California Surveyors Forums

Mr. Kendall,

I will not respond to your fabrications, nor defend words I never uttered.

You have a good day, sir.

Being that I have been on both the public and private side of this poll, I have seen both the good and bad ROS submitted by surveyors. I do not like how this poll is worded so I will not vote!

I do appreciate the CS review, being a one man operation, because I am only human and go make an occasional mistakes (especially at 1 am, lol).

The review fee is suppose to be a cost recovery process, but some county's use this to extort extra fees for a good survey. I also understand the high cost to review a poorly prepared survey.

One of my local counties have a great system for an Express Check ROS ($100 review fee), when you have a lot which could almost allow you to file a corner record, but a ROS is more beneficial to the public. I personally would like to see this as a model for all counties, and in my opinion, more ROS would be filed.

Just my .02,
So now back to our regularly scheduled program!!!

My initial statement was not strictly accurate. Public officials are required to file the so-called "in-lieu" map but it's not a conventional Record of Survey for filing at the recorder's office. In this office, we voluntarily file a Record of Survey for checking and eventual filing at the Recorder's office instead of the in-lieu map. We feel, and every CS we have encountered so far seems to agree, that the R/S is a better way than giving the CS an in-lieu map.

We don't have to pay the checking or recording fee; in fact, we are prohibited by State law from doing so. The statute is pretty clear, "Neither the state...nor any public officer...acting in his or her official capacity on behalf of the state...shall pay or deposit any fee for the filing of any document or paper, for the performance of any official service..." -GC 6103

As to the checking fees, when I was in private I required the client to pay those, it's their property. This isn't a hobby, you want a survey, you pay the checking fees.

PS: I can't even poke fun at myself without upsetting someone. The internet, a wonderful place.

Dave Karoly- I once had the "pleasure" of reviewing a Record of Survey you submitted in Humboldt County. I seem to recall it was a fairly complex 4-page deal where you had to dig into multiple sources of archives, not just the typical easily recovered recorded documents/maps. You had a numbering scheme or process of doing your boundary notes that I found made your survey very clear and easy to follow. In fact I've partly employed that style of map organization myself at times, when applicable, having "stolen" it from you. I confess to doing that a lot. There are "tricks" to learn from each other that improve our mapping process, and isn't that what's it's all about, leaving something complete, coherent, and communicative for the future surveyor to know what we've done and why? I also appreciated the professional manner in which you approached map the preparer/map checker interaction process.

Sorry to interrupt the fun...now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Dave Ryan,
Arcata, Ca.

I voted yes on this. Not because I support this action but because my office would smell better if I could get rid of some of these maps.

I won't give up . . .

Another R/S substantial fee increase is proposed in Marin County. This probably won't affect the big survey/engineering firms can absorb such fees.

What are we buying? (There is no fiscal liability on the part of the County for our client.)

Sometimes in the checking process - we're debating drafting techniques!

At the recent CLSA Conference, Gary Kent mentioned few states east of us have County involvement. Surveyor to Recorder. If CLSA would support another David versus Goliath fight (like SB2 of old) by proposing legislation to eliminate County review it would save the public these onerous fees. I'd speculate that even some County Surveyors would rather not review maps. (However - it's BECOME a cash-cow.)

And Dave (Kendall) . . . I see the "no" seems to be in favor. Let's see if "no" increases after the next fee increase. (Seems that a "yes" from the public sector may be construed as a conflict of interest, as this cash-cow in certain income.) Does Caltrans pay Record of Survey checking fees? Does a City?

Surveyor to Recorder!

https://transparentcalifornia.com/agencies/salaries/

Phil - Sonoma

Phil - Sonoma:

Welcome back to the conversation. In post 10 I had responded to your previous post and asked a couple of questions before you went radio silence. Maybe you could address that post?

The Orange County chapter, the Practice-based chapter, is asking the CLSA Board of Directors tomorrow to approve a bill which would limit the fee charged to review a record of survey to $250 - eliminating the reference to raising the fees by ordinance. We will be asking for a roll call vote so that members will know how their directors voted.

Members should review all of the Orange County chapter motions to amend the Professional Land Surveyors' Act. Secondly, members should review their own chapters motions to improve the practice and profession, if any. Ask yourself, what is your respective chapter doing for you?

Lastly, the Orange County latest newsletter is out. Please take and moment to read the newsletter. We are looking for contributions of articles - help us win another newsletter of the year award.

DWoolley

Phil Danskin stated "A Record of Survey is an opinion. If the opinion is contrary to law and/or common practice . . . and . . . subsequently The Opinion prevails in the courts - new Law is made. If it fails - as Mr. K points out - the Bad Actors might clean up their act?"

Phil, surely you are not suggesting, as it relates to boundary establishment, essentially, "anything goes" as a matter of opinion, are you? When a licensee performs a boundary and offers an opinion it is not the same as offering an opinion as to whether or not the Giants will make the World Series in 2017. Or more preposterously, that members of the public should litigate their unfiled $2000 two monument tango "boundary" to test the surveyor's competence - at a cost of a $100k plus and five calendar years of litigation, are you? Of course not, ridiculous on its face. Please clarify your statement.

Dave,

Is the above the post you're speaking of? And if it is . . . "subsequently "if" The Opinion prevails in the courts - new Law is made." Is that an ambiguous statement?

Also . . . I wonder how many "opponents" of Surveyor to Recorder - review maps as an Independent Contractors or Deputy County Surveyors?

Personally, it seems the "costs" and "subjective opinions" of checking outweighs the "benefits" of checking.

Respectfully yours,

Phil - Sonoma

Oh and Dave - I applaud your chapter's wishes of a cap on R/S review fees.

However when you look at the burden this will cause the County passing such legislation will be like urinating up a rope. It would not be fiscally responsible for a County to not fight, vehemently, such a bill. (See: https://transparentcalifornia.com/agencies/salaries/)

You asked what is our Chapter doing for the profession?

We now have a County Surveyor, Tracy Park, who has worked many years in private practice and knows of our side of the counter.

One: Mr. Park is working on an ordinance, similar to that "smart" City of Turlock, in order to preserve monuments. Also, when we come across a monument that requires restoration or raising (to the surface), we call/email Mr. Park the location and he and his "trained" crew rehabilitate the monument expeditiously. Mr. Park's office has also posted all Corner Records indexed by Assessor's Parcel number on their website. This makes retrieving such records easily accessible. Mutual ideas consummated in cooperation with our County Surveyor's Office.

Two: Our Chapter, in cooperation with the County, have purchased (in 2015) the survey archives of Bill Schroeder which go back to 1850s to 1977. (Tens of thousands of surveys!) That action now places these valuable records in the public domain. (The County ponied-up $45,000, Marin Chapter ponied-up $15,000 and individuals contributed another $ 15,000.) Now that's putting your money where your mouth is. And the County has been scanning these ancient maps.

Three: Our Chapter has employed a retired surveyor, Dave Contreras, to database all recorded maps and pending maps. This is invaluable for estimating surveys and contracted surveys - as it saves a step bothering the County to see what is pending and what has been recorded yet may not be up to date. Mr. Contreras provides subscribers with monthly updates.

Respectfully yours,

Phil - Sonoma

DWoolley wrote:
Members should review all of the Orange County chapter motions to amend the Professional Land Surveyors' Act. Secondly, members should review their own chapters motions to improve the practice and profession, if any. Ask yourself, what is your respective chapter doing for you?

Phil:

The question was a rhetorical question directed towards the members. Notwithstanding, I appreciate that you took the time to tell members the Marin chapter's happenings.

DWoolley

hellsangle wrote:I won't give up . . .

Another R/S substantial fee increase is proposed in Marin County.

Phil - Sonoma

Coincidently??? the Marin Co Surveyor recently found himself in trouble with the board for level of map review.

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/public/l--7128_acc1105.pdf

Magee: http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQR ... LTE_ID=750
is that grossly out of date?

is that grossly out of date?

A July 2017 complaint is unlikely to have been adjudicated by now. The process can take years.

Jim Frame wrote:

is that grossly out of date?

A July 2017 complaint is unlikely to have been adjudicated by now. The process can take years.

That's what I thought, thanks.

Somebody made accusations, the board ran with it, now we wait to seen what is gonna happen.
Nothing to see here, move along. [edit: judgement rendered, Big Deal! I hate it when someone just throws out innuendo and not the known (to them) conclusion]

The case was heard and a decision rendered. Guilty with public reprimand.
See BPELSG Spring Bulletin for case results.
Again, coincidence?
As for being “nothing to see here”. I’m thinking this is a big deal to see BPELSG going after a public surveyor. Is that door being cracked open? Does it mean Co Surveyors might take notice? Could it have reverse ramifications where Co Surveyors might start dictating field procedure above and beyond? Remember boundary law is not a settled black and white cookbook.

This post has been removed. See CLSA Discussion Board Rules and Etiquette, Item 4.

[Reposted after Central Office clarified the "offensive" portion of the post i.e. naming a person in a bad light - even the link to the complaint made it clear. DW]

I have details-o-plenty on [name intentionally deleted for the snowflakes- the person will be hereafter referred to by the pseudonym ("B. F. Law")] complaints. B. F. Law, former Marin County Surveyor, was to land surveying practice what Pol Pot was to the people of Cambodia. The atrocities to the practice of land surveying will forever taint the public record. I find it equally confusing many of the maps B. F. Law signed were actually submitted by licensed land surveyors presumably submitted as complete and ready for filing. Apparently, any property in Marin County - especially during the B. F. Law years - could be established by any two monuments in the county (as many a submitting surveyor chose to do). It is especially striking this passed as acceptable practice in consideration of the property values in Marin County.

The adventurous surveyor in Marin County that chose to locate more than two monuments was welcomed by the County Surveyor to hold any record figure and call off (out of position) every monument of record from the underlying map - never mind monuments hold over math, never mind establishing the senior property line adjacent. One can only imagine what was performed as a survey when the work product wasn't subject to any review.

There is no better argument to deregulate the practice of land surveying than to simply review the maps filed in Marin County. Notwithstanding the fact the idea of filing records of survey - as required by state law - was not a readily accepted idea by many surveyors in the county. As evidenced by Phil's most recent post i.e. "(Tens of thousands of surveys!)" which are modern boundary surveys that exist and were never filed. Read it again, tens of thousands. I cannot reconcile this fact with the concept of public protection.

When time permits I will explain how B. F. Law had filed complaints dating back to 2007 when the Attorney General's office finally was ready to hold his hearing in the fall of 2017 - only to have the BPELSG Executive Officer accept a settlement the week of the hearing. My personal complaint against this Pol Pot of land surveying was filed in 2011 or 2012 - some 5 or 6 years ago.

DWoolley

Post script: The Phil Danskin surveys I reviewed did not fit the practice or patterns so prevalent in Marin county. Some of his older hand drafted work has beautiful art work in the margins

The case was heard and a decision rendered

I mistook the AG complaint date for the original complaint date.

I wonder how often BPELSG updates its licensee database.

William Magee wrote:

hellsangle wrote:I won't give up . . .

Another R/S substantial fee increase is proposed in Marin County.

Phil - Sonoma

Coincidently??? the Marin Co Surveyor recently found himself in trouble with the board for level of map review.

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/public/l--7128_acc1105.pdf

"The PAST Marin Co Surveyor recently found himself in trouble with the board for level of map review."

Fixed it for you. Don't sweat the facts Magee. Some of us will check your out of date info and half-truths for you. We got your six buddy!

So the Marin situation seems to be an example of what can happen if the community is allowed to police itself (or perhaps run amok is a more accurate description) for a period of time.

The people who have expressed opinions in favor of map review may note that there was a poor quality review going on so it does not fit the typical model. I think this is a valid conclusion but to me it does fit the current standard in that there is currently very little consistency in map review between counties and you never know what the current CS (or their staff or worse their grab bag of private consultants) whim of the day will bring to your map. This is the offensive part of paying a huge review fee. If you appreciate the corrections and you have no one else in the world to peer review your survey for you then it may be worth the money. If you find the comments nonsensical (as is very common, believe it or not, I see poorly reasoned evaluations more than half of the time and we usually just bite our tongues and shake our heads and make the changes to appease the man behind the curtain) then maybe you don't care to pay for the "service"

I feel that the missing piece of the puzzle here is a consistent and capable enforcement action. In my opinion, the county surveyor's office should not be the "Survey Sheriff". This is especially true for those of us who are in private practice consulting for an agency as a county or city surveyor.

In addition I don't believe a CLSA chapter should be in a position to have to voluntarily police County Surveyor map reviewers all over the state or let them all run unchecked

As a professional community I feel we ought to be policing ourselves locally (as the OC chapter appears to be attempting) or we should support a police force. If the state board cannot do the job then perhaps a structured popularly elected committee is called for.

Does anyone know what happens to the guys who submitted the listed deficient maps that Tackaberry approved? Did they skate?

This "topic" has gotten WAAAAY off the topic: Surveyor to Recorder.

That said . . . Mr. Tackabery has done more GOOD for the surveying profession in Marin than alleged. It was Craig that "used to be" involved with CLSA on a regular basis . . . listened to the practicing surveyors . . . and . . . fought for a Monument Preservation Fund ordinance to preserve the few monuments that exist. If it weren't for Mr. Tackabery many original monuments would have been left under six-inches of pavement never to be found and more likely to have been destroyed by utilities trenching.

Also . . . Mr. Tackabery is someone that you would want to sit down and have a pleasant conversation with over a glass of vino. Did he error? Maybe. But I think he was not BPELSG's Gestapo. "North arrow. Scale. etc. . . ." Was it Tackabery's fault that a surveyor, (now deceased . . . and filed an amended R/S correcting his misdeed . . . ultimate result - no harm), practiced different that he would have answered on the Board examination?

The Holier Than Thou attitudes will further divide us and . . . to be honest . . . I'm not sure I will be renewing my association with CLSA. And that comes from a very heavy heart. And I haven't given as much blood as MANY others in our organization . . . who feel the same way.

Put your arm around the "alleged" bad actor and attempt to mentor. Throwing stones is not one of a Professional. Now Phil's gone off topic, huh? LOL

Again: Surveyor to Recorder.

Respectfully submitted,

Phil - Sonoma

David Kendall wrote:
I feel that the missing piece of the puzzle here is a consistent and capable enforcement action. In my opinion, the county surveyor's office should not be the "Survey Sheriff". This is especially true for those of us who are in private practice consulting for an agency as a county or city surveyor.

As a professional community I feel we ought to be policing ourselves locally (as the OC chapter appears to be attempting) or we should support a police force. If the state board cannot do the job then perhaps a structured popularly elected committee is called for.

A state wide Survey Sheriff, ya right (rolling eyes) That would only increase our fees even more. Better yet, the hired hand would be as competent as what we already have.

I have issues with a CS that does not act professional to start with, and feels they can do whatever they want. This CS doesn't even review a RS until it comes across his desk for signature. Then there is the difference between a technicality vs style comment (don't get me started) LOL!!!

One county I deal with is very fair and even has a process called "Express RS", where the review fee is only $100 ($600 for normal RS) maps.
These are for glorified corner records when I need extra space. If other counties followed this protocol, all surveyors (and public) would benefit.

Another county (previously mentioned in this thread) has a contract CS, and I can't even get a benchmark (for an estimate) without going into their office.
They are too concerned with making management happy, and not providing customer service to the public or survey profession. More evidence I made a good decision to leave that county, heheheee!

After viewing Orange County's wonderful video (below link):
https://www.facebook.com/OC.CLSA/videos ... 529580290/

Any more takers on Surveyor to Recorder?

Phil - Sonoma

hellsangle wrote:After viewing Orange County's wonderful video (below link):
https://www.facebook.com/OC.CLSA/videos ... 529580290/

Any more takers on Surveyor to Recorder?

Phil - Sonoma

I am on-board... but that dosen't count for much.

Phil: don't give up.
it worked well in Arizona ten years ago, I suppose it still does. it could work very well in California too.

Thanks for your support, Peter!

But 53 responses in a field of over 2,000+?!

Orange County has more than what has responded. (Might they be afraid of the Big Bad Booley?)

Phil - Sonoma

hellsangle wrote: But 53 responses in a field of over 2,000+?!

Orange County has more than what has responded. (Might they be afraid of the Big Bad Booley?)

Phil - Sonoma

Since the rules were applied to the forum I estimate there are less than 100 regular forum viewers. I used to be a regular reader and contributor. Today, I seldom read the forum.
This estimate of viewers makes 53 seem reasonable to me.

I didn't go back and read this thread again, I recall some folks not answering due to the poor phrasing of the second choice.

I continue to find the preoccupation with Orange County curious. Please tell, what is a Big Bad Booley? Just in time for Halloween (boo!).

Best,

DWoolley