Santa Clara Co RS Fee Increase

[PLS7393]

I received an email from the County Surveyor today stating the county fees for a Record of Survey are going to increase on August 4th, 2025 to . . . $2,064!!! From $600 to this, is simply ridiculous! A 344% increase ! ! !
For those not familiar with SC County, they only have one fee for any size RS Map. So the review fee for a one page RS is the same as a 15 or 20 page RS. It appears they are not protecting the public with this concept, and encouraging surveyors to not file maps. The next local chapter CLSA meeting should be interesting as the County Surveyor intends to discuss, but I'm guessing it may get ugly. They are increasing the fees (don't forget to add your filing fee on top) yet it takes them 8 - 10 months to review your Corner Record or Record of Survey. Enough said, but factual.

[kwilson]

Keith

I just received that email myself. It is interesting that it lists the cost to review a Record of Survey at $2752 and the hourly rate for the map checker/CS at $259 (going up to $346). I wrote to August Hanks (CS) that there will likely be many more illegal surveys being done (where an RS should be filed but isn't). I get so many jobs where the original surveyor who did the topo cannot do the form certification for some reason and I find out that the parcel requires a Record of Survey. This is becoming the wild west - have gun will travel.

[DWoolley]

The uptick in fees will only be meaningful to the law-abiding land surveyor; most will go on unbothered.

To the lawless land surveyors who have resisted oversight: Does it even matter anymore? Will anyone notice another layer of lawlessness in a system already frayed?

We are now harvesting the consequences of what we chose to ignore—regulations, professional standards, and our own ethical compass. This is not misfortune—it is the result of indifference, of choosing shortcuts over structure. We were offered the tools of legitimacy and chose the tools of expediency. We did not accept accountability, and now accountability has found us. And remember—'professional judgment' is no defense when it becomes the alibi for any indiscretion. When misused, it becomes an open-ended exemption—used not to uphold the law, but to bend it until it breaks. See the other thread for clear cut examples.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

Sadly, the lawful surveyors' business will dry up and the bottom-feeders/non-filers will be flush with work.

We have a duty to ourselves and the potential client to educate them . . . that if a Record of Survey is required to perform a "lawful" survey then pay the piper/complain to their Board of Supervisors or go with the surveyor that doesn't file. If the latter is his/her choice, and the survey winds up before a court - his/her surveyor may be impeached . . . he may have wasted those survey fee, attorney fees, etc.

As much as I like map review - when it gets this pricey . . . back to my whining: Surveyor to Recorder.

Happy hump day.

Crazy Phil - Sonoma

[jamesh1467]

lol these forum posts are so entertaining. Same shit. Different day. No progress.


You all know this is what the monument provision did as well, right? Just makes it that much harder to be a law-abiding surveyor........but lets be serious, with the standard of care issues that have been going on, does anyone in California even agree on what a law-abiding surveyor in California even is??????

[Jay Wright]

The annoying thing to me is that I was able to combine a few Corner Records into Record of Survey Maps because I thought
the product was better that way and it didn't break the bank. I guess that won't happen again.

The MINIMUM fee is what has gone up.
Also add a mandatory 3% on top of that.
An Internet Technology Fee in Silicon Valley.
Bite me.
[{( The preceding sentence is my position as a private land surveyor and not necessarily the position of any organization I may be involved with)}] !!!

It is actually not the same price for every ROS. It is set up so that if you run through the minimum fee they will
bill you on the multiple page maps. It has been that way for a while.
Those of us that do the one or two page maps with discernible resolutions have probably not been hit by that but it is
in the old fee schedule. The old and new fee schedules were attached to the chapter meeting notice that went out today.
Bring your popcorn and yourselves to the meeting

Jay Wright
Santa Clara/San Mateo
Chapter President

[Jay Wright]

I would also like to know how they can make this big increase in fees with only 60 days notice.
I have 90 days to file the map that I can't start the field work on for a few weeks but the fixed fee proposal already went out.
I may have to apologize for the quality of a couple of initial submittals.

Jay

[DWoolley]

The cost isn’t the problem. It’s the same for everyone.

No, you don’t need a survey to build a fence.
But if the goal is to put it on the property line, it might cost $7,000.

Land surveyors can’t be forced to work.
Charging the client for professional services? Optional.
Paying to stay in compliance? Not optional.

The real issue? People who treat laws as optional—putting pressure on honest, law-abiding businesses.
For the rationalization, see the other recent thread.

But go ahead—paint it with a libertarian brush, invoke “professional judgment,” and convince yourself you’ve got a Robin Hood spirit (or is it, Robbin' the Hood spirit) while driving honest businesses that mentor future professionals into the ground. Carry on.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

The cost isn’t the problem. It’s the same for everyone.

I am quite curious why you continue to assert that? After all the discussions on all the other threads, we are seeing first hand the exact point that I and others have made. As costs go up, the incentive to not comply goes up. Please understand I am not talking about just surveyors choosing to not file a map. Homeowners will pass on getting a boundary survey for a fence and just build it.

You literally agree with me:

No, you don’t need a survey to build a fence.
But if the goal is to put it on the property line, it might cost $7,000.

Higher review fees will result in fewer recorded surveys. Please note that I am not talking about the surveyor's choosing to start "ridin dirty" I am talking about homeowners passing on getting a survey. If you think otherwise I would like to direct you to some basic classes on supply and demand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand I know wikipedia links are just a ploy by me to convince people through devious debate tricks but they are interesting reads if you have an open mind :)

This fee increase will literally result in fewer fences getting put on the boundary line, directly causing harms to the public at some point in the future. How many fences? That is a good question that I wish we had better data on.

If you need another example of how prices impact actions consider the way the local water districts have manipulated prices:
Step 1) Raise prices using various arguments such as to pay for improvements, inflation adjustment etc.
Result) People use less water.
Result) Water district does not actually take in more money.
Step 2) Raise rates again, repeating the various arguments from before.
Result) People use less water.
Result) Water district does not actually take in more money
Step 3) Opps I mean Step 1 there.....

Anyone else see a similar pattern starting with RoS fees? Any other county have a review fee north of 2k?

I would like to make a prediction:
Santa Clara will get fewer maps filed in the near future. Santa Clara will raise map fees again in 1-2 years. Less maps will get filed. Then the county budget folks will suggest just farming it out to a consultant..... Anyone willing to bet a beer at the CLSA convention in 2030?

Lower fees are a public benefit. I know it would hurt the bottom line of any company that does reviews for various local agencies, but sometimes we should do what is best for the public, regardless of what it costs the bottom line of the outside consultant review folks.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

P.S. Any chance SC county is willing to release their study that they did to justify the increase pursuant to 8766.5? Have the local CLSA folks asked August for it? FOIA worth considering?

[DWoolley]

Mikey,

Let’s return to the core issue: a boundary survey is not legally required to build a fence. It’s only necessary if the intent is to place that fence precisely on the property line — and even then, it remains a choice, not a mandate.

So when a homeowner chooses not to get a survey, it’s not evidence of noncompliance or dysfunction. It’s a rational decision to forgo a cost for a service they don’t legally need. In many residential scenarios, exact placement isn’t critical — fences are built on the perceived line, often guided by existing improvements or neighbor handshake agreements, and the law allows that.

Higher review fees may reduce the number of recorded surveys, but they don’t reduce fencing activity. They reduce demand for precision — and only among those who voluntarily seek it. That’s not a failure of policy; it’s how optional services work.

Uniform pricing doesn’t imply universal participation. Most people don’t require a survey, and therefore aren’t affected by the fee at all. If the policy goal is to ensure every fence is on the property line and backed by a legal record, that would require legislative change — not just a fee reduction. Legislative changes, written standards, actually, any standards, is something you have opposed at every turn.

And before we lean too hard into arguments about protecting the public, it’s fair to ask: whose ox is being gored? Are we talking about real harm to property owners, or are we defending a revenue model that depends on convincing people to buy precision they don’t legally need?

Years ago, I had an attorney draft a fence line agreement that acknowledges the fence may not be placed on the actual property line and that both neighbors agree not to claim otherwise in the future, should the true boundary ever be determined. If the parties determine the line, they further agree to move the fence to line without delay. It’s a simple document, legally sound, and would show up in title. Both parties get clarity, live in peace, and no survey is needed. The legal fee to draft it was far less than the cost of a field survey and a Record of Survey.

I haven’t released the agreement publicly — because, well, fence surveyors need to eat, same as the buzzards (hat tip, Josey Wales). But if the loudest advocates of public interest in this debate are operating from the noblest of intentions, then I invite them to post my agreement online and make it freely available. Let’s see how committed we really are to “serving the public.”

Until then, people will continue to weigh cost against need and act accordingly. And in most cases, that means no survey — and no harm. And therein rests your libertarian argument.

D. Woolley

[PLS7393]

I would like to make a prediction:
Santa Clara will get fewer maps filed in the near future. Santa Clara will raise map fees again in 1-2 years. Less maps will get filed. Then the county budget folks will suggest just farming it out to a consultant..... Anyone willing to bet a beer at the CLSA convention in 2030?

Lower fees are a public benefit. I know it would hurt the bottom line of any company that does reviews for various local agencies, but sometimes we should do what is best for the public, regardless of what it costs the bottom line of the outside consultant review folks.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

You have some good points Mike, and I don't need to make the bet, but I'll buy you a beer anyways at next years CLSA Conf., cause a beer will be cheaper in 2026 vs 2030! LOL

I too would be interested in the study to validate this, as I had to prepare a study to validate a review fee hike years back when I was at San Mateo Co.
It was obvious from the data, that the subsequent pages after page 1 took less time to review, so I implemented a various review fee depending on the number of pages. Santa Clara County Surveyor is aware of this as I had suggested something similar if they raised fees. Evidently he decided not to listen to my advice, and thinks this will be a good thing. Well now he has made his decision, and we have to deal with it.

I will be selling popcorn with extra butter at our next CLSA meeting!!!

[Mike Mueller]

Until then, people will continue to weigh cost against need and act accordingly. And in most cases, that means no survey — and no harm. And therein rests your libertarian argument.

In general its true I think many laws and ordinances are silly and a waste of time and money as they are mainly creating sludge https://freakonomics.com/podcast/sludge ... ning-in-it. However there are some issues that have impacts and costs that are felt far enough in the future that there is no link between choice and consequence. Boundary surveys are often in that category. Some services we offer are not.

As you are aware, I am well versed in the effects of surveyors having private collections of boundary work that is not filed and available to the public. Considering your diatribes about unrecorded maps, I am surprised you are not an advocate for lower review fees. I have spent literally hundreds (maybe a few thousand by now?) of hours scanning and providing for free the various unrecorded maps I have access to since I feel strongly that more information is better for everyone when it comes to boundary work.

Since we all agree that an increased review cost will result in fewer filed maps, does anyone think this fee increase is a good thing? I would like if we as a profession could all get behind the idea that review fees should be lowered.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[pls5528]

Let's get back to Survey to Recorder option!

[Mike Mueller]

You have some good points Mike, and I don't need to make the bet, but I'll buy you a beer anyways at next years CLSA Conf., cause a beer will be cheaper in 2026 vs 2030! LOL

I prefer coors light, so it will be cheap regardless! Looking forward to it :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

Still no interest in a legal, low-cost fence line agreement? That silence is telling. Apparently, the concern for saving the public time, money, and conflict only matters when it supports the business model.

A highly regulated profession signals structural importance — it exists to protect the public and to distinguish professionals from tradesmen and laypersons. Unfortunately, land surveyors, collectively, have chosen a different path. Land surveyors resist regulation. Land surveyors reject standards. Through action or silence, they have made it preferable to remain unregulated — enabling easier exploitation of the public without consequence: “record boundaries,” and other creative uses of professional judgment that fall short of even the minimum standard of care.

At this point, perhaps our only hope is that AI descends like Michael with the sword — to put an end to the carny ways, pass judgment without pause, cut through the delusion of professional discretion, and restore order where land surveyors would not.

As land surveyors continue to reject meaningful oversight — statutory definitions, enforceable practice standards, and ethical accountability — the profession accelerates its own collapse. It will end in automation, externally imposed fee schedules, and deregulation by irrelevance. The professional license, once a symbol of trust and competence, has instead become a thin justification for deliverables that cannot withstand public or legal scrutiny. In this model, the surveyor who refuses to cut corners, who upholds the standards others abandon, is left starving — because nothing is more proclaimed in theory — or abandoned in practice — than doing things properly.

Forsake professional self-governance, and land surveyors will wear the collar of bureaucracy — if not the boot of obsolescence.

The horsemen are not coming — they are already here: automation, commodification, DIY technology, and public distrust.

Join me in embracing the Four Horsemen — not as a threat, but as the reckoning land surveyors have chosen to ignore. I understand — it is easier for me to say this at my age.

The next generation would be wise to pursue statutory clarity: to define the practice, draw the line between tools and judgment, and end the long-standing reliance on historical sleight of hand. It is clear legal boundaries — not professional ambiguity — that protect both the public and the profession from confusion, exploitation, and decline.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

Dave,

Out of curiosity, is there a profession that you think is full of proper professionals and is working as it ought to? I have a pretty good experience with several and they all seem to be about the same in terms of how the actual humans operate within it.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

Dave,

Out of curiosity, is there a profession that you think is full of proper professionals and is working as it ought to? I have a pretty good experience with several and they all seem to be about the same in terms of how the actual humans operate within it.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

No problem, we can measure it in complaints and negligence citations, look no further than our brethren in the California engineering community. There are over seven times as many licensed engineers in the state, yet land surveyors account for more than 50% of the complaints and disciplinary actions. I’ve shared my theory before—it runs in the bloodline. I am not aware of any equivalent to Benson in engineering.

Almost every felon I have ever met in my lifetime was a land surveyor. I know of only one engineer - he was convicted of bank fraud. I currently know two separate licensed land surveyors now that are facing multiple felony charges that include burglary, receiving stolen property, identify theft, various weapons charges etc. In my social circles, family and friends, I know zero of these folks.

You understand the question is actually part of the rationalization process, right? The third side of the triangle.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

Almost every felon I have ever met in my lifetime was a land surveyor.

Wow! That's bit broad-stroked-harsh, Davey!

Sounds like a Stable Genius' quote: " . . . They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,”

Crazy Phil

[DWoolley]

Almost every felon I have ever met in my lifetime was a land surveyor.

Wow! That's bit broad-stroked-harsh, Davey!

Sounds like a Stable Genius' quote: " . . . They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,”

Crazy Phil

To be fair, I know a lot of land surveyors and I only know a few felons. All the felons I know, happen to be land surveyors.

That said, we cannot ignore the reality: engineers outnumber land surveyors in California by a factor of seven, yet land surveyors account for more than half of the disciplinary complaints and citations. The practice laws are similar. The enforcement body is the same. The process is identical. And still, it is the surveyors who keep ending up on the wrong side of the law.

If we applied society’s ratio of criminals caught and convicted to those that remain at-large and uncharged (10:1) to our field, it would suggest that those who get disciplined by BPELSG are merely the tip of the iceberg. Want more proof to satisfy any doubters? File a public records request with a planning department—ask for site plans or ask the County Surveyor for the first check records of survey in a few, shall we say, select jurisdictions. I suspect what you will find mirrors what Brando muttered in Apocalypse Now: “I’ve seen horrors… horrors that you’ve seen...It’s impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. The horror. Horror has a face...”.

DWoolley

[jamesh1467]

This is some pretty negative shit.

Again, I just think you forget that a felon is something we define as a people. We define what a felon is and is not by the laws we make. Its an arbitrary title made by those who make the laws. Fix the laws, fix the enforcement, and you'll stop having your "felons".

The only thing the claimed statistic you state tells me is that the laws we have right now don't follow the population of surveyors and people are rebelling against our surveying laws rather than following them. Our government isnt working for us, our laws around surveying aren't working for us. The laws around surveying need some pretty decent reform to match the needs of what people are telling us they want from our services. Everything you say just continues to confirm it. You all are just so hard-headed, you'll never accept it or come to the table to negotiate the reforms that are needed. Much less acknowledge that the system we have had for the last 100 years is/has been starting to fail.

Again, the forum here is pretty entertaining becuase I just keep watching the same shit happen over and over again. Same issues that come up, same people talking, same arguments. No progress.

[Jay Wright]

As far as I know....
None of the felons I know are Land Surveyors. In fact, most of them suck at math.

I think that this thread is no longer about the topic of Santa Clara County Record of Survey Fees.

The fence line agreement could make for an interesting Chapter Meeting discussion and its own topic on the forum.
I don't get any calls asking me if hiring a couple of lawyers to NOT find out where the boundaries are so they can put a fence in the wrong place is a good idea, but I imagine it could make sense given the right criteria.
Mostly the neighbors ability to agree, the relative uncertainty of the locations in comparison to lot size, and how to terminate the agreement. I imagine it would have to be disclosed if anyone plans on selling.

I may reach out to you for a redacted example in the future Dave Woolley and might have some questions.
Thank you
Jay Wright

[DWoolley]

As far as I know....
...
I think that this thread is no longer about the topic of Santa Clara County Record of Survey Fees.

The fence line agreement could make for an interesting Chapter Meeting discussion and its own topic on the forum.
...
I may reach out to you for a redacted example in the future Dave Woolley and might have some questions.
Thank you
Jay Wright

Jay:

The fee issue exposes a deeper problem: the surveying community’s refusal to organize around shared standards. Uniform fees tied to legal, professional practice would create a level playing field. Instead, they only impact the minority who follow the law—while those cutting corners face no consequences. There’s no unified resistance because most are not playing by the same rules. This is why efforts to establish statutory or regulatory standards are met with resistance—because too many benefit from operating in the shadows. i.e. tryin' catch me ridin' dirty.

In that region, I have seen surveyors reestablish senior section corners using two not-so-nearby junior road monuments with no search for the original monuments. I saw the same in Crockett, Contra Costa County - section corners established mathematically from two nails on a railroad.

If you are ready to release the fence line agreement, I will provide a copy and might present it to your chapter. Publishing it could significantly disrupt the local boundary and lot survey market.

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

If you are ready to release the fence line agreement, I will provide a copy and might present it to your chapter. Publishing it could significantly disrupt the local boundary and lot survey market.

I am interested in hearing more about this as well

[LS_8750]

Wow. That is a substantial fee increase.
I just submitted one yesterday in Santa Clara County, $613.

Looks like the record of survey is to be reserved for the more affluent zip codes........ Like always.

[Mike Mueller]

.....but lets be serious, with the standard of care issues that have been going on, does anyone in California even agree on what a law-abiding surveyor in California even is??????

I would bet that there is actually much more agreement than disagreement. There are outlying folks like Dave, who appears to think literally every topo they do needs to have their own RoS done for it. There are some outlying folks who don't think a RoS is needed when it is wildly clear that it does per 8762. However in my experience talking to people and looking at maps etc, most folks seem to be in the broad middle that shares a pretty common understanding of when a RoS is needed. The biggest predictor of disagreements is often age, not geographical location...

Its much like the "silent majority" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority). Its one of the reasons that I continue to post on this forum and engage. I think it is beneficial to help provide a counter point to the ivory tower thinking that is so often preached in public spaces. Consider the views on the "stinkin surveyor" thread. 8 posters, 77 replies, 12,950 views. If it was just the 8 folks posting, viewing each new post, it would be 8 X 77 = 616 views. Of course there are some repeat views, when someone looks at the thread even if no new post was made, but thats still thousands of views by none posters.

I also think its sorta like the surveyors version of the Bradley Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect) where the folks publicly state they would never show a record bearing on a topographic map.... but I would bet if we looked through their project history we would find plenty of examples. By discussing what I consider to be real world standards, that are actually practiced and used by many, it makes it less scary for others to speak up. The actual positive outcome I am working/hoping for is to lessen the future grandstanding and posturing when a committee needs to produce something that needs to have buy in by the silent majority.

Please note that I do not think all posts that differ from my opinion are grandstanding, just some. Many people have very good reasons for their differing beliefs and philosophical stances. Differences of opinions are healthy when we can have a civil discourse that results in information and insights being shared to help others see something from a different angle. Many times this forum is just that, a helpful repository with an amazing depth of knowledge that is freely shared to almost all who come and ask.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County