Discussion on Changes to Monument Preservation Fund Laws

[Mike Mueller]

I am not sure what others experience with the Monument Preservation Fund (MPF) process has been like, but from my experience it has been quite a benefit to our community, paying for projects that no land owner would. Locally it was used to retrace the Kingsbury Line which was the meander line between Sonoma/Napa County (https://www.adobeinc.com/retracing-sono ... -boundary/). It has also been used on many smaller projects like resetting section lines or rancho corners.

The issue I have with the law is that it is limited to the retracement or remonumenting of lines IE an actual physical survey, when I feel it should encompass a broader view of what preserving a monument means. Small digression here, but I think its important to bring up the idea that a monument is only as good as its pedigree. The difference between a goat stake and a boundary monument is knowing how it was set. Knowing what to look for and having a piece of evidence that you can cite to prove that that found monument represents the position you claim is important.

I think it would provide a positive step if we changed the MPF law to reflect the need to preserve pedigree as well as the physical monument.

The current law is this CA Govt Code § 27584 : https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government ... ect-27584/
The board may establish a survey monument preservation fund to pay the necessary expenses incurred or authorized by the county surveyor in any retracement or remonument survey of major historical land division lines upon which later surveys are based, such as, but not limited to, government section lines, rancho lines, grant lines, rancho section lines, acreage subdivision lot lines, and subdivision boundary lines within such county.

The county surveyor may authorize a city engineer to perform such surveys within subject city or may contract with any surveyor in private practice to perform such surveys. When a city engineer or contract surveyor performs such surveys, he shall submit notes of such surveys to the county surveyor. Such notes shall be of the quality and size as may be necessary to conform to the standardized office records of the county surveyor. The county surveyor shall prepare a map of the survey and make such map a part of his public records within 90 days after completion of his fieldwork.


My first attempt at changing it is here:
The board may establish a survey monument preservation fund to pay the necessary expenses incurred or authorized by the county surveyor in any retracement or remonument survey of historical boundary lines upon which later surveys are based, such as, but not limited to, government section lines, rancho lines, right of way lines, grant lines, and subdivision boundary lines within such county. This fund may also be used to preserve the historical records of any such historical survey, such as, but not limited to, field notes, plats of survey or other unrecorded matierials that contain unique information not in the public record.

The county surveyor may authorize a city engineer to perform such surveys within subject city or may contract with any surveyor in private practice to perform such surveys. When a city engineer or contract surveyor performs such surveys, he shall submit notes of such surveys to the county surveyor. Such notes shall be of the quality and size as may be necessary to conform to the standardized office records of the county surveyor, they shall prepare and file a record of survey in addition to any conditions requested by the county surveyor. The county surveyor shall prepare a map of the survey and make such map a part of his public records within 90 days after completion of his fieldwork.

(this format didn't allow strikethough text for easier review)


The following assumptions have been made about this topic:
1) I feel like each CS will know their community needs better than anyone else so I think its better to remove qualifying terms like "major" since all it will do is make the CS feel obligated to come up with a standard they can defend, which will waste time and create silly situations. I think the situations where a CS would be stopped from "wasting" money on small silly projects by including the qualifying term "major" are zero.

2) In regards to preserving old records, it is assumed that the easier a record is to use, the more it will get used. The more records are used, the better quality of surveying is done. It will be a benefit to the public to have easier access to all the old records. I assume most preservation efforts would entail scanning and indexing ideally with some sort of GIS interface, but I think the law can stay vague and let the local CS approach it how they best see fit.

3) The Marin County acquisition of a collection of records is a nice example of when a relatively small amount of public money can create a long lasting and large benefit to the community. https://www.marincounty.org/main/county ... eys-092315 Not to say that I think the MPF should be used this way every time, but that is the beauty of leaving it up to the discretion of the locals. The interested parties can find some solution that works for them.

Big picture legislatively, I think we should stay focused on the ROS Cost law changes first, and bring this up at a later point. I just wanted to get some thoughts and opinions from this group about the topic, and perhaps to get a pretty well polished version to submit to the Leg Com when the time is right.


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[hellsangle]

Mikey,

Not to hijack your thoughts . . . but . . .

The Marin Chapter would love to see Monument Preservation fee on EVERY DEED! This would help offset the costs related to maintaining/scanning/indexing the the copious survey archives at the California Room Annex of the Marin Library.

Employing Monument Preservation funds for the purchase, maintenance, etc. of historical survey archives - preserves monuments! And it is not an inexpensive endeavor.

Initial cost to purchase those ancient records (which date back to 1850s) was approximately $ 70,000+. Then . . . they had to be housed somewhere. I heard approximately $100,000, (architect/fire department approval, etc.), to house them . . . with monthly rent skyward of $ 5,000! Not to mention the thousands of dollars Marin Chapter members and patrons have donated. (It is rumored one generous benefactor used to donate $ 10,000 per year for scanning and purchasing fire-resistant metal map cases.)

So you can see why we would LOVE to see a Monument Preservation fee on EVERY DEED. Also, It would be nice if other Marin surveyors' archives could be housed in one place and made public. (Although we'd prefer the Map Room be under the supervision and control of the County Surveyor.)

Monument Preservation has resurrected numerous monuments due to these records being made public. (Thank you surveyor, Bill Schroeder!) A stellar example: is the resurrection of 1930s buried RRSs in the centerline of Paradise Drive . . . per a stellar survey performed by Robert Reese in conjunction with the Marin County DPW surveyor John Semerad! Semerad's crew place hand-hole access covers over the points that Reese had ties to.

Sorry to ramble, Mikey!

Have a good weekend, all!

Crazy Phil, again . . .

[D Ryan]

Mike,

You raise some good issues. This is a topic that has been raised before. The uses you suggest for the fund are not a stretch. It does tend to circle back to removing the deed exemption to bolster the fund, rather than expand the uses.

My fear is the fund will be rapidly depleted once you open it up to more allowable uses. I would ask you to consider if such a law (the original one) could conceivably be passed in this day and age. I suspect it would have zero chance. It's treading on dangerous ground once you start messing with it.

Sure, there is language that seems somewhat limiting, but I would say there's already some wiggle room, and would go further in saying some counties have already used it for funding their GIS or purchasing computers and survey trucks. That's not my imagination. I'd like to see it reserved for projects like you mentioned or whatever the local surveying community identifies as the need, in collaboration with (and some oversight of) the County Surveyor.

I seem to recall a prior attempt at removing the deed exemption was opposed by realtors' organizations. I'm not so sure we should be in fear of them.

Once you go down that road of expanding the uses, it may be tough finding a U-turn.

It's worth a discussion.

Dave Ryan

[Mike Mueller]

Personally I do not want to open up the law that empowered the funding for that reason. If we limit the changes to just 27584 I am hoping that other interested parties will not care as much. Perhaps I am too naive :) To your point Dave, I do not think we could pass this law nowadays. Just look at the politics of SB2, the 75 dollar deed fee. According to the story I heard, the Realtors groups were going to scuttle that law, until they got 4 out of 12 seats at the table that distributes the money. This fund wouldn't be rich enough to spread the wealth like that. As it is written, the CS has a lot of say in how the money is spent, and I doubt we could get that "stringless" of a law passed today.

I also feel like the Monument Preservation Fund (MPF) should not be used as a maintenance fund. Using a revenue stream for maintenance means that revenue can't be used for special projects etc. and I am always fearful of how once a cost is funded by a dedicated source, the "powers that be" often find other uses for the money that was freed up.

On a personal note, the Sonoma County CLSA Historical Records collection was a continual drain on the chapters resources, and it was the cost of rent that hit the hardest, since it always went up, and was a constant drain, regardless of use. If it wasn't for Mike Hogan of Hogan Land Services donating space for the records I am not sure what would have become of them. We are slowly scanning everything, and then the records will likely be donated to a museum or offered up to a personal collector (or whatever else the chapter decides on), since we can't count on free rent forever... Scanned and indexed on a GIS is the best solution I can think of for historical records. The scanning is so great these days that ever the eraser marks are visible and you can see what was erased and redone. The physical maps are nifty, but the information is the key part.

If it was purely up to me I would write into the law that the preservation of records could only be through one time costs of scanning. However once we start writing in hard limitations we are constraining the CS from finding a local solution to their local problems. For example I could see the fund being used to scan, but then when it comes to hosting costs problems come up.

Appreciate the discussion :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

In a records purchasing scenario, how is the value of a private collection assessed? Does the fact a non-profit or public entity is purchasing the records change the value i.e. devalue the records?

It is my understanding that a high percentage of the local Bullseye surveying is completed without accessing the private record collections. If local surveys are completed without the private records, do the records still serve a purpose? Do the private records provide an alternate solution that creates adversity to boundaries completed without the benefit of the private records?

Why not ask for records to be donated and use the monument preservation fund to scan and index the records into a GIS (public or private)? Similar to the records in the Central Valley.

Lastly, what if the private records were to simply disappear, lost to antiquity? Problem solved?

For those that may be unfamiliar, there are private record collections that sell for tens of thousands of dollars. These records came into being when local surveyors did not file records of survey documenting their evidence (for those unacquainted with land surveying evidence of yesteryear - it generally consisted of measured values between multiple monuments, improvements, ties, etc., not a CAD to two monuments) . The records were sold from one generation of land surveyors to another. The financial investment is a barrier to donating the records to the public.

In Orange County we have two private collections (few people know about the third collection). One collection was available to the public by the company that held the records, free of charge. This collection was given to the county in the last decade. The county scanned and geographically indexed the records in their GIS, free of charge to the public. The second private collection was almost exclusive to the City of Laguna Beach. The original creator, someone I knew, told me he didn't file maps because "anyone could come into Laguna and survey". He preferred the exclusivity the records created for his business. I had loosely negotiated the small purchase price for the records - with the intent of turning them over to the county for scanning and indexing - when it looked as though the business would not sell. Graciously, the county said they would scan and index the records into their GIS. At the 11th hour the business was sold for little more than a nice meal and a movie. The new owners are very generous, as was the second owner, in providing access and use of the records for no charge.

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

Do the private records provide an alternate solution that creates adversity to boundaries completed without the benefit of the private records?

Historic private records demonstrate evidence of prior establishment. In a built environment this is critical information. If you do not perform exhaustive research prior to establishing a boundary then you risk the next surveyor finding something you missed.

Is it practical to go around to every depository of private records in the county and pay each individual proprietor for research on every survey? No.

Is it defensible to overlook a set of records intentionally or unintentionally? Probably not. My personal standard is to review the records that I can access. I check everything I can, within reason (and budget). Some of the record keepers charge exorbitant fees. Some don't answer their phone or respond to emails. Some send you email copies of whatever you ask for.

Could it be considered negligent behavior to disregard evidence of prior establishment? Possibly.

I know that I feel more confident when I have a reference for the unfiled map that matches the 75 year old pipes. Right or wrong it is prior establishment and someone may have relied on it.

[Mike Mueller]

It is my understanding that a high percentage of the local Bullseye surveying is completed without accessing the private record collections. If local surveys are completed without the private records, do the records still serve a purpose? Do the private records provide an alternate solution that creates adversity to boundaries completed without the benefit of the private records?

If by Bullseye you mean Bay Area :) then I would say yes, most surveys are done without reliance on unrecorded maps. It is my experience that there are certain areas where unrecorded maps are still very important, mainly because there have been few subdivisions of those areas post 1970 to create a recorded map layer in the stratigraphic survey record. For example Santa Rosa, the county seat in Sonoma County doesn't need unrecorded maps for 99% of the work, since it has been developed post 1970 in most areas. However Camp Meeker had a few original garbage maps that created the lots before the Great Depression and set wood hubs in a redwood forest. After that there was nothing in terms of ordered development, and few if any records of survey. The unrecorded maps of that area are key to understanding where the original wooden hubs were located since the wooden hubs are mostly gone now and the ONLY source of information is unrecorded.

Why not ask for records to be donated and use the monument preservation fund to scan and index the records into a GIS (public or private)? Similar to the records in the Central Valley.

That is what I am advocating for above. Even if the records are left in private ownership, if the County could pay for the scanning and indexing they could get the IP rights to publish them. I personally don't think a hardcopy only unrecorded map is serving the public. However getting time/money to actually scan and index those records is hard. Hence allowing the MPF to be used at the discretion of the CS to help fix that.

I am basing my views on how the Sonoma County CLSA collection of unrecorded maps and records has been used over the years. I have personally spent 100's of hours scanning, indexing and providing the records for free to anyone who ask for them, and generally I ask that the unrecorded maps get included as extra sheets on their survey to ensure that those maps are forever in the survey record. However I am lucky to have the support of my company and community, without which I would not be able to provide the maps that way. Before I was doing this, few folks used these records because of the reasons Kendall raised.

As Kendall pointed out, most folks are limited in time and budget, so if the unrecorded map is behind a paywall, or not locatable within a reasonable time frame, it will not get used. Its why I do my best to provide maps easily and for free so that they actually get used to help clarify the pedigree of the monuments. If the MPF could step in and occasionally pay for a chunk of scanning or indexing that would be a wonderful benefit to our community by raising the minimum standard of care a little higher since it would make research simpler and easier. Look at how Santa Cruz has an unrecorded map layer on its county GIS. That is what I hope all counties can do.

Lastly, what if the private records were to simply disappear, lost to antiquity? Problem solved?

Yes and no. I have had some long soul searching thoughts about this topic.

In support of keeping the records:
I have found that the unrecorded maps are often useful for preventing conflicts since it provides the pedigree for monuments to be known. Knowing that the unrecorded pipe was set in replacement of an original hub stops debate about holding that otherwise uncertain monument. Seeing the map that was used to create a deed provides information on how to retrace it better. See above about raising the standard of care. This prevents debate and confusion in the surveying community which helps us look more professional. If surveyors are debating where to put a boundary we look silly, conflicts should be about the discrepancy between the boundary and occupation/use.

In support of "disappearing" the records:
I view this position as the same the GLO took when they destroyed the original notes to ensure that there was only one version. If the unrecorded records didn't exist then all surveyors would be working with the same set of information, which would be a level playing field. There would be conflicts, but they would be dealt with and litigated going forward with the same foundation of public records. Also some of those records are just garbage that only create more conflict since they represent subpar work done on the cheap. Their minor benefit of proving how worthless they are is outweighed by the confusion and conflict they created.

For those that may be unfamiliar, there are private record collections that sell for tens of thousands of dollars. These records came into being when local surveyors did not file records of survey documenting their evidence (for those unacquainted with land surveying evidence of yesteryear - it generally consisted of measured values between multiple monuments, improvements, ties, etc., not a CAD to two monuments).

Not quite, since most of the useful records represent work that was not actually "record of survey triggering" surveys, but rather done for the deed created lots in the period 1940 through 1972. These maps/job files/field notes show what was actually measured and done by the survey of creation which was used to create the original deed of creation. Which in theory is the holy grail for what to hold when there is any sort of conflict.

The records were sold from one generation of land surveyors to another. The financial investment is a barrier to donating the records to the public.

One solution that I would like to see is a general standard in evidence that if the records are not available publicly for free prior to the time they were used by a Record of Survey they should be inadmissible in court, like hearsay. Provide a date in the future, like 2030 or 2040, for that to take effect and it would allow those who want to utilize those old maps time to get them scanned and available. It would almost be a "taking" from those that have invested time and money in their private map collections, but I think our profession is realizing more and more that local fiefdoms of knowledge are a thing of the past. A timeline like that would let those owners have time to find a way to recoup their expenses and hopefully provide those records to the public.


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

Not having records available through the county or a city is definitely a different culture than what we are used to down here in southern California, at least large chunks of it, thanks to historically proactive county surveyor's offices. Dave can speak on how they managed to afford the funds for it much better than I. If it takes a law for some surveyors to 'clean up their act' and make the information available publicly to all surveyors, as it should be, I'd be all for it.

Unfiled map and records which are necessary for proper location of property boundaries go against the very thing that we are trying to protect, and what we are licensed to do.