I just came across this while doing some research
I suppose that you can justify your fee if you indicate the amount of work you that must need to do to verify the property lines and you show this type of control breakdown on your survey plat.
I can hear the surveyor trying to explain to the client---
"[sarcasm]Mr. Client, the amount of surveying your lot will require me to survey into all the sections corners that are 1/2 mile apart and to verify that they have not moved and I can not simply accept the points that are already at your property, I must verify that they are really the points that the original surveyor set and that he did not make a misstate. All of this will take over a day or two of surveying. That's why my fee is so high.[/sarcasm]"
FYI
All property markers are existing on the subject property at the time of the survey
All existing markers were set by the original surveyor as indicated on the subd map
All the adjoining markers and street monuments are in too
The subdivision map was recorded in 2003
To clarify. All of the Tract and Lot corners are in place. They are the original subdividers monuments. To verify lot 3 of a 10 year plus subdivision a complete section breakdown is necessary? Really? Not sure that is required. I'd be a little skeptical of the fee too (whatever it was).
This is exactly the wrong way to approach the discussion. You do not justify the fee after the work is done. You give the client options and let them choose which of your services they want. At that point there is no justification to do. They want the work or they don't.
As for using things like time spent on the project or corners recovered to strengthen the results, very few clients care about those things. Your time or effort doing the work are in no way tied to the value you are providing the client. Establish the value first, then you can determine if you can do the work at a price that will insure proper value for the client and a fair profit for the professional.
Larry P
Oh boy............
"Note: All recovered monuments within Block XX were within acceptable positional tolerance at time of field survey"
Just what is the "acceptable positional tolerance" in your state that dictates the acceptance or rejection of a monument?
"All property markers are existing on the subject property at the time of the survey
All existing markers were set by the original surveyor as indicated on the subd map
All the adjoining markers and street monuments are in too"
No survey is required.
> I just came across this while doing some research
>
> I suppose that you can justify your fee if...
When was the last time you asked your doctor or lawyer to "justify their fee"?
Now go and sin no more. 😉
Excellent points, as usual, Larry. I rarely bill by the hour, and the only negotiating on the fees is if there is a reduction in the scope of work.
Hire me or don't, end of message.
> Now go and sin no more. 😉
Okay...there was this painter. He belonged to a church that desparately needed painting. The pastor talked him in to doing it for a minimal profit.
So the painter looked over the church and came up with a bid. He started painting and found that the old dried-out wood, soaked up much more paint than he could have anticipated. He started thinning out the paint. He kept going and got the main body first floor of the church painted but looked up and saw how much more he had to do. He bought more paint with the measly profit he was making on the deal and hoped to just break even. He thinned the additional paint even more and kept working. He got closer and closer to the top, and kept thinning out the last remaining paint. Finally he scraped and bairly filled his brush with the very last of the watered-down paint and got the top of the steeple painted.
No sooneer than after climbing down to the ground, dark clouds came directly over the church only and a huge thunderstorm poured down. It was heavy and it lasted long enough to wash off most of the paint on the church.
Then, the clouds parted, the sun came out and shined straight down on the church. And a booming voice came out of the sky and talked directly to the painter. And God said....
REPAINT! AND THIN NO MORE!
Okay...there's a lesson in there somewhere and it might apply 😉
If you found the original lot corners, why would you spending so much time checking into the section corners? On the survey shown, what difference would it have made if the original lot corners on this particular lot missed the ties to the section corners by several feet, especially if all the lots in the area agreed with each other? Would you have pulled up all the original pins and "corrected" the subdivision?
*Note: Not you you, but anyone you.
I'm 100% with you. Talk about the ultra-mega-Cadillac of surveys.
Now, I know of a few high dollar places that NONE of the lot corners remain because of so much grading and such that everything has to be brought in from the outside boundary, but that does not seem to be the case here.
wowzer...
Does he tie and verify section corners in 150 year old subdivisions, too?
Good luck with that.
Jeez.
How did you determine when to stop surveying? There may be an error 8 sections east you haven't accounted for.
And I don't think the term "my fee is so high" helps. It's the fee.
Ditto "you, you"
This is a surveyor " unclear on the concept" of simultaneous conveyances of a modern plat. It's ridiculous.
> Jeez.
> How did you determine when to stop surveying?
If you don't tie to this, then you're a jack-leg
The word overkill came to mind when I saw that plat.
I think recovering and verifying the location of the existing corners should have been enough. There was no need for a survey plat unless there was a missing corner or if there was a corner out of position.
Mr. Hill
The surveyor who I follow the most in my locale was named Bill Hill. William S.Hill was the County Engineer/Surveyor in two counties where I work routinely. Started in one in about 1940 and finished his career in the other 40-some years later while in his mid-80's.