Map Checking Fee

[btaylor]

I have nothing to add other than "WOW"

[pls7809]

Holy cannoli!

[Dhanrion]

I thought Redwood City was bad (when I worked for a private firm there in 2008)! City wanted $5000+ to review a lot merger PM (50 -foot wide lots, all corners FOUND) ... to be reviewed by an eng. tech no less! At the time, I challenged them. Since the economy was pretty much dead, I figured they were probably going to bill the entire department on the review process. Fortunately, their contract City Surveyor from Pleasanton stopped the obsurdity.

Truly sad what absolute power does ....

[JoeC]

They have to pay for that new 49er’s stadium. You want a top notch facility don’t you?

Okay – there must be something wrong. I’m having a hard time with this one. How can the map check fee be more than the surveyor’s fee and I’m assuming this would be the case here – maybe not.

I would defiantly meet with upper management or even some Board of Supervisors and see if they are aware of this.

[David Lanphear]

Same price for a Record of Survey and that begs the question, when would they see or need to check a ROS?

http://santaclaraca.gov/Modules/ShowDoc ... entid=7666

[land butcher]

The power of a monopoly and uncontrolled spending of OPM (Other People's Money).

Found out today when I purchased a new battery for my truck. I paid cash at costco the bill was Batt $85 core charge $9 tax $7.52. I had my core so the clerk immediately refunded my $9 core charge - Uh what about the sales tax? By law they have to charge sales tax on a core charge but by State law that sales tax is NOT refundable.

Can anybody call them anything but greedy crooks.

I just heard about this. Apparently zero punishment http://www.wnd.com/2007/03/40845/

[Ric7308]

The city does not possess the authority to review or check a record of survey. I would not ever submit a record of survey to the city

[Stephen Johnson]

The power of a monopoly and uncontrolled spending of OPM (Other People's Money).

Found out today when I purchased a new battery for my truck. I paid cash at costco the bill was Batt $85 core charge $9 tax $7.52. I had my core so the clerk immediately refunded my $9 core charge - Uh what about the sales tax? By law they have to charge sales tax on a core charge but by State law that sales tax is NOT refundable.

Can anybody call them anything but greedy crooks.

I just heard about this. Apparently zero punishment http://www.wnd.com/2007/03/40845/

Your link shows a crook who needs to spend some time in Leavenworth or some other similar facility.

[land butcher]

Your link shows a crook who needs to spend some time in Leavenworth or some other similar facility.

She was reelected instead.

Love the media, only took 6 years for me to hear about this.

[MikeTurnrose]

That's outrageous! Like the other poster, I did a LLA in Redwood City a few years back and they wanted a $5000 deposit and I thought that was exorbitant.
I would register a complaint with the appropriate authority.

[land butcher]

That's outrageous! Like the other poster, I did a LLA in Redwood City a few years back and they wanted a $5000 deposit and I thought that was exorbitant.
I would register a complaint with the appropriate authority.

And that would be who?

I personally complained to a city manager once about exorbitant fees for coping tie notes, I guess he was bored that day, he sat and listened never said a word.

[Dhanrion]

because, having invested most of my career in the "other western states", I had grown accustomed to fees that did not EXCEED the product costs. <rolls eyes>

Ultimately, though, it was not my call to formerly complain (like, to who? By and large, it's the "fox watching the hen house" deal in most of metro CA). The client was responsible for the application, review, and recording fees. At least they felt like they were getting a good deal from me!

[E_Page]

Submit the RS to the County for review. After map is filed with the county, provide a copy to the City as a courtesy. Tell them "No charge for you because I'm a community minded professional" (implication that will probably be lost on them is that by attempting to charge fees like that, they are neither community minded nor professional).

If they "inform" you that you must submit the map to them, produce a copy of the PLSA and inform them of the procedure and in whom authority lies with regard to records of survey. then ask them to provide you with a copy of the statute (not ordinance, which has no effect without a statute providing for the authority the ordinance presumes) that provides for City review of records of survey.


I hope no counties are that criminal with their map review fees. Fees like that would be one reason that compliance with recording laws would be low. It would also be a reason why consumers would turn to unlicensed "surveyors" and licensed surveyors willing to ignore the law.

I can just imagine how it would play out during a follow up call on a proposal.

"Hello, this is Dudley Doright of Straightline Surveying. I was wondering if you had a chance to look at our proposal for the survey we discussed last week?"

"Ha! Straightline?! More like Crooked Curve or Straighline to the Bank Surveys! I went with Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe because their price was 1/3 of yours, you crook!"

"1/3? Did they include a record of survey with that proposal?"

"All I want is my lines staked. I don't care about a map if it's going to cost me as much as a good used car. What's so hard about drawing a map anyway? You must be making a killing off all the idiots who hire you!"

"Actually, the local government map checking fee is..."

"Save it for some other sucker." Click.

"... is killing my business."

[land butcher]

Submit the RS to the County for review. After map is filed with the county, provide a copy to the City as a courtesy. Tell them "No charge for you because I'm a community minded professional" (implication that will probably be lost on them is that by attempting to charge fees like that, they are neither community minded nor professional).

If they "inform" you that you must submit the map to them, produce a copy of the PLSA and inform them of the procedure and in whom authority lies with regard to records of survey. then ask them to provide you with a copy of the statute (not ordinance, which has no effect without a statute providing for the authority the ordinance presumes) that provides for City review of records of survey.


I hope no counties are that criminal with their map review fees. Fees like that would be one reason that compliance with recording laws would be low. It would also be a reason why consumers would turn to unlicensed "surveyors" and licensed surveyors willing to ignore the law.

I can just imagine how it would play out during a follow up call on a proposal.

"Hello, this is Dudley Doright of Straightline Surveying. I was wondering if you had a chance to look at our proposal for the survey we discussed last week?"

"Ha! Straightline?! More like Crooked Curve or Straighline to the Bank Surveys! I went with Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe because their price was 1/3 of yours, you crook!"

"1/3? Did they include a record of survey with that proposal?"

"All I want is my lines staked. I don't care about a map if it's going to cost me as much as a good used car. What's so hard about drawing a map anyway? You must be making a killing off all the idiots who hire you!"

"Actually, the local government map checking fee is..."

"Save it for some other sucker." Click.

"... is killing my business."

How true.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

I don't know about City Parcel Map fees but there is a basis for someone to take on Counties that illegally charge by the hour for R/S map checking fees. I guess no one wants to take it on. CLSA could find a willing plaintiff and fund the lawsuit as a public service.

"8766.5. Record of survey
-
examination fee
The county surveyor may charge a reasonable fee for examining a record of survey pursuant to Section 8766 which shall not exceed the cost of the service or one hundred dollars ($100), whichever is the lesser. However, this one hundred dollars ($100) maximum fee may be increased by the board of supervisors if such an increase is authorized by a duly adopted ordinance and the ordinance was adopted pursuant to a staff report demonstrating that the cost of providing the examination service actually exceeds one hundred dollars ($100) per record of survey."

I interpret that as meaning they have to designate a maximum fee, it can't be a blank check but in many Counties it is.

Of course the Legislative Committee could take on getting the Statute changed to designate a maximum fee with no exceptions, maybe increase it to some number.

[Jim Frame]

I interpret that as meaning they have to designate a maximum fee, it can't be a blank check but in many Counties it is.

The way Yolo County (and probably others) handled this is by specifying the fee on a per-sheet rather than per-ROS basis. That way they have a reasonable chance of getting full reimbursement without contravening the statute.

Sac County, on the other hand, is always a gamble. I'm waiting on one now, wondering how much it's going to end up costing. I'm fixed-fee with my client, so every dollar the county takes is a dollar I don't get.

.

[land butcher]

These are the kinds of fees that drive developers to other jurisdictions, box stores like Costco and Walmart negotiate fees before they commit to a location, so the loss of revenue is burdened on the local landowners.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Well sure, sales taxes from a big box retailer are the coveted thing.

Race to the bottom, baby, meanwhile screw the local citizens.

I would like to see CLSA do something useful for a change (besides wasting my membership money on private boundary lawsuits because of chapter politics). Map checking fees is an obvious thing for CLSA to take on; private boundary lawsuits? NO NO NO NO NO NO!!! (chatsworth)

[VANCE]

Well sure, sales taxes from a big box retailer are the coveted thing.

Race to the bottom, baby, meanwhile screw the local citizens.

I would like to see CLSA do something useful for a change (besides wasting my membership money on private boundary lawsuits because of chapter politics). Map checking fees is an obvious thing for CLSA to take on; private boundary lawsuits? NO NO NO NO NO NO!!! (chatsworth)

I second that motion

[MikeTurnrose]

I third that idea from Dave.

This has been a statewide problem with land surveyors for many, many years.

[btaylor]

Related to this, my usual county, San Mateo County, is awesome, but a couple of adjoining counties seem to be unable out a digital copy of my ROS once it is recorded and scanned. I really think the cost of the map checking should include getting the .tif image later.

[Dhanrion]

Related to this, my usual county, San Mateo County, is awesome, but a couple of adjoining counties seem to be unable out a digital copy of my ROS once it is recorded and scanned. I really think the cost of the map checking should include getting the .tif image later.

they were outliers compared to surrounding communities. And it does not get cheaper the further one ventures away from the metro areas.

I deal with several of rural counties in filing RoS for the Forest Service. The RoS review is a T&M review by private PLS who are contracted by the County. There is usually a minimum $500 deposit. The low to date has been a $850 review fee. The high to date: over $2600.

A weak defense is that these surveys are NOT typically simple: they often cross the "old" state line (or the "new" state line as well), dealing with elongated and irregular townships/sections. However, I still believe that $1000's is a pretty steep price for what basically amounts to a "peer review".

The Forest Service already invests $1000's in internal peer review, typically at least two other PLS have had input prior to final mapping. And if we contracted the Forest Service RoS, there has been at least three PLS (contractor, two Forest PLS) review it prior to submittal to the County, where a 4th PLS reviews it! (talk about the Mother of All Reviews). As you can imagine, the submitted RoS maps have little to no comments/revisions from the County.

At least we do receive (upon request) a copy ... sometimes even digital!

[Jim Frame]

I really think the cost of the map checking should include getting the .tif image later.

I don't know if it's formal policy or not, but whenever I file a ROS in Sacramento County, they send me a tif after it gets filed.

.

[hellsangle]

I tenth Karoly's idea . . . fixed fee for R/S.

But let's go a little "abstract". The fees throughout the State are varied as snakes in the grass. Lets make the R/S fees throughout the state be $10,000 for each and every Record of Survey.

Then . . . and only then, will the common-sense idea of: Surveyor to Recorder get some serious thought.

The aforementioned "government" is liken the HMO's rising costs . . . and generous compensation packages mentioned in yesterday's Chronicle (http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/mati ... 380998.php) . . . just pass it on . . . until we can no longer afford to meet the exactions of some bloated government agencies and HMOs (the latter whom are not "Non Profit"! BTW) . . . then everyone will work for government. But who will pay?

Phil - Sonoma

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Phil-
Real wages are still going down. That is the real source of most our problems you don't hear about on the Corporate owned Infortainment Networks. Cutting the Federal Budget severely just makes the problem worse. Most Middle Classers look around at their fellow Middle Classers and say, "cut him too!" That makes the Middle Class share of incomes and wealth go down even more.

If we had the political will to rise up and force a solution to the distribution of wealth problem (too much at the top and growing) then that would solve a lot of problems including unemployment, budget deficit (broader tax base), declining wages, growing numbers of people who can't pay their bills, on and on.

-Dave