This reminds me. A now retired Senior Land Surveyor did a very complicated Record of Survey. He spent hours in meetings with a certain County Surveyor staff explaining the Survey (it involved a number of unusual issues such as RR R/W, S&O Lands and Deed cuts and RR stationing that apparently had been plotted wrong which was proved by copies of old RR Field Books) to them so they could check it.
That's all fine except the bill came back for over 2 grand and that was 15 years ago. Yikes, give them free training and get billed for it.
I take it the map checker is not a licensed surveyor. Not that I feel that is a requirement, but the excuse for taking 2.5 days to check something like this does not hold water, and this person does not deserve compensation for more than a few hours. This is someone who lacks competence. If they are licensed, I would be very concerned for the public's welfare wherever he practices.
edit - also I fail to see the need for any CAD work to check your map unless there was some closure issue that did not make sense. Even so, that would take very little time.
Bryan
Wrong. He was licensed the same day I was in 1982.
Bryan
> Wrong. He was licensed the same day I was in 1982.
Boy. I am very confused at this. I suspected this was some guy who had zero experience surveying.
It sounds like you are retracing a map involving original monuments and then showing the bearing differences between that map and an adjoining map that also tied to the same line. Am I understanding this correctly?
Bryan
Well, almost. The boundary of the subject property is not in question. It's defined by the original 1966 monuments. It's really the method of showing the relationship of the 1990's maps to our east and north lines that we're quarreling about. I can kind of understand his philosophy, I think. What I did was I showed our southwest corner based on the found monuments and a record dimension per the 1966 map of 600.0 feet West to a (nail). The (nail) is now gone and the 1990's maps used a brass disk that showed up in 1977 to re-invent the wheel and disagree with the 1966 boundaries. That disk is actually 606.46 feet from our southwest corner. I showed it as measured v. record in a way that is readily understood by any other map checker in the 4 or 5 other CS offices I work with. He's saying you don't show m v. r unless it's between the exact same monuments and he got confused thinking that I was saying the brass disk replaced the nail in the same location. OK, I guess can understand that.
My parting words to him were that if I ever submit another map to his office and he doesn't understand it, before he spends 2 1/2 days trying to figure it out, give me a jingle.
Bryan
I find this fascinating. So you are essentially depicting a tie distance from your SW corner to another monument. The monument is a brass disk instead of the nail.
I do not know if you realized the time that just elapsed but it just took be over 2 days to figure this out.
Bryan
Time flies when you're having fun. Not.
I just got off the phone with the City Accounting Dept. They explained to me that they bill the map checker at his $135/hr based on whatever he puts on his time card and then add 49% of that as "overhead" to cover other activities of the Public Works Dept. She said that had been shown on all our bills through the Planning process and my client should have been aware of it. Well, I don't think they ever sent out any bills because the Planning process went so smoothly that the client got a rebate of over $4000 from his initial deposit so what was there to argue about?
I was clear that I wasn't arguing with her about it but that I had never heard of any organization charging overhead on top of charge-out rate, much less 49%!
I need to get me a mapchecking gig over there. Sometimes I need to spend a day doing spell check on a memo. It would be good to be compensated for my confusion.
I think survey map recording would be wonderful, but not if this is the end result.
County pukes acting with caprice because they can.
Why is a professional's work subject to the whims of "Skippy"?
There are some outstanding county employees, but this is outrageous.
Hey Steve, I feel your pain. My experience in California made for a fast exit. Where else can you dictate what must be presented before the KING and CHARGE you for the service of review as if they are a business in private practice. Supporting California government is like supporting the MAFIA. Grab the vaseline and continue to let them have their way or quite frankly hope to watch the whole situation go to hell in a handbasket.
Pablo
That is just wrong.... Hope you find some pills.
Bryan
1982? In '82 BORPELS regained funding to review applications after being looted during the first Brown administration.
I sat with a friend in October 81. I passed, he didn't. 6 months later he was scrambling to show proof of boundary survey experience. We both had more than 10 years in, he had done nothing other than construction staking. Training, Experience, Testing: a complete package.
Pablo
All day, especially since my little chat with the map checker, I've been composing a letter to his boss in my head. That is one aspect that I plan to mention: This kind of thing is what gives a City the reputation as a bad place to do business. Not every city and county in CA is like this. I just got a Record of Survey filed in El Dorado County with a map check fee of $135 and recording fee of $15. It took about 15 minutes to make the requested revisions. They didn't like shadow font because it doesn't scan well on their machine, stuff like that.
Pablo
Out of curiosity, and maybe you don't want to share this, but how does the $4000 map check fee compare to your fee for surveying and preparing the map?
TPR
Well, my fee is higher, but I actually did something. Keep in mind, though, the City's fee was just for their work in November and we're not done yet. If nothing else was accomplished today, I hope I got my point across that I'm not going to just let them get away with charging unlimited money without an argument at least.
TPR
I wasn't questioning your bill or anything, but with a $4000 (and rising) checker fee, it seems possible that the checker fee could exceed the cost of the survey in some situations ... and I still don't understand the "overhead" ... $135/hr. is probably already 3 - 4 times his city salary, and common practice for billing (to cover overhead) is 2.5 - 3 times billable payroll, so it seems like overhead is already built in ...
TPR
Since they basically have a blank check to charge whatever they want, it very well could exceed the submitting surveyor's fee.
What I discussed with the nice accounting lady was that I'd never heard of a charge-out rate that didn't include overhead. She had apparently had this discussion before because she explained to me that the 49% overhead charge was approved by City Council to fund the DPW's other expenses and activities. The more I think about that, the less sense it makes. What is the relationship between this one guy staring at my map with the Dept.'s other expenses? The more he stares, the more the City rakes in but the light bill doesn't go up proportionately does it? Maybe if he only had one map to look at next month, he'd have to stare at it every day to keep the DPW afloat.
Very Interesting
How are developers and the ordinary land owner supposed to budget an opened ended fee?
We have set examination and lodging fees , no matter how easy or complicated the survey so it is a known set fee! Seems like extortion to me. In round terms fees range from around $500 to around $1500
There again cost of examination could be high due to the research and I would suspect an examiner would search high and low for documents and plans to cover his posterior.
It would be nice to know how the examination time compared to the surveying and plan presentation and lodging time.
RADU
TPR
The city just accepts this guy's statement of hours he charges for a single parcel map? This is a very lucrative business for him if he charge that rate out for that many hours for something that should take a few hours at most.
I guess the City does not care since they get that massive overhead charge. This is massively crooked stuff. I am surprised nobody has gotten litigious with this.
