SURVEYOR MINUTES

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008

LINN COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS, ALBANY, OR

Attendees: Chuck Gibbs, Linn, Jim Elam, Washington, Eric Berry, Polk, Chuck Pearson, Clackamas, Pat Gaylord (PLSO), Dan Boldt, Wasco, Bob Hovden, Multnomah, Randy Johnston, Hood River, Tom Hamilton, Lincoln, Ray Wilson, Benton, Dan McNutt, Tillamook, Joe Jensen, Tillamook, Dan Linscheid, Yamhill, Steve Thornton, Clatsop, Gary DeJarnatt, Jefferson, Mike Jackson, Lane, Mike Berry, Deschutes, Mark Riggins, Marion

.

Minutes for February 28, 2008 Surveyor Meeting at Linn County Fair-Expo in Albany, Oregon.

Meeting began at 10:00 am:

Minutes from January were approved.

Chuck Pearson had a handout which showed history on an original ¼ corner between section 6 and section 7 of T6S, R2E in Clackamas County. That original corner was found and restored by a private surveyor in 1922 and later used by a private engineer to subdivide the southwest quarter of section 6 in 1959. The BLM came through in 1962 and set a proportionate corner monument because they couldn’t find any trace of the original corner. No mention of the iron pipe set in 1922 or the existing fence corner next to the iron pipe.

Later surveys used the BLM cap to subdivide section 6 believing in good faith that the cap had been set properly, however Clackamas County found the iron pipe and a possible BT that matches the iron pipe as well as a very old fence corner at the pipe.

The BLM has refused to accept the iron pipe as the true corner stating that the 1962 survey may have been flawed, but the land owners have now received some sort of bona fide rights to the position of the cap they set in 1962.

The consensus of the group is that there are more corners in other counties that have been proven to be original corners found after the BLM set proportionate monuments, but were not accepted by the BLM. Have we all been led to believe the manual of instructions has to be followed by us, but not the BLM? Property corners verses true corners, which will hold?

The group will ask Mary Hartel to come to the spring conference and see if she will discuss the issue with us.

Chuck Pearson suggested that maybe we should send Mary Hartel several examples of corners that the BLM did not except and see if she will go over them at the conference.

The group also discussed what items we might have for the program at the Spring Conference at

Eagle Crest.

Tom Hamilton suggested that maybe we should discuss what each of us do in our counties and what other departments we work with.

We also talked about right of entry problems and how we are dealing with land owners who refuse to let the survey crews enter onto their property. See ORS 209.015 for details.

Dan Linscheid also talked al little about sanctions by OSBEELS for right of entry problems.

Mike Berry will give a presentation at the Spring Conference on researching roads in Deschutes County.

Other items of discussion:

Tom Hamilton and Jim Elam talked about the handout which Jim sent out to everyone on the “Engineering Design for Survey Monuments”. This was in regards to HB 2713 and the revision to ORS 92.044 (7) and others. The talk was about how maybe the 1’ should be 2’ or 2.5’ to give better clearance for monuments. The consensus was that maybe the distance should be revised.

Another problem that seems to come up a lot is calling for locates before monuments are set and having the locate agency say they will not locate utilities unless an excavation is being made.

Gary DeJarnatt had a hand out of a Preliminary Subdivision in his county where the surveyor wanted to show a dedicated right-of-way without monumentation. The dedication appeared to be outside of the first phase of the Subdivision.

Everyone agreed that no way should that be allowed unless it is a Post Mon Subdivision and that area was added to the fist Subdivision.

The group also talked about surveyor caps for monuments and the stamped information on the caps. Someone said that only one surveyor LS # is allowed on the monument cap stamping and that only a registered business name can be placed on the cap.

To understand the rules, see ORS 209.250 (8), which covers what should be marked on the caps.

There was some more discussion on Condos and what Lori Skillman from the Oregon Realtors Commission really wants from us and the developers. Maybe we should ask her to come to one of our meetings to clarify details?

There was also some discussion on Plant Service Reports for Subdivisions and Partitions. When a title report shows a lean has been made on a piece of property by court order, do we have the right to not sign the plat? It was determined that no we do not have the right to refuse signing and the owner of the subdivision is still responsible for the lean.

Dan Boldt said that he has most of his survey data scanned, but is having problems with Wasco County ITS telling the Commissioners on line access should be a fee service to the public.

Most of the other counties provide the data for free. There is also some effort being made to make Wasco County a Home Rule County and get rid of the elected positions.

There also was discussion on Subdivision or Partition corner location tolerance when found record monuments are slightly out of position. Can the monument be used as a witness or reference monument to the true point? Some said no, but most said yes if within 0.50’ or less.

How many monuments can be set at the same spot and who’s is right? This may need more discussion at another meeting.

This meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:45.