Time for Board to enforce California Law 8762?
it is an entire myth there are insufficient funds or resources available for the Board to enforce the laws. Anyone saying this, on this forum or anywhere else, is entirely misinformed and does not take the responsibility to verify such information prior to expressing it.
Apparently, I’m among the misinformed. I made the assumption that the complaints I’ve heard about BPELSG dismissing formal complaints without sanction were the result of funding constraints. Color me chastened.
Wasn’t really focused so much on what you said Jim. But in your defense, there was a time (20 years ago) when the Board chose to prioritize budget for expenditures other than enforcement needs (enforcement needed to reinstate positions from previous budget directives) and that created problems which took a long time to recover. Which it did about 10 years ago.
From what I have read throughout this post, it is my understanding that every survey is being “checked” as a step in the county/city planning process, and that they are not only looking for compliance with standards, laws, and local ordinances, but whether or not the survey is in harmony with the planning commissions plans for future growth. If my understanding is correct, the author of the legislation that required this action missed the mark in protecting the health & welfare of the public. The reasoning for recording surveys varies from State to State, but the general intent is to have records for posterity in order to eliminate major snafu’s when retracing an ancient title. There is also an argument of recorded surveys being a major instrument in re-establishing property lines after a catastrophic natural disaster such as an earth quake, major mud slides, or fires that destroy everything in their path.
In my humble opinion, any review prior to recording should be limited to checking for the compliance with standards, laws, and local ordinances which should not take more than one hour from the County/City Surveyor. That review should be a charge to the surveyor signing the document and the expense built into the surveyor’s fees. Any review for the planning commission’s plans for current or future growth should be an expense to the municipality requiring such an in-depth review and not being a burden on the surveyor or the general public. I think of it as, if big government wanting to play in all games, they have to pay the admission fee to play. Lord knows they collect enough taxes to pay government employees on the payroll, even if there isn’t enough work to go around.
If you want this to change, get the State Societies involved, engineering and surveying. Form an action group to review the original intent of the requirement, identify how the original intent has changed over time, list the pros & cons of keeping things as status quo, make recommendations to change the verbiage of the law to better benefit the profession with keeping our charge of protecting the health and welfare of the public. After you have a package that makes sense for all concerned, use your lobbyists and the political friends of the societies to author and champion a bill in the house or senate. Change the law, change the overburden on the profession and damage to the public.
Stepping down from the pulpit.
The discussion originated on the Record of Survey process which has nothing to do with planning commissions, future growth, subdividing parcels, etc. Its a little different than most states (unfortunately). Oregon and Washington are the closest in terms of this topic and I believe those are even slightly different but not by much. Only review is by County Surveyor and it is described in the Act as to what that review entails.
Get involved and file complaints. That is how we make it a level playing field. If people just whine about it and don’t do anything to affect change it won’t change. It literally takes 10 minutes to file a complaint on the Board’s website. Get rid of the people that are cheating or make them do it right. The answer is very simple and it isn’t hard to do.
It feels complicated to me. Some of these non-filers are my friends, mentors and employers. Some of them view it as a game and keep a cabinet full of survey maps (with statements, title block and all) that they ‘forgot’ to send in. If someone calls asking about a found monument then the unfiled map is ready to send out and is noted as “one that slipped through the cracks”. I can confront them but can’t quite bring myself to file a complaint based on privileged information. I’m willing to bet that we all know one or two of these in our community
Get involved and file complaints. That is how we make it a level playing field. If people just whine about it and don’t do anything to affect change it won’t change. It literally takes 10 minutes to file a complaint on the Board’s website. Get rid of the people that are cheating or make them do it right. The answer is very simple and it isn’t hard to do.
It feels complicated to me. Some of these non-filers are my friends, mentors and employers. Some of them view it as a game and keep a cabinet full of survey maps (with statements, title block and all) that they ‘forgot’ to send in. If someone calls asking about a found monument then the unfiled map is ready to send out and is noted as “one that slipped through the cracks”. I can confront them but can’t quite bring myself to file a complaint based on privileged information. I’m willing to bet that we all know one or two of these in our community
Well, they wouldn’t view it as a game if they got called out on it more often. They’d do what everyone else does and file the map.
[ . . . ] there are just as many land surveyors in California who refuse to comply with the filing requirement as there are that are responsible enough to file.
I question that assertion concerning ROSs. The Statute is clear, any discrepancies found during a survey triggers an ROS. (OTOH, if there are no discrepancies no ROS is required). I can count on one hand the situations where I’ve found convincing evidence a survey which reveals discrepancies has been performed (fresh pins w/Tags for example) and the required ROS was never filed. Any LS who routinely violates Section 8762 and others is playing with fire and is his/her own worst enemy. A quick perusal of the Board’s end of year bulletin shows over 30 LS’s or unlicensed individuals suffered citations or disciplinary actions in FY 2020/2021.
You’d be surprised how accurate I am with that assessment. The Board publishes citations and disciplinary actions in each quarterly bulletin and do not repeat across published editions. Not sure where you are seeing “end of year” bulletin…what am I missing?
You are correct. I pulled up the Fall Bulletin and went directly to page 14 titled “Enforcement Actions – Fiscal Year 2020-2021” and did not notice the tables only cover the second calendar quarter, April-June. So my estimate of 30 is off by roughly a factor of 4; should be more like 120/yr which actually reinforces my assertion that lotsa LS/unlicensed folks are cited/disciplined each year. ???
I’ve looked at the Summer 2021 bulletin and behold, they did annualize board actions, it appears they review roughly 325 complaints per year and cite/discipline about 120/year. I consider that a fairly robust enforcement effort.
It sounds like California has legislated the local municipalities to perform a Board function to review every survey for compliance, and charging the surveyor/client for the police action. In the mandatory recording states I am familiar with, the surveyor takes the plat and/or surveyor’s report to the Chancery Clerk’s office, sometimes called the recorder’s office, pays their $30 – $50 recording fee, and it is recorded before the following day’s close of business.
In my humble opinion, if you eliminate the review of survey plats by the unlicensed bureaucrats [in other words, rely on the licensed professional to comply with the minimum standards, laws & local ordnances], charge only your recording fees, and compliance by most survey practitioners should increase dramatically. This may be a cause your state society can champion and at least make a recommendation to change the legislation.
I’ve never lived in California and hopefully I never will, but from my side of the room it appears to be a liberal bastion where it is not humanly possible to collect enough taxes and fees to feed the bureaucracy, SO– good luck with any attempt to dial back this gravy train.
Also, even in states where the recording fee is reasonable you still have surveyors cutting corners. So far I haven’t been able to put a finger on the reason– do they feel they can’t compete on price unless they do this, or are they just lazy? Or is it something else? I tend to think it’s something to do with being competitive but since I’ve never been in a position to propose on jobs I simply don’t know.
Anyway, I have a feeling many of the problems in the surveying profession come down to not charging what it takes to do the job right. We can’t control what guys charge but at least we could try to get rid of the lowballers who cut corners to stay in business.
A simple solution would be to have mandatory recording fees be charged in addition to the cost of the survey. If someone??s profit margin is that tight they need to start eating PB&J sandwiches for lunch.
That is another regressive tax. Those who can afford it the least, pay the highest percentage relative to the land/building value.
Say we had a State-designated rate of $800 to file something the client has no interest in paying to file in the first place. Talked with a potential client a few weeks back who was wanting to cut trees and haul off junk that had accumulated on a tract he had purchased that included a single-wide trailer home in good condition. He didn’t want to accidentally cut something on an adjoiner. He flipped out when I tossed out a ridiculously low number that I was about to increase as I mentioned certain critical stumbling blocks that would drive that number much higher. His response was, “But, I only paid $5000 for the property including the trailer home.”
Another landowner a mile away might have a $350,000 dollar house setting on a very simple tract to survey that could be done for probably a fifth of what it would take to straighten out the first guy’s issues.
@mike-marks Typically only half of the annual complaints involve land surveying and of that, about 15%-18% involve the filing of a Record of Survey.
Something seriously needs to be done due to the rising costs and pricing models (e.g., deposit based is just wrong for an RS submittal). Again, who is going to engage in an effective challenge to what is occurring?
If the maximum fee is not authorized by a duly adopted ordinance then the County is in violation of state law.
If they are violating a state law as you say then I might expect there to be some board outreach to the County attorneys on the matter. Would you endorse a class action lawsuit against a specific county where all filing surveyors are plaintiffs?
If the the fee structure is not in compliance with what is stated in the PLS Act, the potential is always there for the Board to become involved.
The issue I am often facing is not just the cost (as outlined above), but the timeline. San Bernardino County is currently 12-18 months out on Record of Survey checks. We just got back one we submitted in January 2021 – first check. And the turn around has only increased. Before it’s all said and done, it could be a 3 year map.
The issue I am often facing is not just the cost (as outlined above), but the timeline. San Bernardino County is currently 12-18 months out on Record of Survey checks. We just got back one we submitted in January 2021 – first check. And the turn around has only increased. Before it’s all said and done, it could be a 3 year map.
Tom has had a difficult time hiring staff to fill empty positions for a long time at SB County. From what I’m told public agencies are basically hiring people away from each other at this point. The Board provides updated license lists on a regular basis to him for recruitment. I’m sure there are others struggling too, just hear from Tom on a regular basis.
The issue I am often facing is not just the cost (as outlined above), but the timeline. San Bernardino County is currently 12-18 months out on Record of Survey checks. We just got back one we submitted in January 2021 – first check. And the turn around has only increased. Before it’s all said and done, it could be a 3 year map.
Tom has had a difficult time hiring staff to fill empty positions for a long time at SB County. From what I’m told public agencies are basically hiring people away from each other at this point. The Board provides updated license lists on a regular basis to him for recruitment. I’m sure there are others struggling too, just hear from Tom on a regular basis.
Sounds like some Counties should sub out map reviews to private surveyors like most smaller Cities do. Fortunately, my SB County isn’t 12-18 months and I don’t think the local surveyor’s would stand for that, put the County Surveyors note on the map and force file?
Something seriously needs to be done due to the rising costs and pricing models (e.g., deposit based is just wrong for an RS submittal). Again, who is going to engage in an effective challenge to what is occurring?
If the maximum fee is not authorized by a duly adopted ordinance then the County is in violation of state law.
If they are violating a state law as you say then I might expect there to be some board outreach to the County attorneys on the matter. Would you endorse a class action lawsuit against a specific county where all filing surveyors are plaintiffs?
If the the fee structure is not in compliance with what is stated in the PLS Act, the potential is always there for the Board to become involved.
Thanks for chiming in on these topics Ric. Would I file the complaint against the County Surveyor? The online form requires a persons name.
Something seriously needs to be done due to the rising costs and pricing models (e.g., deposit based is just wrong for an RS submittal). Again, who is going to engage in an effective challenge to what is occurring?
If the maximum fee is not authorized by a duly adopted ordinance then the County is in violation of state law.
If they are violating a state law as you say then I might expect there to be some board outreach to the County attorneys on the matter. Would you endorse a class action lawsuit against a specific county where all filing surveyors are plaintiffs?
If the the fee structure is not in compliance with what is stated in the PLS Act, the potential is always there for the Board to become involved.
Thanks for chiming in on these topics Ric. Would I file the complaint against the County Surveyor? The online form requires a persons name.
Jeesh, Kyle leave the poor CS out of it, he didn’t set the fee. 🙂 Pick a County Supervisor.
@edward-reading that??s exactly what I thought.
Chairman of the Board of Soups seems about right to me.
Jeesh, Kyle leave the poor CS out of it, he didn’t set the fee. 🙂 Pick a County Supervisor.
That’s why I asked, he is a nice guy and is playing the hand he was dealt. There is this other CS tho….
The issue I am often facing is not just the cost (as outlined above), but the timeline. San Bernardino County is currently 12-18 months out on Record of Survey checks. We just got back one we submitted in January 2021 – first check. And the turn around has only increased. Before it’s all said and done, it could be a 3 year map.
Tom has had a difficult time hiring staff to fill empty positions for a long time at SB County. From what I’m told public agencies are basically hiring people away from each other at this point. The Board provides updated license lists on a regular basis to him for recruitment. I’m sure there are others struggling too, just hear from Tom on a regular basis.
Definitely. There is a massive shortage of staff in general and especially in the field we work in. We have not even had a CLSA meeting in 4-5 months because no one has time to do it. That’s not blaming anyone… it’s just how it is. I worked for San Bernardino County for 5 years and it’s been gutted. People leaving through retirement, private sector, etc.; unable to recruit; and of course don’t get me started on the politics of the DPW in the County. Tom and Ryan definitely have their hands full.
That being said, I’m 100% for filing a Record of Survey when required and when I get my PLS, if I am the lead LS, I will do so. However, it’s a horrible situation for LS’s in this area where they have to file an ROS (per PLSA) and are not getting them back in the required timeframe (also per PLSA). Again, no blame. Just a crappy situation. Does not excuse an LS from doing what’s required.
However, it’s a horrible situation for LS’s in this area where they have to file an ROS (per PLSA) and are not getting them back in the required timeframe (also per PLSA).
I write my contacts so that payment is due when the ROS is submitted to the county for checking. If the country drags its feet, it’s not a big concern for me.
Log in to reply.