Hard to compete when you are the part of the few following the rules

Odd.?ÿ A City/County can establish permitting & planning strictures especially for Subdivision activities,?ÿ but I fail to understand how they can require additional?ÿ requirements for Boundary/Topographic surveys beyond those delineated in the State Statutes concerning the practice of Land Surveying.?ÿ That's the County's purview.?ÿ If your client needs a boundary survey perform an ROS & submit it to the County.?ÿ I'd sniff around and find out if anybody's actually been impeded by the City for not following the onerous "rules" published 1/1/2013.?ÿ Some rules should be deliberately ignored.

I poked around and Seattle has similar requirements (though not so ALTA-like) but only when a street improvement plan is required for an existing legal lot.?ÿ What exactly is your architect client trying to do??ÿ If she's just a flipper or new construction on a legal vacant lot her interactions should be with City engineering/planning staff, not a new full blown Boundary/topo Survey solely for the City's benefit.

But the contrary may be shown; I'd like to hear from Washington surveyors as to how this is playing out.

I firmly have believed this is one of the major reasons there is such huge competition in our state for this work.

There are a lot of "fly by night" type of outfits out there, that will only run one man robotic/gps crews out there. Also there seem to be some of our peers out there that have no idea of some of these Cities or County requirements, and just throwing out proposal's.

It is quite annoying, and doesn't reflect well on our profession. But that seems to be the type of people running things now, as the older step out, and the younger come in.

Don't even get me started on consistent training and mentoring. I have met three party chiefs, this year, that don't know how to run a level loop!

Anyway, sorry for the ramble, just my .02

A similar situation arises when a request goes out with specifications that are ridiculous.?ÿ Nevertheless you must cover yourself, so you add in all the extra work needed to meet those silly specifications.?ÿ Then the job is awarded to someone else, followed by those specifications being deleted from the list of needs.?ÿ That someone else is the same consultant always used.?ÿ The whole request/interview process is a farce.

Some of the "rules" are so silly they never are enforced, some are so onerous they are never done.

One example are requests for monitoring well locations across township sized areas located to .01' vertically. Of course, that's not possible within any kind of realistic budget, so you argue with the company, or you get the job locate the wells and report them to .01'.

Either a CYA statement accompanies the data or you just figure that someone has to "prove" the numbers wrong.?ÿ

Clearly the .01' spec is a dopey number that came out of a desk jockey somewhere, but it's a spec.?ÿ

Much of our work is figuring out how much really needs to be done. Some of it we do, some of it we don't and if the project gets approved by the regulators, then who cares.

If they want more then we push forward, many of these rules have outs or can be ignored by the powers that be, sometimes it's a matter of experience that guides you to just how far to go.?ÿ

@mike-marks

They can require whatever they like, if you want a permit from them. You should see the Seattle Street Improvement Permit requirements.

While we don't work in that area of WA I can assure you it is not exclusive to your side of the State.?ÿ I see this scenario quite often on the east side of the state and into Idaho where the reviewing agencies have no idea what's really in their *insert application requirements*.?ÿ People come, people go at these agencies and over time things are lost and forgotten.?ÿ On the rare occasion that we're involved in applicable projects we'll budget and plan to do what the agency requires in accordance with their requirements.?ÿ If we get the job at least we have time budgeted to complete it correctly.?ÿ If not, no big deal, there is plenty of work all around.

?ÿ

Yep, Iƒ??m actually going out to a Bellevue job today to pick up the extras you mention most people skipping on. I think the problem is the City of Bellevue checklist for a site plan is the same for all site plans in general. I understand locating all utilities, ROW +100 beyond property, 25ƒ?? overlap in topo, etc. for a site plan on a new home, but itƒ??s the same requirements for a site plan to add 5ƒ?? to an existing deck. Do you really need all that info, plus an engineer to put together a Storm Water Protection Plan for that? No, but they say they do. I see both sides of the argument on getting less for certain site plans. Why should a homeowner drop $10k on plans/permits to build a deck?

This thread was the impotice for this thread, about "out of town surveyors, and crews"

https://surveyorconnect.com/community/business-finance-legal/out-of-town-surveyors-out-of-town-crews/

?ÿ

This reminds me of something that happened 30 years ago when I worked for a private Civil Engineering firm.?ÿ Plan Check indicated more topo needed off-site in a certain area of the neighbor's property.?ÿ I'm thinking we have to send the crew out there but my boss grabs a drafting pen, says, "he wants more contours, give him more contours" and proceeds to draw / fake in more contours in that area.

@dave-karoly That's the art part of surveying, not the science.

Whatever the requirements of a survey that any municipality, group, individual or corporation wants, it can not be less than what the BOR requires that survey to be.

I had a man asking me to give him a price on setting tpost every 40ft along 3 miles of boundary.

That is 80 bundles or 400 tpost at $4 plus labor and mileage to carry, shoot in and pound them in the ground. That is half of a fencing job.

Informed him that he would need only 50 to 60 tpost to mark his boundary sufficiently and still be able to have plenty in place to identify the location of his boundary, build a fence by or post his property properly.

He was insistent that they be exactly 40ft apart.

The meeting came to a grinding halt when I gave my price.

Posted by: @darwin-walter

But that seems to be the type of people running things now, as the older step out, and the younger come in.

Did these "youngers" just up and decide to cut corners out of the blue?

Or were they perhaps taught to do so by someone...older?

I hadn't noticed that the younger generation was more unethical than their predecessors.

What I have noticed is that as cities, munis, etc. add more and more stringent requirements to their standards, fly-by-nights of all ages are working hard to cut more corners, and the rest of us are (literally) paying the price.

@a-harris

"...it can not be less than what the BOR requires that survey to be."

Our BOR has published statements that they will probably not enforce several of our Statutory requirements.

Posted by: @jamesf1

?ÿ?ÿ

Our BOR has published statements that they will probably not enforce several of our Statutory requirements.

?ÿ

Probably??ÿ That means you are still on the hook for them if they find any other reason to look at your work?

@a-harris

So you didn't want to build his fence?

Posted by: @holy-cow

A similar situation arises when a request goes out with specifications that are ridiculous.?ÿ Nevertheless you must cover yourself, so you add in all the extra work needed to meet those silly specifications.?ÿ Then the job is awarded to someone else, followed by those specifications being deleted from the list of needs.?ÿ That someone else is the same consultant always used.?ÿ The whole request/interview process is a farce.

Do you really think you would peel this client away even if you were proposing on the same items?

I do a little of this in Bellevue and surrounding communities which have survey standards. Generally my client needs to know if what they want to do fits on the lot first so I do the bare minimum base map for them.?ÿ If the project is a go, we return to the site and collect the rest of the data bringing the final survey as submitted up to code.?ÿ Now, I must be in the same boat because I don't do many of these and only for one Architect who knows my work and sees the value returned.?ÿ The web page is confusing insomuch as there is one set of criteria for a simple site plan and a completely other set of criteria for a more complex project.?ÿ

Not to digress, I was given an advance copy of a subdivision ordinance for a small community that I work and reside in as a heads up. There are so many mistakes, unachievable requirements, and simply nonsense that I have written a letter to the city council members and mayor asking for a meeting in advance of them spending any time on this. Crickets.?ÿ Good thing I am retiring in the next year or so.?ÿ

Don't get me started on SPU's requirements. The CAD drafting standards is about 160 pages alone.?ÿ?ÿ

?ÿ

@a-harris

You are a reasonably priced surveyor, but a very expensive fence builder.

@rover83

My perception is that the "set in their ways" people see no reason to change...regardless of their age.