California Surveyors Forums

It has been about 15 years since I did a survey in Riverside County. I prepared my RS and supporting maps and documents and submitted along with their $500 deposit. I received an email stating that I submitted an incomplete package and needed to complete and sign the attached "Agreement for Payment". They specifically said, "Please complete the first page of the attached agreement and on page two, just the applicant information and signature is needed."

I don't think my Client will have a problem signing it. But lets say he did, can they really refuse to check my map if my client or I refuse to enter into this agreement even though he will pay the requested deposit and fees? What section of the LS Act gives them this authority?

Tell them you are not a civil engineering firm.

mpallamary wrote:Tell them you are not a civil engineering firm.

I agree.

It has been over twenty years since I have filed anything in Riverside County. I do not recall any such thing. If presented with such an "Agreement" my initial response would not be repeatable in "Polite Company".

If the County Surveyor tried to charge me what they are claiming is the "normal" charge for a ROS, I would be up there claiming Fraud on their part.

Frank,

The term "Applicant" as used in this form would be referring to the submitting Land Surveyor (or Pre-1982 Civil Engineer). The reason why the County instructed you to only provide the Applicant information and signature on page 2 is that a signature from a "Property Owner" is not required per the PLS Act.

It has been explained that a Record of Survey is SOLELY the responsibility of the Land Surveyor (or Pre-1982 Civil Engineer) that performed the survey regardless of whether a full parcel or portions of a parcel are surveyed and the "Property Owner" as referred to in the county form has no responsibility related to that map.

Frank,

The term "Applicant" as used in this form would be referring to the submitting Land Surveyor (or Pre-1982 Civil Engineer). The reason why the County instructed you to only provide the Applicant information and signature on page 2 is that a signature from a "Property Owner" is not required per the PLS Act.

It has been explained that a Record of Survey is SOLELY the responsibility of the Land Surveyor (or Pre-1982 Civil Engineer) that performed the survey regardless of whether a full parcel or portions of a parcel are surveyed and the "Property Owner" as referred to in the county form has no responsibility related to that map.

Ric,

I understand the SOLE responsibility issue. But what gives them the authority to require that I enter into a payment agreement with them in order to examine my map?

PLS Act section 8766.5 provides for how the examination fee relative to the examination of a Record of Survey is determined. For the cost to exceed the statutory requirement of $100, an ordinance must be appropriately adopted based on a staff report (study) demonstrating the reasonableness of the fee.

There is nothing wrong with requesting verification that a ordinance was appropriately adopted and a copy of the report / study that the ordinance was based on.

I am not questioning the amount of the fee (although, I believe it to be exorbitant.) I am questioning the validity of their authority to require me to enter into a payment agreement, especially since they are requiring what I believe to be a large deposit up front. It would seem to me that the deposit itself contitutes an agreement to pay.

Sounds to me like they want to charge t&m hourly. A county up here switched LLAs from fixed fee to t&m and now they can charge many thousands of dollars.

Sacramento County charges a deposit plus T&M for ROS checking. They also require a signed Statement of Applicants [sic] Responsibility form with the submittal, as they do with all PM and subdivision map submittals. They don't care who signs it, as long as it's someone connected with the project taking responsibility for payment.

I don't have any objection to the procedure. In the case of a ROS I think it's unnecessary -- if the LS fails to pay, they could always go after his license -- but if it makes them feel better, it's fine with me. I'm going to pay the fee whether I sign the form or not.

The client is responsible for payment, if in the terms of your agreement they have agreed to pay fees associated with the review and filing of the record of survey. There is no state law mandate that the surveyor has to pay for the checking fees.The only mandate is that the surveyor file when required to do so.
The state has expressed an appropriate policy.Basically everyone is better off when records are filed and therefore the state ought to assist in removing roadblocks to the implementation of its policy, or so may be inclined to think.

The fact of the matter is that checking of maps could be quite expensive,assuming that a proper review has been undertaken. You know sort of like Ginger Rodgers doing everything Fred Astaire did only backwards.

But more directly to your OP the PLS Act is silent on the matter of WHO has the responsibility to pay. This silence may mean that local agencies may enter this area of law as they see fit.

Ric7308 wrote:Frank,

The term "Applicant" as used in this form would be referring to the submitting Land Surveyor (or Pre-1982 Civil Engineer).

I disagree. The applicant could also be the property owner, construction manager, contractor or a next door neighbor.

My advice is not to sign anything but the RS mylar.

Years ago, CLSA used to poll the counties across the state and publish this information. I have suggested this be done but there is no interest. This is good information to know.

T&M on map checking gives the agency employee carte blanc on filling out his day when things are slow with some private surveyor on the hook for his time card enrichment.
The surveyor should not be on the hook, the property owner should be. The property owner is the one requiring the survey we are only providing a service. No different than the pool cleaner.

More of this and why do boundary surveys. If all surveyors refused to perform surveys in these counties with over priced RS and CR checking fees the public would be screaming bloody murder at the cities and counties because they can't get their property surveyed and setback certs.
It's called collective bargaining.

It should be a fixed fee, period.

The Statute calls for a fixed fee of $100 or other fee set by the supes, not an open checkbook.

The legislature should just set a fee, say $500 and make that the end of it, the public interest demands it.

I have two 11-13 sheet RS's going in to a county within the next couple of months. A deposit is required of $500 for the first sheet and $300 for each additional sheet. About $4100 in fees for both surveys. That is insane. I could file the same map in Orange County with no review fees, only $7 to $10 fee for recording per sheet.

The requirement to file records of surveys is a State public policy directive and therefore the costs to review and file a record of surveys ought to be born on a state wide basis. I do not know how it works and what the fees should be but imagine what it would be like it you had to pay a five hundred deposit everytime the police showed up to file a police report at a traffic accident .....

Unless there are injuries the City of Orange will not come out to write a report on a TA.

Can we adopt statewide Orange County's fees for ROS?

ROS should be an affordable fixed fee, not T&M. The record is for the public benefit, and the county surveyors should budget their review time so as to not hit small and one man shops with unknown escalating costs.

I've seen suggestions that the ROS be simply "a record of my field survey" and limit checking to the statutory items, like text height and sheet size. Sounds nice, get the checkers out of our hair, but I doubt it'd work because property lines have to be determined to set corners.

I never submitted a Record of Survey before ~1992 so I would like correction from any surveyors that have experience with RS submittal in the early days.

I think that in the 50s and 60s RS's were just submitted and filed. Somewhere along the line some bureaucrat decided that money could be made requiring the checking of RS's and the requirement forcing a Surveyor to file a RS under certain circumstances came to be.

Regardless of how it came about today a Surveyor that sets his tag is required to file a corner record or record of survey. Said plat is then "reviewed" by someone who most likely is doing their best to justify their government job and as such they find anything they can to red mark a submittal. This person may or may not be a licensed surveyor. Now even though the government agency does not have a profit/loss sheet they need to find a way to pay this "reviewer". Since the reviewer justifies his job by spending diligent time reviewing the submittal his department must charge substantial fees to cover the reviewers pay and benefits. I don't like to imply that the reviewer is padding his time card but it is human nature when work is slow that a 2 hour job can stretch into 4 hours. The end result is when the public agency is charging by the hour the private surveyor is on the hook for whatever fees the local agency feels like charging.

Since we are, by law, required to file a plat then there needs to be a law capping the fees charged. That, or since it is a "Record of Survey", eliminate the checking which is my preference. After all it is a record of the private surveyors survey not the counties survey.

Another option is make the land owner directly liable for all map checking fees. The local agencies have the power to add such fees, if not paid, to the property tax bills.

I think the most equitable solution is a fixed fee set at the state level for all counties, with the state reimbursing the counties for reasonable cost overruns. The state would quickly accumulate cost data from all 58 counties, which would enable it to establish a basis for evaluating county claims of overruns.

Given the state budget situation, I don't think this will rise to the top of anyone's pile in the foreseeable future, so until then we're stuck with the present hodgepodge of fee schedules, recalcitrant clients and shady practitioners who decline to file.

That would make it bad for us down here. OC and LA are ok, The rest are wanting trips to Tahiti

Land Butcher:

then there needs to be a law capping the fees charged.

Me:

I think the most equitable solution is a fixed fee set at the state level

Land Butcher:

That would make it bad for us down here.

Sounds like you want it both ways.

Why not.
Besides if LA and Orange county can check RS's for what they do any county should be able to.

I doubt that 20 years of daily debate could get all the CA counties to agree to a fixed fee.