INDUSTRY POLL ON RECORD OF SURVEY FEES

[mpallamary]

Let's ratchet this up a bit. Are you folks receptive to posting your experiences with the filing of ROS maps so that we can place the Corner Record debate in perspective as well as the fees?

Thanks

[Jim Frame]

Sure. What sort of information are you interested in hearing about?

.

[pls7809]

It varies pretty widely here in So Cal. Not sure about San Diego or Imperial, but here are the one's I know about:

Orange County: Free review if just for boundary re-tracement, there are fees for future development sites, but not sure what they are (recording extra)

Riverside: Deposit base fee for review ($500 first sheet, $300 for each additional sheet - can ask for more money if more than a couple of checks are done) (recording extra)

San Bernardino - Flat rate $420 for review for any RS (recording extra)

Los Angeles - $170 first sheet and $58 each additional - includes recording fees.

[btaylor]

Napa County charges $1500 now for the ROS fee.

Other counties I deal with in the Bay area are in the same ballpark of $400-600 more or less.

[mpallamary]

Hi Jim,

I am trying to document the disparity between the fees charged across the state to place the debate about Corner Records in context. If you are following that debate, some folks advocate filing a Record of Survey over a Corner Record in instances where several monuments need to be documented. I think that is a wonderful idea.

My goal is to demonstrate that although this sounds fine in theory, there is the economic reality and cost prohibitive nature of filing a Record of Survey. Whereas a Corner Record is simply filed for a nominal fee, if any at all, depending where you are located, the cost to file a Record of Survey can be very steep.

Because the filing of both documents is covered by the same underlying state law, why is there so much disparity? As a result of this inconsistency, the opinions being advanced are generally dictated by the fees associated with the filing of a Record of Survey as well as the inherent economic inconsistencies of same, all of which should be disclosed by this inquiry.

The other responses that have been coming in are precisely what I was hoping for.

If we are all governed by the same laws and regulations, why is there so much inconsistency? As is evident, this debate is going to be a function of geography and areas of domain, i.e. rural versus urban surveying. As a general rule, rural survey require far fewer monuments than an urban survey. Remember the old ALTA classifications.

[btaylor]

Mike I concur with what you are saying. I think a multipage corner record is theoretically fine, but then again I am saying it from the standpoint of the costs of the ROS fees here.

Before SM County increased their fees from $188 to $400 I was doing ROS maps often when not required to do so merely because the fee was so low. Since the fee change I have switched to corner records and limit what is shown on the survey due to space.

For example I will be doing a corner record for a 1969 parcel from a parcel map because I found three of the original hubs, and set a rebar and cap through one that was too eroded, up in the coast range of the SF Bay Area. I also tied in some monuments of record outside the site and set some reference marks for my use in case I return to the area. In the past I would have filed on ROS map and showed all the extra information to show others how things relate, and also show the reference marks I set. This will not happen nearly as often anymore.

[mpallamary]

That my friend is my whole point. I went through this debate years ago when most counties accepted ROS maps at no charge. What is occurring to the industry is the byproduct of poor management at the state level and the transfer of this burden on the consumer. The entire nature of this debate is entirely what I was anticipating and hoping for. There is such gross disparity, it is rather discouraging. It has always been my position that the greater good is accomplished with the filing of more records. This action needs to be encouraged and if anything, the costs should be borne by the public at large. As with the monument preservation fund, each deed should include a surcharge of say $3.00 to pay for County Staff. After all, all property owners benefit by the filing of a map. I have not run the numbers but this would assure uniformity in the law as well as a more standardized approach to reviewing Corner Records and Record of Survey Maps. There is no excuse for this inequity.

[btaylor]

Keith Nofield can attest to what I am saying. I have a bunch of ROS maps in there from before the price change that were technically unnecessary and had superfluous information but the mapcheck fee was so small I had no problem submitting them on my dime because it was so beneficial. Plus it was also was an investment of time I could use for corner records down the road which could reference them.

[mpallamary]

I hear you load and clear. You are not the only one who has modified his/her practice. I thought we all paid about the same taxes for the same level of service.

The state is going to continue to view these document as cash cows.

[btaylor]

I guess I can tweak this and be selfish and say it makes my records more valuable now.

[LA Stevens]

Marin ROS checking fee $560.00 flat.
Recording Fee $11.00 first sheet and $3.00 for every sheet thereafter.

ROS LLA checking fee= $785.00

[bruce hall]

You stated that "........yet we are justified in 'pushing the limits' of the purpose of CR's due to the public service sector's gouging the private land owner with outrageous fees, just because they can? "

This is news to me. I didn't know that was my reason. The public service sectors's gouging,(and I am not saying that the gouging exists or not) has nothing to do with my view on CR's.

[bruce hall]

You know very well that the checking fee for a RS is zero. The filing fee is 8 bucks for the first sheet and 3 for the next and the next and the next ad infinitum.


There is zero fees for a CR for checking or for filing. So what are you getting at?

[bruce hall]

I am waiting Greg. Get off the phone. Quit talking to Roger.

[bruce hall]

I might be there, but I don't know. Me listening about the OCTA isn't gonna put any money in my pocket, but maybe talking to another surveyor at the meeting might.

We shall see.

[mpallamary]

Bruce,

You guys keep out of trouble.

[bruce hall]

found that it is a lot easier when I drink coffee. But that's just me.

[Jim Frame]

"I query my mind as to how one County can survive charging nothing yet other Counties justify charging large fees and even open accounts."

While I'm sure there are many factors involved, one of the most obvious is the fact that some counties have more discretionary revenue than others. Yolo County, where I live, is one of the poorest in terms of money left over after all state and federal program mandates are covered. The county has a long-standing policy not to convert ag land to urban development outside of incorporated cities, and ag doesn't generate much tax revenue at the local level. As a result, any thoughts of continuing to subsidizing ROS checking fees in the interest of serving the public went out the door when the county was faced with laying off most of its social service staff. As a practical matter, they had to make ROS processing revenue-neutral, so we now pay $536 for the first three sheets and T&M against a $1,500 deposit for 4 or more sheets.

.

[mpallamary]

Howdy folks,

My intent in inciting this riot of sorts was intended to serve as a forum to discuss the political nature of this subject. Setting aside for a moment our experiences with the filing of surveys and our unique prowess as surveyors, I am of the opinion that there are certain objective facts that can be derived from this discussion. I have several postulates that could be born out by a poll or study. CLSA could serve the profession (not industry) by undertaking this assignment. I am thinking of a poll that can scientifically determine what is going on. As an example, these are some good poll questions:

Is there a correlation between the number of surveys filed and the cost of same?

Is there a correlation between the number of surveys based upon a per capita basis?

Are more Corner Records filed in counties where ROS fees are high?

What are the average number of monuments shown on those Corner Records filed before that one page limitation was adopted?

On average, how many monuments are shown on a Corner Record when compared with a ROS map?

On average, does an urban survey involve the location of more monuments than a rural survey?

Why do some counties charge thousands of dollars to review a ROS map when others do not charge at all?

Is there any merit in financing the checking of survey maps through the addition of a fee similar to the monument preservation fee? If so, what would this cost? (Note: As a general rule, when land transfers increase, more surveys are required; there is a correlation between the volume of survey activity and real estate activity).

Are there geographical or regional biases that influence this debate?

If there is not a uniform method to file Corner Records as there are with ROS maps, can a uniform filing scheme be implemented?

If there is merit in this recommendation, I am prepared to develop the form and I can do that in a simple ADOBE fill in format. These could be routed through the Central Office and then through the chapters. From experience, the time to undertake this kind of a study is in a down economy. When the economy returns, everyone will be too busy. If this study is done, the results should reveal a pattern and problem. This should result in some statistical facts about the filing of surveys in California and hopefully, produce some clean up legislation.

As stated, although we have our own economically driven and geoghraphically based experiences and observations, are they born out by empirical facts?

Thoughts anyone?

[NickL]

Will there be any statistical significance in only querying folks who are associated with CLSA? Would we attempt to involve the Counties in the data-gathering? If so, how?

[btaylor]

Keith can let us know if the San Mateo County fees have changed from the $188 (single sheet, 2 reviews) or the $82 per additional sheet or the $80 each sheet additional reviews beyond the initial 2 reviews.

It is now $400, which is significantly lower than any county around here.

edit - why are the [commands] on this site not working for things such as quotes?

[E_Page]

El Dorado County charges a flat $135 to review an RS of up to 2 pages, plus $25 per page over two.

I have no idea what the CR to RS ratio is.

[pls 3875]

I have been a long time advocate of revising the ROS items being reviewed by the County Surveyor. The counties seem united in complaining about the cost of map checking and the need to increase the fees. How about considering reducing the items on the check list?
I suggest the ROS will be review for compliance with four items. First is the size of the map. It must be able to be filed, so it is the top of the list. Second is map title. It must be able to be indexed so we can find it. Third is a statement, signed and sealed, by the Professional Land Surveyor and County Recorder per 8764.5. Fourth is a revised County Sureyor's Statement advising the the map HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED for mathematical accuracy or technical requirements.
That is it. No more items. If you add the fifth, you go back to where we are now with the high fees.
If we can get the broken ROS fixed the CR will be easy. We don't need to have the ROS checked. Our peers will check them when they use them. If there is something wrong, I never met a bashful surveyor.

[btaylor]

pls 3875 I totally agree. I have been advocating something like this for awhile. Sure there are some errors that will come in to play, but we can contact the surveyor and clarify something that is amiss.

[Anthony Maffia]

The value of a ROS to me is showing the monuments found and their descriptions, to aid me in retracing a boundary in the area. A ROS is a hint at a boundary solution, but it isn't accepted as-is. I haven't met or spoken with a surveyor yet who'd accept a ROS as being "true" merely because it may have been reviewed by someone in the county office.

It doesn't affect title, and I don't need the data shown to be perfect. $100 for checking & filing seems appropriate for private properties, more if it affects a large area, e.g. a section corner or a significant change to a public right-of-way. A $1500 "fee" is not related to the the actual impact; it forces private companies to back-fill the county's declining budget.

Perhaps we could send a letter to county surveyor's that CRs shouldn't be rejected for discrepancies of only a few hundredths.