Monument Preservation

[Darth Vader]

Please help me end a disagreement with a fellow Professional Land Surveyor. We disagree on the allowable use of the Survey Monument Preservation Fund specifically the limits of the allowable expenditures for the fund. I would appreciate if you would first read Section 27584 of the Government Code (below)and then make your comments to the following eight questions.

1. Can the fund be used to purchase new monuments to replace destroyed monuments?
2. Can the fund be used to purchase the tool used to search, locate and replace monuments? (ie shovel, pipe finder, total station, GPS unit)
3. Can the fund be used to purchase a vehicle used to search, locate and replace monuments?
4. Can the fund be used for the County to prepare a Record of Survey of the monuments found and replaced?
5. Can the fund be used for the County to review a Record of Survey of the monuments found and replaced?
6. Can the fund be used for the County to add the found and replaced monuments in the County G.I.S.?
7. What is the exact definition of “historical” and “major”?
8. Do any of your answers change if the work is contracted out to a city or private practice?



Section 27584. Survey Monument Preservation Fund; contracting out

The Board may establish a survey monument preservation fund to pay the necessary expenses incurred or authorized by the county surveyor in any retracement or remonument survey of major historical land division lines upon which later surveys are based, such as, but not limited to, government section lines, rancho lines, grant lines rancho section lines, acreage subdivision lot lines and subdivision boundary lines within such county. The county surveyor may authorize a city engineer to perform such surveys within subject city or may contract with any surveyor in private practice to perform such surveys. When a city engineer or contract surveyor performs such surveys, he shall submit notes of such quality and size as may be necessary to conform to the standardized office records of the county surveyor. The county surveyor shall prepare a map of the survey and make such a map a part of his public records within 90 days after completion of fieldwork.

[Jim Frame]

I'll preface my response with the caveat that it represents my interpretation of the intent of the law, which may not comport with a court's interpretation.

1. Yes. Implicit in a remonumentation project is the acquisition of replacement monuments, which are a legitimate cost item necessary for completion of the project. This does not include stockpiling monument materials for use in unspecified future projects, unless done as part of a clearly-defined capital improvement program that has been subject to public review.

2. No. Although appropriate tools may be necessary to find monuments to be replaced, the acquisition of same is a capital expenditure, not a project cost. Even if a capital improvement program for remonumentation has been approved by the county, I believe that the necessary capital costs should originate outside the Monument Preservation Fund.

3. No. A motor vehicle is simply another tool, so the same logic applied to question 2 applies.

4. Yes. A Record of Survey would be the logical choice of documentation for a remonumentation project involving more than a handful of closely-related monuments. It would be specific to a project and therefore a reasonable use of Monument Preservation Fund monies.

5. Yes. County review of a ROS is similarly a legitimate project cost.

6. No. Until the GIS becomes a public record with all the associated public access requirements associated therewith, updates to the GIS to reflect remonumentation activities would no be an appropriate use of Monumentation Preservation Fund monies.

7. I won't attempt to provide a comprehensive answer to this, but the general sense is that the lines should affect a significant number of parcels rather than only a few. "Greatest good for the greatest number" might be a guiding principle.

8. No.

[Gary O]

Jim,

I agree with all of your answers but one. I'm not so sure that equipment can't be bought since the wording is not so specific as to say that. Rather, is states that the fund may be used "to pay the necessary expenses incurred or authorized by the county surveyor in any retracement or remonument survey ". I will admit that my interpretation may open a whole new can o' worms, but that's how I see it.

For example, if a $600 piece of equipment would save $1000 in time, wouldn't it be prudent and necessary to purchase it?

[Jim Frame]

I'd like to emphasize that the answers I posted were those that would prevail if I were king. Since that's not the case, I have no doubt that there will be many "innovative" interpretations of the statute, and that there will be a great deal of disparity between counties in its implementation.

I won't be at all surprised to see Monument Preservation Fund monies being used to buy equipment (including motor vehicles) for public agency survey departments. However, I maintain that such usage was not envisioned by the fund creators.

[Darth Vader]

Jim and Gary,

Thanks for your input. I need to collect on my cool adult beverage now.

In the county I work in the GIS is available to everyone. Ultimately I would like to see every existing monument shown in the GIS with the appropriate metadata. This lead to the question on the definition of “historic” and “major.” To adjoining landowners the division line between them is always “major.” Also, anything that has already happened is “historic.” Do you think our county could use the fund to locate and show brand new “historic” monuments? Is it more cost effective to locate a recently set monument than one set 100 years ago?

We have a problem with surveyors not setting the points they state to be set on their Records of Surveys and Maps. Our agencies do not have the general fund money to check if the monuments have been set and maybe this could be a source of funding and benefit to all.

[Jim Frame]

With regard to GIS, "available to everyone" sounds like a policy choice that is subject to change at the whims of the county. This is not the same as statutorily mandated public access. For what it's worth (which is probably not much), I would be opposed to the use of Monument Preservation Fund monies for GIS activities until public access to the data is provided by statute.

[D Ryan]

I think Jim hit the nail on the head with his replies. I may vary ever so slightly on some of his positions but we agree philosphically. With 58 counties in the state of California (and many of them not even having a monument preservation fund ordinance because they have been counseled it's an illegal tax)you will get quite a spectrum on what constitutes proper use. It's my view, the best thing surveyors can do to ensure the fund is used wisely is get involved through their local chapter of CLSA and and serve as an advisory body to the County in implementing the fund. Otherwise, the abuses, or mis-use based on ignorance runs rampant.

As a final note, it seems a waste of the fund for the County to run around checking that other surveyors have properly set monuments they claim to have set. Sounds like a Board issue to me. Why would any surveyor put up with that from his fellow "professionals"?

[Jim Frame]

Given what I've seen in Yolo and Sacramento Counties, I would take no offense at a local agency's decision to implement a monument inspection program. However, I would not support the use of Monument Preservation Fund monies for such a program. Inspection and preservation are separate functions, and I don't believe the intent of the preservation legislation was to support the former.