[CANUFNET] Tangible Capital Asset Registry - Reporting Trees and Urban Forest Assets

[Friesen, Russell]

Tangible Capital Asset Registries are topic that has great implications
for municipal forestry operations across the country, but I am pretty
sure most CANUFNET subscribers have probably never even heard of it.
Around 2005, the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) recommended that
governments including municipalities report "Tangible Capital Assets"
(TCA) on their balance sheets. In Alberta, this recommendation became
law and is now a legislative requirement commencing Jan. 1 2009. The
Province of Ontario also appears to have similar requirements, and many
municipalities in that jurisdiction are well on their way to reporting
TCA. 
  
Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a standard practice or
consensus on how to report trees.  The advice given by the PSAB isn't
specific and opinion from other sources is contradictory, ranging from
don't report the value of trees, to report the value of trees that were
planted with a purpose (like visual screening), to report the value
trees as if they were converted to pulp wood.
 
Most municipalities involved in building TCA registries have hired
consultants to aid with the developing the reporting process. In some
cases the same consultants have been hired by several municipalities,
but for ethical reasons the consultants can't share what one
municipality is doing with another municipality.  All this results in a
dearth of guidance and information about how to report trees and the
urban forest in a Tangible Capital Asset Registry.  
 
Therefore, I think that it is important for municipal foresters to share
with each other what they know about TCA registries, what their TCA will
report, how their reporting policy is worded and how they are going to
track, collect and manage their asset reporting in subsequent years. . 
 
So now for my questions. 
 
Which other municipalities are in the process of building their TCA?
How are you planning on reporting trees? 
Have you tried to make the case that tree appreciate in value rather
than depreciate? ... and how did that go?    
Are you using historic costs of acquisition (planting) for your starting
point and depreciating from there? 
Are you reporting individual trees or lumping trees into a general
average land improvement value?  
What is your useful lifespan for a tree? 
How are you taking into account vintages?    
And my final question, does anybody - anywhere, understand this? 
 
Thank You 
Russell Friesen
Urban Forestry Coordinator 
City of Calgary Parks  
 
 
 
 
 
 

NOTICE -
This communication is intended ONLY for the use of the person or entity
named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a
person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the
intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution,
or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in
it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by telephone and then destroy or
delete this communication, or return it to us by mail if requested by
us. The City of Calgary thanks you for your attention and co-operation.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20080314/f42429e9/attachment.htm>