Jacob Dimond / jake@yelmonline.com
Yelm City Council had a busy evening during its meeting on Tuesday, April 14, as members of the council voted to approve the allocation of beautification grant funds to three local entities, while voting against providing grant funds to a fourth.
Kathy Linnemeyer, Yelm city clerk, opened the discussion during the meeting and specified that the beautification grant application process opened during the first week of February, and officially closed at 5 p.m. on March 6.
“(With) the applications, we advertise those on the city website and social media accounts. The beautification grant committee met and reviewed the applications,” Linnemeyer said. “We received six applications. One did not qualify. One was submitted after the deadline, and the application strictly says late applications will not be accepted. Four applications are being recommended by the committee for 2026.”
Councilor David Johnstone asked Linnemeyer why the final application was not considered. She specified that it was a local food pantry who wanted to build a structure in its front yard. She claimed that it’s not a beautification-type of project and that it didn’t meet the criteria in the application.
The first beautification grant applicant up for vote was Bounty for Families, who sought $1,000 for pavers and a retaining wall for the Yelm Community Garden at Yelm City Park.
Councilor Brian Hess said the community garden has been used for “quite some time” to provide local residents with training or educational opportunities on gardening.
“I see people who have gone in there and they see how plants are going to grow, and such,” Hess said. “I’m glad to see they’re doing some improvements to it. I think that’s one of our many things in that park that we should make sure is maintained well.”
Yelm City Council approved the beautification grant of $1,000 for Bounty for Families, unanimously, with a 6-0 vote. Councilor Tracey Wood was not present during the votes for Bounty for Families or for the American Legion Post 164 and VFW Post 558’s applications.
Up next for Yelm City Council approval was a $5,000 grant request from American Legion Post 164 and VFW Post 558 for the purchase of a new, electronic digital sign. This was also unanimously approved with a 6-0 vote.
The third approved grant request of the evening was Pizzeria La Gitana, who sought $4,000 in grant funding to construct string lighting in their parking lot. Hess, before the vote, said while looking at the project, he observed that the restaurant is putting in for posts to be 15-feet tall.
“Then, with the hang of the lights, it’ll get, hopefully, no lower than 14-feet. I’m just concerned,” Hess said. “I want to make sure that we are, while it’s being done, that somebody is going to check on that. You want to have the height for the commercial trucks that come through. As I said, having done it before, that one-foot drop might actually be a little bit lower of a drop with too much pressure on the ropes. I want to make sure somebody is there, keeping an eye on it.”
Mayor Joe DePinto said that Yelm’s building official made a similar suggestion.
Prior to voting on Pizzeria La Gitana’s grant application, Wood arrived at the meeting virtually. He was the only ‘no’ vote, as Pizzeria La Gitana’s grant request passed with a 6-1 motion.
The final vote was for $3,500 to fix a damaged awning at The Outpost Church — which is a building privately owned by Steve Craig.
“I looked at all these, and specifically looking at the one at (The Outpost Church) for the awning. When I think of that, there’s a lot of things that come into play. It’s a historical building,” Councilor Joseph Richardson said, about Craig’s grant application. “But again, when you think of the wind causing damage, I thought to myself that it’s an act of God. Every time the wind does damage, is someone going to apply for this?”
Richardson added that the wind damage could be part of an insurance claim, rather than through taxpayer dollars in grant form.
“It’s the owner’s responsibility to maintain a structure that somebody is leasing. For it to be dilapidated for that long of time, it shows me that’s neglect or failure to even repair something as far as having somebody that is renting your space,” Richardson said. “To apply for this, I get it. The only thing I’m looking at is maybe for historical purposes because that’s a beautiful building. It’s a little difficult for me knowing and understanding how insurance works and then asking for money, taxpayer money, to use this to fix it when you should already have insurance on your building that would cover this and repair this.”
Councilor Griselda Arias said she wanted to be transparent about her hesitation to vote in approval of this grant application. She said the applicant himself described this project as repair and restoration.
“My instinct is that repair is maintenance, and maintenance is a business owner’s responsibility. I don’t think that’s a small concern when we’re talking about public dollars,” Arias said. “That being said, I did review the criteria that we have available to everyone that applies. Awnings are listed as eligible. The criteria does distinguish between standard maintenance and restoration work. As our criteria stands, it does meet that criteria based on my review of it. But I want to put on the record that I think we need to take a closer look at where we draw the line between beautification and maintenance — particularly for the business applicants.”
Johnstone sought clarification between the definitions of maintenance and restoration.
“It’s not a restoration or actually improving aesthetics,” Johnstone said. “It’s just deferred maintenance that we’re paying for. It seems like the specifications don’t allow for maintenance.”
DePinto responded and said the committee did take a look at it and discussed whether it would fall under the category of maintenance or restoration.
“It was determined that it wasn’t for a repair because of the damage,” DePinto said. “It was a one-time type-of-thing, although it has occurred multiple times. This is their first time applying for it with the awnings. This is up to council. If you don’t believe it does fit the criteria, this is up to the council.”
Councilor Stephanie Kangiser believes that the awning does add aesthetic appeal and said it qualifies entirely and completely as a beautification effort.
“I don’t know all the parameters of insurance. I don’t know if they have insurance that covers the awning. I don’t know those specs. Those aren’t necessarily mine to dig into,” Kangiser said. “I think it does add to the beautification of the city, and it would be lovely to have it repaired. I think that’s where grants do come into play.”
After discussion, the motion for Craig’s beautification grant application at the value of $3,500 failed 4-3. Wood, Richardson, Johnstone and councilor Terry Kaminski each voted against it, while Arias, Kangiser and Hess each voted in favor of the applicant.
