Record of Survey filing fees

[Olin Edmundson]

.

[Lee Hixson]

Olin...

Seems to me that the issue of Jr/Sr rights is indeed one of the things that the CS not only can, but should be checking for:

8764. Record of survey - technical requirement

(d) The relationship to those portions of adjacent tracts, streets, or senior conveyances
which have common lines with the survey.

(g) Any other data necessary for the intelligent interpretation of the various items and
locations of the points, lines, and areas shown

[David Kendall]

I agree with Olin. I don't feel it's the County surveyor's responsibility to analyze or determine an opinion on those things. It is the responsibility of the surveyor who performs the survey. Terms like technically correct and intelligent interpretation and material discrepancy are subjective and open to exploitation on both sides. Paying a county employee to revisit every minute detail of the survey cannot be the intent of the LS Act. I have comments requesting me to place every call (as written) from the vesting deed on the face of the map and referenced to the applicable line (which is not a bad practice necessarily but it shouldn't be a requirement for every map) and comments on the same map dictating fonts and double underlines on my header titles. Also complete rewrites of corner note contents and found monument descriptions occur frequently. Not because they were inadequate but just that the mapchecker likes it better their way. This is why our clients are paying $100+ per hour to the County. Some of us might like some discretion over the content and style of our maps. Maybe the County should be performing all of the surveys and we could all just work for them and cut out the middle men...

[Warren Smith]

I gotta say that, with some sumittals, I feel obligated to question the methodology for the protection of both the surveyor and his or her client. Mostly it is resolved with additional notes addressing alternate locations and the reasoning behind rejecting them.
Certainly the ultimate liability is that of the signatory, but a sparsely documented RS is unecessarily adding to potential confusion down the road.

[mpallamary]

How do you handle a County Surveyor who decided not to check a Record of Survey because he decides it is within his discretion to do nothing, claiming he has no duty to the survey community or the public?

[Warren Smith]

That sounds like anathema to my take on RS review.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

The way I read it the county can charge by the hour up to $100 maximum or specify some other maximum amount. Most hourly counties don't specify a maximum amount.

[Olin Edmundson]

.

[Warren Smith]

How do you handle a County Surveyor who decided not to check a Record of Survey because he decides it is within his discretion to do nothing, claiming he has no duty to the survey community or the public?

Michael,

In order to answer your question more directly, the County Surveyor as an appointed officer of the County serves at the will (or pleasure) of the Board of Supervisors. Although the office holder usually reports to a Department head (or in some cases, is a Department head), a public policy issue as it relates to duties to the survey community or the public is within the purview of the elected officials.

Having been on "both sides of the public counter", I am acutely aware of the balance between efficiency and the preservation of consistent and competent maps. Although drastic, correspondence with the Supervisor of your district will incur some investigative communication within the Department.

In my very humble opinion, a County Surveyor should be a leader in survey issues and, hopefully, has the background and experience to do so.

[mpallamary]

Thanks Warren! You are correct. How does this response look relative to a map with dozens of typos and problems regarding a case that was litigated and resolved and the the surveyor who lost the lawsuit that went all the way up to a published decision? How is this for a response to questions about recording an ROS over a property that was litigated and the boundaries fixed. This is a response to my questions about doing that:

"I am confused. Although I am the County Surveyor, you seem to equate that to the role of a “survey sheriff” responsible for the actions of every professionally licensed individual authorized to practice land surveying. I see nothing in the California Codes that mandates my actions as such. I do find Section 8766 of the B&P Code to include a “permissive” only statement as to opinions, methods, or procedures; “Nothing in this section shall limit the county surveyor . . .” It would have been very easy for the California Legislature to add language to the codes making that a mandated function had they so desired; “The county Surveyor shall review the ROS for proper opinions, methods and procedures . . “ With that in mind, I try to stay impartial and fair in allowing the practitioner to express their opinions, show methodologies, and use procedures that sometimes push the envelope of the practice. Only on rare occasions have I added the authorized County Surveyor Note and then only in absolute blatant instances. If you have evidence or court decrees to the expansion of my duties relating to the “sheriff” theory, please share and I will take that under advisement."

"As to the court decrees, I was not intimately involved in the trial or the outcome. I was not approached or given any instructions as to a follow up map. If the judge made certain findings that should have been included in the revised ROS, I left that up to the practitioner. Shame on him if he didn’t follow the judge’s instructions or decree. As with everything we do, I believe if you personally have issues with his map, you can file a ROS explaining your position and the discrepancies you’ve found. You can also file a complaint with the Board."

"With regard to the extraordinary number of typographical and grammatical errors, there comes a point when I and staff get fed up with reviewing maps that have literally been thrown over the fence for submittal and we are treated as the internal quality control for the surveyor. Occasionally, we have allow them to be recorded as-is. This is one example and it’s pleasing to know that you finally get to experience what we have to deal with on a daily basis. This is one of the many factors that drive the average cost up for review on all maps."

?

[David Kendall]

Michael I'll trade your guy for ours in a heartbeat. Then you can have all of the highly detail oriented and sensible boundary comments such as: "Remove the space between Cal and Trans" or "You may have too many commas in your notary acknowledgment. I will have to call the county recorder to verify it"...

I share Warren's humble opinion about leadership, backgound and experience. What happens when that guy is unavailable and the nearest warm county employee is shoved into that role with a blank check and authorization to review maps? Do you really want a survey sheriff regardless of their qualifications?

[Warren Smith]

Michael,

At the risk of airing dirty laundry, the CS's response does have some validity. While he may have gone overboard - particularly with the last paragraph - he is, in the main, on the right track.

As it happens, there come times when adjacent surveys do not meet at a common retraced boundary. The absence of original controlling monuments, and the professional opinions as to reestablishment sometimes differ. When reviewing a first submittal, it is not always apparent that there may an alternate location, hence no alarm that would trigger a CS Statement regarding disagreement. If a subsequent submittal reveals a reasonable approach using a viable retracement method, but resulting in a different location, it presents a bit of a dilemma for a CS. As section 8768 dictates, "shall attempt to reach agreement with the county surveyor regarding the language for the explanation of the differences."

What your CS is alluding to is the fact that the differences are between the two submitting surveyors. Provided that sufficient notation appears on the RS (something along the lines of a Survey Narrative), it then becomes documented for purposes of sorting out the issues at play in the proper venue.

CS notes tend to be in the manner of 'red flagging' egregious retracement procedures, and comes into play when the submitting surveyor demands that the RS be filed.


And Dave,

Yep - there is that balancing act. You can research filed maps up and down the State to see jurisdictional "flavors".

[mpallamary]

Sadly, in this case there are going to be more problems...

[Olin Edmundson]

.

[Lee Hixson]

Olin Edmundson...

"Lee- I would interpret 8764(d) to be a “spatial” relationship. Is the line surveyed adjoining a tract, show this tract, is it adjoining a street, show the street. As we know, for an absolute determination of seniority, chains of title with all adjoiners would need to be reviewed. Is this happening? Should it be?"
Yes.

[Warren Smith]

Olin,

You may have a point about Mike's CS not asking for a Court order as backup material when checking the later RS. I would hope that, other than misspellings, my review comments are geared toward a collaborative effort to effectively portray a complicated presentation of issues.

The run of the mill RS doesn't require much effort to review. But, boy howdy, there are those that make up for it!

It almost sounds like a two-tier fee schedule would be workable, but I don't think the statutory scheme is set up for that. Local ordinances provide for a justifiable increase in the maximum set by 8766.5. It may be worth exploring means of pre-determining those maps which trigger a higher fee. Surely that is what the hourly rate schedules are attempting to do.


Lee,

One of the common elements of this thread is that the submitting surveyor is responsible (read: liable) for his or her work product. Proper boundary analysis is imperative when filing an RS. It is not just inconsistency in how CSs review maps, but the quality of submittals as well.

[Warren Smith]

Olin,

I should expand on my earlier comments. I was pointing out that it's a two-way street with records of survey. While there is a minimum standard of checklist items, many retracements cry out for extensive notes. You seem to be pushing for a hands-off review, and there are too many pitfalls with just rubber-stamping maps.

The context of a CS Note disagreeing with methodology is when the submitting surveyor insists on filing the map in disregard to cautionary comments from (hopefully) a seasoned CS.

[David Kendall]

My perspective is that in the absence of other effective enforcement scenarios, County Surveyors are left holding the reigns to encourage competency of maps and discourage dereliction of duty by licensed surveyors. This should not be their role. The map review should be cursory and inexpensive and the comments should be suggestions and not mandates or threats. I feel that we should be policing ourselves as professionals and in the event that we are not then the licensing board steps in to take appropriate action (which ought to be a form of us policing ourselves via peer support). The recordation of inadequate maps by the CS in Michael's example should be a huge waving red flag for an enforcement investigation on the surveyor who submitted the map. This scenario would encourage defensible mapping and survey procedure.

I humbly submit this situation as a poorly functioning system for legislative committee action. Giving one surveyor in each county authority over the work of their fellows regardless of qualification can lead to abuse, political power struggles and resentment across the board which will create stress, exacerbate the problems we are having now and further discourage filing of Records of Survey. If we are already seeking ways to avoid filing maps (don't call a surveyor to find your fenceline, call a mediator; or try not to set any monuments when you go out in the field), then there is indication of a crisis developing, in my opinion. These qualified individuals that Warren describes as the ideal CS will be harder to find going forward which is great news for some of us who are beginning our careers (high demand for competent surveyors = plenty of work and big bucks!!) but it is a huge complication for the legislative infrastructure we have in place right now. Ultimately, we cannot legislate morality.

[Warren Smith]

David,

Good points, all.

One solution in place for several areas is a Professional Practices Committee of the local chapter of CLSA. This is a peer review group with the appropriate CS as an ex officio member. This allows for community based self "policing", and tends to diminish arrogance on the part of appointed officials.

The enforcement unit of the Board of Registration stresses that there is a limit to this local activity, however. Discretion and tact are the keywords in communication with the perceived non-compliance by a submitting surveyor. Hearing from a local committee is much less daunting than a formal request from Sacramento (unless that is the area in which you practice).

[Olin Edmundson]

.

[mpallamary]

In my opinion, the greatest service a County Surveyor can provide the community is as an overseer as to surrounding activity. I have always relied on the CS to let me know if there is another survey in the works as well as what problems, if any, exist in any given area. What might be beneficial is to develop an outline of suggested activities a CS should undertake. There is no consistency out there and consequently, the public suffers. In the end, are we not all beholden to the community?

[Warren Smith]

Michael,

In light of the recently adopted section 8725.1 of PLSA, County Surveyors are de facto designated persons in responsible charge of professional land surveying activities practiced by the local agency. One of the paramount functions is that of monument preservation. Working with the designated department civil engineer (6730.2(c) of PEAct) to ensure that repaving projects tie out and reset existing monuments; that permitting officials condition encroachment permit work and site improvements to preserve existing monuments - and to document that work.

And, yes section 8762(d)(2) speaks to information relating to adjacent surveys being performed by others to be provided to the CS if it may affect or be affected by that survey.

[Anthony Maffia]

For reference:

8725.1. It is the intent of the Legislature that the licensure requirements that are imposed upon private sector professional land surveyors and land surveying partnerships, firms, or corporations shall be imposed upon the state and any city, county, city and county, district, and special district that shall adhere to those requirements. Therefore, for the purposes of Section 8725 and this chapter, at least one person authorized to practice land surveying shall be designated the person in responsible charge of professional land surveying work practiced in any department or agency of the state, city, county, city and county, district, or special district.

[Olin Edmundson]

.

[mpallamary]

One of the underlying problems, I see, involves two things. First, no matter how much we weight a Record of Survey, it does not impart constructive notice and that remains a problem. I have long advocated a newer document, elevated to a level that does impart constructive notice that is thoroughly vetted, reviewed and given the weight it should be afforded. Second, and this comment is not intended to disparage anyone, but I have been doing this for 44 years and I have watched the quality of reviews by County Surveyors vary and ultimately, diminish. I have worked with several CSs in Southern California and some have taken great pride in their review and the focus of their efforts. I remember when they didn't cost anything to file other than the recording fee. In time, as the counties saw these as a revenue stream, they started charging and then increasing fees while concurrently, the quality of the review went down. Over the last few years, I have seen some very pathetic maps filed. I, perhaps, have a unique perspective as I work up and down the state and I am called upon to review a lot of projects and surveys on behalf of insurance companies and attorneys. I believe this problem is endemic and is a product of government apathy and a blatant misuse of public funds. Every time I question a CS as to why he or she did something, they explain that they aren't really paid to look at these things - hey, this is what the law says and that's all I have to do!

I am hopeful that the recent revisions to the PLSA regarding the duties of the CS and other government employees will right the ship. Again, I want to emphasize that my comments are not intended to cast a blanket criticism over everyone. There are some who do a great job and they care about what they are doing. Their involvement is manifested by their willingness to engage in a dialogue along with their desire to better the system. None of us should be above criticism and all of us should be concerned about this problem. Once again, this is an issue CLSA should be looking into. The organization can start by opening up the County Surveyor segment of the forum so that others can weigh in.