Survey costs more than anyone can afford.

[land butcher]

This is in response to TIBs Lot 2 section survey.

Here is a not so uncommon situation where what should be a fairly simple lot survey becomes a huge can of worms. The work done so far has probably eaten up all the budget TIB has in the contract and the owner probably doesn't have much in his budget to assist in the costs. But TIB is now on the hook to resolve this no matter what the cost.

Somehow there needs to be a cutoff or, like me, I avoid lot surveys like the flu. I have yet to do one that fell within my time budget. You could say I under budgeted them, but every one had a issue that was totally unforeseen.

One simple lot survey of a tract lot built ~1975, well monumented, previous owner had been granted additional property in the open space area, my client just wanted a landscape topo. Turned out the block wall that extended out to enclose the deeded open space area was not even close to the deed along the back. Major encroachment major issue. I informed my client immediately and he agreed to cover the cost of the survey and RS. He sued the previous homeowner and RE company but forgot to include my additional fee in the suit. Small claims suit got settled on the courthouse steps.

I don't know the answer or how found material discrepancy cost limits could be legislated, but the way the law is now lot surveys can be a surveyor's nightmare and maybe end his career.

[TIB]

U R correct WC. It's one thing when client can't afford it, but neither can I, and I'll be there soon. Looks like I'll get to pay a large portion of predicted costs. Well, not actually pay, but I'll be donating a lot of my time for free. Lucky me!
It gets worse. Where I expect to set corner, is going to result in very angry owners.

[Dhanrion]

I feel your pain. As a former private surveyor, my firms and I 'donated' a lot of my time and their $$ to get it right. Sometimes correct is very expensive and pisses off a lot of people. I offer this perspective of a recent experience ...

Reminds me of a Forest Service survey project where the FS discovered that a prior private surveyor royaly 'screwed the pooch" in early 1980's surveys/Parcel Maps. This is in a notorious "Bensen Syndicate" survey area (one Theo Binge is the GLO deputy for the area ... I have soooo many stories about 'boo boo' GLO surveys), with issues where we 'earn' our dough as surveyors. But the private surveyor went on the cheap (I am absolutely certain that neither he nor the client were "willing" to pay what it would really cost ... the land was not that valuable at that time), or he was just lazy, as the 'missing' corners are nearly cardinal from the controlling section corners. Shoot, he even relied upon the section corners found by FS surveyor in 1965 (see more detail about the 'missing' corners below)!

Fast forward to the era of rediculous land prices and speculation (late 90'/early 2000's): 20 years after the recording of the private surveys/Parcel Maps, FS and BLM surveyors located the previous recovered original 'missing' GLO 1/4 corners (as well s other controlling corners). Had the private surveyor of record actually searched for the 1/4's (the 1/4 corners are obvious rock mounds with FS corner recovery signs on nearby trees that were hung in 1965), as opposed to taking the easy way out and proportioning (which resulted in creating skewed lines 100's of feet and several degrees off), it would have turned out quite simple.

However, even though there was virutally no current development at the time that would have been impacted in moving the erroneous private survey lines to their true positions, due to the new private land owner (being a developer) in the late 1990's/early 2000's wanting to 'rely in good faith' upon the erroneous private survey work, the issue went to a Quiet Title Action. After spending 10's of 1000's of Federal and private dollars to honor erroneous survey lines on remote, non-developed land, the FS monumented and posted those court fixed boundary lines. The irony is that the FS ended up purchasing most of the vacant lands (private lotting form previous PMs) in 2012, and now the 2+ miles of FS posting of the previously owned private parcels will need to be removed. (job security) For me, the fun part of this particular case is that I was just there this last week setting the FS/private land corners (200' x 200') surrounding a private island parcel.

Overall, I just love survey work (sans being the 'bad guy'): the record resarch, exhausting field evidence, finding things that have not been visited since originally set; its tremendously satisfying work. I "cut my teeth" on donating all that time and the firm donating that $$. After a few years, the firm (and me) developed a reputation that made up for those "losses". Then, rather than having to justify higher costs to clients who were short-sighted (cheap), the clients we really wanted came to us because getting it correct is always a good investment over getting it cheap.

[land butcher]

Can anyone name another profession, or even a business, that has this hammer over their head?

[RAM]

most of the medical field

[land butcher]

most of the medical field

WRONG.

Maximum award in a medical malpractice lawsuit is $250k. Not enough to sue. As a prominent San Francisco law firm has on their web site - There is no such thing as medical malpractice in CA.

First hand knowledge. UCI Killed my granddaughter due to negligence. No coroners report, no police report, no one outside of the hosp even knows if they investigated or made changes in procedure.

Dennis Quaid was able to sue the pharmaceutical company for similar bottles. He too could not sue the hosp.

[E_Page]

With boundaries, your contract should have a catch-all clause about unforeseen circumstances, RS requirements, and associated costs.

That covers the client's fiscal responsibility to you, but obviously it does not address their ability to come up with funds to cover additional costs in the circumstance where resolving the unforeseen issues results in cost increases that are far more than marginal (perhaps multiples of the original estimate).

To address that, the surveyor in private practice needs to be very cognizant of one's progress toward a complete boundary resolution and indicators that costs will increase significantly.

If their are issues significant enough to increase costs to the point where the surveyor is (or should be) concerned about the client's ability or willingness to pay, those issues are ones that will take significant extra effort to resolve.

Bring this to the attention of the client before resolving those issues,

If you have not yet resolved the issues and have made no other representations regarding the boundary, do you need to file an RS? Is your survey complete? I don't consider it complete until after I have completed my analysis and make my findings or portions of those findings known to some other party.

If I've only done enough field surveying and analysis to know that there are matters that will increase the costs significantly, I have the opportunity to discuss this with my client. The client can then authorize me to continue my survey, or request that I cease my efforts, paying for effort expended to that point.

You might think "in that case, you haven't done what you were hired to do, mark the boundary. You're charging the client but leaving him with nothing of value."

On the contrary, the resulting service is not what the client, or the surveyor had hoped for, but the client now has the knowledge that his or her boundary is not easily identifiable and will cost a lot to find and/or to take any necessary corrective actions to clarify the record.

You may think that it's not fair to charge the client for the effort you've put in while not following the project through to its conclusion. Again, I disagree.

When approached this way, you are giving the client as much control as you can. You are advising on your progress to date, the cost potential to complete, other potential issues that might occur based upon what you have already found out, and various potentially applicable remedies and their associated levels of effort and costs. You are appropriately placing the responsibility and the authority to decide whether to continue or to cut his/her losses.

Suppose your truck is running rough, so you take it to the mechanic for a tune up. You might expect to pay maybe $500 and have your truck back by the end of the day. But what happens if your mechanic gets into it and finds that it's not new plugs & wires that are needed, but new rods, rings, and lifters? Your $500 tune up just turned into a $5000 engine overhaul or replacement - a cost increase of 10 times the original estimate and taking far longer than you anticipated.

What do you expect of your mechanic in a situation like this? Should he cut corners and just do the work for a tune up, ignoring the real issues because that's what you originally asked him to do? Should he decide that you will need your truck and so move forward with the engine replacement, with your first notification that a lot of extra effort was required being the invoice after the work is completed? Or should he stop work on the truck and notify you in a timely manner of what he has found, advise you with his recommendations and provide an estimate to address the issues he has found and/or now expects to find, placing the decision authority with you?

If you decide to not replace the engine, do you expect to not pay the mechanic for his time spent beginning the tune up and then diagnosing the problems he found after completing some amount of tune up work?

To me, it seems reasonable that the true problems may not have been found until after some amount of work toward a tune up had been completed and found to be ineffective in smoothing out the roughness. I would expect to reimburse the mechanic for the time & materials put in up to that point. I also see value in the time spent diagnosing and identifying some major issues, so I expect to pay for that.

But I also expect to be properly advised so that I can make the decision whether or not to overhaul the engine, replace it, or not take any further action on that truck. I do not expect my mechanic to make that decision for me because he is the licensed mecahnic and I am not. That would be outrageously condescending and absolutely absurd.

Why, if I need a truck for my work or for basic transportation, would I decide to not proceed with required repairs? First, I may not have an extra $5000 right now and so must delay the work out of financial necessity. Second, I may decide that this truck is not worth the cost of the repair and so want to put that money toward the purchase of a new truck. Third, considering the much greater cost than anticipated, I may want to get another opinion before making the decision to invest the $5000 in this truck or put it toward another one.

Why might a client decide to pay you for your efforts to date and not proceed with the boundary? Same reasons: 1) may not have $ to complete at this time; 2) may be a developer and decide to cut losses on this property, using the money toward a different project; 3) may want to have another surveyor or his attorney review what you've found before making the decision.

If you make this decision on your own - that is to expend the added effort to locate the boundary and resolve whatever issues come along, then you will get to the point that you will be required to file a map. And you are putting you and your client in a position to then determine who will cover the costs that you did not foresee. You have taken away the opportunity for the client to decide whether it is best to move forward or to cut his losses, and you have set up the circumstance in which a ggod business relationship can go sour and possibly go to collections and parhaps litigation.

An important part of our professional responsibility is to know at what point in a project the next statutory responsibility occurs so that we can stop short of that if necessary in order to advise our clients and preserve their ability to make critical decisions based on that advice. We do not serve our clients as professionals if we see them as less than competent and make their decisions for them.

There are some, perhaps many surveyors who will just proceed without allowing the client the opportunity to make that decision, and then will absorb the cost overruns themselves, not billing their client for the required and unforeseeable additional efforts. Surveyors are about the only providers of professional or skilled services who regularly do this.

Your mechanic will not unless you bring them a lot of business in the form of all your family vehicles and/or your work fleet, and then they will only reduce the costs but not completely waive them. Your doctor won't. they will charge you your copay and charge your insurance for every visit whether they can find what's wrong with you or not. Same with a dentist. And for certain, your attorney will charge you for every minute, rounded up to the next tenth of an hour for their time whether they solve any problems for you, give you any useful advice or not.

So why is a surveyor's work and advice without value unless it results in a completed project, and then only worth what it would take to do a simple project even after the project turns out to not be simple at all?

You can't resolve matters if you can't identify them. The ability to identify issues and then to supply applicable remedies has great value. whether or not that value is something the client can afford or wishes to apply to the property at hand should be their decision.

[land butcher]

My point is that when surveyors find a issue, if i understand the law correctly, we have to file a map. If you have not resolved the issue what do you show on a map and would map showing a incomplete survey be accepted.

The mechanic is not under any mechanics law to fix the truck or face loss of his license.

The Dr states; we found something but the tests are inconclusive. We need to operate to find out, it might be something minor or we may have to remove a major organ or just sew you up and tell you to get your affairs in order. No matter what course he takes he has completed his work.

I know of one case where major issues were found and the surveyor and his client did not have the funds to resolve it and came to some agreement with persons unknown to me. Some years later a major firm with a big pockets client was able to perform the necessary survey work.

[E_Page]

You are not under a legal obligation to resolve all boundary issues if your client does not authorize you to continue with the survey.

If you have not completed your survey to the point that you can state the boundary location, and if you have made no representations as to the precise boundary location, the you have not made a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying. You are still in the process of making such a survey, so 8762 has not yet come into play.

That's what I was trying to explain in my previous post. You need to be cognizant of when you have or would cross that threshold, giving the client the opportunity to make the decision whether or not to authorize you to continue before you cross that threshold.

The mere finding of issues is not the threshold. You still have not fully made a field survey in conformity with the practice of surveying.

8762 only kicks in after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying.

[land butcher]

My son has our latest copy of the LS act and the earliest I found on line was 2008 so if there are revisions correct me.

What I read in 2008 says "after making a field survey in conformance....." does not say a completed field survey.
And didn't a post 82 CE just get his hand slapped for recovering existing corners without the aid of transit and chain.

IMO, unless it is clarified somewhere else, as soon as a LS starts his field work he is making a field survey in ..........

opinions

[E_Page]

If it's not completed, it's not yet in conformity with the practice of land surveying.

If you've done just enough work to discover problems that will increase costs, that means that you would still have a significant amount of work to do.

If you carry your logic back through the project, you would be on the hook to file a map as soon as you made your first measurement. The survey itself is not in conformity because it is far from complete, but you presumably made that one measurement in conformity with good practice.

Is it your contention that if the client terminated the contract right after you made that one measurement? Probably not. So carry that logic forward to the point that you discover that there are matters that will require additional effort to resolve. Incomplete survey with no boundary location determinations at both points, so the circumstance with respect to brining 8762 into play are the same.

[Lee Hixson]

If you carry your logic back through the project, you would be on the hook to file a map as soon as you made your first measurement.

Evan, the above comment seems to contradict the following statement in Post #7 above:

"If you have not yet resolved the issues and have made no other representations regarding the boundary, do you need to file an RS? Is your survey complete? I don't consider it complete until after I have completed my analysis and make my findings or portions of those findings known to some other party."

I know there's a fine line in there; I'm just trying to make sure I get what you're saying.

[LA Stevens]

Evan,

I'm with you 100% on the fact that you are not legally obligated to resolve all boundary issues. However, if a surveyor has contracted to establish the boundary for a fixed fee, he may be obligated to do so. The contract language would determine that obligation.

Regarding 8762: If one measures between monuments shown on a map of record and discovers a material discrepancy, is the surveyor not obligated to file a Record of Survey documenting the discrepancy? I'm keyed on to the portion of the language that states "...shall file...if the field survey discloses..."

I would think that you would want to file the ROS on the discrepancy, but not opine on the correctness of the location of either monument, since you haven't completed your field survey and analysis.

Thanks for your comments!

[land butcher]

I keep thinking about RIM and a case in OC years ago, where a material discrepancy, still legally undefined, is found and to resolve would entail more cost than the client or surveyor can afford.

I clarify in my props that if issues are found the sky could be the limit. Regardless, where does the board and the courts stand on this. If a PITA client decides he wants his PL no matter what it costs the surveyor and hauls him into court what is our legal defense.

What Evan has stated makes sense on our side, but is it accepted by persons other than surveyors.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Material means "it matters."

Like most legal things what matters can vary depending on how any given person sees the evidence. 5' may not be material in a 50,000 acre timber parcel while 0.5' would be material in downtown Los Angeles.

If I ran the world I would change 8762 to be much more definite. To begin with (if I was Ceaser Augustus of California) setting monuments would trigger the requirement, not all of these nebulous 19th century triggers we can't figure out.

It would help if the Board would enforce the checking fee requirements of the Act on the County Surveyors (it says $100 or some other fee set by the Board of Soups not a blank check).

A lot depends on how you contract for the work. Professionals such as Doctors and Attorneys don't do the flat fee thing generally (if they are smart). "Doc I have a pain in my lower back, how much to fix it?" Doc would say, "I have no idea, lets do some tests then we can discuss your options." Attorneys charge by the hour or on contingency. Who knows how much it will cost to push a given case through the court system?

The nature of professional work is you don't know what it is going to take until you finish the work in many cases. You have to establish that relationship with the client up front.

[Rob_LS]

[quote="Dave Karoly, PLS"]Material means "it matters."
If I ran the world I would change 8762 to be much more definite. To begin with... ...setting monuments would trigger the requirement, not all of these nebulous 19th century triggers we can't figure out.

I would say showing the relationship between a structure and a boundary line, such as on an ALTA-ACSM Land Title Survey is establishing the boundary, but you aren't necessarily setting the (building) monument.

[Jim Frame]

Based on the law stated above, determining the position of any monument as part of a field survey could put a surveyor on the hook for filing, especially a no reference monument, any of which is likely tied to other monuments.

In my opinion, when evidence is gathered and evaluated by a licensee and conclusions drawn therefrom, and those conclusions are not disclosed to anyone outside the direct control of the licensee, then a survey under the provisions of §8762 has not been made.

Hypothetical No. 1: A crew goes into the field and finds a section corner monument and the quarter corner monument 1/2 mile north. They measure the distance between them and find that it disagrees with that shown on a record map by 5 feet. They report this via field notes to their supervising surveyor, who does not report the finding to anyone. A survey has not been made, and there is no requirement to file.

Hypothetial No. 2: Surveyor Smith goes into the field and digs up a stone that he believes to be an original section corner monument. A recent subdivision map prepared by others shows the section corner as lost, and the subdividing surveyor double-proportioned the corner and monumented same. As Surveyor Smith is gathering evidence, an adjacent landowner approaches him to find out what he's doing, and during the course of the conversation Surveyor Smith tells the landowner that the stone marks the section corner. Before Surveyor Smith has a chance to finish his field work, his client calls and tells him that he's changed his mind and wants to cancel the survey. By virtue of disclosing his professional opinion about the stone to the landowner, Surveyor Smith has made a survey and is required to file.

The key is disclosure to a party not under the direct control of the surveyor (i.e., his field crew and office staff don't count). It is at that point that the public is entitled to rely upon the surveyor's conclusions, and thus the public policy that those conclusions be formally reported in compliance with statutory law and professional ethics.

.

[MikeTurnrose]

Good points, Jim. That makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks.

[E_Page]

While I can understand and respect the opinions to the contrary, if I have made measurements and preliminary analyisis that has only led me to the point that I know I have a lot more measurements and analysis to do before I can responsibly make any representations as to the location of the boundary other than that the location is indeterminate without the additional work being done, then I have not yet done enough work to properly report on any apparent discrepancies found.

I have not yet done enough work to determine the boundary location, so how can I know the full extent of the discrepancies of the boundary?

If my survey is not substantially complete, it is not yet a survey and it is not yet in conformity with the practice of land surveying. For a survey to be in conformity with the practice of land surveying for the purposes of making representations about boundaries, it must be complete enough to make well-reasoned, defensible conclusions based on the survey. If the survey is at a point that the only thing you can represent about the boundary is that you need to do a lot more work before you can make more definite representations of the location, then by your own standard, it is not yet to the point that a responsible surveyor can draw conclusions and is therefore not in conformity with the practice of land surveying for purposes of locating the boundary.

It is not yet a survey, but an incomplete collection of measurements and documents. Once it is complete, or substantially complete - that is complete enough that one can responsibly make definite statements as to the boundary location, then it is a survey.

When applying law, you need to keep it in context. 8762 is about establishing and/or retracing lines & points affecting property rights. It also only applies "after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying".

If the work you have done is insufficient to make representations as to establishing those lines, then you are in the process of making the survey, but have not yet made it.

Looking at it from a different direction, you have your survey to the point that you know it's going to require a lot more work than originally anticipated. You inform your client of this and your client says "I'm only paying you what we originally agreed to and I've waited long enough for this already. You've done enough work and spent too much time already! Just tell me where the boundary is based on what you already know. I'm sure it will be close enough. I want the answer now!"

Would you comply with that demand? Would you be willing to set you mons and file a map without doing the extra work that you just told the client was needed? I hope not, and of the people who have so far participated in this thread, I'm quite certain not.

So if you would not make representations as to the boundary location based on the work you've done to that point, how can you represent that it is now "after making a field survey" for the purposes of boundary location? If the work performed is insufficient for the purposes of locating the boundary, it is not yet "after" and 8762 has not yet become applicable.



Lee - that very contradiction is my point. 1 measurement is insufficient to represent that you have made ("after making") a survey adequate for the purposes of precisely identifying a boundary location. And dozens of measurements may also be found to be just as inadequate in certain situations. Reducing the number of measurements is just reducing the argument such a basic level that it is patently obvious.



Larry,

If one has contracted for a fixed fee and has no provision to account for unforeseen circumstances, then the surveyor may be on the hook to see the job through, regardless of what stage he finds that a lot of extra effort will be required.

As Rob pointed out, the criteria for the LS triggers is not always crystal clear and reasonable professionals are going to come to well-reasoned but different opinions in such cases. I believe that I can recognize many circumstances in which the surveyor might reach that point where a lot of unanticipated work is required and where the work completed is insufficient to responsibly make boundary location representations. Under such circumstances, I believe I've laid out a reasonable line of logic that the surveyor is not yet required to file a map because if the survey is not yet complete, it is not yet to the stage of "after making".

I also believe that since the licensing laws exist to protect the public, including one's client as well as anyone else who may be affected, that part of that protection, a basic consumer protection, is that professional and other service providers do not force services upon consumers that they cannot afford and that it is the consumers decision as to how much the cost affects their need.

Having made these arguments, I have to confess that there has been plenty of times in which I recognized that a job was going to be more work than anticipated, and proceeded anyway initially thinking the extra work would be marginal and intending to absorb the cost myself. Some of those turned into a lot more work and I had proceeded to the point where I was on the hook for an RS (maybe resolved all but 1 or 2 portions, and what I had resolved included 1 or more RS triggers).

In those cases, although my contract did contain a clause that would have allowed me to charge additional fee, since I had not included the client in the decision to proceed, I absorbed the costs.

But there have also been times where I had not yet hit any RS triggers and saw that I would if I proceeded and that completing the survey would be far more effort than anticipated, and I gave the decision whether or not to proceed to the client.

Bottom line is that if the area is too gray for you to be able to see a clear enough line, then as Dave suggests, don't lean toward a risky interpretation. for me, I don't think my interpretation is risky because I undestand and can explain the logic of my reasoning. If you don't follow it, file an RS.

[LS_8750]

I wonder what would happen if a police officer was required to pay a $650 processing fee every time he/she made an arrest. Donut shops would get pretty busy I suspect. Especially on Friday & Saturday nights.

I don't even recon jobs anymore for fear of discovering a material discrepancy.

Eliminate the filing fee = More RoS filings = More work for the Counties to do at less expense. Makes sense to the government.

[MikeTurnrose]

I would love to see an elimination of the ROS map checking fee. I think this is a burdensome cost to both the surveyor and the public. Plus these fees have risen and/or leveled off recently, while a lot of surveyors fees have dropped due to the economy in the past 5 years.

[Dhanrion]

I would love to see an elimination of the ROS map checking fee. I think this is a burdensome cost to both the surveyor and the public. Plus these fees have risen and/or leveled off recently, while a lot of surveyors fees have dropped due to the economy in the past 5 years.

I would certainly like to save the $2000-$3000 per RoS review fees (spent $10k plus in the past 2.5 years). However, I am sure the contracted county PLS in the surrounding CA rural counties where we file would not be happy. Its like a Federal tax refund for them. But then again, those contracted county surveyors pay federal and state income taxes on the profit from their contracted services. ;)

[LS_8750]

I'm with you Mr. Wooley. I like the sound of that survey. What it's all about.

I simply think there is something fundamentally wrong with 8762. It was written long ago, when filing costs were nominal, near nothing. How bout straddling Santa Cruz and Santa Clara counties, having to file in both, we're talking about $1,500 or so. Eliminate the fees! Charge quadruple for parcel maps, subdivision maps, building permits, whatever. Level the playing field with all the fee skirting non-compliant dirtbags.

[Jim Frame]

Read 8765 (d), no exemption for having not represented…anything, but it clearly says a no reference monument requires filing a record.

§8765 pertains to "any survey." I maintain that if I gather evidence, analyze same and reach conclusions therefrom as to the location of a property line, but do not disclose those conclusions to anyone beyond those under my control, I have not made a survey. It ain't a survey until I pass it on to someone not under my direct control, thus no requirement to file.

.

[land butcher]

§8765 pertains to "any survey." I maintain that if I gather evidence, analyze same and reach conclusions therefrom as to the location of a property line, but do not disclose those conclusions to anyone beyond those under my control, I have not made a survey. It ain't a survey until I pass it on to someone not under my direct control, thus no requirement to file.

.

I disagree, but it's like any other info that only one person knows, if you don't tell anyone who would know.

As for the first point fd- You, doing recon for a bid, find 2 fences parallel and touching and 2 #4 rebar (map calls for #4 rebar) same age and both at grade 0.3' apart, city or mtns never relevant.

I think that if the letter of the law was applied you have discovered a material discrepancy.

There are a number of ways to handle this, Jim's - keep it to yourself, or tell the client, or submit a bid with one or 2 additional zeros added to the fee and hopefully the landowner will just throw your bid away and call Dave Karoly or Evan Page.

Bottom like is, yes laws are written to protect the public, but Surveyors, unlike Drs, lawyers and title cos, have not applied enough green to the bill writers to include protections for themselves. Not only can we be on the hook to complete a survey no one can afford, our limit of liability is unlimited and our estates can be sued.
Laws like the triggering of a RS were written when pubic agencies did not charge a arm and leg to review them times change, fees change and rules need to be updated accordingly.

There was a time in OC where almost every city had an in-house survey dept and field crew(s). Set BMs, tied out mons, etc. Those days are long gone and we have had to pass legislation to force public agencies to preserve existing monumentation during any reconstruction within public right of way. In their effort to fully comply we had to amend the law to SPECIFICALLY include BMs and still many agencies refuse to comply. I guess that's why we should be overjoyed that they quietly imposed a $1/business license tax.