Help What is a Stump & What is a Tree?

F

FTLTreeman

Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Hey, out there, I have a problem, a very BIG problem that I need Help with.

After Hurricane Wilma hit South Florida, the city of Sunrise FL suspended all permitting fees for tree removal untill Feb 2006.We removed all damaged trees and debris before Dec 24th 2005.
We had to remove 265 trees 4 to 10"dbh,on a very High value property, that had been destroyed by the hurricane, 19 wind throw the rest broke apart @ about 6'.
Now the city made us do an appraisal for all lost trees for replacement value. What they really wanted was to cash in on the value difference between replacement value and Trunk Formula value. Well I used the Replacement Cost Method, They didn't count on that and there was no additional money for them to collect.

Now they are attempting to force us to pay a Tree Removal fee for each stump that we left at 4ft, so that we could remove by pulling out of the ground and replacing at the very same time. It comes out to be over $32,000.00 in permitting fees!!!!!

What I need by Monday is the legal definition between what is considered a stump, no permit required, and a tree,permit require now that we are taking it out of the ground to replace with a new tree.

I really need some very good help on this as we will be going before a Magistrate to settle this on Monday afternoon.

FYI these guys are p.i.s.s.e.d that they didn't know that there are other methods of apprisal besides the Trunk Formula, which would have allowed them to collect BIG bucks from our client!
They didn't even own a copy of the 9th Edition, I had to show them my copy.

I will be checking this over the weekend on Sat AM and on Sun PM, and also Monday all morning.

Thanks in advance for your professional Help.

Kris Stultz
Stiles Arbor Services
Ft Lauderdale FL
ISA BCMA FL-0979Bm.
 
Wow! What a unique way to get screwed! I can't wait to see what the legal definition is.

Good luck!
 
Ya, they are trying to find some way into our pocket.

The worst part is that they told us before I did the apprisal that there would be no removal fees because its just the stumps that were staying untill we could line up the tree replacements.
 
Bad news guys, and now I'm P.O.ed, the client's lawyer just called and has agreed to pay!

This is so much crap! Given, its not my money, but this is just wrong!

I would still love to know what you all think is the difference between the two for further reference. Even better would be to have the offical definition of what is a stump and what is a tree.
 
vharrison, the things have been in the ground since the hurricane, they have sprouts, but come on man its a stump, not a tree unless I'm Way Off Base.

Thanks for the definitions you linked to but I was looking for something industry wide.

I still can't believe the client caved!

PS don't give them any more ideas about getting money out of us.

THANKS again for the help.
Kris.
 
edit: guess i was a lil'long winded on the electronic ink; been typing passionately since Butch's first post!

i think that is gonna be some thin ground without showing previous precedent. i also think that it is ridiculous and hope you can make a plea for common sense to prevail. i'd tell'em it wouldn't pass the laugh test!

To me a stump is left after felling a tree; perhaps more precisely after felling a tree while standing on the ground. That, topping is same while climbing? Tree has been felled while standing on ground; voila- stump! Also, show where trimming a tree to such a height can be considered an abonimation by idiots; except in perhaps some decorative species where it is accepted. What species are these trees??

i don't think you would speak in terms of felling a 4' piece; especially of low diameter. But, there could be a local loophole definition they wrote jsut for this circumstance? Around these parts; one might speak of leaving a 10' stump for bulldozing/ some call it a 'stinger'; to get more complete removal of tree roots than grinding for construction (in healthy/ unrotted trees); by having a lever to grab onto, to pop roots out of ground etc. i'd try to put the proof of the pudding on them, exactly how many inches left is a stump, and .5 inch more constitute not a stump. Or, where would someone have to get a tree removal permit to drop the last 4' of something already cut down? i think you can show clear intent and standard of practice; what do construction and land clearing pros in your area consider a stump, and not tree? If the mayor needed that last 4' removed; would s/he first pay a tree removal service to come in, then a stump removal service? Would any local stump removal only services turn down a job of removing said tree stump? Should the permitting fee of cutting down the 4' 'tree' to the point of a defined stump(not removing stump) by them be a multiple of the cost of the service itself? If so, where else do they get that? The big point being, that that it is common practice, that a removal for bulldozing is left as a lever; a removal for grinding is cut low.

i don't think you will find a definition that favours them, unless they conveniently wrote it themselves! Would they wish to buy a 10" 4' tree as healthy??
 
TheTreeSpyder, no these were stumps we left at 4' with the intention of pulling out of the holes as soon as we had the replacements ready to go in the holes.
These were all parkinglot island trees that had to go back in the same holes so we couldn't grind them before replacement. Also, this was a very high pedestrian traffic area so we were not allowed to leave holes.

The sorry thing is that now by paying the lawyer has now set precented for this type of thing to keep happening over again.

As far as tree species they were the following, Pongam, Mahogany, Ficus, Royal Poinciana and a few root-bound Live oaks.
 
I dont understand what has happened.

The trees were busted up by a hurricane and you got rid of them but left stumps.

Apparently you didn't need approval for doing so and no cost for doing so.

Now there's a bunch of stumps and they are considering them trees are they? So they collect a fee for you getting rid of them? Is that right???

And there are two methods for them to get fees, one is a permit and second is a fee related to the value of the tree, correct?

And assessing the value of a tree (although it's a stump) would be more profitable for them especially when using the stump dia and species as a guide to valuation instead of an alternative, correct?

I think it's time to call the media in, bury that council, dirty scoundrels.

And a stump is the remaining part of the tree left in the ground after the tree has been felled or cut down, in simple words there is no longer a tree attached to the basal support column and structure which is anchored in the ground.

So, in that district, do you need permission to grind out stumps do you?

Frankly, I'd be going to court, they'll lose that one. Just show the judge pictures of the stumps and mention the emotional hardship already experienced by the client having lost so many trees to natural disaster and now the council is trying to cash in on others misfortunes ...


... that's not the American spirit now is it? Kick'em when they're down, media time I reckon, email Sacbee they love political rants.

Good luck and send the council, especially the individuals involved a link to this thread so they can see what we think of the b a s t a r d s.
 
Well, in a traffic area; whether by foot or vehichle; i'd leave'em up until ready to take care of them; even for grinding; as not to have a tripping hazard over small stumps or holes; and the liabilites thereof!!

Making holes to fill later would be bad too, cuz they could fill in and make more werk. i think any lawyer who couldn't argue that; is overpaid! (not to say that the rest ain't!)
 
The ISA Glossary does not define stump, and defines tree as a woody perennial that tends to have one stem and matures over 15'. My dictionary says a stump is the part of a tree laft after the tree has been felled, which would support your client if the storm felled the tree and not just the top of it.

Sorry but they were trees imo. Too bad this is all moot; it is debatable. The fact is unless perhaps they were grafted, they may have been viable long-term since the sprouts could have been trained and they could have regrown back into full size

I'm by no means quick to defend lawyers, but in this case they may have done right.

Good on you to use Replacement Cost Method; 6" is replaceable.

Did you ask Way Hoyt?
 
I don't know if this helps you out or not, when we were being subbed for some highway widening the state of Illinois would measure the trees 2' above grade, below that 2' mark down to ground level was consider the stump for removal. Strange and totally contrary to what is considered the norm in our biz. The road work was also funded in part by Federal funds, I am sure the state of Illinois just borrowed the Federal goverments specs regarding tree removal.

Off topic, but just some trivia, trees with two or more stems above this 2' mark were considered individual trees, kinda like getting paid twice to three times extra for the same tree as we were paid so many dollars per inch.

Larry
 
Larry, hwy depts have the juice to make rules of their own don't they; here in NC they proclaim the Basic Value of all species to be $75/square inch no matter what, which is way high.

KC I don't think double jeopardy applies unless it's trespassing.
 
If I walked up to the job and saw a bunch of trunks cut off at about the same height, I would know one of two things:

1 Someone started on a really wrong pollarding path
2 The trunks were left high for tear-outs

In time, those trunks could become trees again I think. Depending on a lot of 'right' conditions happening in sequence.

If permission was given to remove the storm damaged trees then that should be the end of the story.

I don't disagree with my cousin from Apex about the potential for trees being reformed. In order to have that happen the owner has to understand all of the costs and risks that come along with nurturing these cripples back to being trees. If the decision was made after the storm damage to remove based on the future care of the trees and the design plan for the property, then that started the removal process.

It would be nice to have the 'fly on the wall' recording from the attorney's office when the settlement was negotiated. Sometimes we have to trust the system. Today the arborists were pawns on other days we're the Kings and Queens and rule the board.
 
"We had to remove 265 trees 4 to 10"dbh,on a very High value property, that had been destroyed by the hurricane, 19 wind throw the rest broke apart @ about 6'."

I've seen a lot of storm damage, but can't wrap my head around this coincidence--246 trees broke apart around 6' high? They must have been very well anchored--buried deeeeep. I'm not saying that FTL is wrong; storms do crazy things. Still...can that be right?

If I was appraising those it would not be Trunk Formula and not Replacement Cost--it'd be Cost of Cure or Cost of Repair, unless the client insisted on assigning me to do something that was easier for the ins co to wrap their heads around...a 6' trunk is restorable economically in many cases imo.

Larry yeah, $75/sq in and they intimidate judges into accepting it when they go after those who do not get a permit.

Cuzzin Tom, yeah we are often pawns, whacked off early. I like being a knight rook or bishop when I can...checkmate!
 
May be I was a litte unclear yesterday, I was not in a very good mood after the attorney called to say he would pay.

Here is what happened:
1. trees that were originally planted were co-doms, mostly, these were planted by another company 10 years ago and they low value trees.(all at about 6')

2. the property sits right next to the everglades, 50+ miles of open grassland, very little to block wind movement.

3. the everglades being filled with shallow water was hotter then the ocean the hurricane had just came across. This cause the winds to intensify, so they hit this site like a fright train!

4.There were over 1,500 trees on site, most held up ok, just the really crapy ones failed.And failed badly, busted up bad.

5. we came in and cleaned up the site right after the storm, no permitting fees, but we had to wait on replacements because the nurseries had to file their insurance clams for their own damage.

6. the City of Sunrise FL states, by city ordinance, that all trees removed from a site that is over 100 acres has to have said trees appraised as to value.

7. I did this using the Cost of Replacement, the city only had seen the Trunk Folmula used in the past and had set their ordinance up so as too collect the difference between the values in the form of a check at the end of the job. They had thought that there was no way you could replace a large tree with a small tree and not have dollars left over for them to collect.

8. THEY WERE WRONG! with the cost of removal, debris hauling site prep and new stock place in the ground & the lower value given to poor stock that had failed due to the winds and just bad selection, the value of these trees was much less then the total for the above costs.

The city thought that they would be able to differ the storm cleanup cost with revenue that they would collect from people that had to replace trees lost in the storm. What they did not know was that there are other methods to file tree appraisals than the TFM, they did not even have a copy of the 9th Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal, as I said before I had to let them see my copy!

As far as leaving the trees in place and training into something worth keeping, this was not an option. This is a sports venue, that had to be back in business within days or the client would lose alot of events and dollars.

Well, it doesn't matter now anyhow as the client's lawyer has decided not to fight it.

I realize that this has nothing to do with pruning and climbing, but I was hoping to find advice.

I thank you all for the response.

Kris.
 
Thanks Kris, well understood now. That tale brings my opinion of city bureaucrats down a notch--now it doesn't have far to go before hitting the level of alligators!

You'd think that a couple of times per decade they could look for updates like the 9th edition. /forum/images/graemlins/shakinghead.gif

After all it was in the Miami area that TFM was first disallowed by the IRS for homeowners filing post-Andrew claims--and that was what, 14 years ago?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks Kris, well understood now. That tale brings my opinion of city bureaucrats down a notch--now it doesn't have far to go before hitting the level of alligators

[/ QUOTE ]

Well we half anutha differance of opinion; i think more of 'gators than that!


As far as the double indumbnity/ insurance referance; i just meant that if there was an insurance company involved, they'd straighten out the 2nd hit of the storm of fees for this non sense; and say they wouldn't be taking it up da'butt like that; cuz it would open them up to that cost, and so much more from others!! Their force of making law / litigation would probably punify the town's!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom