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

[Ian Wilson]

Greg, I agree.  Maybe Tree Canada can help us out on this.
 
We have a few American members on the List-serve, I'm wondering if some
of them could comment on the status of trees as capital assets in the
US?  I seem to recall that urban foresters in the US were going through
a similar process 3-4 years ago.
 
Ian

	-----Original Message-----
	From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
[mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of Ward, Greg
	Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:04 AM
	To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
	Subject: [CANUFNET] Tangible Capital Asset Registry - Reporting
Trees andUrban Forest Assets
	
	
	Hi Russell,
	    The City of Surrey is (or has) built their TCAR, and trees
are not included in the registry.  
	 
	    Our Parks Division rep to the initiative made such a case to
include trees, however, it was deemed that trees do not fit the
accounting criteria at this time.  See the attached for some background,
or google 'capital asset inventory trees' and there is explanation from
the Municipal Finance Officer's Association of Canada in a newsletter.
	 
	    Interestingly, in the newsletter  they do state that where
trees are planted as a barrier, to serve a similar benefit or service as
a masonry wall or fence, that they would aggregately be considered a
capital asset.   The discussion in the newsletter also seems to reveal
there is room for discussion on the point of including or excluding
trees.  It seems that the decision-makers, accountants, don't fully
understand the services and benefits that individual trees provide.  
	 
	    I think that if it is important to have trees included
(perhaps a question that first needs addressing) there needs to be
collaborative advocacy from urban foresters.  Perhaps a resolution at
the upcoming Canadian Urban Forest conference would be appropriate?
	    
	 
	Greg Ward 
	Manager, Urban Forestry and Environmental Programs 
	City of Surrey, B.C. 
	604 501 5170 

	'Nature matters, 
	protect, enhance, enjoy' 

		-----Original Message-----
		From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
[mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net]On Behalf Of Friesen, Russell
		Sent: March 14, 2008 3:41 PM
		To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
		Subject: [CANUFNET] Tangible Capital Asset Registry -
Reporting Trees andUrban Forest Assets
		
		
		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/20080320/fecb5a0b/attachment.htm>