Monday, November 2, 2026
Tumwater City Council members weighed in on the future of the historic Davis Meeker Gary oak tree ahead of a decision on funding for preservation of the tree.
Council members shared their comments during a briefing about the status of the historic oak tree on Oct. 27, about a month after two branches broke off during a windstorm on Sept. 25.
Assistant City Administrator Kelly Adams told the council that preserving the oak tree requires a combination of strategies, including root zone management, reduction pruning and supplemental support systems.
Those measures were already part of the treatment plan the Tumwater Historic Preservation Commission authorized in March. However, the work was delayed due to dry spring conditions.
Members were also informed of the historic preservation committee’s recent directive to keep preserving the tree despite safety concerns.
The commission has permitting authority over any changes to the tree at the local level, as it is listed on the city’s historic register.
Adams said the work will resume at the beginning of November, starting with the tree's root system.
Pruning comes at a later date, but it will require a new permit from the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historical Preservation. The scope of the work was modified to account for the oak tree’s current condition.
Adams said once the permit is approved, the goal is for pruning to start on Nov. 17 or possibly sooner.
She said an additional $50,000 budget request to fund the work will come before the city council at meeting on Monday, Nov. 2. The council previously allocated $50,000 in July 2026 for preservation of the tree.
The total allocation covers $74,000 for root zone management, $14,000 for pruning, funding for traffic closures, and future costs for design and installation of supplemental support systems.
Council members shared various opinions about the tree, with some hoping for its continued preservation and others being more pragmatic.
Council member Joan Cathey said she was pleased with the direction the historic commission decided to take.
Council member Angela Jefferson supported investing toward the tree, citing past community testimony that highlighted its value to the public.
Council member Peter Agabi said he believes the tree would come down in the years ahead due to weather conditions.
“In my opinion, I do not see a scenario whereby this tree — at some point in time within the next five, six years — does not come down,” Agabi said.
He added, "I've been living in the North Coast for 40 years. I know we have high winds. … It happens every year.”
Council member Brandon Weedon expressed concern that the tree would remain a risk even after efforts to preserve it.
Council member Meghan Sullivan offered a different perspective, saying the upcoming work on the tree will bring risk down to a level she feels comfortable with.
Funding the tree’s maintenance was another talking point.
Adams said staff is looking for long-term funding sources, as the only consistent funding they have comes from the historical commission’s budget, which is limited to $10,000 a year.
Jefferson suggested getting together with tribal partners for grants and community organizations for fundraising opportunities.
Agabi suggested whether the funds spent on maintaining the tree could be better allocated toward other community needs.
He even suggested putting the future of the tree to a public vote so that the public can decide whether to continue spending money on it.
Mayor Leatta Dahlhoff emphasized that decision-making around the tree ultimately comes down to the council's tolerance for risk and noted different stakeholders hold various perspectives on its value and history.
Dahlhoof added the city council must account for the oak tree's historic registry status and historic commission’s directive.
Cathey closed the discussion, expressing confidence the council would make the right decision.
“We don't all agree, but we make the best decisions we can for the city of Tumwater based on … what we know and what we feel is best,” Cathey said. “This is our decision, and we'll see how it goes, and we're not incapable of making different decisions along the way.”
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Shushu
Enough!!! The tree is old and will die. Try to commemorate it somehow but to spend money on it when human beings are hungry is ridiculous. Has no one noticed it's biforcation? If that falls on a car and injures a human, I will make it my business to suggest that family sues the city. The council hands out millions routinely but the cost of this tree serves only a few. Put it to a vote. Yeah ask the Tribal council to fund a tree that is a marker to their genocide.
40 minutes ago Report this
Shushu
Council might check out a site called Next door.
29 minutes ago Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
It's important to note that the actual cost will be much lower. The $100k is just on paper for a big cushion to cover any unrealistic contingencies that could possibly happen. It’s just a spending authorization, not an actual bill.
23 minutes ago Report this
Honestyandrealityguy
Common sense - get rid of the tree.
3 minutes ago Report this
hptrillium
I really would love to save the tree but spending the thousands of dollars is not right when people are homeless and hungry. I say prune off the dangerous limbs and then let it die a natural death.
moments ago Report this
Chris_R
We put them up, god takes them down. Now, can I have the wood to use for firewood?
Report this
OlyBlues
The Garry Oak tree has such significance to both the city and local tribes, I agree that partnering with the Cowlitz and Nisqually Tribes for continued, shared funding to preserve this culturally historic tree be pursued. That is a very smart plan., especially since the tribes have expressed how important the tree is to them. The tree has survived over 400 years so I do not agree with Councilmember Agabi's assessment that the tree will just come down in the next 5-6 years. Perhaps he has a crystal ball none of us know about. At the rate Mayor Dahlhoff and the council are blowing through city funds on all sorts of pet projects, it's surprising to see them blink an eye on the cost of saving the tree.
Report this