Ding ding ding, we have a winner
Thanks for your thoughts Duane.
By the way, does your State require review and filing fees?
There is a BIG difference between mandatory reviewing (in some cases by non-professionals) which is ripe for mis-use and outrageous fees, and a professional asking, or even paying a fellow professional to review ones work.
Well said. :good:
So if a reviewer is charging $400 to "check" the licensed surveyor's map, who's ultimately responsible? IF the reviewer has NO responsibility, then what justifies their fees? What value has been added to the product?
Ding ding ding, we have a winner
I think every county is different, NYC may have some high fees. Last one I filed it was 10 dollars and I charged the client 50 (gotta get something for my time and the attorneys charge about the same). Client can file it themselves but most don't want to run around half the day trying to. No review on retracements and no requirement they be filed, but this is very limited these days. If a parcel sells, usually the new owners will want to do some improvements, which brings it under review, and then usually it is filed to show its been approved; or there is a problem with the lines and it's filed to show that problem and or the resolution of the problem. Lots of maps get filed in our so called non-filing state. Review on line determinations and map content is done by the licensee, and incidentally by those using the map (such as the client and attorneys) before it gets filed. I have had good suggestions from clients or attorneys on how to make something more clear. I don't claim to be infallible.
Review on subdivisions or maps to show proposed improvements of some kind is done by the lead agency and auxillary agencies. Most things require stormwater and erosion control plans as part of the submittal, and then there's highwater marks with differing definitions depending on where you are in the state, and wetlands with again differing definitions depending on where you are. In my area we usually submit to the Adirondack Park Agency (other areas have similar regional authorities, Black River, NYC watershed, etc.), they claim lead or pass to Town, then Town reviews but may have to send to County and/or DOT, etc. for their preapproval on certain aspects before the Town can begin. Could take a year or more to get an answer on whether or not you can add 5 feet to the garage. Or, could only take a month. Depends. In our Town, once all approvals are stamped, the Town clerk files it at the county. I forget exactly, but major subdivision review might be 1000+-, minor 500+-.
for Duane and others
of the we're professionals, so we don't need no steenking review crowd...
maybe this will help-
Ask yourself a few questions
Should every surveyor's scrivner's error or other facepalm type moment be turned into the BOR as "sub-standard performance"? How would the BOR (as it is currently configured) in your state rule on it?
IF not, please quantify how many errors/ ommissions constitute "Sub-standard performance".
If Acme Survey records their survey in 2002, and the description doesn't close, and 2 courses in the description are different than their counterparts on the drawing, but it isn't discovered until 2013, when the property adjacent to it is surveyed, but in the interim the signing surveyor has left Acme for gr$$n$r pastures... is that "Sub-standard performance"? It was apparently adequate for 13 years?
What it boils down to this- Is it in the best interest of the public to allow a Professional surveyor who produces a product that obviously does not comply with the minimum standards set forth by the BOR to enter it into the public record to remain there until discovered and they- the surveyor- are required by some action to correct it?
by the way- these are my comments on the survey review per se, the subdivision review process is a completely different matter.
Slippery Slope
> man, here in rural poor country, clients grumble about paying $400 for a survey.
> they would have a cow if they had to pay that much to get it recorded....
I can see some of the points about mandatory recording, but once you open the door and create another bureaucracy (i.e. a Review Process); the fees, delays and headaches will continue to get worse over time.
Slippery Slope
> I can see some of the points about mandatory recording, but once you open the door and create another bureaucracy (i.e. a Review Process); the fees, delays and headaches will continue to get worse over time.
Agreed. A load of crap IMHO. Their efforts would be better justified reviewing crappy legal descriptions and deeds that get recorded than a document prepared by a registered surveyor.
If the county absolutely needs the funding to "justify" another staff member to run 5 copies through a plotter daily (at best), then charge more for copies made, or images downloaded of the document (where it serves value) rather than the recording itself.
$400 for recording is ludacris, and to pass this cost along to the client is a disservice.
Anymore I take photos of plats/deeds with my smartphone rather than paying for copies. I would recommend the Nokia Lumia 41Megapixel smartphone. Images are higher quality than the garbage scan you pay $5/per anyways.:-D
for Duane and others
Rankin,
Simply to play devil's advocate:
Is the submitting surveyor therefor allowed to submit substandard work in the expectation the reviewer will find the mistakes?
What constitutes substandard practice, once the reviews are complete, or bad work on the first submittal?
In CA, a Mr. Hunt recently had his license revoked. Part of the BOR case was that the surveyor had submitted substandard work on his first (and 2nd) submittals. The Administrative Law Judge agreed that substandard work on the first submittal constituted substandard performance.
Also, there is a difference between honest mistake and outright incompetence or negligence. Your E&O policy differentiates between the 2. I believe most BOR reviewers will too.
And, as others have said, does the county reviewer inherit some of the liability of the finished product? I have not found that to be the case. I have seen Wheeler v San Bernadino quoted as doing such, but close reading of the case does not really support that. Nor have I seen the BOR go after reviewer's licenses. On the contrary, I have seen the presiding judges in 2 separate BOR cases actually support substandard practices based on testimony from the Co. Surveyors support of the substandard practices of those being accused. The judges in both cases relied on the Co Surveyor's title as being superior to the BOR expert surveyors which had testified that the practices of the accused were not up to industry standard. Simply put, the judges felt that since the Co Surveyor said it was so, it must be so regardless of whether it really was or not.
for Duane and others
>
> Is the submitting surveyor therefor allowed to submit substandard work in the expectation the reviewer will find the mistakes?
> What constitutes substandard practice, once the reviews are complete, or bad work on the first submittal?
>
> In CA, a Mr. Hunt recently had his license revoked. Part of the BOR case was that the surveyor had submitted substandard work on his first (and 2nd) submittals. The Administrative Law Judge agreed that substandard work on the first submittal constituted substandard performance.
That is an interesting case- please explain more what 1st and 2nd submittals mean- is this submitted for review or a final product?. I would think that until something is sent in with final signatures and seals, it's a preliminary product and subject ot revision and or correction no harm no foul. I've always been told that there's a case out there that sez that a surveyor is not a guarantor of his work.... we don't certify things are perfect, do we?
Is it ethical to submit a product you know is faulty, to have the reviewing body be your checker? Is it sub-standard practice or just practice?
>
> Also, there is a difference between honest mistake and outright incompetence or negligence. Your E&O policy differentiates between the 2. I believe most BOR reviewers will too.
we've recently been having discussion in this State about surveyors filing documents that are in direct conflict with the statutes and ARMS and the board's response was- well at least they are filing something.....
>
> And, as others have said, does the county reviewer inherit some of the liability of the finished product? I have not found that to be the case. I have seen Wheeler v San Bernadino quoted as doing such, but close reading of the case does not really support that. Nor have I seen the BOR go after reviewer's licenses. On the contrary, I have seen the presiding judges in 2 separate BOR cases actually support substandard practices based on testimony from the Co. Surveyors support of the substandard practices of those being accused. The judges in both cases relied on the Co Surveyor's title as being superior to the BOR expert surveyors which had testified that the practices of the accused were not up to industry standard. Simply put, the judges felt that since the Co Surveyor said it was so, it must be so regardless of whether it really was or not.
The county reviewer in this state can review for 'errors and omissions in calculations and drafting"- I think that limits the liability to being able to review what is shown on the survey- not with regard to boundary determination but to the items on the minimum standards list and closure. I think it would be a hard sale to pin liability on the reviewer for something that the submitting surveyor didn't disclose on the survey. The minimum standards list what must be shown, and it is bare bones. I would imagine that that testimony would be pretty straight forward.
Just to add: Stanislaus County increased their fees to $700 for a R/S. We had a discussion about how thoroughly they must check the map at that rate, considering they're provided with all the supporting documents and closures. Clients are often frightened enough by the cost of a survey (And they end up going to the guy that does it for $500 with no map or pipes I'm sure), let alone when you add $700 on top for filing fees.
$700 !!!
Time to put on our big boy pants and do away w/ the review.
ID is practically free to record, around 5-10 a page. Corner records $10. No reviews at all of Records of Survey other than the unhappy ladies at the recorders office that make sure you have two ties to the PLSS system for all surveys outside of a recorded subdivision. This minor review in and of itself is a complete joke since they can't actually read the map or determine if you tied it or simply computed it and put it on the map to comply with some ridiculous state code.
WA - Recording state. Fees range from $100-$200 in the counties I work in. No review of any sort is done in these counties.
This is in reference to Records of Surveys only. Plats in both ID and WA go through a thorough review process by more entities than I care to name.
I think reviews of records of surveys are a good thing and would welcome it. I have seen countless instances of recorded surveys that have no business being recorded. Regarding who is responsible for the survey if someone else reviews and approves it. You are, of course! It's your stamp! You're not passing on liability by getting a municipality to review your product.
We have been doing it for one hundred years in California and the world hasn't stopped spinning.
for Duane and others
I submit as complete a map as I can but the reviewer almost always has one or two comments.
Sometimes something that is clear to me isn't clear to the County Surveyor so I improve it.
It's not a big deal.
Some CS's justify ridiculous fees by saying how bad most of the maps they get are, personally I think they need to send those back without comment and complain to the board as needed rather than punish the good surveyors.
CA statutory map content lacks the narrative required in OR. Many, many records of surveys get filed that do not explain the "what", "why", or "how", and don't provide enough info graphically to make methods and reasoning plain.
As Clearcut stated, the quality of review varies greatly from county to county. In those counties where a competent review is made, the quality bar has been raised, and in some locations, raised considerably. In some counties, the bar has hardly been nudged.
I was recently asked to review several surveys of the same parcel with regard to a standard of care issue (surveys dated 1939, unfiled; 1965, unfiled; 2001, filed; 2010, filed; and 2012, filed). The two unfiled maps were a little skimpy on the info, but taken with the field notes, they proved to be well performed surveys. Of the filed maps, the 2010 survey appeared to be thorough, with copious notes on the map to explain the "what, why, & how".
The filed 2001 survey did not retrace the rights of way comprising 3 of the 4 lines, used monuments unrelated to the 1965 survey as a basis of bearing, but assumed that the basis of bearing was the same and then followed the previous surveyor's bearings and distances exactly as reported on the 1965 map, missing each point on the boundary by several tenths. The POB was reported by the 1939 surveyor as a mark placed at the back of walk, with a tie to a nearby fence post. The 1965 survey found the mark and verified the tie to the fence post, by that time having been incorporated into the corner of a retaining wall. Although the same post existed in 2010, and the 2010 surveyor found a mark at back of walk that matched the tie distance, the 2001 surveyor neither saw (maybe didn't look for) the mark and did not use the tie, but instead set a nail several tenths away within the walk.
The filed 2012 map was not even based on a field survey, although containing the Surveyors Statement and other notes explicitly stating that it was (surveyor admitted his "survey" was simply a walk around the parcel to verify that the 2001 surveyor's nails were still in place. BPELSG issued a citation on that one that amounted to little more than a tap on the wrist and the admonition to not do that again). The 2012 map was very clearly nothing more than a transcription of the 2001 map, with a couple of derogatory notes about the 2010 survey.
In this particular instance, with the exception of one of the three filed surveys, all of the maps were lacking information to show how the boundaries had been retraced. But both surveys depicted on unfiled maps proved to be properly performed and the remaining two filed maps fell well below any acceptable retracement standards. That particular county has a lot of similarly poorly drawn maps of poorly performed surveys on file, very much lacking in info to explain what was looked for, what was found, what was actually measured rather than just reported per a previous record, and what was held as controlling. The bar may have dropped a notch or three there.
> Am curious if Oregon surveyors find the fees are justified?
$400 is too much. What is more is that the counties that charge that much are the same that give every survey such scrutiny that it adds many hundreds more in effort to get the surveys completed to the CS's satisfaction. It really isn't possible to do even the simplest lot job in the Portland area for less that $2500.
for Duane and others
> In CA, a Mr. Hunt recently had his license revoked. Part of the BOR case was that the surveyor had submitted substandard work on his first (and 2nd) submittals. The Administrative Law Judge agreed that substandard work on the first submittal constituted substandard performance.
And on the 3rd & 4th as well. But he had a county surveyor from a nearby county as his expert who testified that a 1st & 2nd submittal with well over a dozen comments each, and a 3rd & 4th submittal each with several comments, with the existence or non-existence of monuments changing from one submittal to the next was all perfectly normal and didn't represent a breach of the expected standard of care.
Mr. Hunt represented himself and (handily) outlawyered the Deputy AG representing the State's case. The DAG was way over his head in a courtroom setting and couldn't even grasp the basic concept of the importance of looking for original monumentation before resorting to dimensions and assumptions.
Mr. Hunt resorted to a tactic of misrepresenting the testimony of each of the State's witnesses in his own testimony, and seeing that the DAG was not calling him on it, and the judge was allowing him to get away with it, his misrepresentations grew to outlandish levels as the hearing progressed. The judge often accepted Mr. Hunt's version of what a particular witness said rather than looking back through his notes to see what the witness actually testified. The State is too cheap to provide the judge with transcripts, and there were 10 days of hearing over the course of a year.
If the case had relied on the technical issues alone, the DAG would have ended up losing an unloseable case. The reason Mr. Hunt ended up losing his license is that he very clearly documented one of his lies.
Yep. This one sticks in my craw still. I learned how much difference the ability of the attorney can make to a case.
>
> Also, there is a difference between honest mistake and outright incompetence or negligence. Your E&O policy differentiates between the 2. I believe most BOR reviewers will too.
>
Reportedly, our Board's Executive Officer recently told the Board in one of their recent public meetings that in enforcement reviews, the standard is zero mistakes. But I have to assume that either it was not related accurately to me, or Ric that misspoke.
> And, as others have said, does the county reviewer inherit some of the liability of the finished product? I have not found that to be the case. I have seen Wheeler v San Bernadino quoted as doing such, but close reading of the case does not really support that. Nor have I seen the BOR go after reviewer's licenses. On the contrary, I have seen the presiding judges in 2 separate BOR cases actually support substandard practices based on testimony from the Co. Surveyors support of the substandard practices of those being accused. The judges in both cases relied on the Co Surveyor's title as being superior to the BOR expert surveyors which had testified that the practices of the accused were not up to industry standard. Simply put, the judges felt that since the Co Surveyor said it was so, it must be so regardless of whether it really was or not.
You can make that 3 BOR cases since that is also what happened in Hunt. Among the practices endorsed by the County Surveyor who was Hunt's witness:
1) Using the control from adjacent subdivision "A" to control the boundaries of a lot within Subdivision "B" while ignoring some control within Subdivision "B" (without showing reason to do so), and without even looking for some of the directly pertinent original monumentation of Subdivision "B";
2) Employing flat out assumptions over clear terms on a map. In this case, Hunt and the CS testified that on "old" maps, the surveyor is to assume that the sidelines of the lots within a block are at right angles to the street RW. In this case, Subdivision "A" had 12 blocks, all but the one adjacent to Subdivision "B" (Block 7, of Subd. "A") clearly labeled with bearings showing an 88 1/2 degree relationship rather than right angle. Block 7 was fully dimensioned with distances, and did have bearings on the odd shaped block ends. There was no significant error in the perimeter and the lot distances tallied to the whole. Using the info given to determine the angle of the uniform lots showed them to not be mapped at right angles. And yet, both Hunt & the CS testified that it was standard practice to employ the right angle assumption over clear and unambiguous mapped terms to preserve "subdivider's intent". The judge accepted this even though it clearly violates the statutes for the interpretation of written documents, all because the CS said it's so.
3) Submitting a check print that requires around 2 dozen review comments before the reviewer gives up and sends it back. Not only that, but submitting a 3rd and 4th check print, each requiring several significant review comments (such as pointing out that a monument shown as SNF actually does exist, and that another monument shown to be found at a centerline PC doesn't exist at that location, but is in fact at the PI several hundred feet away).
4) Changing the description of a monument at a corner of the surveyed lot on each check print ("It's a set IP. No a set N&T. Oh, you went to the field and checked and saw a scribed X... Well then, it's a set X. Oh, that's a violation of §8772 because a set monument needs to be marked with my license #. Oh yeah, I just remembered, we found that X. Yeah, that's the ticket!")
5) Misidentifying the location as being within the City of XXXXX because it is in a developed area of the unincorporated portion of the County because it is near the city identified.
6) Misidentifying a monument as being a set tagged IP (... "Oh, you saw that one too? ... I meant a set N&T in concrete. Oh. you saw that it was actually set in a wood header? Well, there's concrete under the wood, and if the nail reached through the wood, the tip would have been in the concrete, so I'm sticking with that description!").
Although a lot of surveyors cite to Wheeler as being a statement on what the County Surveyor's duty actually is, as you stated, a reasonably careful reading of it shows that there are no statements defining that duty beyond verbatim quotes of the B&P Code. The ruling was that the County Surveyor exercises a level of control in his capacity as map reviewer to allow him the be sued for breach of his duty in that function. That's it. The CS can be found liable for breaching his or her duty in review. But in not defining that duty beyond the words of the statute, the court neither defined what would constitute a breach of that undefined standard of care.
Good on you for reading the case Clearcut. Most rather than reading case law for themselves, just seem to take the word of a surveyor or two who claim to know the case and hold themselves out as experts on standard of care issues.
for Duane and others
"we're professionals, so we don't need no steenking review crowd"
I don't think I said or implied that attitude.
The rest of your argument seems a little obtuse to me. If there is such a need for a reviewer that the taxpayers need to pay for the salaries and processes involved then that is an argument that errors and omissions they find are indeed standard practice and not actionable. If the process is in place then it would seem it should be utilized and corrections would be in the normal realm of practice. If this is a policeing action rather than review, then the proper office to recieve submittals can only be the BOR for each and every submittal.
I don't see any difference at all between subdivision review and a retracement review. In either case there must be a set of criteria that are examined and a determination made about whether the map meets those criteria.
I recall seeing a case not too long ago where a surveyor was fined by the BOR for forgetting to put a north arrow on the map. So it would seem to me that it is the individual surveyors who benefit from the review process rather than the public. The ommission of the north arrow did not cause any harm and a reviwer almost certainly would have caught it. So, I still wonder if this review process is not more self serving than a desire to protect the public. It tends to give another level of protection to the surveyor, and presumably gives another opportunity of employment for surveyors across the state.
And, I'll repeat, I'm not necessarily against the policy. I am against the attitude shown by those with the review policy that they are somehow more interested in protecting the public than surveyors in states without the policy. That is simply not true.
The review process was attempted in this area some 15yrs to 20yrs ago and other surveyors were the reviewers
It all became a do it the way I do it or else
Was almost impossible to get thru the review with the reviewers attempting to steal clients in the middle of the process with claims of we can do it better and almost ridiculous reasons such as wrong font or style and improper wording in metes and bounds or north arrow wrong style
I've seen great reviewers in action in other areas where there was a need during developments and city properties involved. They were a blend of educators, professionals, informed and impartial people.
Locally, there are hardly any new developments and I'm not sure if the local municipalities have building codes.
Our registrar will record whatever comes across her desk for the $40 first page fee.
0.02