Thurston County considers reversion clauses as Yelm seeks full control of Yelm-Rainier-Tenino trail 

In the Yelm-Rainier-Tenino Trail corridor, a disconnect between land title and regulatory authority has left jurisdiction unsettled over roughly 30.1 acres across 1.6 miles. 

Though legally under Thurston County’s ownership and maintained by the county, the corridor continues to be a functional area within the City of Yelm’s governing boundary. 

The issue has escalated procedurally as the city advances its annexation of parcels surrounding the mentioned corridor, where Thurston County Public Works confirmed the city has expressed willingness to assume full control of all seven parcels. 

The seven parcels are located within or along the margins of Yelm’s Urban Growth Area (UGA), but they are also part of a corridor the county manages through its Parks and Trails Program.  

During the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) work session on Wednesday, April 30, Public Works Director Karen Weiss said five of the parcels fall “either fully or partially” within the city’s incorporated limits, one borders the boundary line, and one lies within the UGA but outside current city jurisdiction. 

The matter was previously discussed at a March 12 work session, when Public Works Director Karen Weiss first presented to the board the City of Yelm’s request to acquire a section of the trail corridor. 

At that time, Public Works said no actual site plans had been submitted and the city’s proposed parking lot would encroach the county-owned land.  

In the recent discussions, Weiss, alongside Road Operations Manager Mike Lowman and Parks and Trails Operations Manager Ed Marson provided a second briefing. 

Proposed trail modifications 

The county then reviewed the “Yelm Trail Parcels – Vicinity Map”: 

1. The blue-shaded area represents Yelm’s incorporated city limits. 
2. The pink-shaded area designates the UGA. 
3. The red-outlined segments identify seven county-owned parcels along the Yelm-Rainier-Tenino Trail. 
4. The blue arrow on the map marks Parcel 21724440000, which lies adjacent to city-owned Parcel 21724440500, the proposed site for a future parking lot. 
5. The easternmost parcels are located entirely within the blue-shaded city limits. 
6. The westernmost parcel is situated along the pink UGA boundary, outside the current city limits but within Yelm’s planned annexation area. 

According to Weiss, the city is expected to complete the annexation process in 2025. 

Weiss revealed the immediate request from the city involves County Parcel 21724440000. This parcel borders Parcel 21724440500, a city-owned lot identified as the site of a proposed parking lot to serve trail users. 

The parking project, while still in “conceptual” stages, has been incorporated into Yelm’s five-year downtown improvement plan. 

Public Works staff reported that three trail parcels, totaling approximately 5.44 acres, are linked to the city’s capital infrastructure goals. 

Weiss clarified that based on the city’s preliminary layout, the parking lot cannot be constructed without encroaching onto the adjacent county-owned land. 

“They expect that some of the parking lot would extend into county park property,” Weiss said. 

Yelm is seeking a formal transfer of ownership for the parcel and is pursuing grant funding to support the proposed project, according to Weiss. 

There are still no formal plans or engineered drawings shared, and Weiss described the city’s proposal as a one-way parking lot with slanted spaces, exiting onto State Route 507. 

Fragmentation and legal concerns 

Meanwhile, as they examine the map, the segmented nature of the parcel layout has raised concerns among commissioners. 

BoCC Chair Tye Menser pointed out that the city limits appear split into two sections connected by a “bridge” of UGA, which causes a “checkerboard-style” pattern of ownership. He flagged this as a practical issue, if the county transfers just one parcel, it could lead to fragmented maintenance responsibilities. 

BoCC Vice Chair Wayne Fournier then inquired about the legal safeguards of the proposal. 

He asked whether the city preferred an interlocal agreement (ILA) or outright ownership. He shared that he had personally discussed the matter with Yelm officials and advised against full ownership, but they were unconvinced. 

“They don’t seem … that argument doesn’t seem to resonate with them,” he said. 

Weiss responded that, long term, Yelm seeks full ownership. 

“They would like to own the parcels within their city limits … they are in the process of annexing that (last) parcel,” she said, explaining once the annexation is completed, the city is expected to return with a request to transfer all remaining parcels. 

Still, Fournier reiterated his reservations. 

He noted that if the county were to agree to the transfer, the written agreement must require Yelm to meet county-level maintenance and design standards. 

Fournier proposed adding a clause like one used in the Moon Hill Road property transfer, where ownership would revert to the county if standards were not met. 

“I would want some kind of language in there ... where if they're not meeting the standards, it goes back to us,” he said. 

Menser aligned with Fournier’s suggestion that future agreements include language that allows the county to reclaim the parcels if maintenance obligations aren’t met. 

The commissioners also suggested clearer classifications on any plans to avoid ambiguity when making decisions about jurisdiction and potential transfers. 

County standards 

County Manager Leonard Hernandez and Weiss both reassured the board that the city is open to such provisions, including language of access, naming rights and long-term upkeep. 

Hernandez added the city already conducts mowing within its trail segments and has dedicated staff and resources for corridor upkeep. He found it to be consistent and resource-supported. 

“Yelm does a fantastic job of maintaining the trail … We believe that their continued partnership would continue a high level of maintenance,” Hernandez said. 

Commissioner Rachel Grant voiced support for transferring the parcels, and believed the city would agree to maintenance clauses and access language, as proposed by the county. 

“(Mayor) Joe DePinto and others … are willing to do whatever it takes. They’re very collaborative and really have a bigger, a long-term plan for all of this area,” Grant said. 

In addition, Fournier reminded the board that the county has invested in park infrastructure in areas where it holds jurisdiction, such as “pickleball courts and bathrooms.” He then voiced his support for the transfer of parcels. 

The board instructed Public Works to return with a draft agreement at a future business meeting.