California Surveyors Forums

Marin County sent out a notice that RS maps will be part of fee.

The lack of consistency in application between counties is disturbing. I wonder if an AG opinion request is warranted. Anyone know how to trigger such a thing?

Government Code - GOV

TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA [8000 - 22980] ( Title 2 enacted by Stats. 1943, Ch. 134. )

DIVISION 3. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT [11000 - 15986] ( Division 3 added by Stats. 1945, Ch. 111. )

PART 2. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS [12001 - 12790] ( Part 2 added by Stats. 1945, Ch. 111. )

CHAPTER 6. Attorney General [12500 - 12661] ( Chapter 6 added by Stats. 1945, Ch. 111. )

ARTICLE 2. General Powers and Duties [12510 - 12532] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 1945, Ch. 111. )

12519.

The Attorney General shall give his or her opinion in writing to any Member of the Legislature, the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, State Lands Commission, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Insurance Commissioner, any state agency, and any county counsel, district attorney, or sheriff when requested, upon any question of law relating to their respective offices.

The Attorney General shall give his or her opinion in writing to a city prosecuting attorney when requested, upon any question of law relating to criminal matters.

any county counsel, district attorney, or sheriff when requested, upon any question of law relating to their respective offices.

Thanks for that, Warren!

Now for the political question: Would it be better for the request to come from a county that's imposing the fee on Records of Survey, or from one that isn't? I'm thinking that the AG might infer a preferred outcome, which shouldn't affect the opinion but might nonetheless.

A better source might be a state legislator, or the head of a State Department, such as Consumer Affairs. That way, it is a statewide issue for consideration. I have heard rumblings that clarification will be sought soon on this and other unintended consequences.

A better source might be a state legislator, or the head of a State Department, such as Consumer Affairs.

Ric, is this something you can instigate?

I question why ROS would be included when you read the intent of the bill

"The bill would impose a fee, except as provided, of $75 to be paid at the time of the recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded, per each single transaction per single parcel of real property, not to exceed $225"

An ROS has nothing to do with a transaction of a parcel and often an ROS is done regardless of any kind of real estate transaction. As also mentioned, an ROS can have nothing to do with a parcel at all in the case of monument preservation or a geodetic control survey. This sounds like the recorder just throwing a fee blanket over everything.

I have been involved in procuring one. CLSA can ask for one, through a legislator. In the past we had access to member(s) of the legislature. Who do we have a relationship with?

See the attached.

Fresno County Counsel issued an internal memo on 2 January 2018 to the County Recorder's Office and the County Surveyors Office that the Recorder was NOT to apply the SB2 fee to Record of Surveys.

The logic used by our Counsel was that a "map" is defined by the Subdivision Map Act, but a Record of Survey is a requirement of the Business and Professions Code (LS Act). The memo also states that a Record of Survey only contains information about the land and its boundaries, and that it does not affect the interests of real property.

I'm sure we could get into the weeds discussing whether or not this RS, or that RS, affects real property interests. Our Councel opted to opine that they are all exempt, rather than evaluate them on a case by case basis.

Ca.PLS8200 - Can you post copy of Fresno County Counsel memo? Would be interesting to share with Orange County Recorder's office (and others) to get their additional take on the application of SB-2 to RS's.

Santa Clara County just emailed that they are, in fact, applying the charge after all.

kudos Fresno County Counsel!

Gwen del Castillo wrote:Ca.PLS8200 - Can you post copy of Fresno County Counsel memo? Would be interesting to share with Orange County Recorder's office (and others) to get their additional take on the application of SB-2 to RS's.

Gwen -
It was an internal memo which I was instructed not to share. You may ask your County's Counsel to contact ours though. They may be willing to share information.
- Kevin

Ca.PLS8200 wrote:

Gwen del Castillo wrote:Ca.PLS8200 - Can you post copy of Fresno County Counsel memo? Would be interesting to share with Orange County Recorder's office (and others) to get their additional take on the application of SB-2 to RS's.

Gwen -
It was an internal memo which I was instructed not to share. You may ask your County's Counsel to contact ours though. They may be willing to share information.
- Kevin

Understood. Thanks, Kevin.

Last night the Practice Based Chapter, headquartered in Orange County, approved several agenda items for the CLSA Board of Directors meeting scheduled for February 3, 2108. One item was to request a Legislative Counsel Opinion on whether or not the fees associated with SB 2 apply to records of survey.

The process is to have a Legislator place a request to the Office of Legislative Counsel. These opinions have a relatively short turn around time and are not published like an Attorney General's opinion.

DWoolley

Excellent!

The faster the better of course!

On top of all of this good discussion of SB-2, maybe I am the only one to have been hit with an additional $75 filing fee for a record of survey (mylar) that I delivered on December 21, but wasn't taken to the Recorder's Office until after the new year. Yup my map was returned to the Surveyors Office requiring $75.

I am also waiting to hear from another county that has had my mylar since the first week of December, and I still don't know if that one is recorded, but I'm expecting them to try to get $75 too. (Surprisingly after yet another email inquiring about my ROS, the county thinks my map was recorded, lol)

With timely filing and fees, I can see why some surveyors have gone to the dark side and not file any maps.
I sure hope the requirements under SB-2 get revised, as it baffles me how CLSA and our representation didn't fight this BEFORE it came into law?

It sure would be nice if we could just get a digital copy of our Record Of Survey emailed directly to us a day or two after it gets RECORDED. That could be worth the $75. Getting the map quickly to the customer would at least be a benefit to the extra fee they are going to pay. That’s not too much to ask for is it?

Hi Ken,
Our RS's are generally online less than a week after they are recorded.
Ed

SB-2 is a separate tax that has no effect on real property, or the operation of a County Surveyors Office. I think what Ken is trying to say, the fees continue to go up and some counties in the Bay Area do not give the courtesy of sending filed copies to the surveyor in timely manner, and I have to agree.

Edward M Reading wrote:Hi Ken,
Our RS's are generally online less than a week after they are recorded.
Ed

You guys in SLO really make doing anything in Santa Barbara County not worth the hassle. The local surveyors really appreciate how smooth SLO County Surveyor's Office works.

Thank You!

I took a Record of Survey to the Recorder today. He did not accept it without the SB2 fee, even though County Counsel has instructed him to accept the Record of Surveys without the fee.

I am more than a little disappointed....

I find it surprising that CLSA was blindsided by this law that potentially increases fees for filing maps. Current Records of Survey already favor larger companies performing larger jobs where County fees are a smaller proportion of the overall cost. This makes the situation worse! Where are you when we need you Practice Based Chapter?

Just got a fee calculation from the Recorder in Humboldt County for a 3 sheet Final Map along with a 4 sheet Notice of Development Plan / Notice of Geologic Report (Double Document).

Correct recording fee calculations as described below:

Subdivision map 3 pages = $18 + $75
NODP/NOGR 4 pages = $33 + $150
Total fee = $276

Interesting calculation. I would have thought that all subdivision maps would top out at $225, and associated notices perhaps the same.