Kennewick Council opposes home for sex offenders as residents ask for action, transparency
By Caleb Stipkovits
Click here for updates on this story
KENNEWICK, Wash. (KAPP) — Dozens of frustrated Central Kennewick residents filled the city council chamber Tuesday night, advocating for action and transparency as a home for level three registered sex offenders is set to open in their neighborhood.
In a joint action with the Kennewick School District, the Kennewick City Council voted 5-0 to approve a resolution opposing the opening of the Less Restrictive Alternative (LRA) home after community members have been voicing concerns for over a month.
“We’re setting the stage for the whole state to understand that these are things that need to be changed statewide, and the resolution sends that message directly back to Olympia that they need to be recognizing the needs of our communities,” Kennewick Mayor Jason McShane said.
While some residents applauded city leaders for taking action, others questioned whether the resolution would actually prevent the home from opening.
“What does this joint resolution accomplish exactly, and what action does it take on this current proposed LRA?” resident Janette Romero asked during public comment.
According to Mayor McShane, the city is limited in taking further action due to state laws. The mayor added that it’s been hard for the city to get answers from state leadership on how it can legally stop the LRA home from opening.
The city has identified one potential way to fight the proposal.
“There are very few restrictions on these LRA homes for sexually violent predators,” Mayor McShane explained. “They do, however, identify certain facilities in the city as being places of concern. And they call those a risk facility. And one of those is a publicly dedicated pathway.”
The publicly dedicated pathway would be less than 400 feet away from the home’s front door, and Mayor McShane believes it could assist in residents’ fight to stop the LRA from opening.
While the need for action was atop many residents’ minds during the meeting, another issue arose in the council chamber: transparency. Several residents expressing frustration over how late they were informed about the proposed facility.
“For us, you’ve failed us. I want to know what you are going to do,” resident Tina Gregory told the council.
“You guys had a golden opportunity to give legislation a chance to help us out more,” another resident said.
The transparency concerns intensified when Councilmember John Trumbo made a surprising revelation near the end of the meeting, claiming he had learned about the proposal months earlier.
“This city councilman [I] learned about this proposed idea months ago. And I learned about it in a setting that prevented me from going public. I could not talk about it. There’s something called an executive session, I could not talk about it,” Trumbo told residents.
However, one day after the meeting, Mayor McShane disputed Trumbo’s account.
“I was quite surprised about Councilman Trumbo’s comments last night. I spoke with him this morning, Councilman Trumbo was mistaken. He was inaccurate in his depiction of that. This was not at any time discussed in an executive session. He was referring to a meeting he had in December of last year after the closing of the property had been completed,” McShane clarified.
Mayor McShane added that he first heard of the proposed LRA around the time the city and state legislators sent out a joint statement to the community about the plan. He explained that he was briefly off of the city council before taking the position of mayor, and he did not fully understand the situation until after the statement was shared.
During the meeting, one councilmember proposed hosting a community workshop to discuss the timeline of the proposed home and share additional information the city has gathered about the situation. The proposal is set to be discussed at a further date.
Please note: This story was provided to CNN Wire by an affiliate and does not contain original CNN reporting. This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.