It is $400+ in the Portland Metro area.?ÿ If you are doing a pre-construction survey (for R/W improvements) or property line adjustment you can tack another $800 deposit on for at cost review fees.?ÿ It should be noted that recording fees in Oregon go to the County Surveyor's Office.?ÿ I do not mind the $400, we get a lot of services out of them to include the perpetuation of GLO corners and records.
Does the fee apply to everything recorded with the auditor??ÿ It seems to me that records of survey might have just been caught up in a gill net bill.
Does the fee apply to everything recorded with the auditor?
I believe it does; but I could be wrong.
I'm not opposed to fees (taxes); I just wish they were smarter about how it is spent...
Except.... The better products produced by surveyors with access to all the modern records which likely results is less litigation and higher land surveyor salaries.
No, I don't have proof, just my experience working in recording and non recording states.?ÿ
Maybe no one is using night vision googles, but how many mounuments do you think have been missed because the plat is in someone's?ÿ private records??ÿ ?ÿDigging down 4' or scouring the ground for traces of rust or rotten stakes, or faintly marked stones is fine, but only if you know there should be something there. The problems arise when the next surveyor has the record that you didn't.
But in non recording states surveyors get around this with concept of expiring surveys. Land owners pay much less, but more often.?ÿ
This is not a recording versus non-recording issue. It is a mindset problem. Fees should have a connection to the spending. Nobody gets evicted because the owner gets a survey, except maybe the lowball surveyor.?ÿ
Perhaps we should mandate reading comprehension.
Strawman arguments are amusing but not very useful. Mandatory recording of plats did not arise from centuries of policy debated ad infinitum.?ÿ Unlike the Statute of Frauds, there's not a clear rationale for Mandated recording of a plat. It came from small groups who seemingly focused on all the good without considering the bad.?ÿ?ÿ
You are fortunate to live in a part of our country that is largely passed over.?ÿ If you lived on either of the coasts, the idea that a municipality might use mandatory recording as a means to extort your clients might not appear far fetched.
?ÿ
This is a recording vs non recording issue because in a non recording state a PLS can still provide a valuable service to his client with or without the blessing of the state.?ÿ
Recording is not the issue.?ÿ Cedeing regulatory power to non surveying entities is the issue.?ÿ
In the long term, you can bank on the fact that recording will cost more (the least concern) and become a tool in which municipalities steal valuable data?ÿ from the individuals who purchase a survey.?ÿ I am mostly concerned about the latter.
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
I agree that a recorded plat provides more and better information.?ÿ I just don't believe the value of a recorded plat is greater than that of the right to privacy.?ÿ I'm not against requirements for new subdivisions to be recorded.?ÿ I'm against compelling people to share data that they purchased without being compensated for it.?ÿ?ÿ
Privacy concerns are warranted about information concerning the interior of parcels, but I don't think any recording requirements intrude into the interior. What is the privacy concern about boundaries? Not wanting your neighbor to know you are encroaching??ÿ
It came from small groups who seemingly focused on all the good without considering the bad.
Kinda like when praising the virtues of non-recording while ignoring the potential for fraud and unnecessary expense.
Recording and fees are not a zero sum game but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that out of, I guess, sheer pessimism.
I don't think location has anything to do with it-- it's a matter of the people in charge of spending having no concept of what it takes to generate wealth and drive an economy.
In NJ, surveys are not recorded so surprisingly, we don't face those costs but are taxed to death on virtually everything else.
And there is the hidden cost of not recording surveys to consider. Unnecessary?ÿ resurveys attorney fees, paying a surveyor for copies of surveys (or the surveyors free time answering requests ), the coat of moving encroachments.....
In the long term, you can bank on the fact that recording will cost more (the least concern) and become a tool in which municipalities steal valuable data?ÿ from the individuals who purchase a survey.?ÿ I am mostly concerned about the latter.
I am generally curious as to what sensitive/valuable data are on a typical ROS (in your area of practice) that could be "stolen" (devalued) by a municipality.
Around here, it's not unusual for commercial clients - some of whom wish to keep development projects and their interest in certain areas as quiet as possible - to request an ALTA/NSPS survey with Table A Item 1 checked. If we have to set monuments, or find any discrepancies, that will trigger an ROS.
It's a pretty simple process to convert that ALTA to an ROS, which only shows that which we are required to show by statute. Basically everything to help the next retracing surveyor, and no indication of why the record of survey was performed or who we were dealing with to produce the ALTA.
The only thing I can think of that might be "valuable" would be evidence of overlaps/gaps, or evidence of possible encroachments or lines of possession that might indicate title issues - which we are required to show. But that's the only item shown in addition to the data that only a surveyor would really find useful.
I don't know if I would consider that valuable in the sense that it could be stolen.
1. Preparing a ROS having completed an ALTA survey is simple indeed, seldom taking an hour.?ÿ
2. If you have surveyed the site but not filed the almost mandatory ROS, that means I can't refer the client to you to update your survey, so both you and the client suffer. Once I start the survey and find your monuments there is no stopping for me.?ÿ
