Arborist's method of ornamental tree valuation

[OldFigBBJ2]

Hi. I represent a condemning agency in regard to acquisition of an easement permitting a road widening project. One of the interesting issues which has arisen in a few cases is the valuation of ornamental trees required to be removed as a result of the road widening.

In one case, involving a rural residential property, the acquisition is resulting in the removal of four large, mature ornamental trees (I want to say it's a couple of redwoods, an oak and one other I can't remember) which of course are very attractive and due shield the residence thereon from the traffic and serve as somewhat of a noise buffer. However, the arborist's method yielded a value of over $220,000 for the trees collectively. To me, it just seems totally out of whack with regard to the value the trees actually add to the land. In other words, I doubt that it makes anywhere near $220,000+ difference to a prospective buyer whether or not those four trees are in place. $50,000-$75,000 maybe, but $220,000+ is just totally absurd IMO.

However, I am an appraisal layman and could therefore benefit from appraisers' insights. What specific criticisms have appraisers of the arborist's method of tree valuation? Or if it is a valid method of determining value of trees acquired, why do you feel that way? Thanks!

Bruce
Fresno

 

[Restrain]

Arborist's methods are not "market based" and have difficulty holding up in court. The best comp is a wooded comp vs. a non-wooded comp. That will show the value of trees.

 

[Walter Kirk]

I would assume that the arborist's method of valuation relates to the purchase price of the trees or their yeild. A real estate appraiser would consider the value that the trees contribute to the site. As stated so often on this forum cost does not equal value.

Your appraiser must determine the value of the property after the taking (land and trees) and subtract that amount from the current value of the property to determine damages.

You must then consider any regulations or rules relating to such takings in considering a settlement.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

However, the arborist's method yielded a value of over $220,000 for the trees collectively. To me, it just seems totally out of whack with regard to the value the trees actually add to the land. In other words, I doubt that it makes anywhere near $220,000+ difference to a prospective buyer whether or not those four trees are in place. $50,000-$75,000 maybe, but $220,000+ is just totally absurd IMO.

It is absurd. The expert on that is David Reinhold, Ray Camp Inc. of Russellville, Arkansas. He has testified in several cases about this and teaches an ornamental and shade tree appraising class. Basically, the value of one tree cannot exceed the difference in market value of the property with the tree and without. Obviously, a total property value of $200,000 cannot have trees worth $220,000.

The chart they use is X dollars per inch and once the inches exceed little more than a foot, the value goes ballistic and is not a market valuation...

 

[Ross (CO)]

Research the websites of the following:

International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)
American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA)
Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA)

Try to find the book....."Guide for Plant Appraisal". (It's.....expensive !......and probably because they just don't print that many of them as new editions come out.)

Age, size and health of the tree are critical factors, yet don't forget that geometric friend called Pi and the relationship of diameter inches to that exponentially larger concept of squared surface area of a cross-cut (respective of age, no doubt). There is always tree species, rarity, soil quality to support (more) tree life, external influences to affect the future well-being of that tree, and whether a certain tree exists in its original and natural location, or did man place it there. Ever heard of "girdling roots" ?

All trees can, and usually will go through the same cycle of propogation, establishment, growth, maturity and decline. The oldest trees are not necessarily.....the best, or the most-valuable. Trees do die. Insects can do certain damage too. Sounds like Remaining Economic Life, doesn't it ?

Simply commenting in this posting thread rekindles for me a surge in consideration within recent time that I should perhaps "specialize" in this type of appraisal !

 

[The Warrior Monk]

I would assume that the arborist's method of valuation relates to the purchase price of the trees or their yeild. A real estate appraiser would consider the value that the trees contribute to the site. As stated so often on this forum cost does not equal value.

That's what I would think.

As far as compensation matters are concerned, I am not familiar with them. If the trees are indeed worth substantially more than their contributory value, I, as a homeowner, would sell them off prior to the taking.

 

[OldFigBBJ2]

Thanks, guys.

Guys, thank you very much. Very interesting responses. I will check out the resources which the one poster provided. I am especially interested in critiques of the arborist's method and I hope that one of the resources provided does set forth a critique.

And yes, it is my general understanding that the values derived under the arborist's method relate to trunk girth, maybe other factors (tree health, etc.) about which I'm unsure.

If there were anything to the arborist's method, it would seem to me that trees are the greatest wealth-building tool of all time. What would it cost you to get the four biggest box Cork Oaks at a nursery? $2,000? What would it cost you to retain a landscaper to plant them? Another $2,000? So you're in for $4,000, the Cork Oaks require very little watering or attention, but 30 years later if they don't die they're mature and worth $220,000+? That's a better return than the best growth stocks. Forget everything you learned from your certified financial planner and head to the nursery!

 

[Ross (CO)]

Here's a link-piece I found this morning. The ISA has a "workbook" of lesser pages as a summary of tree appraisal practices (for about $25) and then there is the larger textbook title I mentioned which may still be upwards of $175.

Does this tell you more ?......

http://www.sufa.com/appraisals.html

 

[Ross (CO)]

Some other info, perhaps....

http://www.downers.us/assets/production/doc_related_doc/file/1620/Chapter_08_-_Tree_Appraisal.pdf

 

[Mark K]

Arborists are a joke. I'm involved in an assignment right now where this "professional arborist" claims that a few small trees in the middle of a woods are worth over $16,000. This is on a lot worth about $5,000 with a total of about 200 trees. None of the trees have timber or ornamental value, just book value according to his 'bible".

In any case, you need to have your lawyer determine how the values are to be determined according to state law. If its on a "damages" basis, then you'll need an appraisal to determine the value before, subtract the value "after" in order to arrive at a "damage" value. Or, as mentioned earlier, the value of a wooded site - the value of a less-wooded or bare site to measure the difference as determined by local buyers, i.e., market value difference.