Yelm City Council to continue review of beautification grant process

After a discussion amongst Yelm City Councilors took place in April regarding the city’s beautification grant process, the council, alongside Mayor Joe DePinto and Yelm City Clerk Kathy Linnemeyer, discussed their thoughts and opinions regarding the program and what changes need to happen during a study session meeting on Tuesday, June 2.

Linnemeyer noted that when beautification grant applications came out earlier in the year, there were several questions and concerns from the council about some of the criteria surrounding the application process. She wanted to hear from all seven councilors on if they had any changes they’d like to present to the program in an effort to implement them prior to the process reopening in 2027.

Councilor Griselda Arias said she didn’t necessarily have any recommended changes to the format that it’s in, but she noted a case could be made for separating out business applicants from residential applicants.

“I feel like a lot of the contention that occurs around this is determining ‘is this maintenance? Are we just giving tax dollars to businesses for things they should be fixing themselves?” she questioned. “If we can have two tracks, it’s a lot easier to come up with those decisions. I do have some specific languages. When I thought of this, I thought about it as two separate things.”

The way Arias sees it, the beautification grant should be the same process with the same budgeted amount — but whatever applications the city receives will be either residential-tracked or business-traded.

Councilor Terry Kaminski said the original purpose of the beautification grant was to incentivize business owners to improve the look of their business “on the main road” for drivers coming into town to see a clean, beautiful, refreshed and inspiring downtown landscape and business front.

“I think that was always the main focus, with neighborhoods, extra things in the background to be kind of an afterthought,” Kaminski said. “Would you not agree?”

DePinto iterated that neighborhoods were not afterthoughts, but the intention was for downtown business fronts to be improved.
Kaminski noted she will always prioritize businesses near “the main intersection” seeking improvements over “a mailbox in a neighborhood” as it follows the original intention of the beautification grant process.

Councilor Brian Hess said he knows the purpose of the beautification grant process was to “blow the broken glass neighborhoods” where graffiti, broken glass and disrepair takes place.

“Some of this stuff, if you’re a business person, why are you not taking care of your property and your business like you should be?” Hess questioned. “Compared to somebody’s new non-profit that might be leasing a space that all of the sudden there’s a slight difference because that nonprofit may not have the full funding to be able to say ‘we want to update the frontage and here’s what we want to do.’”

Councilor Stephanie Kangiser specified that the beautification grant process is different than the non-profit grant process. Hess responded and said he’s talking about if a non-profit is sitting in a building and wants to take better care of the area it’s responsible for.

“They’ve talked to the owner of the property but they can’t get the funding for it,” Hess said. “They come to the city and they present applying for the grant, just like anybody else can, like a business can.”

Kangiser said the contention around the beautification grant process comes down to the fact that they simply don’t agree on it — as the council comes from different paths.

“I feel that our contract is written beautifully,” Kangiser said, of the beautification grant process. “If there’s specifics, I think that’s what Kathy is asking of us because it seems to come down to that. We can all have different opinions, and that’s what makes us beautiful right? But do you want language in here to simplify and help us come to a different conclusion in the future? Is it your opinion?”

Johnstone stated that it ultimately boils down to the opinion of the committee processing the applications, rather than the opinion of the council.

“Something that I thought was very clearly maintenance and not allowed was allowed and it argued against that opinion,” Johnstone said. “They should make it very clear that deferred maintenance is not the responsibility of the city.”

Kaminski said she’d like to see the City of Yelm clear up language that states it will be offering grants to businesses, non-profits, community groups — and neighborhoods last.

“I could make a grant for my house. Nobody even knows where I live. Nobody is going to see my house where it is,” Kaminski said. “So I don’t think I deserve a grant.”

Councilor Joseph Richardson said Kaminski’s statement is “fair to say.”

Councilor Tracey Wood provided a strong sentiment against businesses applying for the beautification grant process.

“We’re taking public money — money that we’ve collected from the community — and specifically giving it to different organizations,” Wood said. “As a business owner, I fully take it upon myself as my responsibility. If I want to improve my revenue and improve the traffic in the building, I’m going to make it more appealing. I struggle with this entire thing.”

Ultimately, Linnemeyer provided several options forward for when the Yelm City Council revisits the beautification grant process again in the future.

“We can discuss more changes tonight. We can refer it to the committee to review and make some suggested changes to bring back for a vote, or if you don’t want to see this program continue that could be something you could bring to a vote at a regular meeting too,” Linnemeyer said. “Obviously there’s a lot of different opinions, so somewhere we have to come together a little bit and figure it out.”