More on Standard of Care versus Minimum Standards

Life is funny.  I had no sooner certified the vote the APLS membership took on our recommended changes to the existing Minimum Standards; when I got home my inbox was full of correspondence from NM surveyors talking about their minimum standards.

Personally however you may feel about ours take a look at the level of detail that are in NM's.  They go to great strides to define everything under the sun specifically.  So recently I have been involved in discussions relating to Standard of Care.
Arizona sort of addresses Standard of Care this way:

R4-30-301 A.A.C. 6. A registrant shall apply the technical knowledge and skill that would be applied by other qualified registrants who practice the same profession in the same area and at the same time.

However the statement "in the same area" seems to undo the intent of this paragraph.  Reason being that if a group of surveyors all trained the same way all be it incorrectly could in fact set the bar for the entire profession in that area no matter how horrific.  However that is a double edged sword.  Because if one of these guys come to an area where the Standard of Care set by the Locals is a lot higher then they can be subject BTR action.

The BTR is not real quick to use this tool and that is a real shame.  because it is a heavey hammer to swing.

Using Geographic Measurement Management

Last night I had the opportunity to sit down with the Saguaro Chapter of APLS.  I was asked to give a practical presentation on the use of Geographic Measurement Management (GMM) this is a free software available at

http://web.nmsu.edu/~kwurm/software/wg/wginstall.zip
http://web.nmsu.edu/~kwurm/software/wg/WGVDD.pdf
http://web.nmsu.edu/~kwurm/software/wg/WGTechRef.pdf
http://web.nmsu.edu/~kwurm/software/wg/WGUserGuide.pdf

If other chapters or groups are interested in having me do a tutorial let me know.  I honestly beleive this software is the best for calculating and refining search areas for PLSS monumentation.

So here are the links for the downloads.  I have the data files for Arizona and New Mexico but collectively these files are almost 5 GIG.  I need to figure out where I can host the data files.  I am thinking the APLS website.  Don't know yet.  Stay tuned.

More than measurements

Today was supposed to be a quiet day.  I had a couple of little jobs that needed me to come by and visit.  The first one was rather simple.  Found the corners verified them with the other control and flagged them up for a fence.


Then a client sends me this.....

So then pull this ROS....

 And Compare it to this Deed.....

Conclusion.  The County has no idea what they are talking about.  Does this happen anywhere else?

Utilities With out Easements in a Recorded Subdivision...

Here in the hinterlands we don't get much subdivision work.  However when we do it is like christmas.  I am in the process of taking large green belt tracts in a subdivision and amending the exiting lots to encompass the area.  It has been eye opening to see the number of reviews and meeting requested by the municipality about this.  You would think with all the scrutiny that is being laid upon this type of activity little things like making sure the original developer proved easements for sanitary and storm sewer systems that seem to randomly go from here to there with total disregard for the lot layout.  Or vice versa.

So here is the situation:
1.  drainage study shows an active drainage system running through lots to an impound area.
2.  utility plan shows sanitary sewer lines cutting through lots to shorten pipe lengths
3.  drainage study and utility plan approved by town.
4.  final plat is signed and dedications of utilities and roads are accepted by town.
5.  NO ASBUILTS EXIST of utility or sewer systems
6.  I am currently asbuilting what I can find.
7.  developer #2 buys subdivision and is re-modelling it and amending it again.

At some point I know these systems have to be accounted for.  However what I don't know is if My client developer #2 has recourse via a title claim.  Since the dedications makes the systems a matter of record.  However the dedication also states "as shown hereon".  Stay tuned..........

It has been awhile

 Here are some updates:

On the APLS front - The revisions to the minimum standards were adopted by APLS by a vote of the membership.  The Tally was 86 in favor and 50 against.  With almost 520 members this is one of the best turn outs for a vote.  With the Governor's moratorium on rule making in place APLS will have to just sit on them until the BTR can act on them. The BOD is discussing ways to encourage membership.  One that I like was bringing back the 1 year of free membership to new licensees.  I am not sure why it was halted but I guess economics had something to do with it.  However we will see what the BOD wants to do.

As 2015 takes off lets take a moment to look back at 2013-2014.  I was asked what have we done?  Well so fare since 2010 (in the last 5 years) APLS has adopted a policy of Continuing Education that is suitable to bring to the BTR.  It has been rejected by the BTR; but that doesn't mean it can't be re-introduced.  We have adopted a revision to the ABSMS that we can/will introduce to the BTR as soon as the opportunity arises.  This represents quite a log jam at the BTR so we shall see how this all plays out.

The next step is the entry standards.  The BTR is looking at an omnibus bill to bring the surveying experience/education requirements in line with the engineers.  APLS has been asked to look at and make recommendations.  So that is what we are doing.  Our relationship wit the BTR is an open one and that is good thing.  I just hope it can continue.

All that being said we can all relax and enjoy the busy field season we hope to have.

As a boy my father said that nothing ever changes but the date and the weather.  Well that may not be technically accurate based on the some of the new toys that have graced the surveying profession in the last 20 years.  However our fight for education and stricter entry standards, and minimum standards has been going since our inception.  Is this a bad thing?  NO.  Along the way past presidents and past chairman have all made significant strides towards the changes that we seek.  Some have stayed involved in the shadows; some have offered quiet support; and others have simply chose to ob-stain.  Many believe that we will never achieve our goals because we cannot come together on anything.  What are our goals really?  Can they be achieved? NO!

Our goals are moving targets.  Our goals must change and evolve as our profession does.  We will always struggle with minimum standards because as the profession progresses so must our standard of practice.  Continuing Education has been on the goal list since we formed.  It will remain there until we get the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration to be sympathetic to our cause.  Either that or we seek to become separate from the BTR.  I for one am not overly impressed with the performance of the BTR and its treatment of the surveying community.  A BTR made up of Engineers, Architects, a geologist, and a surveyor; are hardly panel that should be setting the course of our future.  The truth is when it comes to surveying decisions; they all follow the advice of the lead of the survey member.  That puts too much power at his disposal and there is no balance there.  I will say that in recent history we have opened doors and made connections.  However the bureaucratic wheels turn frustratingly slow.

I have been reading through past issues of the Arizona Surveyor.  There is a good history lesson there.  I have read many articles from the past leadership of this organization and it has reminded me that although the great number of surveyors will benefit from our labors.  The work has been and will be done by a motivated few.  That is part that never changes.  I invite anyone interested that has not been involved to jump in.  You don’t have to be elected.  You can take up a cause form a group and get it done.  We have need for volunteers for the newsletter; website; awards and recognition; conference; seminars; legislation and anything else we can think of.  A lot of this can be done at the Chapter level.  Would there be a chapter interested in publishing the newsletter?  Would there be a chapter interested in taking some of the other tasks?  Let’s find out?

We have received word that Phoenix College is dropping the surveying program from its catalog.  This is shame.  Phoenix College would have a problem with enrollment if the BTR would recognize that at least some level of formal surveying education is necessary for today’s practicing surveyor.  Is 30 hrs of surveying credit to much to ask?  Or an Associates certificate?  Apparently it is.  The profession of Surveying in Arizona cannot survive in the 21 century if it continues to live in the shadow of the past.  Just because we have always done that way is not a reason to continue doing it that way.  Our goal should be to make the profession better; not just keep it running.

In closing don’t forget we have elections coming up at the November 15th Board of Directors meeting.  Hope to see you there.

What should be on a Record of Survey

Recently I was involved in a discussion over whether or not easements should be shown on a record of survey.  I was trained in the following way; if during the course of your research you uncover easements that pertain to the property you are surveying then show them. I have got into the habit of trying to show whatever servitudes I can, to the property I am surveying, because I try to provide a service to my clients that goes beyond measuring stuff.  I try to educate my clients about land stewardship and what it means.

I understand there are business decisions that have to be made and liability issues that have to be addressed; but we are a service provider.  What service are we providing if we can't or won't discuss the intricate details of our clients property graphically and educate them.  I doubt very seriously that people hire me because they want to be amazed by my mathematical skills.

They hire me because they want to learn about their property and they want explanations.  I have spent years cultivating relationships with title officers all over the state.  Not escrow officers but Title officers; they people who put Schedule B part 2 together. (If I lost you; stop reading and go back to youtube)  These relationships have been built by passing information back and forth and helping each other out.

We are a part of the land stewardship cycle.  We need to embrace the idea that our role is to be a helluva lot more that guys who measure stuff.  So why not show easements on a Record of Survey?  And why is put a note like "survey performed without benefit of a title report"  isn't that like saying "I need somebody else to do the research"?  Some counties have a recorder's index that is easy to use.  Some don't.  So the research may or may not be easy to do.  So why not get what you can and say "This record of survey and the information shown or referenced hereon is based upon research performed by me and available as of the date of this survey; there is no warranty of a complete examination of title expressed or implied."  Isn't what your really saying when you say you did the survey without a title report.  And besides when was the last time you saw a complete title report.

   anyway my humble opinion