House instead of other City services, the 2025-2026 Biennial Budget survey asked that exact question. With over 700 responses, more people told the City to invest in roads and transportation or simply save City dollars rather than spending additional funds on the Ryan House. Any funding for the Ryan House structural renovations would need to come from private donations to cover the full project estimate, and without conditions.

Did the City return/reject funding that would have saved the house?

No, we did not. We secured approximately $1.5 million in grant funding for construction from a variety of sources. All the grants have conditions including what kind of work can be reimbursed, matching funds required and deadlines to spend the funding. When the structural assessment found larger issues than anticipated, and the City Council chose not to fund the full design, the City could not meet the grants' funding requirements or timelines.

Did the City ignore or not pursue potential funding that could have saved the house?

Not to our knowledge. We applied for every grant for which this project qualified. We asked the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Resources and the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation (twice) if we missed any grant opportunities, and they said no. We also asked the public in meetings and through the media if they had any other ideas. We received a few ideas, but each of the potential funding sources identified would have required the home to be used in a manner that would violate the deed restrictions.

Can’t you just use the money intended for the new library or Rainier View’s covered court or the Heritage Park improvements for Ryan House instead?

No, we cannot. The library isn’t even the City’s project and is funded by a voter-approved levy. The funding for the other park improvement projects came primarily from grants intended for those specific purposes. To apply for and then accept grant funding for those specific park projects and then spend that money elsewhere would be not only illegal but would also disqualify the City from receiving funds for any future important projects.

Could this be a public-private partnership?

Public-private partnerships are a highly complex area of law that is often misunderstood. However, the City’s intent when it set out to renovate the structure was to plan a future use that included a museum with accompanying café or retail farm store operated by a private entity under a services agreement – a combination of uses the City believed would attract more frequent public visitation to the Lucy V. Ryan park property. At this stage, the City would accept private donations if those donations could help reopen the public facility (see related question above), but even with donations, the City would retain all ownership of the property and control over the public’s use of the property just like all other City facilities and parks.

Why is it so expensive to renovate one house? It wouldn’t be that expensive to renovate my house.

This is not just a house, despite its name. It is a public facility owned and operated by the City for 100 years. As such, any construction project involving the structure must comply with all state bidding laws, public works construction laws (including paying prevailing wage for the labor) and the Americans with Disability accessibility requirements. These laws typically make any public project more expensive than private counterparts. Plus, because the Ryan heirs included a deed covenant that emphasizes the space must be open and usable by the public (with or without a house), the City must ensure the structure and/or grounds are safety to enter and accessible to all.

Discussions: All (1) Open (1)
Page last updated: 13 Jun 2025, 04:45 PM