Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tumwater selects new urban forester; council to consider funds to stabilize Davis Meeker Garry oak
Summary
City staff said the newly selected urban forester will start May 1. City council is scheduled to consider a resolution to authorize funding for work on the Davis Meeker Garry oak, while a Forest Service pass‑through grant remains uncertain.
Tumwater city staff said Monday they have selected an urban forester, Bridal Caughlan, who is scheduled to start May 1, and city leaders will ask the City Council to authorize funds to make the Davis Meeker Garry oak safe.
The new hire and the council item were announced during the Tumwater Tree Board’s regular meeting. Alyssa (city staff) told the board, “We have selected our urban forester, Bridal Caughlan. He will be starting on May 1.” The staff report said Caughlan comes most recently from the City of Lacey and has prior experience as a city arborist and parks maintenance technician.
The announcement came alongside an update on a Forest Service grant that had been routed through nonprofit pass‑throughs. Alyssa said the city is still receiving reimbursements from the U.S. Forest Service via River Network but that other pass‑through recipients — including the Arbor Day Foundation — have had contracts terminated. “So far we still have the funding,” Alyssa said, “but … we’re proceeding as if we still have it and will have it.” She added the city has contingency plans so the urban forester position will remain funded even if grant funds are lost, though some grant‑dependent programs might be curtailed.
Separately, staff said city leadership will present a resolution at the City Council meeting Tuesday that would authorize the mayor to take “necessary and appropriate measures to reduce public safety risks related to the tree and to retain it in a safe condition,” using the Prager Associates recommendations as the basis for work planning. Alyssa said the recommended work primarily includes pruning and cabling, and that additional administrative steps would be required before contractors could begin work. The source of the council funding was described as “being figured out” during the meeting; staff did not specify an exact funding source.
Board members asked whether the consulting arborist who prepared the Prager Associates recommendations would be on site for pruning; staff recommended the consulting arborist be present for kickoff work, if feasible. Tanya (board member) noted community interest in fundraising for the tree, and Alyssa said the Tree Board could only pursue such fundraising if asked by the full City Council.
The meeting also included these formal board actions: the board approved minutes from its Jan. 13, 2025, meeting by voice vote; the meeting adjourned by voice vote at the end of the agenda.
The Tree Board will next meet in June, when staff plans to introduce the new urban forester and when Community Development is expected to present a draft conservation element for comment.
