As I was plotting a mylar yesterday I started wondering why we're still doing that still. I'm sure mylar came about as something that was more durable than linen, and could be used in a blueprint machine.
Now no one uses a blue print machine, so why couldn't it be plotted just to paper, while not as durable, can safely make the trip to the Recorder's office to be scanned. And then, why not just submit an in-house scan or digital dwg?
It makes more sense to me than still plotting to this plastic that is more susceptible to damage by mishandling and the elements.
The story I was told was that mylar doesn't stretch as much as paper, making it a better choice when checking an illegible or incorrectly labeled distance with a ruler.
Colorado did revise the statute last year that eliminates the requirement for film. So we can prepare a plat on paper which gets scanned into the record and the paper returned to the surveyor for safe keeping. It now becomes the surveyor's responsibility to store the original for the minimum number of years which might be 10, or 13 or maybe forever. The counties and municipalities have not all addressed this issue in their codes.
It is the multiple signature part of subdivision plats that I haven't figured out with confidence.
13 years?
I'm about to turn 66, everything will be burned or destroyed if it isn't sold when I retire.
What would be the point of mandating surveyors retain documents?
No thanks!!!
There is more than enough of mine that's public record.
Colorado AES Board Rule 1.6.A.7. Retaining Land Surveying Documents. The sealed, signed, and dated reproducible, or a copy of all documents displaying the licensee’s seal, signature, and date, shall be retained and made available by the licensee or the licensee’s employer for a minimum time period not less than the applicable statute or repose, pursuant to section 13-80-105, C.R.S.
That's ten years for discovery, three years to bring action after discovery (13 years worst case scenario) and repose only applies if you have the statement describing it on your document or you provide it to the client within ninety days of delivering the document.
Happy Birthday, I wish 66 was in my future instead fading out in the rear view mirror!
Your statement is incorrect. While Sec. 13-80-105, C.R.S, does have three scenarios, there is not a 10-year discovery.
The statute also references Sec. 13-80-101. General limitation of actions - three years. In their wisdom, the Colorado Legislature has variable time frames dependent on the profession. For land surveying it is three years, but with some gotchas. Under subsection (3) if the land surveyor does not include the statement on the plat, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that there is essentially no statute of repose.
Sec. 13-80-105 (3) (a) The limitations set forth in subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply to any survey unless the documentary evidence of such land survey contains, clearly depicted thereon, the following statement:
NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon....Case Notes
ANNOTATIONThis section contains a 10-year statute of repose that sets a date after which a claim may be barred whether or not an injury has been discovered previously. Cornforth v. Larsen, 49 P.3d 346 (Colo. App. 2002).
Under the plain language of this section, in order for the 10-year statute of repose to apply, a survey must contain the notice required by subsection (3). If a survey does not contain the notice, the 10-year statute of response has no application and a plaintiff may sue a land surveyor outside of the 10-year time frame. Cornforth v. Larsen, 49 P.3d 346 (Colo. App. 2002).
The above only applies when the surveyor either willfully or inadvertently omits the notice. If the surveyor does include the notice then subsection (1) applies.
Sec. 13-80-105 (1) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any land surveyor brought to recover damages resulting from any alleged negligent or defective land survey shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-101 after the person bringing the action either discovered or in the exercise of reasonable diligence and concern should have discovered the negligence or defect which gave rise to such action, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than ten years after the completion of the survey upon which such action is based.
The text in red above states that the statute of repose for land surveyors is provided in Sec. 13-80-101. The text in blue clearly states that the clock starts upon the discovery of the defect or when "reasonable diligence and concern should have discovered" the defect in the survey. In other words, say the land owner discovers a defect one year after the survey is signed. The land owner must initiate a court acton within three years of the discovery (i.e. 4 years from the survey being signed).
Okay that is the second case. I've highlighted the third case in magenta. In no case can a party bring suit after 10 years have elapsed IF the Notice is on the plat. It is not a 10 year period to discover the defect and an additional 3 years to bring suit. If the land owner waits beyond 10 years, they are precluded from filing a claim against the surveyor.
When I brought this to the attention of the Board during the public rulemaking hearing last year that they may wish to further clarify the three different time frames there was only chirping crickets. 🙂
Now I know that Colorado surveyors often produce records that are signed and sealed but not deposited or recorded at the county. I don't do ILCs so I don't have that issue. For the occasions that I prepare a surveyor's report, I keep a copy as a matter of my professional practice. I bring this up because the new rule is essentially meaningless (at least from an enforcement viewpoint) for all signed and sealed "documents" that are either recorded or deposited at the county. As you note the rule states:
The sealed, signed, and dated reproducible, or a copy of all documents displaying the licensee’s seal, signature, and date, shall be retained and made available by the licensee or the licensee’s employer for a minimum time period not less than the applicable statute or repose, pursuant to section 13-80-105, C.R.S
[tongue in cheek]The portion in red basically means that all I have to do when requested by the AES Board to produce a copy of my signed and sealed document is to obtain a copy from the county Clerk and Recorder's office in a timely manner and forward that to the Board. Now I know the Board Rule says that I shall retain a copy, but if I'm able to make a copy available to the Board in a timely manner, who is going to know I didn't retain a copy at my office. [/tongue in cheek]
Regarding the [tongue in cheek] portion of the above post, I do keep an original signed and sealed copy of all my land survey plats. However, if the Board was ever interested in seeing one of my plats, I would send them a copy of the deposited or recorded plat, not what I have. The main reason is that the deposited or recorded plat would have the date it was deposited or recorded AND the Reception No. Information that the Board may wish to have.
Thanks for posting this info kscott. I continue to deposit physical plats at the county, but there is still a chance to teach this old dog a new trick. I know the AES Board has been working on digital signatures and they still need to work on that.
I look at this basically the same way. I would say that the courthouse isn't the only repository of surveys. I have far more surveys recorded outside the county courthouse system than in it. The SEO and O&G commission being two places to find surveys.
Of course, those surveys are also records that are available to the public.
Sorry to be a curmudgeon but a wet signed Mylar of a subdivision map/ROS in B/W stable ink, no BS electrostatic Xerox powder technique, should be filed at the County Courthouse and put in the vaults. Vellum, silver halide, Mylar etc. maps survive for hundreds of years, maybe thousands. That is the definitive map and scans, electronic originals (ACad, Microstation, PDFs etc.) become unrecoverable as the decades pass due to software obsolesce, media failures and "gosh, we have these 4" floppies but no reader to open them."
I'm OK with a comitant electronic submittal so the GIS guys can tune up their database. I read a wide ranging article on archival data storage and they concluded the hierarchy was scratches in stone, followed by vinyl phonographic albums, with ink on stable media coming in a close third. Electronic files of text or maps was considered ephemeral.
The actual physical map, filed or recorded over the counter is the gold standard and "electronic" submittals are fraught with confusion and obsolescence as the decades pass. I don't like it.
My only beef is that they even mentioned email. An Attachment( is never secure, no matter what anyone says, period) is easily stripped off and violated.
The only way to legitimize that process is to use a system like docusign, or hell the system that the friggin courts use. No email, no way. Learn the technology before you try to pass laws on how to mandate it.
If it is going into the public record, why are you so worried about the security of email. As of the legitimacy of the document, that is what third party certificate authorities are for.
Its the theft of the digital signature, not the worry of public viewing. Doctors/NPs dont prescibe meds with email, due to that very reason. Directly connected to a pharmacy, or other, they can digitally prescribe or renew a script, similar with lawyers/courts, title transfer etc. Email isn't appropriate for anything confidential or critical, just convenient. Thats all. A signed scanned document is no big deal, except after its scanned, the stamp/signature becomes invalid unless its scanned by the authority that accepted it in the physical form first.
and yes, third party like i mentioned: docusign or other. We're saying the same thing i think.