Thursday, October 1, 2026
The City of Yelm is pushing to take over a section of the Yelm-Rainier-Tenino Trail, insisting that the land is necessary for a parking expansion.
Public Works Director Karen Weiss laid out the city’s pitch in mid-January and also explained the challenges involved in the request during a Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) work session on Wednesday, March 12.
According to Weiss, the county manages the trail through its Parks and Trails Program. To date, Thurston County holds full control over 30.1 acres of trail land in Yelm’s Urban Growth Area (UGA), which spans 1.6 miles.
With this, the county still keeps the jurisdiction over its development and has the authority to determine what can and cannot be done within its corridor.
Additionally, the county also owns seven parcels within the section.
Weiss revealed that the Yelm officials want at least one of the mentioned parcels, and cited the need to expand parking for trail users.
“They would like to develop a parking lot on their parcel. But based on their preliminary designs, there’s not adequate space for them to build out that parking lot without it encroaching on our trail,” Weiss said.
Yelm’s request has raised concerns about whether Thurston County should relinquish ownership of the land.
“We do not anticipate that they could build the infrastructure without it going onto our trail corridor. There’s not enough property in there, in that triangle, for them to build the parking area that they are interested in building,” Weiss said.
BoCC Chair Tye Menser asked how much of the county’s land would be affected. Weiss admitted the details given to her department were vague at the time.
“They did not share plans with us, and I don’t even know. I think Ed (Marson) had a follow-up conversation with their staff, and I don’t believe they actually have a definitive design," Weiss said.
Thurston County Parks and Trails Manager Ed Marson confirmed the city had not provided concrete plans.
“No, I talked to the public works director, and they did not have a set of drawings.”
Meanwhile, Commissioner Wayne Fournier identified likely foreseeable concerns ahead.
“Wouldn’t there be all kinds of like traffic requirements and additional turn lanes? It’s not easy to just for a public entity to just plop something next to a state highway like that. I would imagine that there’d be a lot involved,” he said.
Weiss admitted that those factors were important, but said the previous discussion was outside the scope of the meeting.
“All of those things are true. It’s just that, that was not the nature of our conversation really. The conversation was about, ‘Hey, we’d like to acquire this piece of land to help facilitate our building of this parking area,’” she said.
In the bigger picture, the county’s long-term strategy hinges on the trail’s future.
As stated by Weiss, the Parks, Open Space, and Trails Plan sets a Level of Service requirement of 3 acres per 1,000 residents.
With this in mind, she then outlined the math. She stated that trail construction costs average approximately $1 million per mile.
Weiss also explained that losing 1.6 miles of county-owned trail would demand a significant investment to maintain existing service levels.
She also elaborated that Yelm officials argue that transferring control would allow them to maintain the land and apply for funding.
Currently, the county has the responsibility of litter collection, vandalism repairs and graffiti removal, while Yelm mows grass in city limits.
Weiss then described the maintenance issues, and mentioned that “vandalism and graffiti” are common problems along this section of the trail.
Commissioner Carolina Mejia voiced concern over fragmenting trail ownership.
“If we start transferring ownership, my concern is, are we just going to have this checkered system in our trail network? Mejia asked.
County officials presented three potential options to resolve the issue.
The first would allow Yelm to proceed with construction while the Thurston County “maintains ownership,” requiring the implementation of interlocal agreement to clarify responsibilities.
The second option would grant Yelm only the “parcel area needed to complete project.” The transfer shall allow the city limited expansion, while minimizing impact. They would then execute a boundary line adjustment.
The third proposal would place the entire 1.6-mile stretch under Yelm’s jurisdiction. This move would remove the county from its full control and administration.
Weiss addressed the budgetary consequences of the third option and explained its long-term effects.
She explained that giving up “1.6 miles of trail” or “30.1 acres” to Yelm would shrink the county’s parkland and make it harder to meet “Level of Service” goals.
By 2040, the county would need an additional “238.5 acres of developed parks” to make up for the loss. The cost to replace the forfeited land would reach about “$1 million per trail mile.”
Weiss also elaborated that the county could set “contract covenants” for “trail naming” and “gate access,” but the financial challenges would still be significant.
To substantiate this, Commissioner Rachel Grant wanted to understand why Yelm had not pursued a formal maintenance agreement.
Clerk of the Board Amy Davis responded that such “requests” typically come from agencies “willing to dedicate staff,” and said the county was open to further conversations.
County Manager Leonard Hernandez suggested modifying the first option.
“Option four would be option one, enhanced right without development within the trail corridor. But then, we look at what the process and partnership is for our team to take that over and develop the parking lot,” he explained.
The session ended without a resolution, as the issue was only up for discussion.
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
mtndancer
PLEASE avoid any agreement that impinges on the nature or use of the trail! It is a local treasure. If Yelm owns a portion, and Thurston County owns the rest, think of the sticky issues that could arise. I am guessing that most of the dedicated cyclists don’t live in Yelm.
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 Report this
TomBoucher
No idea what this means but please keep the trail bike-able. I've enjoyed using it all the way from Olympia. P.S. in future, please make embedded maps viewable at higher magnifications.
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 Report this
OlyBlues
If the city of Yelm wants a parking lot, why not have them draw up the plans with Thurston County engineers, let them pay for it, and the county maintains ownership and maintenance? Yelm citizens will benefit from the new parking lot, the county maintains it's property, no fragmented trail system. Problem solved.
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 Report this
Claire
Thurston County is broke. Do whatever is possible to remove any future property tax increase for costs associated.
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 Report this
BobJacobs
The county needs to maintain full ownership of the trail corridor and necessary access points for trail users and trail maintenance activities. Fragmented ownership is an invitation to trouble.
Yelm can build its parking lot outside the county owned area.
Bob Jacobs
Wednesday, March 19, 2025 Report this
Boatyarddog
Sounds like Another "Pave Paradise And Lets Build Us Another Parking Lot!
Hell No!
Wednesday, March 19, 2025 Report this
Deanima
The information presented to the Commissioners is incorrect. The section of trail under discussion is ENTIRELY within the Yelm city limits, not the County's Urban Growth Area. Second, this would not result in segmented responsibilities - the County's trail would end where Yelm's begins. Yelm was not present to correct these misrepresentations, so the issue is now unnecessarily confused.
Thursday, March 20, 2025 Report this