Should I fight or let it go?

[VANCE]

Just got back plan check comments from a city for a simple sewer main project.

On the cover sheet I reference the benchmark used as follows:


City Benchmark No. 101
3" Brass disk in well monument at the intersection of .........

Elevation=107.83
NAVD [sic] 1929

City comments are as follows:

Elevation=107.830
remove the datum

Why out to the thousandth and remove the datum reference for a topo with 1 foot contours am I missing something?

So in short I'm upset that the client had to pay $2,500.00 in plan checking fees for comments like this (the others where about how my title block is set up). Now they want an additional $1,500.00 to plan check again.

[Dave Lindell]

That's all they want for an additional $1500?

I'd tell 'em an elevation is worthless without a datum.

Tell 'em it looks like an assumed datum without the reference.

Fight it!

[PLS7393]

Those additional fees seem extremily high and I would fight it too.

So what level are you using to get readings accurate to the 0.001'?
Hope you adjusted your level run with numbers like that, lol.

At least they aren't asking for elevations to the 0.001' and NAVD 88 (just seeing who was awake, lol).

[pls7809]

FYI - Should be NGVD 29 and/or NAVD 88.

I'll be the devil's advocate here...although I think you should fight having to pay another $1500 fee to recheck this plan and I would take it up with the City Engineer directly or Public Works director.

I would state the precision that is listed on the source document where you pulled the elevation from. If the city publishes it to three decimal places then that is what I will show. The accuracy of your level run has no bearing on the number of decimal places the benchmark is listed to by the agency. The elevations on your topo are.

As far as the datum goes...does the published info mention a datum? How do you know it is 29? Just asking.

[E_Page]

Ditto what Ryan said. List whatever elevation and datum is listed by the city for BM #101. If no datum listed in the city's source document, then "City of _______ Datum".

Make the changes to your TB info if there is nothing terribly unreasonable about those redmarks. Then go in to the City Engineer or director of DPW with your fresh set of plans and the redmarks (your revised plans with the appropriate changes shows how reasonable you are) and insist that there be no further plan check fee.

$1500 for 10 minutes worth of ensuring that you addressed such minor comments? ... ludicrous, if not criminal.

[VANCE]

The NAVD [sic] 1929 is verbatim from their benchmark print out. It's suppose to be NGVD 1929 so I used the Latin term sic.

[sic] – to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error

[VANCE]

Keith,

Maybe I should reference NGVD 1988 along with NAD 1929 and take all my elevations out to the thousandth. I'll make sure the city inspectors with their "smart levels" check the contractor building the sewer main that all elevations match my plans plus or minus a 0.0001'

[PLS7393]

I always get NGVD and NAVD mixed up, what do you expect, it's a 50-50 guess, heheheee!

[land butcher]

My first question is "Is the published elevation shown to .00x or .0x." You cannot go beyond published tolerances.

YOU HAVE to show the datum.

Business is slow in the public sector too. My guess is this is a way for this map checker to justify keeping him on. Making themselves look busy at our expense.

[VANCE]

Good one..........

[land butcher]

LOL............