it is an entire myth there are insufficient funds or resources available for the Board to enforce the laws.?ÿ 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.?ÿ I made the assumption that the complaints I've heard about BPELSG dismissing formal complaints without sanction were the result of funding constraints.?ÿ Color me chastened.
@dmyhill No one is saying not to send in a complaint...the question is if it will even change any thing. And the $5k, if you read what I wrote, was not intended to serve as benchmark for how much a survey should cost.?ÿ It was to show the possible ranges of prices for a client, depending on if a ROS is required.?ÿ So, whether its $5k or $10k, the point being that we aren't able to give fixed cost without a caveat that it may be significantly more IF a ROS is required.?ÿ And right there, that is where some surveyors come in and say "you don't need to do that, I'll mark your corners for half the cost, and quicker".?ÿ Property owners don't know the difference, or don't want to pay a guy 2x as much even if it is a recorded map.?ÿ But yes, I agree that we should file a complaint.
To be clear, I am not saying to just turn someone in. First, you call them. If you are young, ask rather than tell. "Just curious, as I try to develop my practice, why did you chose not to record, I thought you had to, and I could certainly save my clients money by not doing so, am I looking at this incorrectly?"
Second, the post where it is said that you should present a full set of evidence if you report someone is great advice. Doing so might clarify whether there is just a difference of opinion or a real violation.?ÿ
The same issues with fixed costs exist in WA. There is a guy that wants just a topo and boundary, and I will not give it to him unless he also pays for the recording...what I found demands a recorded survey. I completely identify with the guy, but I am not a mechanic where I have a book that tells me how long something will take. Some surveys I can tell you within $50 what it will cost, some I really do not know.
[?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ ] 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.?ÿ
I question that assertion concerning ROSs.?ÿ The Statute is clear, any discrepancies found during a survey triggers an ROS.?ÿ (OTOH, if there are no discrepancies no ROS is required).?ÿ I can count on one hand the situations where I've found convincing evidence a survey?ÿ which reveals discrepancies has been performed (fresh pins w/Tags for example) and the required ROS was never filed.?ÿ Any LS who routinely violates Section 8762 and others is playing with fire and is his/her own worst enemy.?ÿ 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.
@kevin-hines In Santa Barbara County, if you file a Record of Survey on a property that falls within City limits, you are required to submit a $3,400 deposit for the County Surveyor to review. They then charge $172 per hour for a map review against that deposit, keep in mind at least one person reviewing maps is not licensed. If it is an unincorporated part of the County it is $546....neither include recording fees, around $130, I believe.
I brought this matter up to my local CLSA Chapter and we wrote a letter to the Board of Supervisors before they voted, on the record there was a letter from my local Chapter, myself and two other surveyors in the area. That was it, they passed this without much of a thought, if I knew the process better I would have rattled the cage much more than I did, lesson learned.
Has the California Board investigated any surveyor for not complying with this Law??ÿ?ÿ
Many times.?ÿ And it has levied substantial sanctions (fines and/or limitation on or loss of license) many times.?ÿ Unfortunately, there are more violators than there are Board funds to enforce.
The Board recovers administrative fees from violators so in theory it's a zero sum game concerning costs.
@dmyhill No one is saying not to send in a complaint...the question is if it will even change any thing. And the $5k, if you read what I wrote, was not intended to serve as benchmark for how much a survey should cost.?ÿ It was to show the possible ranges of prices for a client, depending on if a ROS is required.?ÿ So, whether its $5k or $10k, the point being that we aren't able to give fixed cost without a caveat that it may be significantly more IF a ROS is required.?ÿ And right there, that is where some surveyors come in and say "you don't need to do that, I'll mark your corners for half the cost, and quicker".?ÿ Property owners don't know the difference, or don't want to pay a guy 2x as much even if it is a recorded map.?ÿ But yes, I agree that we should file a complaint.
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.
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.?ÿ 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.?ÿ 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.?ÿ 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.?ÿ I think of it as, if big government wanting to play in all games, they have to pay the admission fee to play.?ÿ 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.?ÿ 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.?ÿ 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.?ÿ Change the law, change the overburden on the profession and damage to the public.
Stepping down from the pulpit.
[?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ ] 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.?ÿ
I question that assertion concerning ROSs.?ÿ The Statute is clear, any discrepancies found during a survey triggers an ROS.?ÿ (OTOH, if there are no discrepancies no ROS is required).?ÿ I can count on one hand the situations where I've found convincing evidence a survey?ÿ which reveals discrepancies has been performed (fresh pins w/Tags for example) and the required ROS was never filed.?ÿ Any LS who routinely violates Section 8762 and others is playing with fire and is his/her own worst enemy.?ÿ 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.?ÿ The Board publishes citations and disciplinary actions in each quarterly bulletin and do not repeat across published editions.?ÿ Not sure where you are seeing "end of year" bulletin...what am I missing?
@kevin-hines In Santa Barbara County, if you file a Record of Survey on a property that falls within City limits, you are required to submit a $3,400 deposit for the County Surveyor to review. They then charge $172 per hour for a map review against that deposit, keep in mind at least one person reviewing maps is not licensed. If it is an unincorporated part of the County it is $546....neither include recording fees, around $130, I believe.
I brought this matter up to my local CLSA Chapter and we wrote a letter to the Board of Supervisors before they voted, on the record there was a letter from my local Chapter, myself and two other surveyors in the area. That was it, they passed this without much of a thought, if I knew the process better I would have rattled the cage much more than I did, lesson learned.
I still believe the County overstepped their authority with this.?ÿ But to my knowledge, no one has legally challenged the County on this.
Has the California Board investigated any surveyor for not complying with this Law??ÿ?ÿ
Many times.?ÿ And it has levied substantial sanctions (fines and/or limitation on or loss of license) many times.?ÿ Unfortunately, there are more violators than there are Board funds to enforce.
The Board recovers administrative fees from violators so in theory it's a zero sum game concerning costs.
That's not accurate.?ÿ California Board has the authority to issue administrative citations with fines and also to proceed with formal disciplinary actions.?ÿ This likely differs across state jurisdictions and their respective laws.
Administrative fines are not a recovery, never intended as such and never will be.
The Board can seek to recover investigative costs associated with formal disciplinary actions and does in most circumstances.?ÿ However, the Administrative Law Judge can recommend a lesser amount and the actual Board (which has the final decision making power) can choose to ignore that recommendation or choose a different amount.?ÿ More often than not, it is much less than a full recovery.
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).?ÿ 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.?ÿ Would you endorse a class action lawsuit against a specific county where all filing surveyors are plaintiffs?
it is an entire myth there are insufficient funds or resources available for the Board to enforce the laws.?ÿ 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.?ÿ I made the assumption that the complaints I've heard about BPELSG dismissing formal complaints without sanction were the result of funding constraints.?ÿ Color me chastened.
Wasn't really focused so much on what you said Jim.?ÿ 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.?ÿ 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.?ÿ 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.?ÿ 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.?ÿ 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.?ÿ I think of it as, if big government wanting to play in all games, they have to pay the admission fee to play.?ÿ 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.?ÿ 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.?ÿ 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.?ÿ 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.?ÿ Its a little different than most states (unfortunately).?ÿ Oregon and Washington are the closest in terms of this topic and I believe those are even slightly different but not by much.?ÿ 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.?ÿ Some of these non-filers are my friends, mentors and employers.?ÿ 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.?ÿ 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".?ÿ I can confront them but can't quite bring myself to file a complaint based on privileged information.?ÿ 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.?ÿ Some of these non-filers are my friends, mentors and employers.?ÿ 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.?ÿ 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".?ÿ I can confront them but can't quite bring myself to file a complaint based on privileged information.?ÿ 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.
