Five firms and one consulting professional responded to Tumwater’s Request for Quote (RFQ) as the city searches for an arborist to provide another risk assessment of the historic Davis-Meeker Garry Oak.
Mayor Debbie Sullivan decided in June to pause the removal of the 400-year-old tree, as demanded by members of the public. Sullivan had wanted to remove the tree after the city’s consulting arborist, Kevin McFarland, found it posed a high risk. Other arborists disagreed with McFarland’s report, so public members wanted the city to re-evaluate the tree.
The deadline for the RFQ passed on Thursday, July 18, so the city will now be evaluating the responses. According to a compilation of the responses received by the city, those who submitted the work are the following:
Parks told the city council on July 2 that the arborist they are looking for must be a master arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), qualified to conduct tree risk assessments, and registered with the American Society of Consulting Arborists.
According to their responses, all of the firms who responded to the RFQ have either an owner or a staff member who meets all of the city’s qualifications. Only the sole consulting professional who responded to the RFQ did not meet the requirements as they were not a certified master arborist.
During a council meeting on Tuesday, July 16, Councilmember Joan Cathey asked Parks who would be reviewing the firms. Parks had told back then that she, the mayor, and City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick would review the responses.
Cathey then suggested adding community members to the selection team due to the public's perception of the issue.
“I just think to err on the side of even if it takes an extra day or week or whatever to include the community in the final decision about who is going to make what we hope is the correct final decision on the oak tree,” Cathay said adding, “I just don't think it's wise to have it made by — I hate to say this — but some of you who have been most under the gun about this to be making this decision without any other input.”
Parks told The JOLT that they have since invited the chairs of the Tree Board and the Historic Preservation Commission to also comment on the firms. Parks said the chairs of the two groups have agreed to review the responses and will provide their feedback by Monday, July 22.
According to a timeline Parks previously told the council, the city aims to select an arborist by the end of this month and start the assessment by August 1.
9 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
FirstOtter
I think Cathay is right. Having just the three people who want to kill the tree in the first place to review the firms is what happened in the first place. Would there be leading questions? would the firms be told that the tree must come down, how do they propose to do it? If the firm found that the tree can be saved, will the Three then say Thank you, you may leave, Next.
It has been made clear that the mayor is not interested in the community's opinion, or desires, and seems to be annoyed that we have the temerity to question her orders in the first place. I have heard nothing about their considering a pruning of the the tree's alleged 'dead wood'. It's akin to going to the doctor for an infected ingrown toenail and his answer is to amputate the entire foot.
IF the firms find that there is dead wood on the Meeker Oak, cut it out and save the rest of the tree. The mayor's desire to prevent a limb falling onto traffic can easily be remedied by removing that part of the tree that overhangs the road. It doesn't call for removing the entire tree.
And again, the chances of a limb one, falling onto a vehicle is still far, far lower than a drunk driver colliding with another car.
Monday, July 22 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
The mayor, city administrator, and city attorney changed course after we called them out in our reply brief in the Court of Appeals on Thursday, criticizing them for ignoring requests of Councilmembers Kelly Van Holz and Joan Cathey. See page 5 here: https://www.davis-meeker-oak.org/_files/ugd/f1b9a1_b08f92bff81740ab86a4e08d65db7348.pdf. On another note, on pages 4-5, you will find an interesting quote by one of the fathers of modern-day tree risk assessment methods, where he calls the city arborist's report an "embarrassment" to knowledgeable arborists. You can see that email here: https://www.davis-meeker-oak.org/_files/ugd/f1b9a1_f20d37efd7144a2f8253bc269907ef2b.pdf
Monday, July 22 Report this
mathisje
You can't kill a dead tree. If that is the finding of the second arborist, the tree is gone. The purpose of adding two 'outsiders' to the contract is to be transparent. The City has a fiduciary duty to its citizens. If the tree poses a risk that cannot reliability be mitigated, they have a duty to remove the tree. Reality sometimes sucks. Deal with it. Also. stop trashing the opinion of good people who do their duty even if it is not popular and their decisions runs counter to the unfounded beliefs of others.
Tuesday, July 23 Report this
JHermes
The tree was there first. How about soliciting proposals to move the road and that building? Looks like they were built too close to the tree.
Tuesday, July 23 Report this
JamesBishop
What a hell of a way to spend tax payer dollars. It appears to me the money spent on this issue would have accomplished more by hiring a brain specialist.
Tuesday, July 23 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@mathisje, as the email I quoted above by one of the most esteemed arborists in our region states, the tree is very much alive. Thankfully, the vast majority of the public understands this. I hope someday you and I and all who worked on this issue, including Lisa Parks, Debbie Sullivan, and Karen Kirkpatrick, can enjoy sitting under the shade of the tree in a park created by moving the road, in a city we can be proud of because it honors its history.
Tuesday, July 23 Report this
mathisje
Rhonda;
Did you miss my previous comment that the definitive test for interior tree health is core samples. Not seismic, acoustic or drones as was reported earlier. Have you posted the esteemed arborists report online yet. I've been looking for it. I'm really not vested in the outcome except for the distaste of baseless accusations trashing good people. A second outside arborist will decide the issue. Reason says the tree not only has to be alive, it has to be safe. That is a higher threshold to meet for preservation.
Wednesday, July 24 Report this
Treehugger1
There was a tall oak tree...
That loved a babblin brook....
We who love nature and bleed inside when nature is ignored or destroyed,
We will remember those who "lead" yet forgot their responsibility to preserve nature.
The babblin brook will always love the tall oak tree.
Let us all do the right thing.
Wednesday, July 24 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@mathisje, thanks for respectful your response. Yes, all is posted online on the website. See here: https://www.davis-meeker-oak.org/arborist-viewpoints. The esteemed arborist's company, Tree Solutions, is in fact the very same company that performed an assessment for the city arborist and concluded that the tree can stay standing. The city arborist's final report astoundingly ignores this and contradicts it. He even attaches the Tree Solutions memo to his report. But most people don't read it. They just read his conclusion. And so the false narrative persists. The city arborist has claimed multiple times in later legal documents that "a team of arborists" determined the tree must go. He should not be defended, in light of his inaccurate statements.
As to core samples, that's not what will tell you about safety for Garry oaks. They're quite different from other trees. As the city's arborist himself said in an internal email (see the above link) that contradicts his final report, oaks can remain viable even with a fair amount of interior decay in the main stem. In fact, as oaks age, they inevitably hollow out. That is their standard aging process, and oaks live hundreds of years with hollow stems. This is because as they hollow out, new wood forms around the hollow that is stronger than the wood it replaced. It becomes a sturdy tube, essentially. The hollows are what make such great cavities for wildlife.
Because of their unique longevity, Norway has a national law protecting old, hollow, and dead oaks. See https://www.davis-meeker-oak.org/norway-ancient-oak-protections. They are pretty cool trees. We ought to protect them the same way.
Wednesday, July 24 Report this