What does this mean in the light of tree appraisal?

I have appraised the trees/shrubs in an earlier posting (arboretum) on 1.433 acres. The total appraised value of plant material has come to quite a large sum, let's say $80,000 for 98 plants, most of which are trees. The largest tree is a 15" dbh bur oak. The setting is rural along a major two lane highway. The arboretum is somewhat informal, no paths, but it was planted using a plan (about 30 years ago) and many trees are tagged as to what species or variety they are. Is this a reasonable amount? My replacement tree/shrub costs total, let's say half the appraised value ($40,000), an amount to transplant the most commonly transplantable size plants to the site to replace each plant, although the replacement plant is smaller than the existing tree/shrub. Comparing the two, it seems reasonable to me but how about to you or the state or a judge?

Reply to post by Terry Flatley, on April 25, 2000 at 22:26:12:

You/re comparing apples and quince, Terry. First, you are looking for an intuitive reasonableness test, by saying it seems right or 'feels' right to you.

Think of it as a validation test. You want to show that the number you have is 'fair and reasonable' to other disinterested parties viewing the same situation. By comparing one set of figures to the replacement with small plant material, you aren't making a truly valid comparison.

What are the benefits that are lost as a result of the damage? What will it take to restore those benefits? If the small trees will do, that's fine. But if larger trees are needed to restore the site, then you need to determine what it takes to get back to a level of benefits that is the same as was there before. If the purpose of the arboretum is simply to preserve those species, then the small treees are OK, provided they are the same species/cultivars as before. If the benefits include the aesthetics of the site, gate revenues, etc, then maybe you need to calculate the costs for bringing in larger trees, or the extended costs of growing them out to a larger size. Maybe you need to add in lost revenues from user fees. These are all possibilities to consider, not necessarily what you may choose to use.

Back to the intuitive side- If you consider that you have 98 plants, some of them rather large, that works out to less than $1000 per plant. You didn't say if the figure includes removal and site prep, but that is not a huge number to replace trees.

Reply to post by Terry Flatley, on April 25, 2000 at 22:26:12:

In my opinion, tree appraisals should be reasonable in the context of the facts. That does not necessarily mean low or high or reasonably close to what you think the Guide says or to the market value of the property or some other standard.

IF the facts include that the definition of value is contribution to market value then reasonableness should be judged against that.

IF the definition of value is absolute replacement cost then reasonableness should be judged against that.

We don't always have such clear constratints on the facts. If we're talking about a judge = jury situation the FACT of value will be determined by them. In my opinion what is REASONABLE will also be detremined by them. Should our OPINIONS of value be reasonable? Well if they decide what reasonable is how can we narrow to a single point?

Maybe we can if the facts all point there. Maybe we can only offer a range of possibilities. They often want us to make their job easy and come up with a single point estimate but that may not always be realistic.

In your case: there are x trees of size, species, condition a, b, c..... They can be replaced with x trees of similar species and condition but size only .2a, .2b or .2c..... These are measureable facts. Is 20% replacement reasonable? Is that replacement cost for 20% size value? That fact is up to the court. The tighter we try to make our opinions - for which there is no one established fact - the more precarious the opinion is, the easier it is for the opposition to discredit. So do we say "reasonable" is the most palatable to all so there won't be any effort to discredit? Yeah I think we do and I think that's not in the public interest... we've deprived the decision makers of the information they need to decide the fact at issue.

Reasonableness can only be related to the facts.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on April 25, 2000 at 22:26:12:

Thanks alot guys! I was looking for a concrete answer. Actually, your input was very helpful to me and thanks for providing it. I agree with your statements for the most part. I guess for an appraiser there is one more element of the appraisal and that is comfort (i.e. confidence). In the example I cited, it relates to something I am involved in and I am confident of the values obtained and feel they are on the conservative side. It would be helpful to have a reference list of what it costs to transplant 15 inch oak to another site so one knows that if you appraise the tree at $5,000 that that is about what it would cost to transplant such a tree. I have used the TFM and RFM for many years and it seems to have improved from what it was 20 years ago. But it has some subjectivity in it (condition and location factors) that can make me squirm sometimes under certain situations. It is all in the presentation and how well the audience understands the method used. Again, if there were real costs for transplanting large trees to compare it with someplace that would increase MY comfort zone. What do you think?

Reply to post by Terry, on April 26, 2000 at 00:28:11:

TFM is a surrogate for data we don't have. If we did have actual experience data for 15" trees or 30" trees, say, we might indeed have more confidence in them. At least if there were enough.

But, it would still be a replacment cost approach to value, only the cost data inputs change. The initial indication of value would still need to be depreciated by Condition and Location, so if that's a source of confusion or discomfort it does not change.

Reply to post by Scott, on April 26, 2000 at 20:05:54:

Hi Scott,
Actually, as you know "trophy trees" are being moved in the 20" and greater sizes. It is my understanding that a "general" rule of thumb is $1,000 per inch, for the transplanting operation. I did get a proposal for one of my law suits to transplant a 21" diameter Oak Tree and used it as a RCM situation. My appraisal was slightly more than a TFM appraisal.
lew

Reply to post by lewbloch, on April 26, 2000 at 21:41:08:

Interesting. I've run some quick numbers against some of the TFM installed unit costs I'm finding lately (mid-range, not the highest) and $1000/dia inch works out to about 30% of a TFM # before any Condition or Location depreciation. But that's for much bigger than the 20" range. I'd guess the rate climbs sharply from there.

Does $1000/" include any guarantee or aftercare?

Reply to post by Scott, on April 27, 2000 at 17:43:22:

No, Scott, the $1,000 per inch only covers the actual transplantation....not even the cost of purchasing the carcass to be moved.
lew