Joe makes my point
Jud,
I want to work in your neck of the woods.
When I tell the client what the recording fees are, they go through the roof. If you incorporate the fee into the cost of the survey and the other guy does not, then the client goes with the lower cost and is usually surprised by the recording fee later. I always give the survey cost and then tell them what the recording fee will be.
Does the fee send them to unlicensed folks? I don't know. Where do the unlicensed people advertise their services? I do not think that we have too much of this problem here in our area.
it's not just the recording fees - Perry
> > Paul, usually it's only the real old stuff that does NOT have monuments set, and of course all subdivisions and boundary lines adjustments must be recorded.
>
> Ohh, well, that I did not know. Perry, if someone does a boundary lines adjustment or subdivision are monuments required to be set or does that vary by what jurisdiction the survey falls under?
in NH, Monuments must be set on ALL surveys. Retracements, BL adjustments, BL agreements and Subdivisions.
Joe makes my point - Joe
>I always give the survey cost and then tell them what the recording fee will be.
I do the same and say that it is state law and the fee is paid directly to the county so there is really no way to skirt the issue. I also have the client make a check out to the county for the fee so they can grumble at the establishment and not at me :hi5:
it's not just the recording fees - Perry
Perry, what do you feel about , say a $30 filing fee cost for a survey. Would that be something you could live with, and last but definately not least, would access to records of those type give you a bigger profit margin if you knew what was in the ground instead of wondering what may be in the ground prior to doing a survey?
When I have the opportunity to discuss filing Records of Survey with other land surveyors in CA, I point out that typically land surveyors are a proud bunch and care about what they do and the impact it has on others. I also ask them to list what actions do they perform that only licensed land surveyors are legally allowed to do and that they are proud of. Usually get the typical answers like prepare a legal description, subdivide property, etc.
I then point out to them that land surveyors are the only people allowed to file a Record of Survey. No one else is allowed to do it...no one else (besides the Board) has the authority to dictate that a land suveyor file a Record of Survey. The Legislature has empowered all licensed professional land surveyors with the sole responsibility to file a Record of Survey. Be proud of that fact!
The wide range of costs to review and file in CA is an issue. LA County where Paul primarily conducts business has one of the more reasonable fee structures. But it ranges from $0 to close to $1000 around the state. And the criteria for review is standardized in statute.
it's not just the recording fees - Perry
Paul, those that are vehemently opposed to the filing of surveys are only using the fees as an argument. I suspect that the opposition runs much deeper and closer to home because of the public status filed surveys become and the ability for all to view a public record, could be based on what I did is mine and you can't use it or I don't want anyone to see just what I really did. Could be neither of those and just early potty training along with the thought of change. I do notice that those who practice in filing state like it and those who don't practice under such rules, many, not all, are frightened of the concept.
jud
Paul
> Perry, what do you feel about , say a $30 filing fee cost for a survey. Would that be something you could live with, and last but definately not least, would access to records of those type give you a bigger profit margin if you knew what was in the ground instead of wondering what may be in the ground prior to doing a survey?
If somehow it would be guaranteed that the price would stay reasonable (yes, $30 is reasonable) AND that government reviewers were NEVER involved, I would probably support a recordation law.
But personally, I really don't care, as I'm not licensed anyway. I look at the issue more as a landowner. I'm paying for the retracement, I should decide who gets to have a copy of the plat I pay for. I can just hear a surveyor telling me,"Perry, I could just reset your missing pin, but state law requires a new plat and the recording fees associated with it, so your bill will be $1000 instead of $100"
Recording act costs and unlicensed surveyors - Ric
> The wide range of costs to review and file in CA is an issue. LA County where Paul primarily conducts business has one of the more reasonable fee structures. But it ranges from $0 to close to $1000 around the state. And the criteria for review is standardized in statute.
Therein lies the problem of the exorbitant fees. Some county personnel are making a mountain out of a mole hill on the reviewing and filing of one persons opinion. Imperial County charges $ 525 (I think) for a T/M checking fee, so the final cost could be much higher...something is very wrong here. We need to get a standardized across the board not to exceed fee in California. I know that my area would go up in fee with that, but that's easy to explain to my clients that it's the States fault (Jerry Brown) and not mine so I can live with a fee raise.
Perry...Ahh, the real reason
> ... I look at the issue more as a landowner. I'm paying for the retracement, I should decide who gets to have a copy of the plat I pay for.
Jud, what I'm frightened of...
> I do notice that those who practice in filing state like it and those who don't practice under such rules, many, not all, are frightened of the concept.
> jud
Jud, what I'm frightened of is what happened in the Petroleum Storage Tank Permitting in NH. In Vermont & Main (and most other states), a licensed tank installer can fill out a simple form and install an underground fuel tank. In 1986, NH passed a law requiring a PE to produce a simple plan that was submitted and approved for every underground tank system. Now fast-forward 25 years...
These plans have grown many-fold in complexity, review time and fees. Unqualified, unlicensed reviewers have added so many asinine requirements to the plans and delays to the approval process that the whole thing has become a nightmare. It often takes 2-3 months before they even open the set of plans, only to reject them because they decide they now want actual part numbers on a 1/2" ball valve.
Now the licensed engineer must physically visit the site and certify that everything is according to plan before the state will even schedule their field inspection. Now the engineer must certify all concrete pads and other finish work.
Now they have expanded their domain (on heating oil systems) to included all piping inside the building, some something like a new high school or hospital has hundreds of feet of additional piping for the engineer to certify and the state inspectors to get their nose into. If finally flushed the whole business down the toilet to avoid the frustration.
Perry
> But personally, I really don't care, as I'm not licensed anyway. I look at the issue more as a landowner. I'm paying for the retracement, I should decide who gets to have a copy of the plat I pay for. I can just hear a surveyor telling me,"Perry, I could just reset your missing pin, but state law requires a new plat and the recording fees associated with it, so your bill will be $1000 instead of $100"
I guess this is were we have the unlicensed Surveyor issue. In Non-Recording States.
If it is not required to record, then ANYONE can just go plunk in something for $100.
Jud, what I'm frightened of...
As a voter you can do something about those you elect to run your state. Control and change is in the voters hands, make the right choices or continue with the status quo.
jud
So Dave
> If someone hires a surveyor to reset a missing or disturbed monument, then the client must pay for and record ($200) a new plat?
Yes, they must pay the surveyor's fee for setting the monument(s) & preparing a Record of Survey map AND pay the County's $200 filing fee. The costs are there but so are the benefits, i.e. a "pedigree" or history for each monument one finds in the field, AND you know BEFORE you go out (via research at the County Surveyor's Office) what monuments you might expect to find.
So Dave
There is a provision that allows for the surveyor to reset a disturbed or missing monument which he or she set and filed or recorded a survey or plat to replace that monument without recording within a time limit. Provisions can be made in statute to be reasonable, just depends on how the majority of the people control their state government.
jud.
Perry
> But personally, I really don't care, as I'm not licensed anyway. I look at the issue more as a landowner. I'm paying for the retracement, I should decide who gets to have a copy of the plat I pay for.
You pay for a professional service that affects all parties along the boundaries of the survey.
That service is depicted on a map and on the ground and IMHO, every party affected should get a copy. But personally, I really don't care to argue the point because I work in recording states and its a beautiful thing.;-)
So Dave
> There is a provision that allows for the surveyor to reset a disturbed or missing monument which he or she set and filed or recorded a survey or plat to replace that monument without recording within a time limit. Provisions can be made in statute to be reasonable, just depends on how the majority of the people control their state government.
> jud.
Jud... are you referring to ORS 92.070(5)? It covers subdivision and partition monuments only. Is there an ORS that covers recorded surveys?
Worcester County, Massachusetts Plans - $75/sheet
Massachusetts requires a recorded plan only if new property lines are created.
Recording act costs and unlicensed surveyors - Ric
I'm all for that idea Paul.
I used to be of the opinion that the county surveyor was needed to keep an eye on the submittals for conformance to methods and procedures. However, I'm frustrated with the fact that most surveys I submit are checked by technicians who are not my peer. They usually provide comments based on a limited understanding and are often of personal preference nature.
I now believe the public would be best served by limiting the R/S cost to $100 period. The LS Act only holds the CS to check for the N arrow, B of B and statements and to index it.
I know that more surveys will be filed, as I myself have had clients balk when I mentioned the county fee was a necessary added cost.
Certainly, more surveyors will file surveys if the cost barrier is removed.
Why should cost be a barrier for the public service a R/S provides when the CS rarely does more than a minor adminstrative act. If the legislature wants to empower the CS to enforce a set of standards of practice, then fine. However those standards are for the most part not established statute.
I've seen several recent county surveyors who are really public agency civil engineers who obtained their LS with very minimal practical survey experience. Then, they hire a technician to do the actual check. I'm tired of having to answer to this type of CS. I'm also tired of having to fork $300-$700 out of my pocket for an R/S when I discover a issue that does not affect my client's property but where I feel obligated to report the discrepancy. Or, have a client balk at monumenting a lot line adjustment simply because the cost of the county review adds too much cost into what would have been a simple adjustment.
Alternatively, perhaps even allowing the surveyor to record directly with the Co Recorder with a small fee (say.. $40) for indexing provided to the Co Surveyor.
Hardin County, Ky
Record plat recording fee=$20.00
Planning review fees= $175.00 + $25.00 per lot
Recording act costs and unlicensed surveyors - Clearcut
> However, I'm frustrated with the fact that most surveys I submit are checked by technicians who are not my peer. They usually provide comments based on a limited understanding and are often of personal preference nature.
I run into that now and then and simply tell them to keep personal out of the check and stay with what's in the statute. I attempt to say it nicely. I will say this though, the guys at LA County are just top notch to work with. We have had our differences and I have never been told how to do a survey, but all of the differences have worked out amicably.
In fact, I limit my work to LA County. I may take a job in Orange County, zero RS fee, but Ventura County...No way. Last I heard their fee was around $ 700 for an RS.
