Santa Clara Co RS Fee Increase

[DWoolley]

I would bet that there is actually much more agreement than disagreement. There are outlying folks like Dave, who appears to think literally every topo they do needs to have their own RoS done for it.
...
Its much like the "silent majority" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority). Its one of the reasons that I continue to post on this forum and engage. I think it is beneficial to help provide a counter point to the ivory tower thinking that is so often preached in public spaces. Consider the views on the "stinkin surveyor" thread. 8 posters, 77 replies, 12,950 views. If it was just the 8 folks posting, viewing each new post, it would be 8 X 77 = 616 views. Of course there are some repeat views, when someone looks at the thread even if no new post was made, but thats still thousands of views by none posters.
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Mikey,

You have presented a disingenuous argument and, in doing so, have wasted my time. I had assumed you were engaging in good faith. Frankly, I am disappointed in myself for having responded earnestly to your posts. I have written extensively in this thread and the one you referenced, and upon re-reading both, I find no instance where I stated that every topographic map requires a record of survey. In fact, I explicitly wrote otherwise:

I purposefully did not answer the questions because they have no bearing the duty owed and I was trying to avoid the misdirection rabbit hole. I will answer the questions, but it should not distract from my previous statements.
Q: Do you accept that someone else's RoS can be good enough that you do not need to file a new RoS after doing a field survey?
A: I am [nobody is] not obligated to file a record of survey unless one of the triggers in 8762 are tripped. However, I can file a record of survey anytime I choose.

This is not a matter of personal conflict. In the prior thread, another professional asked you—clearly and repeatedly—for a direct answer, and you consistently deflected.

Regarding your reference to thread viewership numbers: your claim is inaccurate. The forum receives significant traffic from automated bots and crawlers, which artificially inflate view counts. While Central Office has implemented software to limit this activity, its effect appears to be temporary or limited in scope. Reviewing older threads makes it clear that the idea of a quarter-million readers is implausible.

While I do not have access to exact data, my estimate is that approximately 150 individuals follow this forum with any regularity. A simple test is to examine view counts on posted materials: for example, Clark’s topographic map—the subject of the previous thread—has received fewer than 100 views.

Given your willingness to mischaracterize my clearly documented position, I see no reason to continue this exchange. To clarify—once again—I have never stated that every topographic map or a site plan requires a record of survey. The land surveyor has an obligation to perform an "accurate boundary" would restate the CBC, the minimum ALTA details, the minimum standard of care and finally, my position. Any fair-minded reader, upon reviewing this thread or the previous one you referenced, can see that for themselves. Your distortion would not hold up to even casual scrutiny.

DWoolley

[PLS7393]

I think that this thread is no longer about the topic of Santa Clara County Record of Survey Fees.

Jay Wright

What more do you expect on this forum Jay? Certain members . . . (Left turn Clyde!!!)

Tonight's Chapter meeting should be entertaining, and from the Fee Study, it looks like all of this was developed by a Matrix Consulting Group?
I wonder how they came up with the numbers, and hopefully the County Surveyor can clarify, but I'm not counting on it.

[jamesh1467]

I would bet that there is actually much more agreement than disagreement.

Record map retracement.

I think that this thread is no longer about the topic of Santa Clara County Record of Survey Fees.

Jay Wright

What more do you expect on this forum Jay? Certain members . . . (Left turn Clyde!!!)

These are realistically the same discussion. One of the biggest things that baffles me is that everyone fails to see that. Higher prices due to "cost of compliance" chip away at the likelihood of compliance, which in turn chips away at the integrity of the profession. Its the same reason that when governments mandate new laws they turn around and provide free funding for everyone to come into compiance with that law.

The Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act lead to CMAQ funding and a lot of other water program funding mechanisms.
The ADA came about at the same time the STBG fund came out.
Theres a ton of other little things. Drought mitigation funding in California, to go along with the drought policies, etc.

When you mandate compliance without providing funding for compliance (or an economic incetive to comply) people either stop using the service or they don't comply with the law. No money incentives, no compliance, and anyone who doesn't follow that is just plain stupid because someone else will follow basic market principles and take business from them.

Its all the same conversation. I mean, you all talked about it from the beginning of the thread. We just expect people to be willing to pay an extra thousand dollars when the surveyor down the street will claim to interpret the law slightly differently and take their chances with the board to get out of an ROS filing? Like I know 2 in Santa Clara myself that will do that and undercut everyone. The county just gave them business and the only way you will catch them is if you come across an ALTA or something that they do for the project. Its pretty low risk to undercut everyone in high-density areas because things dont get filed with people in a government agency who have the ability to catch that an ROS should have been done for a lot of the work done compared to a low density county where a lot of the work done is related to modifying land and title boundaries itself. (we rebuild buildings a lot more in high density areas without modification of parcel line, whereas we create new building's that require parcel line modification in low-density areas) Again, its all the same conversation.

You made a competition within the standard of care for surveyors about when and when you do not file a record of survey, without having a clearly defined and agreed-upon standard of care. That means people are incentivized to compete within the standard of care itself to win business from each other. And that price increase just ramped up that competition incentive big time. It will tear our standard of care apart even worse than it already is and its not like we have an amazing framework to resolve any of those standard of care disputes. SME's and admin judges? You expect them to make those calls consistently and fairly without the community coming together and telling them how we want those calls to be made with a written document? Its all the same discussion. It really is.

Although I will admit, map fees are a little different because if you split the lot, you should have the money to pay the fees in whatever county you are in, because the fees for that should be tied to property value. And you theoretically gain the same proportional value as the county you are in with the map filing and the creation of the new lot. Plus you literally can't get the new lot without paying the fees for the map and it doesnt put the surveyor on the hook. If landowners want to fight it they can fight it themselves and they will fight it without any surveyor input anyway. (It doesnt create competition within the standard of care because its fairly applied to every surveyor, is what I am saying, there's no judgement call on the surveyor's part. you want a map, you pay the fee, that simple.

[Mike Mueller]

A simple test is to examine view counts on posted materials: for example, Clark’s topographic map—the subject of the previous thread—has received fewer than 100 views.

Thats a nice way to check. Thanks for sharing that.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[kwilson]

What prevents a surveyor from combining several parcel surveys on one Record of Survey as long as they have measured tie lines connecting them?

[Jay Wright]

Hi Ken:
I have seen a few and probably can direct you to them if you reach out to me. The ones I have seen may not have shown all of the parcels as initially surveyed within the 90 day requirement but better late than never.

[Jay Wright]

Can anyone direct me to the easiest way to find the ROS fee by County. My google fu is weak today but I recall the leg. com. addressed standardizing the fee.
Please and Thank you
Jay

[Jim Frame]

What prevents a surveyor from combining several parcel surveys on one Record of Survey as long as they have measured tie lines connecting them?

Or even without any connections. The attached PDF is one I did in 1996. 2 of the surveyed parcels were for the same client, but the parcels aren't connected. The other parcels were surveyed for a different client, but were close enough in time and proximity that it made sense to include them on the map to save on county fees (which at the time were what now seems like the bargain price of $200).

If there are any legal restrictions to doing this, they didn't occur to either the CS or me at the time.

[kwilson]

Thanks Jim

I have done it before but only where lots were close by each other.

[CBarrett]

We have two competing interests at play.
One is to promote filing of more RS's, the other is to have those same RS's be of quality.

We need to look into ways to balance these two. Significantly higher volume of low quality surveys are likely to tax county resources.
Significant fee increases to recover the cost is in turn likely to discourage the filings.

How do we balance these?

Maybe we have lower fees for "mylar request on the first check" type submittals. Cost recovery could kick in on the second check, if deemed necessary - give the cunty surveyor the ability to wave it for good performers.

Offer "certified submitter" recognition or a discount for those trusted surveyors who consistently provide a good product.

Offer "pre check" consultation, and ensure that the actual submittals are complete and ready for checking. If not, suggest a consultation with JPPC or a third party review with a "certified submitter".

Education and outreach: Certified submitters could hold seminars. County surveyor could recommend the seminars for those who are struggling. They can even be online videos. "What do we check for" "How to get your RS recorded quickly and inexpensively."

Give more feedback to low performers - not the map checker level feedback, but... this may be complicated, think of LA Restaurants and their "A" "B" "C" level grades from, I think this is a health department. Maybe not everything has to be a board citation, it could be as simple as a mild notice from, maybe a state JPPLC or similar that "hey, you are consistently behind, and it happens a lot" frame it as "how can we help you improve and reduce costs to the public" with a note it is all of ours responsibility to ensure our products are priced reasonably, on the side of what we charge to the client, and on the side of how many publicly paid resources are required to check your map.

Do we have a good handle on the volume of low performers, and what kind of an increase in filings we would have if the fees are lower? Not just one or two anecdotal instances, but across the state? If not maybe some more research is in order before we push a remedy? When I hear these discussions, I hear a lot of final decisions, but not what those decisions are based on.

I manage a department where I am, among other things, in charge of contract checking for two counties (RS's, and subdivision maps), and we check 100-300 maps per year. Our reality doesn't always align with the discussions I see on the forums.

[jamesh1467]

We have two competing interests at play.
One is to promote filing of more RS's, the other is to have those same RS's be of quality.

We need to look into ways to balance these two. Significantly higher volume of low quality surveys are likely to tax county resources.
Significant fee increases to recover the cost is in turn likely to discourage the filings.

How do we balance these?

Maybe we have lower fees for "mylar request on the first check" type submittals. Cost recovery could kick in on the second check, if deemed necessary - give the cunty surveyor the ability to wave it for good performers.

Offer "certified submitter" recognition or a discount for those trusted surveyors who consistently provide a good product.

Offer "pre check" consultation, and ensure that the actual submittals are complete and ready for checking. If not, suggest a consultation with JPPC or a third party review with a "certified submitter".

Education and outreach: Certified submitters could hold seminars. County surveyor could recommend the seminars for those who are struggling. They can even be online videos. "What do we check for" "How to get your RS recorded quickly and inexpensively."

Give more feedback to low performers - not the map checker level feedback, but... this may be complicated, think of LA Restaurants and their "A" "B" "C" level grades from, I think this is a health department. Maybe not everything has to be a board citation, it could be as simple as a mild notice from, maybe a state JPPLC or similar that "hey, you are consistently behind, and it happens a lot" frame it as "how can we help you improve and reduce costs to the public" with a note it is all of ours responsibility to ensure our products are priced reasonably, on the side of what we charge to the client, and on the side of how many publicly paid resources are required to check your map.

Do we have a good handle on the volume of low performers, and what kind of an increase in filings we would have if the fees are lower? Not just one or two anecdotal instances, but across the state? If not maybe some more research is in order before we push a remedy? When I hear these discussions, I hear a lot of final decisions, but not what those decisions are based on.

I manage a department where I am, among other things, in charge of contract checking for two counties (RS's, and subdivision maps), and we check 100-300 maps per year. Our reality doesn't always align with the discussions I see on the forums.

These are good ideas and worthy of discussion/experimentation.

[David Kendall]

Maybe we have lower fees for "mylar request on the first check" type submittals. Cost recovery could kick in on the second check, if deemed necessary - give the cunty surveyor the ability to wave it for good performers.

Please add my name to the “low performers” list….
Sign me up for the survey filing lesson

[David Kendall]

You made a competition within the standard of care for surveyors about when and when you do not file a record of survey, without having a clearly defined and agreed-upon standard of care.

It has turned into a game where the first thing we do when we get a survey request is try to outsmart the 8762

[CBarrett]

Maybe we have lower fees for "mylar request on the first check" type submittals. Cost recovery could kick in on the second check, if deemed necessary - give the cunty surveyor the ability to wave it for good performers.

Please add my name to the “low performers” list….
Sign me up for the survey filing lesson

Why would you say that? What did I miss?

[Scott]

"certified submitter", I like it!

[David Kendall]

Please add my name to the “low performers” list….
Sign me up for the survey filing lesson

Why would you say that? What did I miss?

It was tongue in cheek. I do not typically have any problem getting a survey filed and I honestly appreciate your suggestions however the general idea that county government has the capacity to assess performance, then operate and maintain such a list is farcical. Especially in the more rural counties but I have not seen a great deal of extra bandwidth to support QA/QC in any of them.

Furthermore I submit that inconsistency between reviewers is part of the problem. What is acceptable and appreciated in one county (or one cubicle in the same county) may not fly in the next, the goalposts move.

I really think the survey filing system is broken and the solution is either to remove the 8762 filing requirement completely or remove the exorbitant costs associated with filing (which means streamlining the survey submittal and review process). In my mind this is a big component of the deregulation discussion. If common folk are unable to afford a boundary survey due to bureaucratic costs then something has to give and it is disingenuous to blame it all on the capabilities of submitting surveyors (although I must acknowledge that the abundance of cheap/poor quality boundary establishment is also a big component of the deregulation discussion).

I understand that you are working for a private company as a map review contractor so there may be a disconnect between what you do and the reality of public service... Please correct me if I am mistaken

The inability of some county governments to maintain a full time staffer in the county government seat is a glaring indicator of dereliction. Your mileage may vary

[jamesh1467]

……

All valid points. I will mention again that other states have removed this and allow you to go straight to the recorder. But you will find over time there is clear trade off of the accuracy of the maps. But for ROS i think it’s a valid discussion. Better to have a map than not a map. It would allow the board to crackdown on not filling because it reduces the burden on surveyors to file (plus I’m a believer that every boundary survey should be required to have some kind of plat associated with it, so realistically this should just be a small filing fee to record work already done in my mind…..that’s my ideal standard of care although I don’t always hold to it in this state because I don’t have to)

I don’t think it is for maps that create parcels however. That needs a review process.

I also like this because it’s a step forward in elevating the license. In a future where everyone “thinks” they know their boundaries, this gives value to hiring a surveyor and reduces the burden on local governments. In effect, a licensed surveyor would become the county surveyor to allow for more everyday surveyor work that can be done at a lower price and burden to the consumer. While at the same time allowing county surveyors to focus their time reviewing maps that create parcels that need a second opinion to ensure their accuracy. It’s a win win and the only real risk is that surveyors produce maps that are less accurate that hold no real weight anyway and another surveyor could override and file a conflicting ROS if they disagree.

Also I would note that in order for the profession to survive the housing shortage we have, we need to do everything possible to show that it is easy to create lots/units. Freeing up local governments from the burden of reviewing ROSs so they could focus on maps, llas. Etc would go a long way to helping that effort.