California Surveyors Forums

Hi,

How many people would support a multi-page (unlimited number of pages) Corner Record? If you are opposed, can you provide a reason?

Thanks all

I would prefer not to have to search through a multi page CR from those who might periodically cram 40 pages of CR's onto 1 CR submittal for corners spread all throughout the county.
I like the CR page as it is now as far as it quickly depicts the corner of concern. I can quickly look at it and determine if it affects my work, without having to wade through what could be a potential maze of a CR.
I don't see it as being broke, or in need of a fix.

to view in order to find the intersection or monuments or situs that I am looking for, I would treat it the same as I would viewing the OC Surveyor alignment notes that sometime go on "FOREVER".

I make copies of every page, put them together with a paper clip, then look at each one of those puppies to see which one I needed. In fact I may even find something interesting on another sheet that makes me scratch my head or,on the other side, leads me down the "path to righteousness".

This is how I look at it and I am probably making a good point for Steffan's pitch, although it is unintended.

To me, it would be easier to digest all the info if it were on the same page, ie Record of Survey. to clear and to pass on to the next surveyor in line file a map. It is a dis-service to the public to file complex corner records. Maps are file and indexed for ease of research.

Keep it mind, the map check fee here is still $100. It cost us more in drafting time trying to make a complex CR than to draft a R/S.

My 2cents.

Some counties down south charge thousands to review a ROS map. Thus one of the reasons between the cultural divide.

The one-sheet double-sided Corner Record format has worked well for most of the situations I've encountered, so I don't see a need for allowing multiple pages. If a project is large enough to require many CR sheets, it's likely to have a budget that will accommodate a Record of Survey, which offers a better format for displaying multiple corners. However, if the cost of a ROS can't be carried by the project budget, multiple single-sheet CRs will serve the purpose and can be prepared at relatively little cost.

.

Why waste the time and effort?
Pre-construction Corner Records need be nothing more than the field notes of the recon survey... being required to file many separate documents (cover sheets for each page of the field notes) with the CS is more than just a pain in the butt. It serves no purpose, and is SILLY.

While I was in Chula Vista we filed dozen upon dozen of them. None were elegant, few were even pretty... but they got the job done. No opinion or resolution was needed, nor offered. You can rest assured that you will know what was actually found and will have a way to get accurately get back the the location we found it in.

The wastefulness of going beyond what is required is noted by the people who write the checks, and it works against us.
Dressing up the old sow does not change what she is.

to use an RoS when a CR can fit the bill? not if I am paying the bill!

"to use an RoS when a CR can fit the bill? not if I am paying the bill!"

It depends on how big the bill is. I've done some monument preservation projects that involved as many as 29 corners. It took me less time to prepare a 6-sheet ROS than it would have taken to prepare and manage 29 separate CRs. The ROS cover sheet allows anyone doing work in those areas to see at a glance which corners were involved. The county waived the checking fee and the filing fee was insignificant, so it was a win for everyone in my opinion.

.

Corner Records are just that, to retrace an existing corner(s) of record.
Send me a multi page CR and I garauntee I'll find "material descrepancy" on it, so then you'll have to do a R.O.S. (by law). Now you can go back to your client and explain that, when you should have done a R.O.S. in the first place to protect your client. Why abuse the system when your suppose to be a "Professional".

Maybe that's why the "Dog" icon IS used to find a surveyor, LMAO!

The corner records, one page or multiple pages should not be the issue. It’s only being pushed because different counties and cities have bumped there checking fees on Records of Surveys beyond the intent of there use to cover the cost of doing business.

The Record of Survey is just as much a service to the city, county, the public and other surveyors as it is to the clients that requested the work. The benefits are for all parties involved and thus should be paid pay by all. Indirectly that is through the tax system. I personally feel this is an issue the Board of Registration should be imposing back onto the Counties/Cities as the intent of a Record of Survey and mandate reasonable fees.

Greg,
Very well said about the pertinent space on the existing Page 1 of 2! That is one of my inquiries, but it is not a technicallity.

If one wants to be lazy and only report part of what they found/set, then you aren't doing much of a service to your client, or other surveyor's who may one day attempt to "Follow in Your Footsteps".

It seems folly to mess with something that when used for its intended purpose, is simple, effective, and inexpensive. Let’s not screw up the elegance and simplicity of Corner Records, when the real issue, for some, seems to be the Record of Survey.

That is the problem. We went through that argument 25 years ago and then 20 years ago and this is what we got. I think some counties charge more to check a survey than it does to survey and draw them.

I think we have bigger fish to fry than whether Corner Records allow multiple sheets. I'm not opposed to multiple sheets but I wouldn't spend a lot of time and money pushing legislation to allow it.

The Record of Survey checking fees is a much larger issue that should be dealt with. First, someone should take on Counties that are out of compliance with the PLS Act by charging hourly fees (the Act requires the County to specify a maximum fee or use $100). I don't know if this is withing the Board's authority.

I had a discussion with County Surveyor personnel at a certain County that begins with an S regarding how Record of Survey maps don't benefit my client, they benefit the public and future generations by making a record of what I did. One particular person, I think an Engineer by training, who is a great guy and everything but he looked at me like I was from another planet. I understand they have funding issues and their solution is to put it on the poor schmuck who decides to actually do the right thing and get a Survey.

Dave I would say it is within the Board's authority to call foul if Counties are not charging a reasonable fee.

Attaching all operating cost or whatever other justification they are using is not reasonable.
I didn't mean to hijack this thread, but this is the problem in my mind.

8766.5. Record of survey - examination fee
The county surveyor may charge a reasonable fee for examining a record of survey pursuant to Section 8766 which shall not exceed the cost of the service or one hundred dollars ($100), whichever is the lesser. However, this one hundred dollars ($100) maximum fee may be increased by the board of supervisors if such an increase is authorized by a duly adopted ordinance and the ordinance was adopted pursuant to a staff report demonstrating that the cost of providing the examination service actually exceeds one hundred dollars ($100) per record of survey.

As I read §8766.5, I think the counties can include administrative overhead in their findings of cost and can establish a variable review fee without violating §8766.5. I would expect that those counties that have done so obtained the opinion of counsel prior to passing their ordinances.

I believe the only way to bring ROS review fees down and to standardize them across the state is to mandate a fixed fee -- or no fee -- with no exceptions. The counties will protest, and some sort of state subsidy will have to be provided in order to avoid saddling them with yet another unfunded mandate. Given the current budgetary and political climate, I don't expect to see this happen anytime soon.

.

I read the Act as allowing them to charge actual cost up to $100 or some other higher amount they set. It can't just be a blank check, they are supposed to specify a maximum. I figured it wasn't worth pushing Sac too hard because they would just make the maximum something ridiculous like $2000.

The State is busily stealing money from the Counties, I don't see the State subsidizing Record of Survey checking fees in this political climate.

Our Department counsel has opined that the GC prohibits us from paying the fee "for an official service" even if we wanted to. So far the Counties I have filed in have agreed to check the map for no fee. The CS could file it as an in-lieu map but most would rather not, I suspect. Our Dept Chief Counsel convinced the County Counsel at a Central California county that we can't pay the fee and he told the CS to file the map for free.

It seems that the only real reason for a multi-page CR is to avoid the check process and associated fees for an RS.

The outrageously high fees charged for RS checking is a topic of legitimate discussion and perhaps a move for restraint of those fees via legislation.

IMO, a survey which is too complicated to show fully and clearly on a single CR should be represented on an RS.

On the other hand, I can understand those who would opt to use a multi-page CR in order to avoid a checking fee that runs to the high 3 figures or into 4 figures.

But I think that advocating for the ability to use a multi-page CR is a misdirection of efforts and an attempt at an end-run of the real issue.

Good comments all. I do remember when multi-page Corner Records were permitted and there was never any problems then. I would have fought it back then but I had a health issue that slowed me down and I was unable to get involved.

I remember when there was no cost to charge for a ROS here in San Diego also.

Please find two articles that articulate my thoughts about the inevitable creep of "good government." These are from when I used to write editorials for the local business paper.

Good comments all. The poll is interesting running 50/50. What's that tell you?

To qualify my yes vote, and in an attempt to stamp out the legitimate reasons for not allowing a multi-page CR, I would say there need to be three conditions:

1.) A CR with multiple monuments needs to be for mons that have some geographical relationship - like mons in the same map, same ownership, same route/road, same block or group of blocks.
2.) The surveyor should need to provide multiple APNs if the mons are for completely different parcels, since County GIS and other cataloging relies (or should rely if it doesn't already) on this info for later retrieval.
3.) There should be a keymap requirement - you have to show a keymap/toc if you're going to have more than 1 graphical page.

Re-reading what I just wrote, I think number 1 and 2 should be required even you cram everything onto a single page. The CR is a good tool without the burden of the full ROS. The conditions of its use (vs. a required ROS) are pretty clear as it is - the number of monuments or pages should have nothing to do with 'deciding' to prepare a ROS instead.

John Coffey
San Diego

Jim Frame wrote:I believe the only way to bring ROS review fees down and to standardize them across the state is to mandate a fixed fee -- or no fee -- with no exceptions.

Hear, hear!

Amen and once again, you hit the nail on the head!