Source: http://www.thekilbygroup.com/news/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:54:41+00:00

Document:
Many have concerns about the recent passing and signing into law, of House Bill 1004. Particularly in regard to the effect the law will have. These misgivings come from both the surveyor’s point of view and a property owner’s.
Having reviewed and participated in the legislative process on several bills in the pasted, this House Bill 1004 and its verbiage ranks among the worst I have ever seen. It gives me the impression that the scriber had no understanding of his subject matter.
There are many issues with the legislation which are conspicuously bad, of them the most egregious to me is the Surveyor’s Certificate, which starts at line 63 and runs thru line 79, which is in complete contempt for the Attorney General’s opinion U2005-5 that the Clerks of Court sought and got clarification on in 2005.
No one should be codify something that that can only be addressed through the surveyor’s technical standards, the 180 Rules for Surveying, as set out by the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. This is addressed through the Board for Engineers and Land Surveyors requirements of O.C.G.A. §15-6-67(b) and (d), of the State Code. Rather than solving anything, House Bill 1004 has served to create a much bigger problem for the Clerks of the Superior Court, The Local Governing Authorities, The Land Surveyor, and the public at large.
Making a requirement that the Surveyor certify that all applicable laws, codes, and ordinances have been meet constitutes a legal opinion, which surveyors are not qualified to give. As surveyors and professional, we cannot be responsible for, the ordinances that a governing authority might select to governing a project. Additionally, many times projects fall under multiple governing authorities, for which they often conflict with each other.
In 2005, the Attorney General was asked to address a serious issue with local governing authorities trying to subvert the public and their right to have plats recorded. The ruling was clear that the intent of the 1994-1996 General Assembly was to prevent local governing authorities from such tactics. See Unofficial Opinion 20005-5.
He went on to lay out a clear and precise guideline to the Surveying Profession and the Clerks of the Superior Court on how to handle this matter. If the plat meets the guidelines then the plat was to be recorded without the local governing authority added additional restrictions.
Once again a small group has attempted to subvert the public’s right to have their plats put on record by having undue restrictions placed on them by a local governing authority. Land ownership, and the people’s right to own land comes from the State.
Where the local governing authority has the right to planning and zoning, they do not have the right to place an undue burden on the public’s right to land ownership.
We have come across several “lots of recorded” that were approved and recorded at the time of their creation, but due to ever increasing regulations (and some local governing authorities need for power and creative taxing), these lots cannot be re-recorded today under this new law. The public has the right to place their plats on record, whether or not it meets the current flavor of the day as mandated by some local governing authority.
The Kilby Group has added ArcGIS â 10 Desktop to its suite of software. In addition to being able to collect native GIS (esri) shp file features and attributes using Carlson’s SurvCE in the field, exchanging data with ESRI .shp files and .dwg CAD files using Mapping Specifications for Cad (MSC) with Carslon Survey 2012, we are now able to make maps and analyze geo-referenced data in native GIS formats, build and manage GIS databases utilizing ArcMap and ArcCatalog from the ArcGIS Desktop line of GIS products. We are very excited to be able to offer this new service to our clients and feel this can add value to their projects.
We have just successfully completed a 30-mile LIDAR project for ALCO/TVA transmission line starting at Alcoa, Tennessee and running southeasterly into the Appalachian Mountains just inside North Carolina at Deal’s Gap (Tail of the Dragon). The project consist of several control points along with two base stations. Due to sporadic cell coverage on the southern portion of the project, we chose to utilize OPUS along with post processing techniques to acquire our control data.
We were excited to be a part of this project and enjoyed our time in Tennessee and North Carolina: the southeastern portion of Tennessee is a very scenic place, a beauty that words cannot fully express, and getting to ride the dragon at night, well do you need to say more. As with any project there are unique challenges but the reward of a successful project along with a happy client makes it worthwhile.
We look forward for the next adventure.
The Superior Court rejects the SOS’s notion that Monroe County initiate the statutory process all over again starting with the Grand Jury a second time and with the governor appointing a new surveyor. SOS Kemp’s balk to sign, stamp, and/or record the legal plat of survey ordered by the Governor is no different than if it were some subordinate member of his staff that refused. Just because Kemp is the Department Head, he has no authority to not fulfill his duty. It is his department that must provide the public service, that service being of an administrative nature (ministerial), not a judicial nature.
O.C.G.A. § 36-3-24 provides that if a protest or exception to the survey and plat is filed in the Secretary of State’s office within 30 days, it shall be the duty of the secretary of state to give, through the mail, ten days written notice of the time when he will hear the protest or exceptions at his office to the county governing authorities of the respective counties. Upon the hearing, the secretary of state shall determine from the law and evidence the true boundary line in dispute between the respective counties.
The proceedings in this case were filed in an action for Judicial Review, filed by Monroe County challenging the action of the SOS in rejecting the survey and plat submitted for recording under the Statute; the (“2011 Action”). The Court dismissed the 2011 Action, finding, pursuant to Early County v. Baker County, 137 Ga. 126, 72 S.E. 905 (1911), that the legislature intended the SOS to perform ministerial acts, and not judicial acts, in determining the true boundary line between disputing counties. The 1Court further concluded that the record in the 2011 Action reveals that on August 9, 2005, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue III appointed a surveyor, who was found to be independent and qualified to survey the boundary line in accordance with O.C.G.A § 36-3-20. On March 27, 2009, after eight months of work by himself and his crew, the surveyor submitted to Bibb and Monroe Counties and to the SOS, pursuant to the statutory procedure set out in O.C.G.A. § 36-3-22, his completed survey and plat along with a narrative report incorporating his assessment of ancient history records pertinent to the location of the boundary line. Before completing the survey, the surveyor and his crew undertook extensive research and efforts on the ground to identify the beginning and end points of the disputed county line and the “Holt Alteration,” which was created by the Georgia Legislature in 1877 so that the lands of Dr. Holt and his family would be in Bibb County, not Monroe, County.
1The Surveyor took the position that he would not appear and testify until Bibb County had paid him for its portion of the survey fee…over $170,000. The Court does not condone the Surveyor’s refusal to appear until paid. The Court notes, nevertheless, that the SOS, while well aware of the Surveyor’s position did not use the power of his office to obtain Bibb’s portion for the Surveyor’s fee until after oral arguments on May 31, 2011, virtually assuring that the Surveyor would not participate in the process. Furthermore, the SOS rejected the Surveyor’s subsequent attempts to appear and provide input after he was paid. Finally, the SOS denied Monroe County a hearing on reconsideration, when the Surveyor’s resistance to appearing had been resolved.
Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-3-23, Bibb County filed a protest to the survey triggering the SOS’s responsibility to determine the true boundary line, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-3-24. Undertaking her duties, on August 7, 2009, Karen Handel the predecessor to the current SOS, Brian Kemp, chose to refer the boundary dispute to the Office of State Administrative Hearings (“OSAH”) for a preliminary hearing and counsel. OSAH assigned an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to the case. On October 9, 2009 the matter was withdrawn from the assigned ALJ and reassigned to a Special Assistant Administrative Law Judge (SAALJ), who was an attorney with real estate experience.
(4) Whether the methods utilized by the surveyor in conducting the survey were in accordance with applicable principles and industry standards in Georgia.
1. That the survey does depict the true boundary line between Bibb and Monroe Counties as established by the Georgia General Assembly.
2. That the survey did account for every change in the boundary line between Bibb and Monroe Counties, including all changes made pursuant to the Statute.
4. That the methods utilized by the surveyor in conducting the survey were in accordance with applicable principles and industry standards in Georgia.
Based on the law and evidence, the SAALJ concluded that the survey is “an accurate description of the true boundary line between Bibb County and Monroe County” and recommended that the SOS accept the survey. Common wisdom provides him with the answer, but no; the current SOS decided after considering the SAALJ’s finding of fact and recommendations, he rejects the SAALJ’s recommendation and just walks out on the survey. In his final determination he asserts that the decision was not subject to appeal, except on the grounds of “fraud and abuse” and that the only way to establish the disputed boundary line was to begin the statutory process all over again from the grand jury level.
SOS…to determine the location of county boundary lines as the statute.
Early County v. Baker County, 72 S.E. at 906 (emphasis added).
And therein the Court reaffirmed the holdings from the (2011) action, citing that Statute mandates, that at the end of that process the disputing counties have a definitive boundary line. The Court rejected the SOS’s argument that the SOS has discretion, in the exercise of his judgment, to avoid his statutory obligation to set a boundary line by closing the record and rejecting the survey.
And finally, there is no remedy other than mandamus by which Monroe County can adequately obtain the relief it seeks. The court rejects the option proposed by the SOS…that Monroe County initiate the statutory process all over again starting with the Grand Jury a second time and with the governor appointing a new surveyor. The residents of Bibb and Monroe Counties have lived with uncertainty concerning development, allocations of taxes and the jurisdiction of police and fire for decades. These counties have been engaged in the statutory process since 2005, outliving the administration of the governor who appointed the surveyor and spanned the administrations of two secretaries of State.
The purpose of O.C.G.A. § 36-3-20 et seq. is to provide certainty and resolution for counties such as Bibb and Monroe who have devoted eight years and spent roughly two million taxpayer dollars only to arrive back where they started. Furthermore, without the issuance of a mandamus there can be no assurance that initiating another statutory process the second time, the third, etc. would result in the determination of the boundary line, given the SOS’s historic performance. The SOS is specifically charged with determining the county boundary line. Twice the SOS has failed to do so. Accordingly, given these extraordinary circumstances presented by this case, granting a writ of mandamus was warranted. And that is why the court issued a writ of mandamus to the SOS requiring him to comply with O.C.G.A. § 36-3-20 et seq. and establish the Bibb County/Monroe County boundary line by the recording of the March 27, 2009 3Plat by Terry M. Scarborough.
Meanwhile residents along the Bibb-Monroe county line are left in shock with suspicion. The SOS continues to delay fulfillment of his ministerial duty of confirming the true boundary line dividing Bibb and Monroe County. The SOS is causing even more cost to the taxpayers by appealing to the Georgia Supreme Court. Why did he do this? Two Judges have fully endorsed the survey ORDERED by the Georgia Governor, Sonny Perdue…the Scarborough Survey!
Providing the Georgia Supreme Court doesn’t send the appeal back to the Superior Court Judge and they agree to hear the SOS’s appeal, the Court’s schedule is late June of 2013. It’s anyone’s guess as to when the Supreme Court’s official opinion will come; certainly it’ll be some subsequent time thereafter.
The $64,000.00 dollar question is…will the SOS comply with O.C.G.A. § 36-3-24 and the Order of the Superior Court Judge, “by causing the survey and plat to be recorded in a book to be kept for that purpose, whereupon the same shall be final and conclusive as to the boundary line in dispute”…or, at the burden of the taxpayers, will the SOS reject the Statutes, the “law of the land” as “treacherous, ambiguous, and antiquated” and thereby leave the appearance of protecting the interests of Bibb County? If he chooses the latter, the SOS may well eliminate any remaining doubt regarding his servitude.
He will be traveling to several of Georgia Power’s Dams to help in the verifying of their positional locations. They will be using total stations capable of achieving ½ second of arc readings and levels reading to the thousands using invar rods.

References: §15
 § 36
 v. 
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 v. 
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36