Thursday, October 1, 2026
The Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) rolled out a draft update to its Public Participation Plan, which outlines new strategies to ensure more residents can participate in regional planning decisions.
TRPC Engagement Specialist Chelsee Embree presented the draft at Transportation Policy Board meeting on Wednesday, July 8. It marks the first major revision to the plan in seven years.
The plan outlines TRPC’s engagement policies for informing the public, gathering feedback and promoting inclusive participation in planning projects. It is required under Title VI, which prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs.
Last updated in 2019, the plan is being revised to reflect changes in how people access information since the COVID-19 pandemic and to meet current federal Title VI requirements.
Embree said the updated plan emphasizes engaging minority populations and people with limited English proficiency (LEP).
TRPC also recognizes many residents lack the time, resources or experience to participate in public decision-making. The updated plan aims to make outreach more inclusive, so planning decisions better reflect the region’s diverse communities.
Chapter 5 of the plan identifies priority groups, including people of color, people with disabilities, low-income residents, individuals with LEP and rural residents, and outlines targeted strategies.
“A lot of feedback that we get in our outreach efforts comes from people who are predominantly white, wealthier and older than the makeup of the Thurston region’s population,” Embree noted. “We want to be sure that underrepresented community members are included in our planning processes.”
She said the perspectives of these groups are essential to helping TRPC better understand community priorities and concerns.
Chapter 5 also describes outreach methods designed to meet people where they are by providing accessible information and engaging them in familiar community settings.
Chapter 6 explains how TRPC documents and uses public feedback, including posting survey results online and sharing findings with participants whenever possible.
Embree also presented guiding principles for public engagement that emphasize early involvement, diverse outreach methods, continuous improvement, and making additional efforts to hear from communities that are underrepresented in public feedback.
TPB Chair and Lacey Mayor Andy Ryder said attracting broad participation remains a challenge for local jurisdictions.
“There’s no silver bullet. People are often focused on making ends meet, but the most effective approach we’ve seen is to meet people where they are. That requires staff time and budget to go to unconventional places,” Ryder said.
Olympia City Council and TPB member Robert Vanderpool encouraged staff to continue investing in proactive communication and outreach.
Embree pointed to existing strategies included in the draft, such as partnering with community organizations and attending local events.
“We have a great partnership with the Thurston County Food Bank. We regularly work with them to coordinate time to come conduct surveys and talk to the clients,” said Embree, noting the partnerships helped TRPC reach residents who do not typically participate in government processes.
The draft plan will be released for a 45-day public comment period beginning Sunday, July 12.
TRPC will also submit the draft to the Washington State Department of Transportation for Title VI compliance review.
Staff will compile public feedback and present a revised plan to the TPB in September for a recommendation to the TRPC.
TRPC review is scheduled for October and November, with final adoption and submission to the Department of Transportation expected by the end of the year.
Embree said future updates aligned with the Title VI review cycle will include performance measures, companion graphics and expanded website content.
4 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
RondaLarsonKramer
I applaud TRPC for undertaking this update. Effective public participation depends not only on inviting people to meetings, but also on ensuring that meaningful opportunities exist for the public to review and respond to proposals before decisions are made.
I had an experience during an August 2024 Urban Growth Management (UGM) Subcommittee meeting at TRPC that illustrates why these safeguards matter. During that meeting, without advance warning to the public, the agenda was amended mid-meeting to allow a vote on previously unreleased amendments to countywide planning policies. The proposed language, which had been drafted by a developer's attorney, had not been provided in advance to the public or even to planning staff from the participating jurisdictions. As a result, neither the public nor agency staff had any meaningful opportunity to review or comment before the vote occurred.
The motion passed despite these procedural concerns. Two committee members voted no and issued a minority report explaining that their objections were based on the process rather than the substance of the proposal. Immediately after the dissenting members explained their procedural concerns, the chair praised the meeting as one of the best he had seen in terms of collaboration. That response left the impression that the procedural objections were being dismissed rather than addressed.
Afterward, public records I obtained showed that, before the meeting, the developer and Chamber of Commerce had been communicating with elected officials of at least three of the participating jurisdictions to advocate for them to amend the agenda and vote in favor of the proposed language. The public and even planning staff from the participating jurisdictions remained unaware of the existence of the updated policy language or that such language would be considered and then voted on at the meeting.
I hope the updated Public Participation Plan includes safeguards to prevent this type of process from occurring again. Major policy language should be publicly available with adequate advance notice before any vote is taken. The TRPC should avoid mid-meeting agenda changes that deprive the public of an opportunity to review proposals. Public participation is meaningful only when everyone has access to the same information before decisions are made.
Thursday, July 9 Report this
BobJacobs
The experience that Ms. Kramer related here is stunning. The names of the elected officials who behaved this way should be made public. Shame!
Bob Jacobs
Friday, July 10 Report this
36098501
Rhonda Kramer raises an important point. Public participation has limited value if residents are only invited to comment after decisions have largely been shaped or coordinated before the public has access to the same information. Transparency is more than publishing agendas or holding hearings. It means providing timely information, conducting business openly, and giving the public a genuine opportunity to influence outcomes before decisions are effectively settled.
Her experience also highlights a broader issue. Transparency alone cannot create meaningful public participation if the larger structures of democratic accountability make meaningful change difficult.
As someone who has lived in Olympia for many decades and spent years working to improve this community, I believe one of those structural issues deserves more discussion. Does our local election system consistently produce the level of competition and accountability that healthy local government depends on?
Olympia's City Council has an extraordinary incumbency advantage. Once someone reaches the council, incumbents rarely lose reelection.
Today, four of the seven current Olympia City Council members—a 4-3 voting majority—Robert Vanderpool, Clark Gilman, Kelly Green, and Yến Huỳnh first entered office through appointment by the sitting City Council to fill vacancies before later standing for election. That process is entirely legal and serves an important purpose when vacancies occur. However, it also gives those appointees many of the advantages of incumbency long before voters ever cast a ballot for that particular seat.
Over roughly the past 25 years, it appears only three Olympia City Council incumbents have lost reelection, and only one of those was an appointed incumbent who had originally entered office by appointment from other sitting Council members.
An appointed incumbent gains months, and sometimes years, of visibility before the next election. They build relationships with city staff, serve in leadership roles on regional boards and commissions, become familiar with city operations and programs, establish community networks, receive endorsements, develop fundraising advantages, and benefit from the credibility that comes with already holding office. By the time voters cast their ballots, they are no longer simply another candidate, they are already a well-established incumbent.
Someone involved with Olympia's rowing community once explained it to me this way. Imagine one crew launching in a well-designed racing shell with an experienced coxswain and a team that has practiced together for years. Now imagine the challengers trying to assemble a crew, find a boat, learn to row together, and then begin the race several hundred yards behind. Like any analogy, it isn't perfect, but it captures the practical challenge of running against an established incumbent.
This is not a criticism of the individuals who currently serve. Every councilmember has devoted considerable time to public service. The question is whether the system consistently encourages broad competition, fresh perspectives, and meaningful electoral choice, or whether it unintentionally favors candidates who are already connected to existing political and civic networks.
When incumbency becomes the norm rather than the exception, the range of perspectives represented on the council can narrow over time. Healthy competition encourages vigorous debate, brings new ideas and experiences to the table, and strengthens public confidence regardless of who ultimately prevails. Local government is strongest when residents believe qualified new voices have a realistic opportunity to serve.
One reform worth discussing is district-based representation, which could strengthen accountability between councilmembers and the neighborhoods they represent while lowering the barriers for qualified community leaders to seek office without financing a citywide campaign. Whether that is the best solution or not, the broader conversation about strengthening democratic participation is one our community should welcome.
Public participation is about more than transparency, public comment periods, and being allowed to speak. It also depends on whether citizens believe they have a meaningful opportunity to influence both decisions and representation. Transparency matters. Competitive elections matter. Public trust requires both.
This is an important public conversation that needs to begin to take place.
Feel free to copy into other forums Olympia uses for public conversations.
Saturday, July 11 Report this
JulesJames
Why does the public bother commenting on a planning process? Its typically with reservations, or complete opposition. Isolated individuals can't effectively contest a proposal. So if the TRPC seriously seeks public imput, then design it to allow groundswell opposition. Enough public notice to research, then raise a group of supporters, to gain endorsements of neighborhood groups.
Saturday, August 1 Report this