California Surveyors Forums

I apologize if this has already been covered.

I received an email from Riverside letting me know that the additional recording fee is no longer required for Record of Survey maps. Awesome! I was provided the attached documents. One is the new ordinance, and the other is a claim for refund.

Is this Jerry's Brown's best contribution to our State so far?......... Possibly, but probably not the right forum.

Anyhow, the County of San Diego is still requiring the additional fees to file my Record of Survey maps. I reached out for clarification and was informed that San Diego Council has a different interpretation than Riverside. Naturally, that was not a sufficient response. I inquired further and was informed that the County Surveyor has been notified of my request on 5-9-2018.

I have suspended the submittal of mylars while waiting, but in the meantime, I am wondering if anyone has any pertinent information on this?

Thanks!

Ryan Post, LS

Don't suspend submitting those mylars for too long. There is no extension to the time periods stated in the PLSA for fee protests.

E_Page wrote:Don't suspend submitting those mylars for too long. There is no extension to the time periods stated in the PLSA for fee protests.

Sorry Evan! I put too much information in my post. Please disregard everything but the part about the recording fees.

I just received an email from Sonoma County Surveyor's Office. They will no longer require the $75 Does-Nothing-For-Affordable-Housing-Tax for records of surveys.

Thanks be to them!

Phil - Sonoma

i read that it is an exemption for government agencies.

It looks to me like if the government agency, County Surveyor, records something, the fee doesn't apply. Since the County records the Record of Survey, no fee.

Ryan is correct there Russ. The PLSA requires the surveyor to submit the map to the County Surveyor and then requires the County Surveyor to present it to the Recorder for filing after completing his or her review and signing the CS Statement. By the plain language interpretation of the statute, it's the CS, and not the surveyor of record or that surveyor's client who is recording the map. That would make the step of getting it to the Recorder a government agency responsibility/function.

This whole extra fee thing is a mess thanks to our legislators.

There needs to be a clarification statewide on this.

From an e-mail survey circulating among the CS's throughout the state through CEAC, and with 26 responses so far (out of 58 counties), there are currently 6 counties that are not charging the fee for RS's. and 20 that still are, in spite of the changes brought about by AB110 in March.

FWIW, the SB-2 fee was already exempted for government agencies in its original form that started in January, as they are already exempt from recording fees per a different state statute. In March, AB110 was chaptered, and added the following language to the government code as an exemption to SB-2:

Section 27388.1 (a)(1)(D) Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state.

This is one of the items in the 'list' of things exempt from the $75 fee. The Black's Law definition of executed is essentially 'signed', so in this case signed by the government agency. Not sure why an approval or certification statemnt signed by the CS would not fall under this exemption.

In any case, for San Bernardino County, they are taking the view of Evan's 'plain laguage interpretation' noted above - because our office is presenting it for recordation, it is being recorded by us (and not the submitting surveyor) and therefore exempt.