Reply to post by Jeannette, on June 26, 2000 at 12:22:39:

A very intersting set of circumstances, to say the least. I think we all are interested to learn the outcome of the "case." It would make a good article for one of our trade publications, and possibly a learning or teaching experience that would benefit our industry of plant appraising.
Very treely,
lew

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 26, 2000 at 12:22:39:

Hi - sorry for the many typo but I'm sure you got the gest. I must continue this dialogue so that perhaps it can help the next person that falls victum to city politics. I must make it crystal clear that what I attempted to find out was the accuracy of the three appraisals not the moral dilemma behind it. If #2 has such a significant difference from #1 and #3 in base value this should bring up a red flag - even for the uninformed consumer. When a consumer is given 3 opinions by the "experts" there's a problem - #2 as I discovered was not a registered certified arborist but a certified arborist and I feel after investigating this issue he is not qualified to do this type of appraisal. I also discovered that he was hired not for his expertise but his low bid. His appraisal weighed heavy towards the city and far from "objective" Professionalism requires objectivity. This tree is amongst many trees in this canyon lot and my family alone knows its been trimmed. It is not in the center of the city. Pesidents were hard pressed to find it because it is off a dead end road and not accessible to the public. We offered to compensate the city #3 and #2 value but the city was determine to treble damages and use #2
$12,112.50 figure We also apologized in public There was nothing else we could do but take a hard look at these appraisals and hired a third registered certified arborist.
So math wiz - you now have the facts. We did take responsibility and the people in this city are appauled and outraged with the extravagant fine. The people in this city are in a desperate need for the Torrey Pines to be thinned out;. This is fire country.
Steve hit it right on - the inconsistency in the appraisal - specifically #2 is professional issue and needs futher debate. The consumer must be protected some how from this type of appraisal.
Here #2 - appraisal
Tree Variety Lost - Torrey Pine
Caliper of tree lost - 18 inches
Caliper of replacement tree 1.5 inches
1. Replacement cost: largest transplantable tree $1,250
2. Basic Price of replacement tree $2,123 sq in
3. Difference in trunk area of appraised and replacement trees
A Appraised tree trunk areat (TAA or ATAA) = 7.065 in sq
B replacement tree trunk area (TAR) = 0.58875 in sq
C. Difference in trunk area - 6.47625 in sq
4. Multiply Basic Price difference in trunk area
$2,123 x 6.47625 = $13,750.00
5 Adjust Line 4 by Species rating = 100% = $13,750.00
6. Basic Value = $1,250 + $13,750.00 = $15,000.00
7. Adjust line 6 by condition in % = 85% = $12,750.00
8. Adjust line 7 for location
Site = 85% + contribution = 100% + placement = 95% = $12,112.50 (appraised Value
So you can check for inconsistency with the original posted appraisal. We still have no problem with #1 and #3 they are consistent except with the retail vs wholesale value\
Thanks again Russ for the time you spent to help an injustice be righted Jeannette

Reply to post by Jeannette, on June 26, 2000 at 20:49:50:

The question still in my mind is whether any of these arborists commented on the situation the tree was in- location away from public view, proximity of power ines or other obstructions that might interfer, and the problem of fire potential. While the assignment directly called for the appraisal value, these factors all might influence the value. A tree which presents a hazard or a high risk might have lower value as a result. At the same time, if the tree is on a 'protected' list, right or wrong, that will increase the value.

I occasionally have to deal with 'protected' trees for a local township in Pennsylvania. Their ordinance prohibits cutting of trees over 30 inches on new developement sites. The engineering department who deals with this issue quickly recognized that that policy might not be such a good idea, and they have to make exceptions where the risk outweighs the benefits. Are there any provisions for exemptions or waivers in your local rules?

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 27, 2000 at 20:23:58:

Your observation is important. We don't know either if or how the apprasiers considered factors such as Location or in Condition a shortened life or otherwise reduced value because of the utility lines.

We don't know if #'s 1 & 3 used wholesale vs. installed unit costs because that's what they always do out of personal preference irrespective of Location ("what TFM means to me") or if perhaps one appraiser purposefully used wholesale to reflect the location. That might have been appropriate, but it amounts to implicit depreciation if the selection was unexplained. It goes back to my comments here and in the earlier threads about consistency. If every apprasial was to use installed unit costs (that's the conceptually supported cost approach model that is widely accepted in real estate appraisal as an example) then depreciation adjustments would have to be explicit and would be easier to recognize and understand. Some tree appraisers seem uncomfortable with varying Location ratings factually to make the proper depreciation adjustments. That's a poor excuse to make implict adjustments on the front end. Additionally there are cases in which use of wholesale rather than installed unit costs will understate value and there is no way to add it back.... depreciation is a downward adjustment only.

Part of the problem here may be, as Lew suggests, apprasiers failing to read and follow the book. But part of the problem, IMO, is CTLA's failing to promulgate meaningfully consistent and explicit methodology.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 27, 2000 at 20:23:58:

I am not sure why #1 used wholesale and #3 used retail. I do know that #1 called #3 to discuss what he felt was an error in his base price. #1 was the last arborist to look at this tree and he was pretty thorough and his report was impressive. He discribed the whole appraisal process so anyone picking up his report would understand it. He also include pictures of the tree from different angles. Both #1 and #3 brought out the fact the the tree was in a dangerous place with the power lines. #1 was able to find out that the tree was in or near two easement - one of which was the gas and electric company. The other in line with the underground waterpipe. This guy was incredible - He definitely took a look at the whole picture. Yes he was not happy with the topping and he let us know - but we weren't either. #1 was also the one who found errors in #2 calculations. I just wanted an unbaised oppinion from this forum. Thanks.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 27, 2000 at 20:23:58:

Sorry - I pushed the wrong button.
Again #! and #3 took all these factors into consideration. #2 never mention any of them in his report. The tree is a protected tree and is growing as I type. The city's tree ordinance does not cover trimming trees on city property only removing them. In the winter of "98 three large torrey pines over 100-150 feet fell on homes which sustained quite a bit of damage. The residents complained and the city council relented and took the torrey off the protected list for 30 days. So any resident could have a Torrey removed if it presented a hazard to their home. Over 30 trees were removed at this time. In the past when a resident removed a Torrey on city property or what is considered open space they were fined $250 - $500/ Now we are up to $36,000 for trimming. The residents are not happy in this town because the Torrey has been placed above the needs and wants of the residents.. The residents are trying now to get a tree-view ordinance that will get the city (biggest offender - has hundreds of Torreys)and residents
to thin out their trees and shrubs. The fire hazard is great because the homes are surround by open space - canyons. A committe on Forestry - Fire completed a study showing that the Torrey is a problem with over-growth, fire hazard and killing off other species. The residents are concern that we are a set-up for a Laguna Beach like fire disater. The current city council isn'tlistening. I hope this helps clarify. Any suggestions to help our community we would appreciate it. Thanks Jeannette