It took me 20 years to figure out how to make a million dollars as a surveyor. Start with TWO. An old one, but still fits.
Stacy Carroll, post: 445289, member: 150 wrote: It took me 20 years to figure out how to make a million dollars as a surveyor. Start with TWO. An old one, but still fits.
As a 'young ' surveyor, I want to see hope for the future of the profession. How do we attract new talent? The thrill of working outdoors? The love of old maps? The expectation of a frustrating job with minimal pay?
Money talks, bull$#!+ walks.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
spledeus, post: 445290, member: 3579 wrote: As a 'young ' surveyor, I want to see hope for the future of the profession. How do we attract new talent? The thrill of working outdoors? The love of old maps? The expectation of a frustrating job with minimal pay?
Money talks, bull$#!+ walks.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I don't have any answers, but I can offer what I've seen over (what is apparently) a long career.
I don't think anyone has ever been able to successfully "cultivate" progressive ranks in our profession. Plenty have tried and some achieve a minor amount of success. I have surveyed for 50 years and have probably only seen three or four of my own subordinate employees reach professional status.
The environment is rough. It is more like waiting for mushrooms to pop up than any sort of structured cultivation in rows. The economy, pay rates, working conditions and the employees themselves all play a part. Factors stretched out over years have to come together perfectly to see a young person make it all the way. And a great deal of that has to do with the "spore" itself. Those that stick with it can make a good living working at a career that is very enjoyable and rewarding. Sadly the majority of "good help" is lured away into some related field that has (at least) a more predictable environment.
So "How do we attract new talent?" I believe that is up to the talent and not the industry. It is a unique profession that has many interesting facets. If one doesn't see it as a passion and only sees it as a monetarily driven career, maybe they should go about their way. Maybe that is why the number of professional surveyors stays at a minimal level. There just aren't that many people willing to keep with it. The few that are willing to endure the rigors of pre-professional and subordinate work will probably do well.
And maybe, just maybe, that is how it should be.
James Fleming, post: 445286, member: 136 wrote: That's not an intrinsic problem with hourly fees, rather a lack of character with those charging them.
People of character may resist, but the wind always blows in that direction.
roger_LS, post: 445254, member: 11550 wrote: Is CA one of them?
California has a pretty well established Sunset Review process that every licensing board must go through every 4 years (if they are good - less time if they are not) where the continued need for licensing is considered. This has been in place since the mid-1990's. Many other states don't have this process; don't have a State Office of Administrative Law to provide oversight for regulations, and do not have a majority of public (non-licensed) members on their board.
That being said, there is a Little Hoover Commission in California that did issue a report on occupational licensing a year or two ago where they did advocate for additional review and deregulation where warranted. check out lhc.ca.gov
Other states are definitely not as sophisticated in terms of how their government organization is setup as it relates to the purview overseen by the Governor and the Legislators.
Ric Moore, post: 445240, member: 731 wrote: I can see general members of the public reading this thread and passing it along to their legislators in those 23 states that are currently under Governor Executive Orders to suspend all regulation efforts until each licensing board can justify their existence and why the state should not just eliminate the licensing requirements.
To what advantage? What this thread shows is that, in broad-stroke terms, surveyors are generally not very good businessmen. It doesn't reflect on the knowledge and training required to build the necessary technical/professional qualifications to properly perform land surveying services.
If I could turn back the clock to when I was in college with what I know now, I'd take more business management courses as my elective choices.
---------------------------------------
Speaking to the lump sum vs hourly rate discussion, it seems to me that those taking a strong position one way or the other may be doing so from a narrow perspective.
There is no moral high ground either way. As Jim Fleming said, the ethical and moral fiber of the individual, and not the fee structure will be the primary factor determining whether the client receives the value they pay for. Profit is a good thing, and however the surveyor can maximize profits without sacrificing quality and diligence - that is, while providing actual value, is acceptable.
As I recall, there are or were some states (or their professional associations) that prohibited professions from offering services by lump sum. The reasoning, I think was to prevent the professions from sliding into the muck of competing on price as if the service were a retail commodity.
Any pricing structure can be abused by an ethically challenged service provider. No matter the pricing structure we use or are constrained to, there are consumers (clients) and service providers ("professionals") who can and will do all they can to reduce as many services provided to a commodity like pricing competition.
In regions and market sectors where the perceived value of the service generally outweighs the costs of doing business for the surveyor, lump sum makes more business sense because the higher perceived value allows the surveyor an automatic safety factor and/or profit margin.
Certain types of work in many regions can be estimated pretty accurately. When that is the case and where the perceived value of the service exceeds the cost estimate, it makes perfect business sense to use a fixed fee based on value.
Where the work can be fairly accurately and consistently estimated and the value of the services is roughly equal to your estimated hourly fees, then you can contract for FF knowing that about half the time, you will come out a little ahead, and about half the time you'll break even or lose a little. In the long run, you'll probably be in about the same financial shape either way.
There are areas and/or market sectors where the unknowns in terms of conditions, and often govt regulations (and associated costs) based on conditions (and perhaps on bureaucratic whims) are such that the costs can't be estimated accurately/consistently enough to provide a lump sum that is neither potentially exorbitant to the client and/or potentially disastrous to the surveyor in terms of overruns due to conditions beyond the surveyors control or reasonable foreseeability. Using lump sum in these cases can be a high stakes gamble. A seemingly easy project is contracted at a ff of $2000. The surveyor finds that there is survey evidence of unfiled records, which may cost a few hundred to track down and obtain. There may be access problems that result in a wasted half day of field time. Long time occupation conflicts with present record, requiring additional title research and perhaps a search for improvement plans of the subject parcel, adjoining parcels, public RWs, and util easements. And the list can go on with other possible unfortunate and previously undiscoverable conditions.
It may be that the average project of that type in that area can easily be done for $2000 or less, but you had the misfortune of getting a job with almost every hidden trap that might exist on lesser scale across several "average" sites. Your $2000 project ends up with $8000 of T&M internally billed to it, but because it was contracted FF, you write off $6000. You need to have 10 other such projects that go perfectly just to break even. How many times can you afford to have that level of bad luck and remain in business?
"I'd raise my prices to $4000 for that kind of project."
OK. What if the other surveyors in the area either aren't encountering those hidden pitfalls (or some are ignoring them) and continue to charge between $1400 and $2300 for similar projects? Are you able to credibly convince prospective clients that your services are worth 70% to almost triple comparable services of other surveyors in the area?
Where the perceived value of the service is often less than the actual value or surveyor's level of effort at hourly rates, and where certain conditions cannot be foreseen but are not uncommon, an hourly fee structure may make more sense.
Some surveyors I know, and what I think makes the most sense in any area and/or market sector where the perceived value does not significantly exceed the estimate based on hourly rates, is to provide either an estimated fee with provisions for unforeseen circumstances, or a lump sum based on estimated effort with provisions for conditions which cannot be specifically foreseen for the project at hand but which are know to occasionally be found in the area and affecting that type of project. Either of those can be used to educate the client before such conditions are encountered about the likelihood and of the likely costs to address each condition. That way, the surveyor is better protected yet has accountability to justify fees beyond the initial estimate or FF.
That fees for similar services can vary so much from one region to another for certain services does not surprise me that much. When shopping for a home in North-central CA, my folks lived in Central VA and my mom would send us the real estate booklets that you pick up in places like the lobby of the local Denny's or I-Hop. Housing prices in my area of CA were (and probably still are) 3 to 3.5 times what they were there. If the typical fee for a Lot survey (residential lot in a platted subdivision) is $500 to $700, that value relative to the cost of the property is commensurate with a survey with a fee of $1500 to $2500 around here. A typical subdivision lot might not take much more than 3 hrs in the field if it's close to the office, and a few more hours to cover the research and drafting. From that perspective, I don't see that Tommy's fees are unreasonable.
In my area and the sector I was serving when in practice, a typical boundary survey project was not a subdivision lot survey where the yards are reasonably manicured and corners readily accessible. The typical survey for me was anywhere between 1/2 acre and 40 acres, typically covered in lots of trees and brush. Descriptions were typically some manner of aliquot division, M&B cut out of an aliquot division or larger M&B, or a combination of aliquot and M&B terms. Even the lot surveys I did were typically in subdivisions that are in very hilly to mountainous land, where the owners purposely keep a lot of brush and trees to maintain the sense of living in the woods, and were laid out when it was all heavy timber and thick underbrush. One won't get many like that done in a half day.
Down the hill where the subdivisions are newer and more devoid of heavy vegetation, things can go quite a bit quicker. But even there, suburbanite Californians really like their 6' privacy fences. A half day of field time can still be a challenge.
If I were to view Tommy's fees from the perspective of what my practice was, they would seem outlandishly inadequate. Viewing from having worked in many areas of the country and imagining the type of survey which can be reasonably done with the minimal effort he described, they make more sense.
??There ain't no answer.
There ain't gonna be any answer.
There never has been an answer.
There's your answer.?
-Gertrude Stein
eapls2708, post: 445332, member: 589 wrote: To what advantage? What this thread shows is that, in broad-stroke terms, surveyors are generally not very good businessmen. It doesn't reflect on the knowledge and training required to build the necessary technical/professional qualifications to properly perform land surveying services.
Yep, that's it. And given that you understand that, don't you think that the public also has this perception, understanding, etc.? After all, the laws are meant for the public and if the public, through their government, determines that regulation of a license is no longer necessary, then it can cease to be regulated. It's already happening in many other states, not to mention at least one bill introduced at the federal level.
Ric Moore, post: 445335, member: 731 wrote: Yep, that's it. And given that you understand that, don't you think that the public also has this perception, understanding, etc.? After all, the laws are meant for the public and if the public, through their government, determines that regulation of a license is no longer necessary, then it can cease to be regulated. It's already happening in many other states, not to mention at least one bill introduced at the federal level.
Yes, I do believe that the public has that perception. But other than a couple of paragraphs of the B&P Code, the Board does not so much regulate the business of surveying as they do the practice of surveying (the actual survey work).
I understand that the majority of consumer complaints come down to some manner of contract problem, but beyond the statutory provisions for certain contract content, and about who may own or operate a surveying business, it's not the business operations that are regulated.
Except to the extent that the contract provisions provide for the conditions or occurrences contemplated in 8759, or where fraud may be involved, the Board has no authority to regulate fees, or to determine if a fee is too high or too low.
How would deregulation solve any of the business shortcomings in the profession? And realizing (assuming?) that you and I agree on the need for regulating the technical/professional aspects, what are the arguments of those who would deregulate that it would improve or at least not harm practice standards or quality of services.
You always argue from a logical point of view Evan because you are a very logical thinker who tries to offer a great deal of reasoning behind your statements. That is completely understandable. Many of the discussions that I have heard about or personally witnessed on a national and state level pertaining to deregulation efforts are not necessarily approaching these situations in the same thought manner as you are, and with less reasoning behind the message other than "our constituents believe that continued government regulation is limiting business growth and current licensing regulations are barriers to allowing anyone with the fundamental right to conduct business."
I'm definitely not saying I agree with it and like you, I always try develop a sense of reason in an attempt to understand where the motivation behind these efforts. However, this is definitely looking like a situation where thinking logically is illogical.
I spoke to an architect's drafted the other day. She had misconstrued the instructions of the architect. She was purposefully not providing the final dimensions on the construction drawing. The architect cleared it up. They don't close put the sub dimensions for the windows and doors to ensure the contractors measure from the same wall on each floor. But they do provide all exterior dimensions for concrete. Good.
In between the two conversarions, I reviewed the regulations governing architecture. They are very different from the regulations governing surveying. While we have closure requirements, they have fee descriptions. While we have research requirements, they have guidelines for gifts from clients.
Deregulating might not be such a bad idea, but I was told by the old timers that you should have seen some of the awful surveys from before the regulations were set into place. I punch them in all the time...
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Tommy Young, post: 445004, member: 703 wrote: A typical lot survey shouldn't take over 3 hours in the field and 3 hours in the office.
I don't think I have ever completed a survey in 6 hours. I think most surveys I did in Tennessee took at least 6 hours of research. Maybe I am slow. Maybe that is why I don't work in Tennessee anymore.
These price differences across the country are not only because of the difference in wages or property values. They are because of what is expected as a final product.
spledeus, post: 445290, member: 3579 wrote: As a 'young ' surveyor, I want to see hope for the future of the profession. How do we attract new talent? The thrill of working outdoors? The love of old maps? The expectation of a frustrating job with minimal pay?
Money talks, bull$#!+ walks.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
You won't get rich, but it certainly is possible to make more than "minimal pay".
aliquot, post: 445650, member: 2486 wrote: You won't get rich, but it certainly is possible to make more than "minimal pay".
I am hopeful that supply and demand work in our favor.
My area is mostly surveyed. I am now spending my days fixing old surveys. Once in a while a recent survey needs to be fixed as well. That is sad when I see one from the past decade that is askew. Sadder when it is feet wrong.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
aliquot, post: 445648, member: 2486 wrote: I don't think I have ever completed a survey in 6 hours. I think most surveys I did in Tennessee took at least 6 hours of research. Maybe I am slow. Maybe that is why I don't work in Tennessee anymore.
These price differences across the country are not only because of the difference in wages or property values. They are because of what is expected as a final product.
95% my jobs take less than 30 minutes of research.
Tommy Young, post: 445746, member: 703 wrote: 95% my jobs take less than 30 minutes of research.
Wow, I can't imagine that, although I have never worked in your part of the state.
In Tennesee I always had to travel longer than 30 minutes just to look at the records.
aliquot, post: 445815, member: 2486 wrote: Wow, I can't imagine that, although I have never worked in your part of the state.
In Tennesee I always had to travel longer than 30 minutes just to look at the records.
Just about everywhere in the state has the deeds online for at least the last 50 years.
Tommy Young, post: 445835, member: 703 wrote: Just about everywhere in the state has the deeds online for at least the last 50 years.
I find that hard to believe.....Al Gore would have only been nineteen
Tommy Young, post: 445835, member: 703 wrote: Just about everywhere in the state has the deeds online for at least the last 50 years.
In Oregon & Washington I can call a title company and get them to send current vesting deeds and/or specific Book/Pages for free. A couple of times I have paid a couple hundred for some more in depth research. In 20 years I have been to an Oregon county records room maybe 3 times.
In Oklahoma you could get records on line for Oklahoma City (Canadian County) and Tulsa County. The other 97 counties were not online (there may have been some others on-line, but not many, but I didn't discover them). And these record room were sometime filled with dozens of oil patch "researchers". It was often an all day thing to do research.
Tommy Young, post: 445835, member: 703 wrote: Just about everywhere in the state has the deeds online for at least the last 50 years.
When I was there the only county that I worked in that online records was Knox. Most surveys required more than a 50 year search.
