BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1919|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1919
Author: Davis (D)
Amended: 8/2/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/30/10
AYES: Cox, Aanestad, Kehoe, DeSaulnier, Price
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 43-33, 6/1/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Local government: county surveyor: survey
monument
preservation fund
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill repeals the current prohibition
against charging county survey monument preservation fund
fees against grant deeds that convey parcels which were
created by recorded tract maps. This bill allows a county
to deduct an administrative fee of up to five percent to
pay for the county recorder's costs before depositing the
revenues in the county survey monument preservation fund.
ANALYSIS : Existing law authorizes counties to charge
survey monument preservation fund user fees to property
owners who record grant deeds that convey real property.
Grant deeds for lots created by recorded tract maps are
exempt. The fee can't exceed $10 or an amount set by the
county board of supervisors that doesn't exceed the amount
CONTINUED
AB 1919
Page
2
reasonably necessary to provide the cost of the service.
The funds can't be used for any other purpose.
The revenues go into a survey monument preservation fund to
pay for the county surveyor's work in retracing major
historical land division lines that private surveyors use
when surveying property. The surveys rely on permanent
monuments as the physical evidence needed to establish
property boundaries. The county surveyor can contract with
private surveyors for this work or allow a city engineer to
perform the work within the city.
If a city engineer in a city with more than 1,500,000
residents (i.e., Los Angeles) preserves the survey
monuments in that city, the county recorder must send the
revenues collected from the grant deeds recorded in that
city to the city treasurer (AB 2855, Bradley, Chapter 334,
Statutes of 1986).
This bill repeals the current prohibition against charging
county survey monument preservation fund fees against grant
deeds that convey parcels which were created by recorded
tract maps.
This bill allows a county to deduct an administrative fee
of up to five percent to pay for the county recorder's
costs before depositing the revenues in the county survey
monument preservation fund.
The bill also makes clarifying and technical changes.
Comments
Over 80 percent of the grant deeds recorded on property
within the City of Los Angeles are exempt from Los Angeles
County's user fee because tract maps created the lots. The
City says that the County's fee generates about $40,000 a
year for monument preservation work. If the County imposed
the fee on the grant deeds for all parcels, the City would
get about $200,000 a year. That's enough to preserve more
than 220 additional survey monuments a year. The City
wants the Legislature to broaden the base against which
counties can charge these fees.
AB 1919
Page
3
Accurate survey monuments benefit the private surveyors who
work on new subdivisions and other land development
projects. Unreliable survey monuments can result in
confusion and costly lawsuits over property lines. When
county surveyors preserve key survey monuments, they're
helping to avoid property disputes. That's why state law
allows counties to charge fees to pay for preserving those
essential monuments. The current exemption in state law
for previously subdivided lots means that counties charge
their user fees against a narrow base. Neither they nor
the City of Los Angeles receive enough fee revenues to pay
for vigorous preservation programs. If the rate stays the
same, but the base grows, a fee generates more revenue. If
counties charge their existing survey monument preservation
user fees on all parcels, then the county surveyors will
have more money to replace more survey monuments. This
bill generates more money for the counties and the City of
Los Angeles to preserve more survey monuments.
When the 1986 Bradley bill proposed hiking the county
survey monument preservation user fee from $10 to $15, the
Senate Local Government Committee instead amended the bill
to recognize county supervisors' ability to raise the fee
above the statutory cap of $10 as long as county officials
show that the higher fee didn't exceed the county's
reasonable service costs. If a county's current fee
doesn't cover a county's costs of preserving survey
monuments, the county surveyor can ask the board of
supervisors to raise the fee and generate more money.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/2/10)
California Land Surveyors Association
California State Association of Counties
City of Los Angeles
Counties of Butte and Humboldt
County Recorders Association of California
Regional Council of Rural Counties
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/2/10)
AB 1919
Page
4
California Association of Realtors
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Supporters state that deleting the
exemption for deeds conveying lots created by recorded
tract maps closes an inequitable loophole in who is charged
the $10 user fee for the county survey monument
preservation fund. Because the sole purpose of the fund is
to reimburse the county surveyor, and, in the case of the
City of Los Angeles, the city surveyor, for costs incurred
to comply with state laws for the preservation of
monuments, this fee goes directly back to statutorily
required community services. Supporters, California State
Association of Counties, also say the exemption creates
confusion for county recorders, with the exemption
sometimes being overlooked or applied incorrectly.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Association of
Realtors, questions why this fund is necessary in light of
modern technology that makes surveying more cost-effective
when it comes to the preservation and maintenance of survey
monuments. Adding an additional fee to every conveyance of
real property is a large sum of money, likely larger than
is necessary for this purpose. It also could be argued
that, in today's economy, anything that makes the
conveyance of real property more expensive only hurts the
overall economy.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez,
Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Monning, Nava, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Solorio,
Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Yamada, John A. Perez
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Blakeslee,
Buchanan, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Emmerson, Fletcher,
Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman,
Harkey, Hill, Huber, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller,
Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Norby, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Silva, Smyth, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Tom Berryhill, Audra Strickland, Swanson
AB 1919
Page
5
AGB:nl 7/26/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****