The Standards and Ethics Committee meets every fourth Thursday at 5:00 pm at Meridian Engineering, located at 1628 W. 11010 S., Ste. 102 in South Jordan, Utah.
The following are current items of business being discussed by the committee.
Boundary Establishment/Adjustment Model Standards
John Stahl has now given multiple presentations outlining the changes and additions to state code related to the newly passed legislation addressing boundary line establishment and adjustment (SB-104). The committee and UCLS Executive Board are in favor of producing a model standard/guide document to address said legislation. The committee felt that John would be the best individual to lead this endeavor. Andy Hubbard volunteered to assist John with said guidance document.
Engineering and Mapping Firms Offering Surveying Services
There are questions as to the specific employment relationship an engineering or mapping firm needs to have with a licensed surveyor to advertise/offer survey services. From review of state code, it was determined that a licensed surveyor needs to be directly employed by the firm and in responsible charge in order to have the firm advertise/offer surveying services. There was some discussion as to what “employing a surveyor” specifically entails. Brad Mortensen offered that certain nuances exist in the engineering and surveying community that may preclude a licensed surveyor from needing to be employed by an engineering firm, further explaining that consulting companies regularly collaborate with one another when providing services. The distinction was made between a company directly offering survey services as opposed to offering the coordination of surveying services with a company or individual licensed to do so. The committee is reaching out to DOPL for an official decision on the matter.
Monument Standards Discussion
This has been an ongoing discussion by the committee. The committee was presented with the Utah state code as it relates to Public Land Survey monument construction requirements. It simply states that a PLSS survey marker will be set with a “monument of durable quality.” It was felt by many committee members that this does not adequately ensure a survey marker will remain intact for future retracement and reliance. It was shared that most of the surrounding states have more robust monument and survey marker construction standards. It was suggested that the committee start with the UCLS Model Standards for Records of Survey and Corner Record Reports, and then potentially look at legislation if deemed beneficial. It was suggested by committee members to coordinate with some county surveyors to get their input about this topic at a future committee meeting.
In our June meeting, we had the following county surveyors attend our meeting: Bradley Park (Salt Lake County Surveyor), Ryan Allred (Duchesne County Surveyor), Anthony Canto (Utah County Surveyor), Mike Draper (Washington County Surveyor/Deputy Recorder) and Brock Slaugh (Uintah County Surveyor). They were invited to the committee to offer guidance related to the ongoing discussion of survey monument standards and corner record reports. Discussion took place regarding responsibilities between private and county surveyors related to monument perpetuation, relevant information that should be represented in a Corner Record Report, what constitutes an appropriate monument accessory, and the role of the state’s Monument Replacement and Restoration Committee (MRRC). At the time of the June meeting, the UCLS guide document for “Preparing Corner Records” did not contain any examples of an actual form to report the information. The county representatives in attendance offered to provide Mike Nadeau with example Corner Record Report Forms for inclusion in the associated guide document. Those examples were provided to the committee and are now posted on the UCLS website for the use of those who would like to use them. There was discussion on the monument construction standards and it was concluded that those standards were determined by the jurisdiction of where the section monument is located — i.e. if the monument to be replaced is located on national forest or BLM lands, their standards need to be followed, and if the monument to be replaced lies within the jurisdiction of a county, those standards need to be followed. The general consensus of the discussion is to consult with the proper land use authority (generally a county surveyor) when reconstructing, re-establishing or establishing a new corner of the Public Land Survey System.
This practice can be an issue in counties where a licensed county surveyor is not present. Anthony Canto explained that the MRRC funding structure does not allow compensation to be given to a private surveyor for monument preservation efforts. Dave Hawkes brought up the fact that the fee collected by county surveyors when filing a record of survey is intended to fund monument preservation and suggested that said funds could be used to compensate private surveyors in monument preservation efforts. Anthony agreed to this suggestion and offered to pass along this idea to counties that do not currently employ a licensed county surveyor. Hopefully, there will be funds available for the replacement and construction of section monuments.
The prevailing conclusion of this discussion was that, while the county surveyor’s office is ultimately responsible for the maintenance of PLSS corner monuments for private land, assistance from private surveyors will greatly aid in the preservation of said monuments and the overall stability of the PLSS. It is important to mention that state codes dictate that a private surveyor needs to inform the county surveyor’s office if a county monument is found disturbed or in a state of disrepair.
Updating UCLS Subdivision Model Standards
Steve Dale volunteered to review the UCLS Subdivision Model Standards/Guide Document to integrate the newly passed legislation into said document. Kurt Falkenthal offered to assist with this ongoing effort.
Survey Company Offering Fenceline Surveys
A local firm’s owner and surveyor were in attendance to discuss and respond to a recent Letter of Concern sent by the Standards and Ethics Committee related to construction staking services being offered in lieu of performing a record of survey. The committee has previously expressed concern that fences and other improvements were being staked in direct relation to property boundary lines, and this work was being considered as construction staking services. Discussion centered around the nuances of establishing improvements relative to real property boundary lines and the responsibilities of the surveyor performing such work. The general opinion of the committee was that whenever a boundary line is relied upon for the construction of any associated improvements, a record of survey shall be performed and filed with the appropriate entity. The owner and the surveyor were receptive to the guidance given by the committee and stated that they will reevaluate some of the marketing strategies currently employed and not offer construction staking in lieu of a boundary survey to be filed as required by State Code 17-23-17.
Surveying Monument Locations
Dale Bennett wanted to get input from the county surveyors in attendance about the increased safety concerns related to survey monuments being located within high-risk locations, such as street intersections. Roadway utilities are also becoming a more prevalent issue with survey monument installations. Dale feels that with the advances in measurement technology, the number of street monuments required can be reduced. It was expressed that most of those decisions are made by the local land use authority, but county monuments can benefit from additional reference points to aid these issues. Anthony Canto made the point that while reference points to a corner monument can be helpful, the actual survey corner monument is paramount to any reference point, as ownership is tied to the survey corner and not a reference monument. The county officials in attendance were receptive to exploring alternative methods of monumentation. Brad Mortensen cautioned that while the number of monuments currently required can be reduced, we need to make every effort to preserve the monuments that have already been established.
The UCLS has defined the duties of the committee as:
“The principal duties of the Standards and Ethics Committee shall be to review and act on all complaints from surveyors and the general public involving surveying or surveyors’ ethics and to prepare and maintain a Standards of Practice manual.” — UCLS By Laws 3.16.f
Those who would like to be involved in the Standards and Ethics Committee, please let us know, and we will send you an agenda for the next meeting or instructions on how to connect remotely if you are unable to attend in person.
