Yelm City Council fails to adopt waste management plan after population, DEI concerns

The Yelm City Council failed to adopt Thurston County’s hazardous waste management plan after several councilors discussed “inaccurate” population growth estimates for the city within the plan, along with language regarding a “crisis level” of racism referenced within the proposals packet.

The motion failed 4-3, with councilors David Johnstone, Joshua Crossman, Joseph Richardson and Tracey Wood voting no. Councilors Terry Kaminski, Brian Hess and Stephanie Kangiser each voted in favor of adopting Thurston County’s hazardous management plan.
Prior to the vote, Kimberly Graham, with Thurston County’s solid hazardous waste program as part of environmental health, spoke to the council about what’s new within the language of the plan.

The most substantial change in the plan, according to Graham, had to do with the signage required at oil collection facilities. Other than that, “everything else is about the same,” she claimed.

“One addition we made that isn’t within the 200-page document that everyone is chomping at the bit to read, is that we made a website to make this a little easier to digest. Each chapter is broken down and describes what’s in the chapter. There’s also definitions because a lot of these terms are technical. It also explains why we even need to have one as well,” Graham said. “We develop this update through engagement with the solid waste advisory committee with the county. We did some public engagement surveys as well, and then internal staff. The plan really doesn’t have any major changes as far as the content goes. Being that it was over 10 years old, it was probably due for an update.”

Prior to the meeting, Crossman read through the packet and had several questions for Graham and Thurston County before the vote occurred. According to the 200-page packet provided to councilors, Thurston County’s population estimate shows Yelm receiving much less growth than what has been reported to councilors throughout the last several years.
According to “Population of Cities, Towns and Counties, 2020-2024,” a study by the Office of Financial Management (OFM) listed in the packet provided, Yelm’s population size in 2020 was 10,617 and grew to 10,880 in 2024. In 2025, 11,065 residents lived in the city, while it’s predicted that 11,763 will live here in 2030.

In 2040, OFM predicts Yelm will have a population of 13,732 and will grow to just 13,732 in 2045 — despite numerous claims of growth of up to 20,000 residents and beyond over the next two decades.

Crossman said the numbers were odd, and that he was concerned about the population demographics listed in the report.

“I’ve never seen that statistic anywhere. It’s always been way more than that. Is that a cause of concern? All the assessments I’ve seen have way over 20,000 people, and if you guys are only planning for 13,000 in 20 years of waste management –— it makes me wonder,” Crossman said. “You guys are only saying 13,000 people, but everything I’ve seen has been well over 20,000 or 40,000 people, depending on the survey.”

He added the numbers aren’t up to date and pondered if waste management is affected “when your numbers are so skewed?”

Throughout the hazardous waste management plan, “racism” was mentioned in several sections, which also brought concern to Crossman. Specifically, listed in chapter six section four of the plan is a proclamation regarding racism from the Thurston County Board of Commissioners. This can be viewed on pages 132 and 133 of Yelm City Council’s agenda packet for the Tuesday, Aug. 12 meeting.

“The Thurston Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) declared racism a crisis through Resolution No. 15995, and the Board of Health proclaimed racism a public health crisis in March 2021. In December 2021, the BoCC passed Resolution No. 16097 establishing the Council on Racial Equity and Inclusion (Council),” the packet stated. “The purpose of the Council is to advise and engage the BoCC, Board of Health, and elected and appointed officials on matters of racial equity and inclusion within county services and the policies, processes, and practices used to accomplish the mission of Thurston County government. The Council’s responsibilities include, and are not limited to: recommendations for strategies to increase access for black, indigenous and people of color residents and to reduce barriers to Thurston County provided services and resources.”

Crossman said there was no further information about racism involved in the county or specifically waste management. He had several questions for Graham about the reasoning behind that specific language being included.

“It’s waste management. Is there racism involved? Number two, would there be racial profiling when I go to dump my waste materials off? The wording that was involved was kind of concerning to me in that document. Is that a problem? It didn’t list any issues specifically, and it didn’t list any solutions as well,” Crossman said. “We say this is a problem, but there’s no solution and there’s no instance of that being a problem … What do I do with this information? How do I process this?”

Graham told the councilor that she’d have to review the specific wording within the hazardous waste management plan. Mayor Joe DePinto said he doesn’t believe the language involving racism and racial equity was as big of a deal as Crossman was making it out to be.

“It does talk a lot about, in this section, different demographics. Race is one of them. This one talks about the Chehalis and Nisqually reservations. It talks about diversity inside of Thurston County, including demographics like 29% of the county residents identify as people of color, Hispanic, Latino or a race other than white alone,” DePinto said. “Those are identified as Asian alone, or multi-racial. Two or more races comprise the largest minority groups. Chehalis and Nisqually reservations are the most diverse communities in the region. It talks about the demographics of it.”

Crossman responded to the mayor, stating he still doesn’t understand the reasoning for the specific use of “crisis level” racism within a hazardous waste management plan — unless there’s specific evidence to back up that claim.

“When somebody says crisis levels, that’s a pretty serious term to be using. Are we throwing that term around to gain attention? Is it a serious matter, or is it not?” Crossman questioned. “If it’s serious, let’s tackle it. If it’s ‘hey I just want some attention, lets throw on the word crisis,’ what are we doing? What’s the point?”

Councilor Wood added, “they’ve put information in there that’s irrelevant to this whole hazardous waste management plan. I guess what I would ask, as well, is if we could gain some information somewhere and somehow as to what the thought process was in applying this DEI — we’ll call it what it is — to hazardous waste management. We’d be curious to hear what the relevance is … I don’t think it would be responsible to move forward with this until we have all the information regarding these sections of this management plan.”

DePinto responded to Wood’s statement, saying information was provided in the agenda packet ahead of time for councilors “regardless if you did not read them.” Wood reiterated that there was no explanation of why or how racism is a crisis in Thurston County.

“I don’t know if it says it’s a crisis. I don’t believe it does,” DePinto claimed. “It does talk about equity. It talks about Thurston County’s racial equity plan. I think that’s what he’s referring to. It might discuss their plans overall, but I don’t believe it’s as big of a deal as councilmember Crossman is alluding to, at least to our portion of it. This is council’s decision, and if you want to deny it because of that reason that is your choice.”

Councilor Johnstone confirmed the description of “crisis” when referring to racism within the language of the hazardous waste management plan, but noted the packet quickly moved on to present information on the resolution.

“It doesn’t really talk about how it relates to this at all,” Johnstone said.

DePinto told the council they have the choice of voting against the plan and revisiting it in the near future with clarity for their questions.

“That is Thurston County’s proclamation. It cites it. But I don’t believe the relevance to the overall plan is a lot,” DePinto said. “We will bring this to our public services committee, and they can ask their questions at that point. Make sure those questions are answered. We’ll get a response from Thurston County on that, and we’ll bring it up for study session to make sure council is good with it. We’ll bring it up to a vote after that.”