2017 Issue

64 streets, all the monuments around the lots have been taken out by fence lines, and some of the best evidence of the original surveyor's work is the monuments in the street. Every year I go to a conference where we review some of these court cases, and, to my recollection, not one of them has been about a property that was just established in the last few months or even last year. They are mostly about properties that have been established for many years and con- veyed several times. When the city makes a conscious and voluntary decision to remove and not replace the street mon- uments in the subdivided properties within their jurisdiction they raise the price of a survey for a given property several fold. They also increase the probability of latent ambiguities in the performance of retracing the boundaries, again increasing the time and cost. It just sickens me when I hear reasoning of this nature - just last month there was a perfectly usable monument in that intersection (I had used it several times), but now it is gone simply because the city decided it was not worth the $500 more or less to reestablish it along with the manholes and water valves just a few feet away. How many additional monuments have disappeared in the city over the past years? How long has this been a policy in the city? It certainly does not conform to accepted engineering and surveying standards and practices within this state. In my opinion, this kind of wanton disregard for your duty to the public approaches gross negli- gence and unprofessional conduct (see R156-22- 502 (5) & (8). I am sorry, but this cannot continue. Please advise me as to how you intend to right this wrong. Sincerely, Before sending this email I again spoke to the City Engineer to let him know that I was sending a response to his associ- ate’s email. I also let him know that I was copying the email to the County Surveyor and The Salt Lake County Surveyors group in an effort to help spread information, as Salt Lake County has developed agreements with many of the Cities in that County to assist in the management and perpetua- tion of these types of monuments. I used some strong words: “This kind of wanton disregard for your duty to the public approaches gross negligence and unprofessional conduct.” Are they really appropriate in this case? Looking at the definition of Gross Negligence we see: Gross Negligence An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others. Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, prop- erty, or both. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com Wouldn’t it be reasonable care to replace the city’s assets, especially when it was in good condition before the street reconstruction? Did the City consciously and voluntarily disregard this duty to use reasonable care? Is there a likely chance that these actions could cause injury to property? Looking at the State Rules for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors we see: R156-22-502. Unprofessional Conduct. "Unprofessional conduct" includes: … (5) failing to hold paramount the duty to safeguard life, health, property and public welfare by approving and seal- ing only those design documents and surveys that conform to accepted engineering and surveying standards; … (8) expressing a professional opinion publicly when it is not founded upon an adequate knowledge of the facts and a competent evaluation of the subject matter;