__________

Jeanette wrote:

> Hi Bob -

I am in desperate need of information of the calculations of tree trunk formula. We have three different arborist's evaluation of a tree that was trimmed near our property and we have received three different opinions. could you help clarify their results of the evaluation of a tree more than 30" in diameter - DBH = 18" the tree species is a Torrey Ines


>
> First Arborist
> Replacement tree Basic (per sq in) Price $37.00 per in sq
> ATAA = 254 in sq
> replacement tree TAR = 14.5 in sq
> subtract TAR from TAA = 239.4 insq
> multiply basic price by area differences $37.00 per in sq x 239.4 in sq =
> $8,857.80
> Adjust step 4 by species rating = 100% = $8,857.80

> Basic Value = $1,805 (line 1 ) + species rating $8,857.80- = $10,662.80


>
> Second Arborist
> Replacement tree Basic (per sq in) Price $21,123. per in. sq
> ATA + 7.065
> Replacement tree trunk area = 0.58875 in sq
> Difference in trunk area = 6.47625 in sq
> multiply basic price differences $2,123 x 6.47625 = $13,750.00
> adjust line 4 by species rating = 100% = $13,750.00

> Basic value = %1,250 (line 1) + $13,750.00 (line 5) = $15,00.00


>
>
> Third Arborist
> Replacement Tree Basic price $91.00 per in sq
> TAA = 0.785d2 = 254 in sq
> Replacement tree TAR = 7 in sq
> Subject Tar from TAA = 247 in sq
> Multiply basic price by area differences $91.00 per in sq x 247 in sq = $22,471.00

> basic value = $1,805.00 + $20,229.00 = $22,034.00


>
>
> I am a mathematical idiot and would really appreciate any help you can give
> me. Which one is right or near right. Also could you telll me where I
> could get a copy of TAble 4-1 and 4-2 in the Guide For Trunk Apprasial.


> Thank yo very very much, Jeannette

Reply to post by Wulkowicz, on June 10, 2000 at 13:42:10:

There may be no "right." Which of these three appraisals is most reasonable, or most descriptive of the facts is impossible to tell from what's presented here.

Without spending a lot of time (and maybe not even then) I can't tell exactly waht these three appraisers were doind and what assumptions they made. 2 is a mystery, completely. 1 & 2 both use 100% Sepecies, 3 says nothing about Species (which is the same as 100%) None of them made any Condition or Location adjustments. 1 & 2 are pretty close to in ratio with their Basic Prices (unit costs) so that explains the difference in final value. Unexplained is why the unit costs are so different. 1 & 3 both have $1,850 for the Basic Price (cost of replacement tree) but #1's replacement tree has twice the trunk area as # 2's! Neither of their unit costs multiplied by the size of their replacement trees = $1,850. That could be because the unit cost is wholesale and the Basic Value is installed, but none of this is specified.

I see two possibilities: hire a 4th, good tree appraiser to sort it all out OR submit the basic data (DBH, Species, Condition %age, description of location and land use and/or the estimated FMV of the property) and let somebody on this board work through the numbers.

What does all this mean? Could be poor appraisers. Could be reasonably competent appraisers who can't write reports. IMHO one of the shortcomings of tree appraisal is this idea that the Guide is only a guide is only a guide is only a guide leaving the field open for endlessly variable individual interpretation of what the Guide means and how appraisal should be done. There was quite a thread on this a ways back.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on June 10, 2000 at 13:42:10:

Hi - thanks for your response. My confusion is that
#1 arborist list a basic price at $37.00 per in sq -
#2 has basic price at $2,123.00 per in sq. - #3 has basic price at $91.00. They all list condition & location adjustments which were easy to understand.
It was this first part of the evaluations that was so different that is baffling to me.
#1 states that #2 should have converted his 18 inches into 254 in squared which he didn't and if he did the cost of the replacemnt tree at $2,123 would amount to $539,000 Opps I forgot to tell you that #2 arborist list Caliper of tree lost at 18 inches - caliper of replacemnt tree 1.5 inches how he arrived at his TAA or ATAA of 7.065 is a mystery.
#1 and 3 both list caliper of tree lost at 254 in sq.
Basically #1 and #3 are pretty close except for the replacement basic price #1 at $37. and #3 at #91.
To be honest I am really trying to understand what #2 aborist was thinking and how he arrived at what he did. Any help I would appreciate Jeannette

Reply to post by Jeannette, on June 10, 2000 at 14:16:21:

I agree with Scott, you need a real plant appraiser. They are all right and they are all wrong?!? Not only do they need THE GUIDE, but they need their regional guide supplement.
Lew

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on June 10, 2000 at 13:42:10:

Hi I will try to clear up some of your questions.
DBH = 18" Group 3
Species = Torrey Pines
Condition = 70%
The property is a city water tank storage site with many trees/shrubs and the grounds are not open or used by the public. The subject tree was planted in the tank pipeline access road; and, in or very near two easements; overhead high voltage and underground water delivery pipe. Poor long term tree location due to future hight voltage electrical line clearance trimming and water pipeline access.
Age = 30 years
trunk diameter 18 "
size unconfirmed 30 x 30 feet
health = average for site conditions
Mechanical structure: average branch attachment structure. Defective basal area, negative or reverse trunk taper
Root Crown: defective circling, root bound conditions, lack of trunk taper near root and trunk flare
Root system = average for site conditions
inserct/disease: non noted
soil - compacted sub soil, rocky, lacking in organic material and biological activity
irrigation - non
again - the baffling part is the Basic Price of replacement tree one at $2,123.00 per in sq/ $91.00 per in sq - $37.00 per in sq.
Ist Arbortist has location = site 75% Contribution 75 % placement 50%
2nd Arbortist - site 85% - contribution 100% Placement 100%
3rd arborist agrees with the lst for location - species all at 100%
I sure someone can explain this to me - Thanks
Jeannette

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on June 10, 2000 at 13:42:10:

Hi again - I think I lost my message so here goes again.
DBH = 18 inches, Species Torrey Pine Condition 70% - 30 years old, The property is a city water tank storage site withy many tress/shrubs and the grounds are not open or used by the public. The subject tree was planted in the tank pipeline access road, and , in or nvery near two easements; overhead hight voltage, and underground wate delivery pipe. Poor long term tree location due to future hight voltage electrical line clearance trimming and water pipeline access.
trunk - 18" diameter
Size - 30 x 30 feet
health - average for site conditions
Mechanical structure - average brank attachment structure - defective basal area, negative or reverse trunk taper
Root crown - defective circling, root bound conditions, lack of trunk taper near root and trunk flare
soil - compacted sub soil, rocky, lacking in organix material and biological activity
irrigation - none
lst arborts - condition = 70% location = site 75% - contribution 75% placement 50%
2n 0 condition 85% Locaation - site 85% contribution 100% placement 100%
3rd is similiar to the 1st.
I would appreciate any help - thanks

Reply to post by Jeannette, on June 10, 2000 at 14:16:21:

It is obvious that the problem is in the unit tree cost (basic cost or what-have-you). I don't know what region you are in, but most regions of the country have had committees decide on what this figure should be. Of course the appraiser can ignore this, and figure out his or her own unit cost if desired. Ask each appraiser where they got the data from, and make your own decision on the "best."
very treely,
Lew

Reply to post by lewbloch, on June 10, 2000 at 20:03:24:


Hi - Thanks for your comments. I live in California, San Diego. and supposedly the evaluation is based on the Guide for Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants, prepared by the Council of Tree and landscape Appraisers (8th Edition, Western Chapter of ISA group assignments) at least arborist #1 and #3. I'm just puzzled about #2. I did speak with #1 and #2 re above and their value is determined by the above guide. I can't get in touch with #2 so I am on my own and hoping someone can explain it to me.
I can actually understand how #1 and #3 arrived at
the ATAA = 254 by using area = pi r squared. But I can figured out how #2 arrived at area if the tree Diameter is 18" = help - thanks

Reply to post by Jeannette, on June 12, 2000 at 17:45:56:

Arborist #2 is clearly confused about the tree and the use of the Guide methods. Here's what I think.

FIrst, in the original post on this forum (by Bob W, quoting Jeanette's note) the tree was described thus:
"could you help clarify their results of the evaluation of a tree more than 30" in diameter - DBH = 18" the tree species is a Torrey Ines". I was initially confused by this, and I suspect #2 was confused about the measurement.

Looking at the calculations from #2, it appears he used a trunk diameter of 30 inches, but then misplaced his decimal points. A thirty inch diameter tree has 706.858 square inches. A replacement tree that has 58.875 square inches will have a diameter of 8.6 inches- quite reasonable. Then the problem is compounded by the Basic Price. If we adjust by a factor of 100, we have a price of $21.23 (from his line 4). Now the figures add up, but for a 30 inch tree.

Arborists #1 & 3 are obviously using 18 inch diameters, and their other figures add up in good shape.

So #2 is apparently not a math wiz, or simply does not understand the methods used in the Trunk Formula. Added to that, he is using a totally different diameter and different replacement cost. Basically, he would have a very tough time defending his calculations, or even explaining them. While I can guess at how he arrived at these numbers, I cannot fathom his logic in getting there. I even wondered if he picked a final figure and tried to make the numbers fit???

My suggestion is to toss out #2, work with the other two and try to reconcile the differences. There is room for opinion in the condition and location factors. The big difference in the numbers of #1 and 3 are the use of Basic Price. I would hazard a guess that #1 is perhaps using a wholesale price and #3 is using retail, or perhaps simply miscalculating. Since I'm a Right Coaster, I can't comment on which is 'more correct'.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 12, 2000 at 21:26:59:

Russ, you're right... #'s 1 & 3 are using an 18" DBH if they come up with 254 sq.in. But #'s 1 & 2 are also using the term ATA or adjusted trunk area as if it was a larger than 30" tree (which was the wording in the original post). If you look at Table 4-1 the first tree for which an ATA is listed is 31" DBH which has a TA of 754 sq.in. It's hard to believe they both made an adjustment of 500 sq.in.! But it's also hard to figure out what the ATA reference is to.

WHAT ARE THE BROADER ISSUES HERE? in terms of industry credibility.... in terms of consumer protection.... in terms of appraiser training and (shudder) certification? How common is this kind of sloppy usage and reporting? Is it time for a standardized report protocol?

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 12, 2000 at 21:26:59:

Hi Russ - If I could jump into this computer I would do so and give you a pick hug. #2 has been treating us so badly regarding this assessment. #1 is actually a registered consulting arborist and he believes he is correct. #3 is a certified arboriists who referred me to #1 for a re-evaluation of both #2 and #3 reports. #1 stated that if he carried out #2 formula's with regard to the assessed tree the cost of the tree would be $539,000.00. You just cleared it up for me. I have to present this to the city council and 2 months ago I knew absolutely nothing about trees. I have come along way thanks to you guys out there. I cann't tell you how much I appreciate your response.
Thanks again, Jeannette

Reply to post by Scott, on June 14, 2000 at 23:04:23:

Hi Russ - Thank you for your comments. As a Pediatric Nurse Practitioner I have never been exposed to the world of arborculture.. It has been an amazing experience for me. When a child is sick I assessed and put a treatment plan in place and yes I calculate medications doses but these appraisal were mind bogglying and caused many a sleepless night. I really think that a person who presents themself as an expert in a field should have some uniformity with their profession. Like other professions certification would help the protect the public from what we have been subjected. Thanks a million Jeannette

Reply to post by Jeannette, on June 14, 2000 at 23:04:23:

***** "If I could jump into this computer I would do so and give you a pick hug."

[blushing]

After looking at the numbers a few minutes, it just hit me that the decimal places were screwy. Looking at thins, I thought #1 was probably the most knowledgeable, but it's hard to judge from just numbers. At least you know which one NOT to use.

Reply to post by Scott, on June 14, 2000 at 23:04:23:

If I have to start considering "THE BROADER ISSUES" on every single assignment I take, I'll hang up my hat and go fishing.

Yes, we have to concern ourselves with the proper protocols and usage (e.g. Julian's post on ascalist regarding vocabulary.) Yes, we should be concerned about the proper usage of terms. But every single case does not have to reflect the ultimate perfection. It is something to strive for.

I consider this a simple misnomer on the part of the appraiser (#1, but not #2). Technically speaking, the terms should be kept separate based on trunk diameter. Practically speaking, ATA *might* be used in all cases with the stipulation that only trees over 30 inches are manipulated by the formula (IF diameter is greater than 30, THEN *formula*). #1 misused the term- so what? His results were not affected, they were accurately derived. This case is not going to court.

We let a lot of people prune trees without their understanding what the heck they are doing. We (society) even lets doctors who have demonstrated shoddy work to continue to practice. Let's work toward better understanding of the material, be let's also keep in mind the fallibility of the human species. I can't get upset over AT/ATA.

Reply to post by Jeannette, on June 15, 2000 at 06:29:34:

If we keep in mind that Certification (for any subject material) is simply a measure of knowledge, then that isn't enough by itself. WE also have to know what is the level of expected knowledge that is being measured. Training and education are the keys to knowledge, and to better certifications.

My point is that there will always be some who study, some who receive certifications, etc., but who are NOT qualified at all that they undertake. And I'm not sure I would like a system that mandates that too rigidly.

Certification (or licensing) is a measuring tool, a yardstick to help decide who is qualified. It does not confer expertise, it only recognizes it, sometimes not too well (and sometimes when it isn't even there).

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 15, 2000 at 06:29:34:

I think you may have missed my point Russ. IF in fact #1 came up with a reasonable conclusion, then your right, misuse of a single term like ATA did not alter the conclusion. But I was talking about broader issues in the sense of the broader industry duty to provide both competent and USABLE opinions to the consumer. If this consumer received three opinions that were so divergent not only in value conclusion (which could be entirely explainable) but in presentation and use of terms one must ask if we as an industry are doing enough in terms of training and standardization of reports.

Your right, the individual appraiser should not have to go nuts thinking about broader issues in each and every case. And the individual appraiser has no responsibility to make sure the other apprasier's work is clear. The point might be that the industry, or CTLA, or ASCA or ISA or whomever could provide a standardizes reporting protocol that addresses that broader concern... the appraiser just has to follow it. NOTE that this is very different fron specifying or standardizing the appraisers' data inputs or judgments. (You may recall an entire thread on Guide vs Standard).

Whether there is such a protocol or not, the individual apprasier should be delivering clear, unambiguous and usable information to the user. If you're an ASCA memebr it's more than a "should," it's a duty, a "shall" under SPP.

If you misuse a term it's inexcusable to say "oh it doesn't matter, you know what I meant." The only proper response is to admit the mistake, correct it if necessary and strive not to do it again.

Reply to post by Scott, on June 17, 2000 at 00:35:48:

I'm certain of two things, Scott.

1) As an industry, we will never achieve that level of training and standardization we would like to have, and

2) We must never stop trying to reach it.

I just refuse to wring my hands over it. I'd rather be out doing the best I can, and trying to bring others along, so we all learn together. Just as there are still those who spike trees and advertise topping in the yellow pages, guys who have never even heard of ISA or NAA, there will be a some who don't have a clue about appriasal or consulting, but who insist on practicing it. Every trade, every industry, every profession, has this problem.

While I don't intend this as a crutch, it still comes down to *caveat emptor*. In this case, Jeanette sought some help sorting out the confusion, and I think she found the answers she needed.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 17, 2000 at 11:43:26:

Hi you guys out in cyperspace I wanted to thank you again. You can't believe what help you have been. Even your dialogue between Scott and Russ about certification there is some merit there for someone like me who knew absolutely nothing about arboriculture. I can't thank you enough for spending the time and energy helping me out. I will post the result of the city's meeting re the appraisals. thanks again and here a picck hug. Jeannette

Reply to post by Jeannette, on June 18, 2000 at 01:11:39:

You are right on target, again, Russ. My only addition to this never ending thread, is that if all would follow the sample worksheet in THE GUIDE, it would simplify and standardize the appraisal and the report.
Lew

Reply to post by lewbloch, on June 18, 2000 at 19:58:11:

Lew, can you offer any insight as to why appraisers don't follow the worksheet and instead use personal variations?

Does it stem from regional group guidelines? Is it that they never took advantage of workshops? Are the workshops consistent? Is there insufficient understanding of what's behind the worksheet, i.e. what the theory and concept are?

I can only repeat my concern... it seems to do little for either consumers or for appraiser credibility if everybody writes "what TFM means to me... what I did on my summer vacation...!"

Reply to post by Scott, on June 19, 2000 at 17:54:57:

Scott, in answer to all of your questions, I don't know. As Russ stated, he has his own form, and that is fine as long as the appraiser is savvy as to the formula. IMPO, the new worksheet is a big improvement, easy to follow, and easy to explain and/or justify. I agree with many of our cohorts that are just too many "appraisers" who have not had any training or understanding of the process. Can we control this? As Russ has said, no. We just have to live with it and try to educate our colleagues.
You asked.......
lew

Reply to post by lewbloch, on June 19, 2000 at 18:29:44:

You're assesment of the apprasial is an opinion..of how it was reached....I can accept that and you are also assuming you have all the correct facts......
What Jeannette has conviently left out is that she hired an unlicensed tree butcher to top a protected, city owned, Torrey Pine so she could have "her view". The city is now requiring her to be responsible for the loss the city and all of it's people have suffered for this selfish act ......
Education starts not with a better than attitude or a judgement but in a willingness to hear and share.........."Math Wiz"

Reply to post by Larry, on June 20, 2000 at 17:57:05:

Math Wiz,

I'm not clear if your post is directed to Lew's most recent post or to the whole thread.

In my opinion, we can't reach an informed opinion of the results of the three appraisals because we don't have all the facts.... about the tree, ownership, rights (including view rights if any), the ordinance, the actions of the parties (Jeannette and City).

In my opinion, we can suggest that there was inconsistency in methodology or at least in how the methodological choices were reported to the parties, or at the very least how Jeannette reported them to us. I can't speak for the others involved in this discussion, but that's the real point for me. The real question is "how can we (as an industry) promote consistent practice to benefit both the public and the appraisal community?"

I must reinforce my post at http://tree-tech.com/board/?topic=topic1&msg=810 that such consistent, "clear, unambiguous and usable" reports (ASCA SPP 1996) are NOT the same as and do NOT require uniform or mandated data inputs or opinions of value.

That said, the nature of the events leading to the damage, whether the work was done by a licensed contractor or the homeowner or anybody else, and anyone's opinion or emotions concerning the parties has little if anything to do with proper selection of appraisal methodology or with opinions of value. The tree was worth what it was worth before and after the damage. Penalties or additional damages on account of the nature of events or the actions or alleged actions of the parties must be distinguished from value. (An exception is if the ordinance specifies a methodology or data inputs to be used in the event of certain circumstances. These would properly be specified in a definition of the appraisal problem or definition of value.)

If a community decides that trees are protectable resources that decision should be enforced. If enforcement requires independent, expert opinions of value then effective enforcement and effective deterrance require credible, supportable usable appraisals. IMO consistent reporting is an essential element of that.

Reply to post by Larry, on June 20, 2000 at 17:57:05:

While Scott can't speak for others (we each have to own our own), I do agree with his comments. The issue presented to this forum was not to judge the act, but to help decipher the results reported. I think those who responded and most of the readers understood that we had only some of the facts. I even wondered if they were being presented to the forum correctly (typos, etc.)

So we were asked to help decipher the results, and I think that part was done fairly. I don't recall (without re-reading the whole thread) that there was anything really judgmental in either direction, except for what appeared to be improper applicaation of TF, if that is what it was intended to be.

BTW, Larry- Thanks! Let me know what you think of it.

Reply to post by Larry, on June 20, 2000 at 17:57:05:

Hi Lew - I am glad I have been the cause for a healthy discussion. Just to reiterate - I type the appraisal exactly as they appeared on the work sheet. I looked back at the e-mail to check for errors but none exsist. So the question but to this forum was to decipher the calculations based at the trunk formula.
I did relay the entire story to Bob regarding how this tree was trimmed. Here goes again - We hired a licensed tree trimmer who did not follow directions and topped the tree instead of thinning it out. We were out of town when this occurred and was very surprised at the results. We tried for over six months to get the tree trimmed without any success. We also tried to get the city to clean up the debri on this canyon lot without success. We were doing the clean up ourselves without being reimbursed by the city. We were under the delusion that the city could care less as the person in charge of Public works was not responding to our many callls. Anyway once the tree was trimmed improperly we offered to compensate for the lost. The city hires a certifed arborts to do the report and we hired a cerified registered consulting arborist. The problem was the significantly different appraisals that were presented to us. The city was determined to get treble damages inspect of the misunderstanding on both sides as to how this tree was ultimately trimmed. The Torrey is a protected tree but the residents in Del Mar are trying to get it off the protected list because there has been so many of these trees falling down and the overgrowth of the Torrey Pines in this area. We then hired a thired registered consulting arborist to help brake the tie and his appraisals was similiar to the first. #2 report we just could not understand and that's why I requested some help. Also this tree is in a canyon and only our family can see the tree. It was growing so that it took away our view and was growing in power lines - so eventually this tree was going to be trimmed. We just did it before gas and electic comming did. We have bent over backwards to apologize for this trimming and offered to pay the FMV. The city is now looking into these appraisals only because we have discovered that at the same time they cut our Monterey Cypress without our person (also a protected tree). This tree was a great tree and we miss it. It is sad that the only way the city would listen to us is that we are asking for reimbursement for the tree they cut (same size as the torrey) but the Torrey Pines is still living the cypress is dead. I Hope this clears it up for you and I do appreciate all the help - we are just looking for fairness. Thanks again Jeannette