The following letter was written in response to the 2025 PROS Plan Comments Review

Exploring How to Increase Public Participation with the County

June 4, 2025

Dear Planning Commission, Board of Commissioners, and Parks Director,

First, I would like to mention that the recent Planning Commission meetings have been very impressive, with increased engagement, knowledgeable input, and discussion. I am pleased to see the more diverse experience at the Planning Commission table, and it is reflected in the quality of the meetings. I appreciate the addition of new Planning Commissioners to the group!

I was intrigued by the question at the end of the Planning Commission meeting last night, June 3, 2025: how to increase public participation with the County. I applaud the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners for exploring the issue of increasing public participation in a future joint work session.

An important step to increase public engagement is for the community to see that their voices matter and have an impact. The real question is how to facilitate County departments in truly considering and utilizing public participation and comments to incorporate the opinions and voices of the community in shaping policy.

The recent process with the Parks department PROS Plan is an example of why many who participate in the County’s “public comment and participation” efforts end up feeling like taking part in the process is a waste of their time and appears to be more for show than substance.

I was disappointed at the County Parks Dept’s responses to the strong public comments at the previous Planning Commission meeting and Hearing about the PROS plan on May 20, as well as written comments collected in the PROS process shared and discussed on June 3. Nearly 50 people commented, asking the Parks Department to consider making the PROS plan a draft instead of a final product, to change direction in areas such as the involvement of stewards, the focus on conservation over active recreation, and other significant issues.  Seeing the comment matrix and Parks Department responses was frustrating, to say the least. Multiple responses rubber-stamping “NO CHANGE” and boilerplate answers to real concerns about the PROS plan, brought up by the nearly 50 community respondents, is a glaring example of how public participation becomes seen as “public participation theatre.”  Many of the responses did not actually answer the real concern a commenter expressed, such as about ongoing plans for development in parks: referring to the Sound to Olympics trail through parks or the mountain bike park (active developed recreation) in Port Gamble Heritage Park and North Kitsap Heritage Park in contrast to natural trails and respect for conservation values. (The County Parks department responder only addressed that the “proposed sports complex at the Raydient property was not within the Heritage Park” and this is not even what the comments were about)

What is the message to the public who took the time to comment on this plan? How can we feel our time is well spent if all comments are answered with “No Change” and boilerplate language?  Are County departments truly serious about public participation or is it an inconvenient annoyance, a box to check off, interfering with a timeline for passing an agenda?  And then a claim is made of “robust public participation”.

As a person who has been involved with public participation with the County as a community member since 1990 and recently in the North Sound to Olympics trail process, the Comprehensive Plan, the CAO working group, the PROS plan,  and now the Year of the Rural,  I see a continued pattern of what is touted as “community engagement” and “robust public participation” – being a process of more show than substance. It appears that the County departments generally have an agenda they are pushing or are overly influenced by overpowering voices such as real estate interests or mountain bike groups with large amounts of money.

As examples, in both the NSTO process and the PROS plan, the community comments were collected into a “comment matrix” without evidence of openness to consideration and engagement, but rather met with rebuttal.

During the NSTO process, the choice was made of a “preferred route” that would put a developed trail through North Kitsap Heritage Park despite loud outcry by overwhelming numbers of community members against it. Other options were not seriously considered.

The Park Director, in the Parks Department PROS plan discussion on June 2, addressed the concerns about the change in stewards’ involvement by dismissing it as an issue with “only one of the Heritage Parks”. Where is the exploration of what the issues are that have interrupted the commitment and dedicated volunteer work by this large group of Stewards? His statement was avoidant of the concern about the stewards’ issues and did not encourage reflection about the concerns and restoring the ongoing valuable public involvement of these dedicated stewards.

These are a few examples of the seeming disregard for and incorporation of public comment into a plan, but instead rubber-stamping the department’s preferred plan and agenda. I have experienced more examples of this behavior over the years when working with the County.

Community members will not continue to participate in public processes if they do not see their input considered in a meaningful way, or their voices reflected in the County’s plans after they have poured in their time and energy.

Thank you so much for considering these reflections as you move forward with trying to make improvements in the County’s processes and increase public participation.

Sincerely,

Beth, Indianola