California Surveyors Forums

FYI, Yolo County just increased its fees. The cost of checking a 1-sheet Record of Survey went up 46%, from $530.00 to $773.80.

Even when you consider that it's the first increase in 9 years, 46% is way over the rate of inflation. Using compounded CPI during that interval, the new rate ought to be around $605.00.

For comparison, my own rates have gone up less than 30% during the same period. But then I operate in a competitive environment.

Is it still Andregg Geomatics?

I believe the correct formula for agency cost increases is compounded CPI x Z where multiplier Z is a factor of PERS entitlements and proportional to size of agency

In other words the public (whomever has the audacity to make use of the government services) will get the squeeze for the foreseeable future and it will likely be worse in the more populated counties.

Is it still Andregg Geomatics?

Unless the contract has turned over in the last few weeks, yes.

Nothing against Andregg, but I was a lot happier when we had a county employee in the position. Our last "real" CS, Ken Misner, was a lifelong resident of the county and spent his whole career surveying in Yolo and Solano. He knew the history and where the skeletons were buried. He was dedicated, ethical and conscientious. His predecessor, Jack Turold, had a similar pedigree. But apparently it's cheaper to outsource the position to someone who has no practical knowledge of the area, no access to filed maps, and sits in an office two counties away.

Has anybody compiled the fees per county lately? I have one from 2005, but want some current info if and when I stand up to the County Supervisors. They take their advice from "staff" that say they lose money on map checking. What about general fund? For the benefit of the public... They don't record much more than 10+ maps per year for a reason. The Record of Survey "technical review" is sometimes more than I charge to prepare the map. I can slam out a simple R/S in a few hours or so. But I also work around 'glass houses' and have to be careful not to rock the boat, everybody knows everybody type of thing, the County is a regular client. Two adjacent rural counties where I work: $660 vs. $62.50. The $660 is a very competent contract surveyor, the $62.50 county I figure is also competent in technical review as well, and is a county employee. In one case I do advise my clients the most economical way of providing services, in the other I'll file if required or not (8762). I've ranted before regarding overpowered technicians dictating my verbiage and drafting style, but I also fall into the category of "take the advice, draft the funky suggestion and get the map filed". My bad.
John Williams, PLS

I also fall into the category of "take the advice, draft the funky suggestion and get the map filed". My bad.

I generally don't slip into that category, and have had a few testy go-rounds with my home county contract CS as a result. One of the deliverables specified in my boundary survey contracts is "a copy of the draft Record of Survey as submitted to the county for checking," so payment is due from the client no matter how long the CS wants to argue over something.

Having a local CS is key to protecting the public and the surveyor.

Brian

Andregg is now Psomas, and, I am sure there are changes coming relative to the new restructure (If that still applies?)

Orange County, the practice-based chapter, prepared a proposal to limit the checking fee to $500 - there were counter proposals to provide a cost per sheet - and removing the capacity for the local agencies to raise the cost by ordinance. Orange County has encountered some resistence. However, the OC Directors will be asking the CLSA Board of Directors on November 3, 2018 to approve the concept and allow the CLSA to introduce a bill.

Another legislative proposal from Orange County is to allow larger sheet size for the record of survey. This would make for a more complete map by allowing more information and would limit cost in the counties that charge by the sheet.

These ideas need to move forward now. A $500 limit would exceed most counties cost today. As the counties move towards a full cost recovery two things are certain:

1. The cost will not come down again and the opportunity cap the cost will become much harder.

2. The honest professionals will no longer be able to compete because the professionals that operate close to the line will go underground. Legal boundary establishment will be relegated to subdivision maps.

In Orange County we fought the good fight, but we ultimately lost to full cost recovery. Boundary surveying is over here. Our records system, second to none, is already deteriorating. For example, we typically file 250-300 records of survey annually. This year we are at approximately 100, a 67% reduction in filing, even though the workload has not been reduced. I believe the work went underground. Next year, predictably, we will see less records of survey filed.

The Orange County chapter has 11 or 12 additional legislative proposals - several of which have already been approved to move forward into a bill. It will take a couple of years to work through the system. Orange County believes regulation, enforcement and education is how we fight deregulation of the practice. Land surveying licensure is an uncertain future. Many trades "survey" every day without any issues. Many of those practicing do not understand land surveying. Land surveying is a good candidate for deregulation. If you are over 55-60, it may not be a concern to you. You'll probably make it. If you're 35, no formal education, better practice being a Walmart greeter if CLSA cannot turn the tide. Orange County is executing their 2011-2013 agenda. We were temporarily derailed at the time and we are almost fully on track today.

Please read the Orange County proposals and let your Director (s) know your position. When the language gets to a bill, you are to speak up then or forever hold your peace.

If you do not belong to a chapter you are not represented by a Director. Please contact a Orange County Director or someone on the Orange County Executive Board i.e. President or the Secretary. Due to our size, as a organizational management tool, we ask that questions and/or correspondence be in writing.

Best,

DWoolley

Legal boundary establishment will be relegated to subdivision maps.

I winced when I first read this, as most of the subdivision maps filed in my home city were checked under the direction of grandfathered CEs, most of whom knew little and/or cared little about boundary surveying. There are some miserable subdivision boundaries lurking about here. Now that the eligible CEs are retired things should be getting better, but a lot of damage was done.

My previous post is exclusive to records of survey checking fees.

DWoolley

Surveyor to Recorder for Record of Survey sounds better every day.
http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... f=6&t=7317

(it works)

Orange County had a land surveying dignitary from Arizona present to our folks the upsides and downsides of their system. The recorded meeting had approximately 200 separate views.

The Orange County chapter is exploring all options at this point. Collectively, OC believes there is a serious threat of land surveying being deregulated. Counterintuitively, OC believes the key component to a strategy is more regulation. The land surveying community needs to distinguish themselves from the contractors, GIS folks, post 82' engineers and other tradesmen.

I have been told by two sources New Mexico recently passed a law that allows unlicensed people to practice with the waiver from the client. This is very recent. When I find the paperwork I will post it here.

DWoolley

First off let it be known I have never surveyed in Yolo county, and have no intentions to, lol.

Secondly, Congratulations to Yolo County for encouraging the non-professional survey to bid and get a job, knowing tagged points will NOT be set and no RS filed. Also cud-dos to the consultant that can now justify fattening their pockets, charging for time making non-technical comments.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming!!!

FWIW, Tuolumne County just raised its review fee for records of survey to $450, based on an 80% cost recovery. In the overall scheme of things, subdivision maps constitute the bulk of revenue - as is appropriate for developers looking at a profitable enterprise. In effect, development fees subsidize the filing of RSs and corner records.

DWoolley wrote:Collectively, OC believes there is a serious threat of land surveying being deregulated. Counterintuitively, OC believes the key component to a strategy is more regulation. The land surveying community needs to distinguish themselves from the contractors, GIS folks, post 82' engineers and other tradesmen.

Sounds like one helluva pissing match, I can't wait to see how it develops.

I wonder what sort of regulation strategy OC envisions. I suppose it would have to be a state function rather than an improvement to the current piecemeal system. While I could imagine personal support for this idea, it doesn't seem realistic to me considering the current manifestation of CA state government

If the elected officials that are owned by the unions were not able to approve ludicrous govt employee contracts we would not be having these issues.

As Mr. Williams pointed out: $62.5- v $660.

I'm with Saint Peter - Surveyor to Recorder. Other states do it and I don't hear of massive increase in court cases.

I'm with Wooley on sheet size. We live in the digital age. Sheet size hardly matters anymore. 24"x36" would be wonderful! And . . . at least, (I think?), we would have a consensus . . . save, the County Recorder?

SURVEYOR TO RECORDER!!!!!!

Phil - Sonoma

PS last time I checked, the "Surveyor-to-Recorder" survey had only 53 respondents. And that was running 50/50. If CLSA wants more members - we need another David vs Goliath legislation and rid ourselves of map checking. However . . . as usual, we'll never on the same page with that wonderful thought. (Chime in, non members!)

New Mexico deregulation Dave mentioned above.
https://www.abqjournal.com/1228841/gove ... tions.html

Wow, map checking fees are kind of all over the map in this state.

These are the ones I know:

Yolo now = $773
Stanislaus = $700
San Joaquin = $325
Calaveras = $150
San Mateo = $400
Santa Clara = $600
Alameda = $500
Contra Costa = $500
Marin = $664?
Tuolumne = $450

There seems to be inconsistency on fees out in the Central Valley/foothills area and I'm not sure why. Bay Area fees are more or less in same range.

I'd love to see no more checking fees and just go straight to the recorder, but I don't think that's going to happen!

Solano County is now $895 for the first sheet and $435 for each additional.

MikeT wrote:Wow, map checking fees are kind of all over the map in this state.

These are the ones I know:

Yolo now = $773
Stanislaus = $700
San Joaquin = $325
Calaveras = $150
San Mateo = $400
Santa Clara = $600
Alameda = $500
Contra Costa = $500
Marin = $664?
Tuolumne = $450

There seems to be inconsistency on fees out in the Central Valley/foothills area and I'm not sure why. Bay Area fees are more or less in same range.

I'd love to see no more checking fees and just go straight to the recorder, but I don't think that's going to happen!

San Luis Obispo = $233

Afraid to list the name of the $62.50 county, I may be shooting myself in the foot. But it's in my local region...over here.

OK, I'm the one that asked for a list.
Mono $660
Inyo $62.50
Kern $400 first sheet, $200 thereafter

oh and the $75 housing fee for the first two, I think Kern waives with an explanation

At last night's OC CLSA meeting we had over 65 people in attendance.

One topic for discussion at last night's meeting was methods of reducing the County Surveyor's checking cost for records of survey. Currently, the OC Surveyor changes $200/hour for every hour worked. Flavors of the "surveyor to recorder" were discussed. I cannot accurately characterize an end result because the opinions were wide ranging. There were those that thought indexing without review was the way to go.

Being that the land surveyor, in theory, is not paying the fees, is the land surveyors' primary concern saving John Q. Public money? If not, why are land surveyors concerned with review costs? If this sounds like a leading question, a setup, you are 100% correct.

DWoolley