the florida surveyor november 2014 2c.ymcdn.com/sites/gmail.com northwest ... the florida surveyor...
TRANSCRIPT
2014-2015 Committee Chairs
STANDING COMMITTEES Nominating Committee Dale Bradshaw Membership Committee Nick DiGruttolo Finance Committee Bon Dewitt Ethics and Professional Practice Committee Joe Stokes Education Committee Mike Maxwell Resolution and Laws Committee Art Mastronicola Annual Meeting Committee Dianne Collins Legal Committee Jack Breed Florida Surveying and Mapping Council Joe Stokes Strategic Planning Committee Dale Bradshaw Executive Committee Bill Rowe
SPECIAL COMMITTEES Legislative Committee Lanier Mathews Young Professionals Committee Justin Ferrans
Awards Committee Professional Outreach Committee Tyler Tracz Equipment Thefts Committee Rick Pryce Emerging Technologies Committee Chad Thurner
LIAISONS CST Program Ronnie Figueroa FDACS BPSM Ray Niles Affiliated Professions Pablo Ferrari Surveyors in Government Joe Stokes Academic Advisory UF: Bon Dewitt FAU: Kevin Beck
2014-2015 DIRECTORS
Managing Editor: Beth Embleton Executive Editor: Marilyn Evers PSM Technical Assistant: Jim Sullivan, PSM
COVER PHOTO: BrianAJackson The Florida Surveyor is an official publication of the Florida Surveying and Mapping Society, Inc. (FSMS) and is pub-lished for the purpose of communicating with the membership. The newsletter is financed primarily by the dues of the member-ship although advertisements are welcome from service and product industries relating to the needs and activities of the profes-sion. Articles and advertising appearing in this publication are not necessarily the official policy of this Society unless specifically stated. FSMS assumes no responsibility for statements expressed in this publication. The Florida Surveyor welcomes contributions from members. Mail correspondence to Administrative Office. Copy all quoted material as it appears in the original. Give credit to the source from which you are quoting. Emailed ads are acceptable. Please send Adobe files, eps, pdf or tif files. Advertising and article copy deadline is the 1st of the month.
2014 –2015 NSPS GOVERNOR
Mike Maxwell 239.649.4040
NORTHWEST – DISTRICT 1
David Glaze 850.434.6666
Lanier Mathews 850.519.7466
NORTHEAST – DISTRICT 2
Nick DiGruttolo 352.642.2685
Mike Manzie 904.491.5700
EAST CENTRAL – DISTRICT 3
Joe Stokes 407.246.3319
Mike O’Brien 772.288.5418
WEST CENTRAL – DISTRICT 4
Jeff Young 941.533.9095
Pete Mattson 813.386.2101
SOUTHWEST – DISTRICT 5
Mark Bassett 941.747.2981
Rick Ritz 239.939.5490
SOUTHEAST – DISTRICT 6
Kevin Beck 561.842.7001
Sam Hall 561.472.8145
SOUTH – DISTRICT 7
Lou Campanile, Jr. 954.980.8888
John Liptak 305.597.9701
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 3
Happy Thanksgiving!!!
The 2nd
FDACS Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers (BPSM) Workshop for our transition from Minimum Technical Standards (MTS) to Standards of Practice (SOP) was held, October 9
th in Bartow, with approximately 100 people at-
tending. Good points and thoughts were brought up by many. Near the end of the meeting, Ray Niles began a line by line discussion of proposed FSMS Legislative Committee changes to 5J-17.051 and 5J-17.052. It was well received and a
good start, unfortunately there was not time to complete. It was decid-ed by the BPSM that only the new section 5J-17.053 addressing the new Items 4 (a) through (f) from the legislation would be addressed at this time and that the proposed changes to 5J-17.051 and 5J-17.052 would be addressed early next year.
Now, per information received by the BPSM last week, a 3rd
FDACS Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers (BPSM) Rules Work-shop for our transition from MTS to Standards of Practice (SOP) will be held on Monday, November 3
rd from 9 am-3 pm at the Hilton St. Pe-
tersburg Carillon Park (Picasso Salon F, 50 Lake Carillon Drive, St. Petersburg, FL 33716-1107) as part of their regular board meeting. I would like to have a good showing of FSMS members at this meeting. Please plan on attending. Again, I would like to thank everyone that provided comments and questions about our transition from MTS to SOP.
Our Strategic Planning Committee met on October 10th in Ocala to for-
mulate our Strategic Plan to present to our board and membership.
The Young Professionals Committee is getting ready for their first get-together, a tailgate party, on November 22
nd for the Florida Gators
Football game against Eastern Kentucky. All young professionals are welcome to attend. Go Gators!!!
As we are in the heat of a mid-term election this month and the 2015
Florida Legislative Session may have a few issues that affect our pro-
fession you need to become a 2014-2015 member. I know that many
people do not like to get involved with politics, but to protect our profes-
sion we need to. The maximum donation amount per candidate was
raised this year to $1000.00 (previously $500.00). Our profession
needs to donate funds to our state senators and representatives in or-
der to form relationships that will benefit us when we have an issue we
need to tackle in the Legislature. Not enough licensed surveyors in the
state are members of FSM PAC. Join and help us protect our profes-
sion. Carefully read the information in this issue to be fully informed.
Again, I hope to see everyone on Monday, November 3rd
at the PSM Standards of Practice Rules Workshop in St. Petersburg.
If you have any questions, concerns or would just like to talk, please feel free to give me a call or send me an email.
Dale Bradshaw President-Elect 904.829.2591
Russell Hyatt Immediate Past President
941.748.4693 [email protected]
Dianne Collins Vice President 863.937.9052
dcollins@ collinssurvey.com
Bob Strayer Secretary
941.496.9488 bob@
strayersurveying.com
Bon Dewitt Treasurer
352.392.6010 [email protected]
2014-2015 OFFICERS PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
Bill Rowe President
407.292.8580 browe@southeastern
surveying.com
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 4
Beth Embleton Programs Coordinator [email protected]
Amber May Membership Coordinator [email protected]
Rachel Simpkins Education Coordinator [email protected]
I am an FSM PAC member and I don’t even have a license to protect, but I am still a member. I believe in our PAC, see it work in favor of the profession and will continue to expend $.14 per day to support it.
As a PSM you have a license to protect. Are you an FSM PAC member? If not, why not? It’s all about protecting your license. If you are counting on someone else, you are wrong. The responsibility is yours.
FSMS & FSM PAC go hand in hand. We must have both. You need to support both. It could not be any simpler! PAC sets the ground work for FSMS in the Legis-lative Arena. It’s a partnership.
Let me be so brave as to ask “What have you individually done in the legislative arena for the profession this year”? I venture to say that most of you will answer with silence.
PAC does your work for you – all you have to do is pay $.14 per day - $50 per year and PAC goes to work. How great is that! PAC can achieve more than you can on your own anyway. Everyone working together creates a powerful stance.
Many more PSMs than ever saw the value this year and joined, and we experienced a surge in member-ship. We need to continue the upward swing and break another record. Let’s make FSM PAC stronger than ever. If we do, we will be able to do more than ever!
Always remember the future of the profession, FSMS and FSM PAC, is in your hands.
“Don’t leave your responsibility for others to shoulder.” David Daniel
Legislative Consultant
Administrative Office 1689-A Mahan Center Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Toll: 800.237.4384 Office: 850.942.1900 Fax: 850.877.4852 www.fsms.org
Marilyn Evers Executive Director [email protected]
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISTRICT 7
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
Lou Campanile 954.980.8888
2014-2015 Chapter
Presidents
DISTRICT 1 PANHANDLE
Jay Glaze 850.434.6666
EMERALD COAST Robert Johnson 850.689.5772
GULF COAST Scott Rosenheim
850.835.2950 [email protected]
CHIPOLA AREA Paul Snelgrove 850.526.3991
NORTHWEST FLORIDA
Justin Evers 850.509.4830
DISTRICT 2 FLORIDA CROWN
Joe Lek 904.363.1110 x 2009
NORTH CENTRAL FL Hunter Blair
352.547.3080 [email protected]
GEOMATICS STUDENT
ASSOCIATION Levi Wilder
352.682.1780 [email protected]
DISTRICT 3
CENTRAL FLORIDA
Matt LaLuzerne 407.629.7144
VOLUSIA COUNTY Jeff Barnes
386.873.4517 [email protected]
INDIAN RIVER
Adam Dao 772.283.1413
SPACE COAST Ken Martin
321.253.8131 [email protected]
DISTRICT 4
RIDGE Sherry Grymko 863.533.9095
TAMPA BAY & WEST CEN-
TRAL
Leon Hampton 321.231.4874
DISTRICT 5
CHARLOTTE-HARBOR
Robert Heggan 941.416.2802
COLLIER-LEE Scott Whitaker 239.481.1331
MANASOTA
Todd Boyle 941.749.3024
DISTRICT 6
BROWARD COUNTY Iarelis Diaz Hall 305.209.4997
PALM BEACH Jim Sullivan
561.753.9723 [email protected]
FAU GEOMATICS
ENGINEERING STUDENTS CHAPTER Paul Keays
518.512.1348 [email protected]
3 2013-2014 Directors and Committee Chairs
4 President’s Message
5 Executive Director’s Message
7 2014 Sustaining Firms
9 In Memory
11 Surveyors & Mappers in Government
12 PAC 365?
14 FSM PAC Officers
15 Annual FSM PAC Dinner Recap
23 PAC Member Registration Forms
24 Waters of the U.S.
26 Dedication: Second Type
33 Education Conference Registration Form
34 Live Seminar Registration
37 Seminars at Sea
39 Snapshots
40 Press Release
43 If You Ever Wondered Why … Ask Mike!
44 Calendar
The end of the Biennium is approaching …
Do you have your credits?
Earn 18 CECs at the upcoming Education Conference January 22nd - 24th
Sarasota
Registration form on page 25
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 6
THANK YOU 2014 SUSTAINING FIRMS Accuright Surveys Of Orlando (407) 894-6314 Advanced Surveying Technology, Inc. (407) 365-1595 Advanced Technologies Solutions, Inc. (904) 363-2223 Aerial Cartographics of America, Inc. (407) 851-7880 Aerial Data Consultants, LLC (256) 971-9991 Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. (239) 597-3111 AIM Engineering & Surveying (239) 332-4569 All American Surveyors Inc. (904) 279-0088 Allen & Company, Inc. (407) 654-5355 Allen Engineering, Inc. (321) 783-7443 Allen Precision Equipment (770) 279-7171 Alvarez, Aiguesvives & Associates, Inc. (305) 220-2424 A. M. Engineering, Inc. (941) 377-9178 American Consulting Engineers of Florida, LLC (813) 435-2633 American Government Services Corporation (813) 933-3322 American National Commerical Real Estate (330) 294-1077
Service, LLC Angleright Surveying, LLC (239) 898-7001 APEX Engineering, Inc. (407) 306-0904 Arc Surveying & Mapping, Inc. (904) 384-8377 Associated Land Surveying (407) 869-5002 Atkins North America, Inc. (800) 597-7275 ATS Land Surveying, LLC (386) 264-8490 Avirom & Associates Inc. (561) 392-2594 Banks Engineering (239) 939-5490 Bannerman Surveyors, Inc. (850) 526-4460 Barnes Ferland and Associates, Inc. (407) 896-8608 Barraco & Associates, Inc. (239) 461-3170 Bartram Trail Surveying, Inc. (904) 284-2224 Bay Area Sinkhole Investigation & Civil (813) 885-4144
Engineering, LLC Bayside Engineering, Inc. (813) 314-0314 Bayside Surveying Company (850) 835-2950 Bean, Whitaker, Lutz & Kareh, Inc. (239) 481-1331 Bello & Bello Land Surveying Corporation (305) 251-9606 Berntsen International, Inc. (608) 249-8549 Beta Company Surveying, Inc. (941) 751-6016 Betsy Lindsay, Inc. (772) 286-5753 Bill Macrides LLC dba Naples Land Surveyors (239) 353 9300 Biscayne Engineering Company (305) 324-7671 Bock & Clark Corporation (330) 665-4821 Booth, Ern, Straughan & Hiott, Inc. (352) 343-8481 Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd., Inc. (772) 283-1413 Bradshaw-Niles & Associates, Inc. (904) 829-2591 Brevard County Public Works/Surveying (321) 633-2080 Brown & Phillips, Inc. (561) 615-3988 Bruner-Mongoven Land Surveying, Inc. (850) 235-2293 BSE Consultants, Inc. (321) 725-3674 Buchanan & Harper, Inc. (850) 763-7427 Buchheit Associates, Inc. (407) 331-0505 Burkholder Land Surveying, Inc. (941) 209-9712 Bussen-Mayer Engineering Group, Inc. (321) 453-0010 C. H. Perez & Associates Consulting Engineers (305) 592-1070 Calvin, Giordano & Associates (954) 921-7781 Cardinal Systems, LLC (386) 439-2525 Cardno TBE (727) 531-3505 Carter Associates, Inc. (772) 562-4191 Caulfield & Wheeler, Inc. (561) 392-1991 Causseaux, Hewett & Walpole, Inc. (352) 331-1976 Cavone, Inc. (407) 830-9080
Chastain-Skillman, Inc. (863) 646-1402 Choctaw Engineering, Inc. (850) 862-6611 CivilSurv Design Group, Inc. (863) 646-4771 Clary & Associates, Inc. (904) 260-2703 Clements Surveying, Inc. (941) 729-6690 Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. (561) 391-8102 Collins Survey Consulting, LLC (863) 937-9052 Compass Point Surveyors (727) 230-9606 Cooner & Associates, Inc. (239) 277-0722 County Wide Surveying (850) 769-0345 Cousins Surveyors & Associates, Inc. (954) 689-7766 CPH, Inc. (407) 322-6841 Craven-Thompson & Associates (954) 739-6400 Culpepper & Terpening, Inc. (772) 464-3537 Dagostino & Wood, Inc. (239) 352-6085 Dean Surveying & Mapping, Inc. (561) 625-8748 DeGrove Surveyors, Inc. (904) 722-0400 Dennis J. Leavy & Associates (561) 753-0650 Deuel & Associates (727) 822-4151 Dewberry Engineers, Inc. (407) 843-5120 Diversified Design & Drafting Services, Inc. (850) 385-1133 DMK Associates, Inc. (941) 475-6596 Donald F. Lee & Associates (386) 755-6166 Donald W. McIntosh Associates, Inc. (407) 644-4068 Donoghue Construction Layout, LLC (321) 282-8282 Douglas A. Vanden Heuvel & Associates, Inc. (850) 315-5009 Douglass, Leavy & Associates, Inc. (954) 344-7994 DRMP, Inc. (407) 896-0594 DSW Surveying and Mapping, PLC (352) 735-3796 Durden Surveying & Mapping, Inc. (904) 724-5588 EBI Surveying (813) 886-6080 Econ South, LLC (863) 686-0544 Edwin G. Brown & Associates (850) 926-3016 eGPS Solutions, Inc. (770) 695-3361 Eiland & Associates, Inc. (904) 272-1000 Element Engineering Group, LLC (813) 386-2101 Emerald Coast Associates, Inc. (850) 937-8242 Eng. Denman & Associates, Inc. (352) 373-3541 Engenuity Group (561) 655-1151 England, Thims & Miller, Inc. (904) 642-8990 Envisors, LLC (863) 324-1112 ER Brownell & Associates, Inc. (305) 860-3866 Erdman Anthony of Florida, Inc. (561) 753-9723 ESP Associates, PA (803) 802-2440 Exacta Land Surveyors, Inc. (305) 668-6169 F. R. Aleman and Associates, Inc. (305) 591-8777 Farner, Barley & Associates (352) 748-3126 First Coast Land Surveying (904) 779-2062 Florida Design Consultant, Inc. (727) 849-7588 Florida Keys Land Surveying (305) 394-3690 Florida Transportation Engineering, Inc. (813) 989-0729 FLT Geosystems (954) 763-5300 Fortin, Leavy, Skiles, Inc. (305) 653-4493 Foster & Associates, Inc. (205) 345-5057 Franklin, Hart & Reid (407) 846-1216 FRS & Associates, Inc. (651) 687-1600 Gahagan & Bryant Associates, Inc. (813) 831-4408 Ganung-Belton Associates, Inc. (407) 894-6656 Gary G. Allen Registered Land Surveyor, Inc. (850) 878-0541 GCY, Inc. (772) 286-8083
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 7
THANK YOU 2014 SUSTAINING FIRMS Geodata Consultants, Inc. (407) 660-2322 Geoline Surveying, Inc. (386) 418-0500 Geomatics Corporation (904) 824-3086 Geomatics Services, Inc,. (772) 419-8383 GeoPoint Surveying, Inc. (813) 248-8888 George F. Young, Inc. (727) 822-4317 GEOSURV, LLC (877) 407-3734 Germaine Surveying, Inc. (863) 385-6856 Global One Survey, LLC (786) 486-8088 GPServ (407) 601-5816 Greenman-Pedersen Inc. (352) 368-5055 GRW Engineers, Inc. (859) 223-3999 Gustin, Cothern & Tucker, Inc. (850) 678-5141 H. L. Bennett & Associates (863) 675-8882 Hager, Palbicke & Associates, Inc. (561) 395-3600 Hamilton Engineering & Surveying, Inc. (813) 250-3535 Hanson, Walter & Associates (407) 847-9433 Hatch Mott MacDonald Florida, LLC (850) 484-6011 Hole Montes, Inc. (239) 254-2000 Honeycutt & Associates, Inc. (321) 267-6233 Houston, Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard, Inc. (772) 794-1213 HSA Consulting Group, Inc. (850) 309-7510 Hyatt Survey Services, Inc. (941) 748-4693 IBI Group (Florida) Inc. (954) 974-2200 I.F. Rooks & Associates, Inc. (813) 752-2113 Indian River Survey, Inc. (772) 569-7880 Inframap Corporation (561) 586-0790 Ireland & Associates Surveying, Inc. (407) 678-3366 J.F. Lopez and Associates, Inc. (305) 828-2725 John A Grant, Jr., Inc. (561) 395-3333 John Ibarra & Associates, Inc. (305) 262-0400 John Mella & Associates, Inc. (813) 232-9441 John R. Beach & Associates, Inc. (813) 854-1276 John R. Campbell Surveying LLC (321) 514-6920 Jones, Wood & Gentry, Inc. (407) 898-7780 Keith & Associates, Inc. (954) 788-3400 Keith & Schnars PA (954) 776-1616 Kendrick Land Surveying (863) 533-4874 King Engineering Associates, Inc. (813) 880-8881 Kugelmann Land Surveying, Inc. (321) 459-0930 Landmark Engineering and Surveying (813) 621-7841
Corporation Land-Tech Surveying Mapping Corporation (407) 365-1036 Leading Edge Land Services, Inc. (407) 351-6730 Leiter, Perez & Associates, Inc. (305) 652-5133 Leo Mills & Associates (941) 722-2460 Lidberg Land Surveying, Inc. (561) 746-8454 Lochrane Engineering, Inc. (407) 896-3317 Lowe Engineers, LLC (770) 857-8400 Ludovici & Orange Consulting Engineers, Inc. (305) 448-1600 MacSurvey, Inc. (561) 234-0760 Manuel G. Vera & Associates, Inc. (305) 221-6210 Marco Surveying & Mapping, LLC (239) 389-0026 Marlin Engineering, Inc. (305) 477-7575 MASER Consulting, P.A. (813) 231-2646 McKim & Creed, Inc. (919) 233-8091 McLaughlin Engineering Company (954) 763-7611 Mehta & Associates, Inc. (407) 657-6662 Meridian Surveying & Mapping, Inc. (850) 668-7641 Merrick & Company (303) 751-0741
Metron Surveying and Mapping, LLC (239) 275-8575 Mills & Associates, Inc. (813) 876-5869 Minder & Associates Engineering Corporation (941) 926-2700 Mock, Roos & Associates, Inc. (561) 683-3113 Moore Bass Consulting (850) 222-5678 Morgan & Eklund, Inc. (772) 388-5364 Morris-Depew Associates, Inc. (239) 337-3993 Murphy's Land Surveying, Inc. (727) 347-8740 Nobles Consulting Group, Inc. (850) 385-1179 NorthStar Geomatics, Inc. (772) 781-6400 O’Brian, Suiter & O’Brien, Inc. (561) 276-4501 Oceanside Land Surveying, LLC (386) 763-4130 Peavey & Associates Surveying & Mapping, PA (863) 738-4960 PEC - Survey & Mapping, LLC (407) 542-4967 Pickett & Associates, Inc. (863) 533-9095 Pictometry International Corporation (585) 486-0093 Pinnacle Consulting Enterprises, Inc. (786) 351-8059 Point Break Surveying, LLC (941) 378-4797 Polaris Associates, Inc. (727) 461-6113 Polyengineering, Inc. (334) 793-4700 Porter Geographical Positioning & Surveying, Inc (863) 853-1496 Preble-Rish, Inc. (850) 522-0644 Precision Surveying & Mapping, Inc. (727) 841-8414 Preece Land Surveying, Inc. (352) 351-0091 Privett & Associates, Inc. (912) 882-3738 Pro-Line Survey Supply, Inc. (904) 620-0500 Pulice Land Surveyors, Inc. (954) 572-1777 Q. Grady Minor & Associates, PA (239) 947-1144 Quantum Spatial (859) 277-8700 Reece & White Land Surveying, Inc. (305) 872-1348 Revolution Professional Services, Inc. (727) 796-8740 Rhodes & Rhodes Land Surveying, Inc. (239) 405-8166 Richard A. Miller & Associates, Inc. (904) 721-1226 Ritchie-Jenkins & Associates, Inc. (850) 914-2774 R. M. Barrineau & Associates, Inc. (352) 622-3133 Robayna and Associates, Inc. (305) 823-9316 Robert A. Stevens & Associates (863) 559-1216 Robert M. Angas Associates, Inc. (904) 642-8550 Rogers Engineering, LLC (352) 622-9214 Sanborn Map Company, Inc. (321) 613-2809 Schappacher Engineering, LLC (941) 748-8340 Schwebke-Shiskin & Associates, Inc. (954) 435-7010 Sea Level Surveying & Mapping, Inc. (850) 265-4800 Sears Surveying Company (407) 645-1332 Sergio Redondo and Associates, Inc. (305) 378-4443 Settimio Consulting Services (850) 341-0507 SGC Engineering, LLC (207) 347-8100 Shah, Drotos and Associates, PA (954) 943-9433 Sliger & Associates, Inc. (386) 761-5385 Smith & Associates Surveying & Mapping, Inc. (321) 724-2940 Snelgrove Surveying & Mapping, Inc. (850) 526-3991 Southeastern Surveying & Mapping Corporation (407) 292-8580 Southeastern Surveying, Inc. (229) 259-9455 Southern Resource Mapping, Inc. (386) 439-4848 Southern Resources Mapping Corporation of (205) 333-9900
Alabama Spalding DeDecker Associates Inc. (248) 844-5404 SRC & Associates of Northwest Florida, Inc. (850) 265-6979 Stephen H. Gibbs Land Surveyors, Inc. (954) 923-7666 Stoner & Associates, Inc. (954) 585-0997
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 8
THANK YOU 2014 SUSTAINING FIRMS StoutenCramer, Inc. (239) 673-9541 Strayer Surveying & Mapping, Inc. (941) 497-1290 Suarez Surveying & Mapping (305) 596-1799 Suncoast Land Surveying, Inc. (813) 854-1342 SURV-KAP, LLC (520) 622-6011 Survtech Solutions Inc. (813) 621-4929 Tetra Tech, Inc. (407) 839-3955 Thurman Roddenberry & Associates, Inc. (850) 962-2538 Tinklepaugh Surveying Services, Inc. (407) 262-0957 TKW Consulting Engineers, Inc. (239) 278-1992 Tri-County Engineering, Inc. (305) 823-3737 Trimble Navigation Limited (770) 252-9675 U.S. Imaging, Inc. (863) 533-9095 Upham, Inc. (386) 672-9515
US Surveyor (812) 402-7001 Velcon Group, Inc. (772) 879-0477 Volkert, Inc. (813) 875-1365 Wade Surveying, Inc. (352) 753-6511 Wallace Surveying Corporation (561) 640-4551 Wantman Group, Inc. (561) 687-2220 WBQ Design & Engineering, Inc. (407) 375-7152 Whidden Surveying & Mapping (561) 790-5515 Winningham & Fradley, Inc. (954) 771-7440 Woolpert, Inc. (305) 418-9370 Wxton & Associates, LLC (229) 498-1133 ZNS Engineering, LC (941) 748-8080 Zurwelle-Whittaker, Inc. (305) 534-4668
SURVEYORS & MAPPERS IN GOVERNMENT
It was my pleasure having attended the Florida Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers workshop held at the Department of Transportation’s office in Bartow last week. The meeting was well attended with standing room only after it began. I enjoyed the discussions and before we knew it we had spent nearly three and half hours talking about professional standards and it was time to go. The meeting was well planned with formal input from The Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers, The Florida Surveying and Mapping Society and The Florida Land Sur-veyors Council.
The discussions were well organized and all those attending had an opportunity to speak. There was a good cross section of large and small surveying and mapping firms in attendance. Everyone was treated with respect and given ample time to express input on the Board of Profes-sional Surveyors and Mappers new language to address the legislative order handed down this summer. After all parts were read, reviewed and commented upon by the Board members and the attendees, we had almost reached the end of the scheduled meeting. The Board de-cided to begin discussions regarding Florida Administrative Code 5J17.051 and .052. as it was very clear that many of the attendees wanted to discuss them.
The discussions were both interesting and informa-tive and before I knew it another hour and a half had passed. I was pleased and impressed with the discussions that took place and look forward to another opportunity to share opinions and ideas regarding the revisions and rules of our practice Florida Administrative Code 5J17. We all owe the Florida Board of Professional Surveyors and Map-pers a great deal of thanks for their time spent and willing-
ness to schedule the meeting with such short notice. We also need to thank those members of The Florida Survey-ing and Mapping Society and The Florida Land Surveyors Council for their time spent and input regarding the rule changes. The Florida Department of Transportation District One was gracious to provide a large meeting room on such short notice.
If you were unable to attend last week you will have another opportunity to be a part of these rule revi-sions in November. The meeting is scheduled for Novem-ber 3
rd, 4
th and 5
th in St. Petersburg at the Hilton on #950
Lake Carillon Drive. Watch the Florida Department of Agri-culture and Consumer Services website for details regard-ing schedule and agenda for the scheduled meeting.
Our next FSMS Board of Directors meeting is scheduled for November 14
th in Tallahassee at the FSMS
office. Our Society has reached out for input from our members on these changes and this meeting will be anoth-er opportunity to stay involved with rules process as well as offering your opinion and/or asking questions regarding the process. I hope everyone follows along as these actions are being developed in the Sunshine. If you don’t know what’s going on it’s likely that you haven’t made an effort to stay informed.
There was a good representation from the Florida Surveyors in Government at the meeting in Bartow and I hope to see you and hear you at the upcoming meetings to promote your profession by getting active. We were heard last week regarding several survey and mapping issues near and dear to us. Let’s keep the ball rolling. [email protected]
by Joe Stokes
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 9
NOVEMBER SPECIALGET AN ADDITIONAL
10%OFF*
ALL STOREWIDEPURCHASES!
FOR FSMSREADERS
PROMO CODE:THANKSGIVING10
*Enter code at checkout. Applies to storewide online purchases: supplies, accessories, and
instruments. Expires 11/30/14.
FT. LAUDERDALE800 PROGRESSO DR., FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33304 (954)763-5300 • FAX: (954)462-4121
TAMPA5468 56TH COMMERCE PARK BLVD., TAMPA, FL 33610 (813)623-3307 • FAX: (813)623-2100
1-800-327-0775
1-800-282-7003WE’RE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
www.FLTgeosystems.com
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 10
365?
When it comes to our political action we all tend to think in terms of a small span during the
calendar year – spring to be exact – when the Legislature is in session. Upon further contempla-
tion we should realize that it is year round.
Ask our Legislative Consultant, David Daniel, and he will verify the calls he receives and makes,
the visits to legislators, the trips to the Capitol, the discussions with our Society leaders and on
and on a very regular basis and sometimes even more than once per day. For those at the helm
(David, the PAC Board and our Legislative Committee) dedication, attention to detail and persis-
tence must all be part of the mix to achieve success.
Keeping an eye on the political scene and positioning for upcoming action are consistent and
not intermittent. Yes, it’s 365.
Why Should I Be a PAC Member? I already
pay dues to FSMS.
Established in 1977, FSM PAC is the “other” entity that enables you to maintain your license.
Our PAC goes before FSMS initiating and securing political relationships that keep our political
stance in a healthy state to enable FSMS to function in the legislative arena to protect the sur-
veying and mapping profession. FSMS and FSM PAC are partners – both essential to you
and your license. Do not neglect our Political Action Committee!
Is PAC Really That Important?
The answer is simply YES. It is vital for PAC to be visibly active in Florida’s political scene. PAC
increases awareness of the profession to lawmakers and top decision makes in government.
FSM PAC is our tool to develop relationships.
FSMS is our collective voice to maintain them.
What Political Party is FSM PAC Affiliated
With?
Our Political Action Committee is not affiliated with a particular party. Campaign Contributions
to candidates or political parties are based on recommendations of our Legislative Consultant,
David Daniel. The PAC Board then votes on the recommendations to support those candidates
who are supportive of our profession.
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 11
Message from Chair, Lanier Mathews …
COMMITMENT
November 4th……Election Day 2014 is fast approaching. In fact, absentee or mail-in ballots are being collect-
ed and early voting began October 20th. The question to be answered is, “Have you done all you can to get the
candidate who supports you, your profession and your business, elected?” So many times we hear, “I’m just one person or one small business. What difference can I make?” The difference one person or one business (small or large) can make is huge. The key is to build relationships with legislators. To do this takes a COM-MITMENT by you. It can be done individually or by joining your voice and resources with others who share your Professional and Business goals.
If you are a member of the Florida Surveying and Mapping Political Action Committee and the Florida Survey-ing and Mapping Society, you have taken a big step toward this COMMITMENT. That is because these two organizations are COMMITTED to building these legislative relationships to enrich and protect the Survey-ing and Mapping Profession. The legislative successes of Florida Surveying and Mapping Society have been made possible by a proactive legislative program as well as decades of building and supporting political rela-tionships. Although many times these relationships start as a process to educate incumbent and prospective legislators about the Surveying and Mapping Profession, it is the beginning of the long term COMMITMENT to support those who support each of us, our businesses and profession. A vital component of these continued relationships is providing financial contributions to the political parties and campaign funds of the candidates seeking election to public office. This is the responsibility of the Florida Surveying and Mapping Political Ac-tion Committee. Party affiliation is not an overriding factor in the decision process of providing support. Ra-ther it is the Candidate’s demonstrated understanding, appreciation and support for the interests of the Sur-veying and Mapping Profession. Nurturing these legislative relationships through the teamwork and collective voices of FSMS and FSM PAC has proven extremely effective and undeniably successful.
To ensure our continued legislative success, we need your COMMITMENT to the future of the profession. Through your membership in FSMPAC you proclaim your COMMITMENT to the future of our profession. Re-member, our team is a group of individuals with common ideals working to achieve common goals. If you are not already a member, join the FSM PAC Team today. Together, we will not fail.
Message from Legislative Consultant, David Daniel …
Teamwork
For the first time in several years I decided to serve as an assistant coach on my son’s fall baseball team. I don’t get the chance to do this often and was excited to share this time with my son. Our head coach let me know that he was going to be out of town for the opening game and as the game time approached I found my-self trying to do it all. I needed to line up volunteers to prepare a water cooler, operate the scoreboard and announce the batters. At the same time I was working to get our lineup to the other coach, the umpire and scoreboard but also needing to warm up the players, take some infield, get our starting pitcher ready and pitching batting practice for the team. By the time the game began I was exhausted, frustrated and didn’t do any of my jobs well. I would have been much more effective had I asked for help and worked together as a team to get the job done.
Being an FSM PAC member is no different. You could go at it alone, attempting to develop relationships with 120 State House members, 40 senators, the Governor, the Cabinet or even Commissioner Adam Putnam. In the end you will end up just like I was, tired, frustrated and not having moved the ball down the road much, if at all. It would be costly, time-consuming and more than likely your primary responsibility of being an effective surveyor would suffer.
FSMS strength and effectiveness in government affairs is primarily due to our members working together. Some serve in policy committees or on the Board, some serve as Chapter presidents and some serve by mak-ing sure that the first expense from their profit is FSMS dues and FSM PAC investment. It takes us all working together and carrying our portion of the load that amplifies our strength. If each of us as FSMS members were willing to also invest in the PAC we would have a significantly greater impact at minimal cost to any one sur-veyor or one firm.
There will always be more things to be done than time to do it in, and we just aren’t as effective when we at-tempt to go at it alone. So the question is are you willing to do your part to ensure the success of this noble profession?
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 12
Chair—Lanier Mathews (Past President)
Vice Chair—Mike Maxwell (Past President)
Secretary—Jim Petersen (Business Owner)
Treasurer—Ray Niles (Past President)
Director—Lamar Evers (Past President)
Director—John Clyatt (Past President)
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 13
Annual FSM PAC Dinner - August 14th
St. Augustine
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 14
FDACS Commissioner Adam Putnam Speaks By Marilyn C. Evers
Our Annual Political Action Committee Dinner was top notch this year with Commissioner Ad-am Putnam as guest speaker. The Commis-sioner made a point to not on-
ly meet, but also talk with
every surveyor & mapper and
guest in the room. It was a time of access for each of the attendees to
converse per-sonally with the head of the de-partment that regulates our profession.
Commissioner
Putnam’s presentation was more than informa-tive and interesting with topics ranging from
Federal Eps rule revisions re-
garding water use permits to
greening issues for the citrus in-dustry and the
potential devas-tation of both on
Florida’s eco-nomic future.
The question and answer pe-
riod that fol-lowed was ben-
eficial to at-tendees and al-lowed another opportunity for
exchange.
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 15
President Bill Rowe, Commissioner Adam Putnam, Executive Director Marilyn Evers, and Legislative Chair Lanier Mathews
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 16
Commissioner Putnam Greets
& Discusses
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 17
FSM PAC Dinner - August 14th
Left to right: Rita Zie Lucas, David Hyatt, Jennifer Sheppard, Dave Sheppard, Rick Ritz
and Bob Strayer
Left to right: Nick Campanile, Lou Campanile, Ron Ruben, Michelle Ruben, David Daniel,
Collin Cline, Joe Boggs and Lamar Evers
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 18
FSM PAC Dinner - August 14th
Counter clockwise: John Liptak, Nick DiGruttolo, Ken Glass, Leigh Anne Glass, Kristi Breed,
Jack Breed, Mick O’Brien, Joe Hale and Mike Whitling
Left to right: Ginny Bradshaw, Dale Bradshaw, Lanier Mathews, Marilyn Evers,
Commissioner Putnam, Mary Niles, Ray Niles, Bill Rowe.
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 19
FSM PAC Dinner - August 14th
Left to right: Jessica McGrew, Claire Duchemin, Collin Cline, Ghia Clyatt, Dianne Collins,
Russell Hyatt, Mike Maxwell and Suellen Maxwell
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 20
Make Your Reservation Now
July 31st, 2015
FSM PAC Dinner
Naples
800.237.4384
M Waterfront Grill
Venetian Village
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 21
August 1st 2014 – July 31st 2015
Individual Membership
PERSONAL INFORMATION – Required for Reporting Purposes
Name:
PSM #:
Home Address:
Email:
City:
State: Zip:
Home Phone:
Date of Birth:
Political Affiliation:
BUSINESS INFORMATION – Optional
Employer:
Employer Address:
Employer City: Employer State: Employer Zip:
Employer Phone: Employer Fax:
Business Type: ____________________________________________________________________________
Membership: Optional Information:
Individual Districts: http://election.dos.state.fl.us
_____ $50 - $99 Bronze Florida House of Representatives District ______
_____ $250+ Gold Florida Surveying and Mapping Society District ________
FSMS Districts: http://www.fsms.org/?page=Join
Can we publish your name as a member in our FSM PAC Bulletin? __Yes __No
I personally know or have made personal or corporate contributions to the following legislators:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Payment Information: _____ Cash _____ Check Enclosed (Payable to FSM PAC) _____ VISA/MasterCard/American Express Card #: ________________________________________________ Exp. Date: ________________________________ Credit Card Billing Address Zip Code: ______________________________ Signature: __________________________
IF PAYING BY CHECK, MAIL FORM TO: FSM PAC, 1689A Mahan Center Boulevard, Tallahassee, FL 32308
IF PAYING BY CREDIT CARD, FAX OR EMAIL FORM TO: 850.877.4852 [email protected]
Join the Political Action Committee that promotes your profession!
FLORIDA SURVEYING & MAPPING POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, INC.
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 22
August 1st 2014 – July 31st 2015
CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP
BUSINESS INFORMATION – Required for Reporting Purposes
Business Address:
Business City: Business State: Business Zip:
Business Phone:
Contact Person: Email:
Membership Categories: (Required) Optional Information:
_____ $2,500 + (Platinum)
Districts: http://election.dos.state.fl.us
_____ $1,000 - $2,499 (Gold) Florida House of Representatives District: _______
_____ $500 - $999 (Silver) Florida Senate District: ________
_____ $100 - $499 (Bronze) Florida Surveying and Mapping Society District: _______
FSMS Districts: http://www.fsms.org/?page=Join
Can we publish your firm name as a member in our FSM PAC Bulletin? __Yes __No
I personally know or have made personal or corporate contributions to the following legislators:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Payment Information: _____ Cash _____ Check Enclosed (Payable to FSM PAC) _____ VISA/MasterCard/American Express Card #: ________________________________________________ Exp. Date: ________________________________ Credit Card Billing Address Zip Code: ______________________ Signature: __________________________________
IF PAYING BY CHECK, MAIL FORM TO: FSM PAC, 1689A Mahan Center Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32308
IF PAYING BY CREDIT CARD, FAX OR EMAIL FORM TO: 850.877.4852 [email protected]
Join the Political Action Committee that promotes your profession!
FLORIDA SURVEYING & MAPPING POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, INC.
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 23
Waters of the U.S.
Commissioner of Agriculture Adam H. Putnam
Despite the federal government’s long history of egregious overreach and land grabs, it recently outdid itself.
In April, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released proposed rules that have the potential to slow – if not reverse – America’s fragile economic recovery. The proposed rules redefine the term “water” in the Clean Water Act, fundamentally changing the intent of the act while dramatically expand-ing the EPA’s jurisdiction and control over untold bodies of water in the United States and subjecting them to further regulation.
Previously, the definition of water was generally defined as navigable waters – and waters closely asso-ciated with them. These waters were important for commerce and transportation of America’s goods and people. The new definition of water, however, removes “navigable” and adds “other waters” that may have a “significant nexus” to waters already under EPA’s jurisdiction. In addition, the proposed defini-tion, includes terms which would expand federal jurisdiction to isolated wetlands far removed from any navigable water and even captures many shallow ditches and ponds that only occasionally hold any wa-ter at all.
As you can imagine, with our unique topography and hydrological makeup, Florida stands to suffer more than any other state by this expansion of federal government authority. Think about how many parts of Florida are occasionally or seasonally wet, especially in agriculture - Florida’s second largest industry. Millions of acres of the Florida landscape will fall under federal jurisdiction if the rule as drafted goes into effect. Landowners such as developers, foresters, farmers and industrial dischargers will be subject to new and increased regulations.
If the proposed changes go into effect, every one of these landowners will be required to obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to build the simplest of structures. This puts the future of Florida’s businesses at the mercy of the federal government and on the timeline of the Army Corps of Engineers. And neither are shining examples of efficiency or common sense.
This is the most significant expansion of federal government regulation on Florida in a quarter of a centu-ry, and one that is not based on sound science and has not been adequately studied. And it will be a drain on our state’s economy at a time when we have just recovered from the financial crisis and Great Recession.
Even members of Congress – who can rarely come together on an issue – have partnered to fight this crippling overreach. More than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives have called for the proposed rule to be repealed, and 84 organizations representing farmers and ranchers across the country endorsed their letter calling on the rule to be withdrawn. Despite the chorus of objections, the EPA intends to finalize this rule before the end of the President’s term..
For the sake of Florida agriculture, and Florida’s economy in general, we must work together to convince
the EPA to ditch the rule.
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 24
Abstract:
The function of a dedication has been the subject of many different articles and books. This presentation is by a sur-veyor and mapper and imparts his idea of the legal func-tion of dedication. As the author is NOT an attorney, no one should accept what the author says as a legal inter-pretation of the cases and laws themselves.
Outline of Court Cases:
After reading all the court cases, the author determined that there are four (un-official) types of dedication. They are:
First: no formal dedication wording (a plat without a word-ed dedication) prior to June 11, 1925
01
Second: a formal dedication wording being recorded sometimes along with a plat prior to June 11, 1925 (this article will discuss the Second Type);
02
Third: a formal dedication wording being recorded along with a plat after June 11, 1925 and before July 1, 1971;
03
and
Fourth: a formal dedication wording being recorded along with a plat after July 1, 1971.
03
There are other types as well, which are the subject of additional articles or presentations: Dedication: Road Viewers
04 and Dedication: Time Limits
05 for example.
The second type of dedication is called a “common law dedication with a separate word dedication” which is the setting apart of land for public use complete with a written dedication, which, by itself, does not transfer the lands involved. It provides an easement to the public the same as the First Type pending the actual wording of the dedi-cation.
Pending the acceptance within “a reasonable time frame,” the offer is still out there for both the first and second types and overrides all later actions except those by the dedicator or heirs where the dedicator or heirs withdraw the dedication prior to acceptance. However, the dedicator must still own all the land included in the plat. However, there is a time limit.
05
Again, the Second Type that has a worded dedication in-volved is called a “common law dedication” if made before June 11, 1925. The reason for this is because there was no statute on the books which defined a dedication until 1925.
It appears that a complete dedication (before June 11, 1925) transfers control of the right-of-way to a public entity (thus allowing it to construct the road if necessary, and otherwise improve same and place utilities along it), providing that the public entity accepted the dedication prior to its withdraw, but does not transfer the land itself. The original owner still owns (subject to sale of the lots) the right-of-way land subject to an easement over same to the public entity with the right of reversion to the individual lot owners should the public entity vacate said lands. This right of reversion includes the original owner.
Controlling Court Case:
The ruling by the Supreme Court that controls a plat dedi-cation with or without a worded dedication, but before June 11, 1925, says the following:
a. A common-law “dedication” is the setting apart of land for public use, and to constitute it there must be an inten-tion by the owner, clearly indicated by his words or acts to dedicate the land to public use, and an acceptance by the public of the dedication;
b. The platting of land and the sale of lots pursuant thereto creates as between the grantor and the purchasers of the lots a private right to have the space marked upon the plat as streets, alleys, parks, etc. remain open for ingress and egress and the uses indicated by the designations; but, so far as the public is concerned, such acts amount to a mere offer of dedication which must be accepted before there is a revocation to complete the dedication;
c. To constitute a dedication at common law there must be an intention on the part of the proprietor of the land to dedicate the same to public use; there must be an ac-ceptance by the public; and the proof of these facts must be clear, satisfactory, and unequivocal;
d. The burden of proving acceptance of an offer to the public to dedicate lands for streets, alleys, and parks is upon the county or municipality asserting it;
e. A common-law plat has no effect as a conveyance, and an offer to dedicate thereby created may be revoked by the owner or his grantee at any time before acceptance by the public;
f. Where a common-law offer of dedication has been made and has not been accepted by or for the public, a conveyance before acceptance of the property so offered may constitute a revocation as to the public of the offer to dedicate; and
g. Where a plat is recorded showing the dedication of land in a city bordering on a bay for a park, the dedicators re-serving all riparian rights adjacent to the land, and, before the acceptance of the dedication by the public, the dedica-tors convey the land with riparian rights to a railroad com-pany, which company constructs some of its operating facilities on portions of the land and actually occupies and uses for railroad purposes such portions for years before acceptance of any nature of the dedicated land for park purposes by or for the public, the municipality cannot re-cover from the company the portions of the land so occu-pied and used by the company or the lands covered by the reserved riparian rights below high-water mark at the time of the filing of the dedication plat.
All of the items (a. to g.) were taken from the Supreme Court of Florida case cited as City of Miami v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., with the case known as 84 So. 726-733, with the case decided April 21, 1920, and with the Sylla-buses by the Court.
06 No time limit was discussed in this
case. However, with the plat being recorded in 1896 and this case being completed in 1920, that makes this time period 25 years long.
Dedication: Second Type John R. Gargis, PSM
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 26
This case was the continuation of the case Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Worley et al., cited as 38 So. 618-624 with the case decided May 9, 1905 which makes it the oldest case the author could find. It used the same plat as the first case. As to which case is the Controlling Case, one cannot tell. The author just, out of hand, picked the newest case as the Controlling Case. See the First Case for the older one.
Over the years, the legislature has placed many condi-tions on maps and plats. One of which was the granting of dedications. No more would the “common law dedication” type be allowed. Now, look at the court cases that defined “dedication.”
Second Type Cases:
This set of cases is for the second type of case, that being with the dedication being on the plat but before the re-quirements of June 11, 1925 becoming active.
First case:
Where the owners of a tract of land make a town plat thereof, laying same out into lots and blocks, with inter-vening streets separating the blocks clearly indicated upon the plat, and sell and convey lots with reference to such plat, they thereby evince an intention to dedicate the streets to public use as such, and their grantees, as against them and those claiming under them, acquire the right to have the streets kept open, even though no formal written instrument of dedication is ever executed [this plat contains a dedication, the comment is to mere-ly confirm the type without a dedication]. The rule ap-plies not only to streets and avenues, but also to parks and other public places designated upon the plat. The word “Park,” written upon a parcel of land designated upon the plat implies that each such parcel is dedicated to the public for park purposes, and the sale of lots with reference to such plat, especially where such lots about the park are separated from it only by a street, carries with it the right on the part of the grantees to have the parcel used for public park purposes only.
Where the owners of certain land prepared and filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of a county a plat thereof exhibiting thereon the land as laid off into blocks, lots, and streets as and for a town, and a parcel shown thereon was marked “Park,” the fact that a writ-ten dedicatory instrument attached to the plat only pur-ported to dedicate the “streets or highways” shown thereon does not, in the absence of other language showing clearly an intention not to dedicate the park, operate as a reservation of such parcel from dedication, and the sale of lots with reference to such a plat oper-ates as a dedication of the parcel for public park purpos-es.
A plat of lands laid off as a town, with a dedicatory statement attached thereto prepared and filed by the owner of the land with reference to which lots are sold by him, must, like all other written documents, be con-strued as a whole, in order that the intention of the party may be ascertained, and every part of the instrument may be given effect. If the document is ambiguous in respect to the extent of the dedication, the construction must be against the dedicator and in favor of the public. All parts of the instrument should be considered harmo-nized and given some effect if possible, and no part should be rejected as meaningless if that can be avoid-ed.
The owners of a tract of land filed in the office of the circuit court of a county a plat of such tract, purporting to be laid off into lots and blocks, with streets running east and west numbered from 1 to 27, and avenues running north and south lettered from A to M. The Miami River, emptying into Bay Biscayne, was represented on the plat as running through the city in such a manner as to cut through certain streets, leaving parts of each said streets north and parts south of the river. None of the streets were represented as extending to the waters of the river, as they all purported to open into streets run-ning nearly parallel with the river on each side, known as North and South River streets, which left small strips of land between these two streets and the river. Bay Biscayne was represented as lying on the east, and all the streets numbered from 1 to 14 open into an avenue or street called Biscayne Drive, running nearly parallel with the shores of the bay. A narrow strip of land lying between Biscayne Drive and the bay was divided into small lots by lines drawn across it in various places, but these lots were not designated or numbered in any way, except that part of the strip extending from a line drawn opposite the center of Third Street to a line drawn oppo-site the center of Seventh Street, which was marked in large letters, “Park.” Upon this plat was written a dedica-tory statement by the owners, acknowledging that they had caused the plat to be made, followed by the lan-guage: “And we do hereby dedicate to the perpetual use of the public the streets or highways shown thereon, reserving to ourselves, our heirs, successors, personal representatives or assigns owning lands abutting or ad-joining the same, the reversion(s) thereof whenever dis-continued by law; also reserving that certain strip of land which lies on the easterly side of Biscayne Bay Drive, between said drive and the shore of Bay Biscayne, in-cluding in said reservation all riparian rights adjacent to said strip which extends from 14
th Street to the northern
limits of the plat; also reserving such strips of land with riparian rights as are shown by the above plat to lie be-tween the Miami River and the streets running parallel thereto.” Many lots were sold in the town according to this plat, including the lots abutting Biscayne Drive. Held, that the plat, properly construed, shows an inten-tion to dedicate the parcel marked “Park” as a public park, and to reserve from dedication the balance of the strip lying between Biscayne Drive and Bay Biscayne, and all riparian rights incident or appurtenant to the en-tire strip, so far as the dedicators owned it. Held, further, that purchasers of lots according to the plat, particularly those owning lots adjoining the park or separated from it merely by a street, have a right to insist that the park be kept open as a public park, even though the city authori-ties have never formally evinced an intention to accept the dedication.
Section 680, Rev. St. 1892, which purports to grant authority to a city or town council to discontinue parks, has no application to a park laid out or established after the adoption of the Revised Statutes.
Where a bill was brought by a party, claiming certain lands in a town, seeking to enjoin other persons alleged to be trespassing thereon, under a claim that the parcel in controversy was a public park which they, as adjoin-ing lot owners, had a right to insist should be kept open, and all parties claimed title by deeds referring to a town plat prepared by former owners, who laid the lands off into town lots and sold them according to the plat, and who had deeded all their right in the alleged power to
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 27
complainant, neither such former owners, nor the city in which such lands were located, were necessary parties, it not appearing that such former owners or the city were trespassing upon or claiming any rights in the property which the defendants claimed to be a park, nor that they owned any lots abutting such park or situated in the im-mediate neighborhood thereof.
The case above, by the Supreme Court of Florida, with case cited as Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Worley et al., 38 So. 618-624, decided May 9, 1905, and with the Sylla-buses by the Court,
07 not only applies to streets and high-
ways, but also to parks and other public places designed as same upon the plat. The word “Park,” written upon a parcel of land designed upon the plat implies that each such parcel is dedicated to the public for park purposes, and the sale of lots with reference to such a plat operates as a dedication of the parcel for public park purposes.
While the author cannot see the word “Park” on the plat, the court would not have made this decision without same actually being there. Therefore, the author will assume that due to the recording possibilities, the author cannot see everything listed on the plat itself.
While the author says that the Case Number 84 So. 726-733 is the controlling court case, this case is VERY HIGH up the ladder. It should be studied closely.
First case:
The following case is also a good one to follow closely.
A “common law dedication” is the setting apart of lands for public use, to constitute which there must be an intention by the owner, clearly indicated by his words or acts, to dedicate the land to public use and an ac-ceptance by the public of the dedication. Whether an express or an implied dedication is relied on, the inten-tion of the owner to set apart the lands for the use of the public is the foundation and essence of every dedica-tion. The act of dedication is affirmative in character and may be manifested by written grant, affirmative acts, permissive conduct, or any other appropriate manner in which the owner sees fit to indicate a present intention to appropriate his lands to public use. Mere use by the public, although long continued, should be regarded as a license only revocable at the pleasure of the owner, where it does not appear that any public or private inter-ests have been acquired upon the faith of the supposed dedication, which would be materially impaired if the dedication were revoked. The mere fact of use by the public for an extended period, without the consent or objection of the owner, does not show an intention to dedicate. Property ownership is one of the most sacred rights protected by the Constitution, and no municipality has a right to deprive one of such ownership except by due process of law. A town council may declare certain streets to exist and order that they be opened, but such declaration cannot give the right of entry for that pur-pose against private rights asserted on the basis of ownership possession. Assessment certificates issued against abutting property for street improvements prior to the acquirement of the right of way for, and the legal establishment of, the street, are void.
This case, by the Supreme Court of Florida, citied as City of Palmetto v. Katsch, et al., as in 98 So. 352-354, with case decided November 28, 1923, and the Syllabus-es by the Court,
08 the City of Palmetto was trying to con-
struct improvements to some already existing private
lands that had never been dedicated, but that were being used by the public during the dry season. The city was trying to claim the lands by “grant or dedication by use.”
“The means generally exercised to express one’s pur-pose or intention to dedicate his lands to the public use are by a[:]
(1) written instrument executed for that purpose;
(2) filing a plat or map of one’s property designating thereon streets, alleys, parks, etc.;
(3) platting one’s lands and selling lots and blocks pur-suant to said plat indicating thereon places for parks, streets, public grounds, etc.;
(4) recitals in a deed by which the rights of the public are recognized;
(5) oral declarations followed by acts consistent there-with;
(6) affirmative acts of the owner with reference to his property, such as throwing it open in a town, fencing and designating streets thereon; and
(7) acquiescence of the owner in the use of his property by the public for public purposes.”
The Court held that the City of Palmetto was in the wrong.
Next case:
Parks may be appropriate to county governments as well as to municipalities. Functions incident to accepting and utilizing dedications of parks for local public purpos-es may be exercised by the county commissioners un-der their general, express, and implied statutory powers and authority as the chief administrative and fiscal offic-ers for the county. It is [a] material error to exclude evi-dence of the acceptance by the county commissioners of a park for public purposes. Qualifications of an ac-ceptance of a dedication with reference to streets may not affect the acceptance of parks contained in the same dedication.
In this case, cited as Duval County v. Bancroft, 117 So. 799-800, dated July 3, 1928, with the Syllabuses by the Court,
09 there were three plats involved. The first two
showed a block that was dedicated as a park, but never accepted. However the third plat contained the same block, but did not contain the word “Park” on same. How-ever, the county commissioners purchased said block several years after platting (1914) and turned it into a park. “In 1921 the board of county commissioners of the county adopted a resolution accepting for public purposes several pieces of land, including block 87 in Lakeside Park, but provided that the board assumed no responsibil-ity for the streets except those accepted and used as county roads. […] In 1925 the dedicator executed a deed to the block 87, which was filed for record.”
In other words, the plat existed in 1914 and was accept-ed by the county for recording. This made the plat an offer to dedicate same even though there was no dedication on the plat itself (only an acknowledgement that the owners actually owned the land included within the plat) that dedi-cated the streets and parks. The dedication of same was accepted.
Next case:
A mortgage provision, granting mortgagor right to sub-
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 28
divide mortgaged premises into lots and blocks, was not such agreement for dedication of streets shown on plat to public use as to release or discharge property includ-ed therein from mortgage lien, in absence of showing that mortgagee ratified or confirmed dedication. To con-stitute dedication at common law, there must be inten-tion of proprietor to dedicate land to public use and ac-ceptance by public. To establish common-law dedication of land to public use, proof of such intention of proprietor and acceptance by public must be clear, satisfactory, and unequivocal. A common-law plat has no effect as conveyance of land for public use.
In this case, by the Supreme Court of Florida, Division B, cited as Hamilton et al. v. Laesch, 184 So. 106-111, with the case decided October 21, 1938, and with the Syl-labuses by the Court,
10 a mortgagor was trying to fore-
close on a tract that had already been platted and was trying to get the streets back to make a full parcel. The court ruled that a plat had been filed, a dedication of the streets and parks had been offered and that the same streets and parks had been accepted by the city. This was even without a ratification that the lands had been re-leased from the mortgage.
Next case:
Evidence authorized quieting title to strip of land origi-nally platted as between two blocks, but included in lot when subdivision was replatted by one who purchased lands including such strip, described by metes and bounds, on ground that such strip was never used as a passageway and was not intended to be dedicated as a passageway to lot owners or for public use. Where plat did not make it clearly appear that 30-foot strip was in-tended to be dedicated as a passageway for public use or for benefit of lot owners in common, parole evidence was admissible to prove intention of the parties. To con-stitute a “dedication” there must be an intention by the owner, clearly indicated by his words or acts, to dedicate the land to public use, and to accept the dedication by the public, and proof of such facts must be clear, satis-factory and unequivocal. The burden of establishing dedication is on the party asserting it. The rights of an adjoining lot owner to have a dedicated space left open for his convenience and to enjoy an easement therein are not dependent on acceptance of the dedication by the public, but before his rights accrue intention of own-er must be clearly and unequivocally shown.
In this case, Roe et al. v. Kendrick et al., cited as 200 So. 394-395, with case decided February 28, 1941, with the Syllabuses by the Court,
11 a plat was recorded in the
public records of Polk County that did not show any text on a certain strip of land. The court ruled that Polk County had accepted the lands as dedicated, but their acceptance of same did not include the strip under question here. The court ruled that this strip of land was reserved by the own-er and could be sold along with other properties.
Next case:
In suit to enjoin city and its officials from claiming an easement or other rights in strip of ocean front land, claim that there was dedication of the strip to the public and claim that public had acquired a prescriptive right to strip were “affirmative defenses” and burden of estab-lishing each was on defendant city. A common law “dedication” is a setting apart of land for public use, and to constitute such a dedication there must be an inten-tion by owner clearly indicated by his words or act to
dedicate the land to public use. Where an express or implied dedication is relied on, owner’s intent to set apart the land for use of the public is the foundation of dedication. The act of “dedication” is affirmative in char-acter, need not be by formal act or dedication, may be by parol, may result from conduct of owner of lands ded-icated, and may be manifested by written grant, affirma-tive acts or permissive conduct of dedicator. Mere fact of user by public for an extended period without consent or objection of owner does not show an intent to “dedicate” land to public use. In addition to dedicat[ing] land to pub-lic use, there must be an acceptance by the public in order to constitute a “dedication” and proof of such facts must be clear, satisfactory and unequivocal. The ac-ceptance of a tender of dedication may be within “a rea-sonable time,” but before withdrawal of the offer, as the convenience of the public, or those who live upon adja-cent lots, requires. An averment of dedication in an an-swer is new matter and an “affirmative defense” and burden rests on defendant to prove such dedication. Evidence supported finding that there was no “dedication” of strip of ocean front land to public by plaintiff by drafting and recording of any of three differ-ent plats.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Florida, Division A, cited as City of Miami Beach et al. v. Miami Beach Im-provement Co. et al., 14 So.2d 172-179, with the case decided June 11, 1943, and with the Syllabuses by the Court,
12 the court ruled that the plat had been filed, that
the streets, etc. had been offered for dedication and the city had accepted the dedication. However, nothing is con-tained on the strip under question. It is a reserved tract since it has no markings there on. Therefore, it is a pri-vately owned strip of land.
Next case:
Even if former landowner, by filing for record plat of subdivision, offered to dedicate drive to perpetual use of public and thereafter there was such use of drive by public as to constitute an acceptance of offer, evidence sustained determination that city and public abandoned right to use strip involved as a drive or street. Evidence sustained determination that there had been no offer to dedicate beach to public use by filing of subdivision plat which contained dedicatory language referring to streets, avenues, drives and alleys. Evidence sustained determination that public had not acquired prescriptive right to use beach. The fact that upland owners did not prevent or object to use of beach for bathing, sunning and other recreational purposes was not sufficient to show that use was adverse or under claim of right so as to create prescriptive right to use of beach by public.
In this case, by the Supreme Court of Florida, Division A, cited as City of Miami Beach v. Undercliff Realty & In-vestment Co. et. al., as 21 So.2d 783-787, with the case decided April 13, 1945, and with the Syllabuses by the Court,
13 there were no words on either the ocean front
roadway (along the beach) or on the ocean front (lands). This leaves to the dedicator or his heirs the right to decide what is going to happen to same (reserved). As the owner never said what was going to happen to either the ocean-front roadway or to the ocean-front beach itself, the land was still privately owned. The courts ruled in favor of the private owners.
Next case:
Where lands have been dedicated and used for a
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 29
public park or square, municipal corporation holds title in trust for the public and has no power, unless specially authorized by legislature, to appropriate such lands for benefit of private persons or corporations or to sell or divert the land from uses and purposes of its original dedication. City was not authorized by statute to sell or transfer title to land dedicated to general public of the city to be used by its citizens and visitors for municipal park purposes or to divert use of such land for any pur-pose inconsistent with the particular use to which it was dedicated.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Florida, Division A, with the case cited as Kramer et al. v. City of Lakeland et al., 38 So.2d 126-132, with the case decided December 7, 1948, and with the Syllabuses by the Court,
14 there was a
plat filed of record and the plat did not have a dedication. Later, in 1898 a dedication was filed for the plat that dedi-cated all parks. The City of Lakeland accepted the dedica-tion on March 7th, 1898. The prior judge held that “the City of Lakeland held no fee simple title to Munn’s Park and it was without authority to change or divert the use thereof to any purpose inconsistent with the particular purpose to which it was dedicated, as such dedication was irrevoca-ble. This ruling is in line with the weight of authority as ex-pressed by McQuillian’s Municipal Corporations, Vol. 3(2d) Ed. 1032-33, par. 1243, …”
Next case:
Offer to dedicate street was made in 1924, and lots were sold with that offer in view and were purchased for a valuable consideration, purchasers’ title went to mid-dle of street until such time as the offer to dedicate might be discontinued. Offer to dedicate street was made in 1924, and lots were sold with that offer in view and were purchased for a valuable consideration, rights of subsequent purchasers, as adjacent owners standing in shoes or original purchasers, sprang from the offer to dedicate and not necessarily from an instrument thereaf-ter appearing in the chain of title affecting the public’s rights to such property. In suit to quiet title to street, brought against purchasers of lots abutting such street, who bought such lots for valuable consideration in reli-ance on plat which containing a dedication of streets to perpetual use of public and which was recorded in 1924, evidence was sufficient to give rise to a valid presump-tion of acceptance of the dedication.
In the above case, the Supreme Court of Florida, Divi-sion A, with the case cited as Walker et al. v. Pollack et al., 74 So.2d 886-888, with the case decided October 5, 1954, and with the Syllabuses by the Court,
15 held the of-
fer was made of the streets and that the offer had been accepted by the public entity. There was “valid presump-tion of acceptance of the dedication.” The plaintiffs lost the case. With the plat being recorded in 1924 and the case being completed in 1954 makes the time period 31 years long.
However, in this surveyor and mappers’ mind, the “road” in question has no markings on it, thus it was not dedicat-ed, but “reserved.” This makes it a reserved tract accord-ing to the previous court cases, thus making the “road” in question, private ownership. However, the court did not see it that way. The author would not use this case as a record of anything.
Next case:
City’s assessment and collection of taxes on land
comprising roadway across plaintiff’s land did not of it-self estop city from asserting a dedication of roadway to public or acquisition by public of easement by adverse use; such assessment and collection constituted merely one item to be considered with other evidence of estop-pel. The public may acquire an easement in land sepa-rate and apart from the rights of a city and in spite of actions of a city. In action for mandatory injunction to require city to remove surfacing on road from plaintiff’s land, city had burden to prove its defense that roads had been dedicated to public or that public had acquired an easement by adverse user. Where map of city did not recite as required by statute relating to dedication of roads to the public that street in litigation had vested in the city, the map was not prima facie evidence of the city’s title to such street. Evidence failed to show dedica-tion of road over plaintiff’s land by city’s construction and maintenance of the road, continuously and uninterrupt-edly, for prescribed statutory period of four years.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Florida, cited as Downing v. Bird, as case 100 So.2d 057-066, with the case decided January 31, 1958, and with the Syllabus by the Court,
16 the court ruled that the City of Homestead did
not prove its title to the streets. The street remained in the title of the plaintiff. In fact, to the author, the plat does not seem to include a street even though there is a street name where the city was claiming a street.
Next case:
Recorded subdivision plat showed lots as abutting a 20-foot strip and bounded on the south by south line of section, which was designated and dedicated as road-way (presumably anticipating a 20-foot dedication from adjoining section), and the plat recited that measure-ments of lots adjoining roads were taken from center of roadway, right-of-way deed from subsequent owner of lots to county, conveying “south 30 feet of the lots” sub-ject to reversion if highway should be discontinued, in-cluded the 20-foot strip previously dedicated so as to provide net gain of 10 feet, and was not in addition to the 20 feet previously dedicated. The title of an owner of land abutting on a street or highway extends to center of the road. Under a common-law dedication the fee does not pass from grantor, as the public acquires only a right of easement in trust so long as the dedicated land is used for purposes of the dedication. Under common-law dedication, title of grantor is legal but subject to right of the public to beneficial use of the land until dedication is rejected, surrendered or abandoned. For purposes of conveyance of right of way for road purposes, plat re-ferred to in the conveyance, which contained a dedica-tion of 20-foot strip, became a part of the deed as though copied into the deed in full. The conversion of existing state land service highway on land dedicated for right-of-way purposes to a limited access facility was not so inconsistent with former use as to amount to aban-donment of the public easement and thereby effect a reversion. Fact that highway subsequently provides lim-ited access to adjacent property does not constitute a diversion from the public purpose required by dedication of easement or right-of-way deed.
In this case, Florida State Turnpike Authority v. Anhoco Corporation, cited as 107 So.2d 051-056, case decided November 18, 1958, with the Syllabuses by the Court,
17
the court determined that a plat had been recorded and therefore a dedication was offered. That the government entity had accepted the dedication and that they main-
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 30
tained the road right-of-way.
Interesting in this case, the courts determined that was a distance between the south line of Section 09, Township 52 South, Range 41 East and the north line of Section 16, Township 52 South, Range 41 East. They did not resolve this distance problem.
Next case:
Platting of land showing streets, and the sale of lots pursuant to plat, as far as public is concerned, amounts to an offer of dedication which must be accepted, before there is a revocation, to complete the dedication. Cer-tain property owners who bought lots abutting on street as shown on plat, the planting by them of grass, shrub-bery and trees in area shown as a street did not consti-tute a withdrawal of offer of dedication of street which had partially been surfaced in other parts of subdivision.
In this case, as in Walton v. City of Clermont, cited as 109 So.2d 403-406, with the case decided February 6, 1959, and with the Syllabuses by the Court,
18 the court
decided that a plat had been recorded therefore the streets were offered to the public and that the city had accepted same as a “common-law dedication.” Mere pav-ing of the streets did not withdraw the dedication even though the streets had not been paved before this prob-lem arose.
Next case:
The filing of a plat by the original owners of fee show-ing streets laid out thereon is an offer to dedicate which may be accepted by the affected parties at any time prior to its lawful withdrawal by the owner of the fee, and formal or written acceptance is not necessary nor is a public body ordinarily required to pave the streets to the full or partial width so shown until the necessity therefor[e] arises. Owner who has platted an area may at any time prior to the lawful acceptance of the offer of dedica-tion withdraw the same, in which event the unencum-bered fee to the streets so offered to be dedicated would be vested in the owner with full power to sell or dispose of such lands to any lawful owner.
In this case, in Anderson v. Town of Groveland et al., cited as 113 So.2d 569-572, case decided July 8, 1959, with the Syllabuses by the Court,
19 the court decided that
a plat had been filed and therefore had offered the streets to the public entity. The court decided that the streets had been accepted by the courts and rejected the previous court’s ruling.
Next case:
Under Florida law, generally, the platting of land into blocks and lots with intervening streets clearly indicated thereon and the sale of those lots with reference to the plat constitutes an offer to dedicate the streets to the public use. Under Florida law, no particular words are necessary to constitute an offer of dedication of land to public use, but it is only necessary that such words be employed as will show the grantor’s intent. In the event a plat is ambiguous as to whether certain land has been dedicated to the public use, the construction must be against the dedicator and in favor of the public. Where a plat provided that a certain strip of land between lots set forth therein and the ocean was “Reserved for Ocean Boulevard & Boardwalk,” such language evinced an intention that the land be dedicated or used as a road-way for through public passage, and such language
could not be deemed ambiguous as to dedication. Un-der Florida law, rights of purchasers of lots set forth in a plat showing a reservation of a strip of land between the lots and the ocean, as against grantees of the strip of land under a deed executed by subdivider after sale of the lots and purported vacation of a dedication of the strip as a boardwalk, were the same, regardless of whether or not there was a public acceptance of such reserved land. Where a plat provided for a reservation of a strip of land between the ocean and certain lots described therein for use as a boardwalk, such plat showed grantor’s intent to dedicate such land to public use as a street or roadway, and in absence of manifes-tation of an attempt on part of subdivider to retain any interest in the strip of land in question, titles of the lots abutting such reserved strip of land extended the entire width of the strip to the ordinary high mark of the ocean. Where a plat provided for a reservation of a strip of land between the ocean and certain lots described therein, for use as a boardwalk, title of owners of a lot abutting such reserved strip of land extended to the ordinary high mark of the ocean, and fact that owners of such lot derived their titles through tax deeds did not vest in them merely a license to such strip of land.
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in Murrwll v. United State of America, et al., cited as 269 F.2d 458-463, case decided August 12, 1959, with the Syllabuses by the Court,
20 the court decided that a
common-law plat had been recorded, the plat had offered to dedicate the street and other public tracts to the public and the government entity had not accepted the streets and other public tracts. Later the controlling public entity had vacated, upon request, any dedication of a boardwalk shown on said plat.
Next case:
Common-law dedication, one of several processes by which an owner of an interest in land can transfer to the public either ownership or a privilege of user for a public purpose, requires an intention to dedicate the property to use of the public, acceptance by the public, and clear and unequivocal proof of these facts; however, there are no specific formalities necessary to constitute an effective common-law dedication. An intention to dedi-cate may be implied from the acts of the landowner, including the filing of a map or plat of the property desig-nating the roadways thereon or the platting of the land and the selling of lots pursuant to the plat, which indi-cates thereon places for parks, public grounds, and streets. Map drawn in 1893 constituted an offer of dedi-cation to public use of roadways platted thereon as well as a strip of property between the roadway and water-front which developed through accretions over the years, and the grading and paving of the original wagon trail into a boulevard coupled with installation and maintenance of culverts under the boulevard constituted acceptance by public authorities of the dedication, even though the map was not recorded until after the convey-ance of certain lots abutting the roadway. Acceptance of an offer of dedication may be expressed or may be im-plied from acts showing an intention to accept, includ-ing, among other things, use by the public or mainte-nance and improvement by the proper authorities of part of the land dedicated. Statute establishing a presump-tion of dedication of a road maintained by public authori-ties for four continuous years to extent and width that has actually been maintained for the prescribed period does not limit operation of common-law dedication.
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 31
In Memory of …
Victor "Vic" George Schumer, PSM 3578, of Pensacola, FL passed away
Sunday, October 19th.
FSMS offers condolences to the family.
Common-law dedication leaves ownership of the land in the dedicator, giving to the public rights of easement only. Under doctrine of estoppel in pais, the dedicator is precluded from exercising any right in the dedicated property which conflicts with rights of the public. On ac-ceptance of a dedication of roadways by the public, the public rights of easement take precedence over any title to the roadways acquired by purchasers of abutting lots. Generally, abutting lot owners own fee title to the middle of a dedicated street; however, where the dedicated street runs along a navigable body of water, abutting lot owners own fee title to the entire width of the dedicated land, as well as title to accretions formed along the street. In addition to public rights which may be created by dedication and acceptance, conveyances in refer-ence to a plat may also create private rights in purchas-ers of subdivision lots to have public places described in the plat maintained for their designated uses.
In this case, by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, cited as Bonifay v. Dickson, case 459 So.2d 1089-1098, with the case decided November 1, 1984, and with the Syllabuses by the Court,
21 the courts have held
that a plat was recorded that seemed to offer the streets and other public tracts to the public, that the public has accepted the offer and that the streets and other public tracts are now public. We won’t really get into the rest of the case, suffice to say the dedications were ratified.
The author hopes that this article gives the viewer a glimpse into the ideas of the courts and what is dedicated and what is not.
References: John R. Gargis: Dedication: First Type, 2011; John R. Gargis: Dedication: Second Type, 2011; John R. Gargis: Dedication: Third and Fourth Type, 2011; John R. Gargis: Dedication: Road Viewers, 2011; John R. Gargis: Dedication: Time Limits, 2011; Supreme Court of Florida: City of Miami v. Florida East
Coast Ry. Co., Case Number 84 So. 726-733, 1920; Supreme Court of Florida: Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v.
Worley et al., Case Number 38 So. 618-624, 1905; Supreme Court of Florida: City of Palmetto v. Katsch, et
al., Case Number 98 So. 352-354, 1923; Supreme Court of Florida, Duval County v. Bancroft, Case
Number 117 So. 799-800, 1928; Supreme Court of Florida, Division B, Hamilton et al. v.
Laesch, 184 So. 106-111, 1938; Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B, in Roe et al.
v. Kendrick et al., citied as 200 So. 394-395, 1941; Supreme Court of Florida, Division A, cited as City of Mi-
ami Beach et al. v. Miami Beach Improvement Co. et al., 14 So.2d 172-179, 1943;
Supreme Court of Florida, Division A: City of Miami Beach v. Undercliff Realty & Investment Co. et al., Case Number 21 So.2d 783-787, 1945;
Supreme Court of Florida, Division A: Kramer et al. v. City of Lakeland et al., Case Number 38 So.2d 126-132, 1948;
Supreme Court of Florida, Division A: Walker et al. v. Pol-lack et al., Case Number 74 So.2d 886-888, 1954;
Supreme Court of Florida: Downing v. Bird, Case Number 100 So.2d 057-066, 1958;
Supreme Court of Florida: Florida State Turnpike Authori-ty, Case Number 107 So.2d 051-058, 1958;
Supreme Court of Florida: Walton V. City of Clermont, Case Number 109 So.2d 403-406, 1959;
Supreme Court of Florida: Anderson v. Town of Groveland et al., 113 So.2d 569-572, 1959;
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 268 F.2d 458-463, 1958;
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District: Bonifay v. Dickson, 459 So.2d 1089-1098, 1984;
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 32
2015 Education Conference January 22nd – 24th Holiday Inn Lakewood Ranch Sarasota
6231 Lake Osprey Drive Sarasota, FL 34240 ~ 941.782.4400 ~ http://www.hilr.com/
Thursday, January 22nd Friday, January 23rd Saturday, January 24th
Choose: One 6-hour session OR Two 3-hour sessions
8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Choose: One 6-hour session OR Two 3-hour sessions
8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Choose: One 6-hour session OR Two 3-hour sessions
8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
____1. 472.027 F.S. – Transitioning from Minimum Technical Standards to Standards of Practice (6 MTS/L&R CEC) #8568 John Clyatt, PSM; W. Lanier Mathews, II PSM and Ray Niles, PSM
_____1. Florida Laws (6 MTS/L&R CEC) #6968 Art Mastronicola, Jr., PSM _____2. Metes and Bounds (6 General CEC) #8494 Walt Robillard, Esq, PSM
____ 1. Wetlands in Florida (6 General CEC) #8228 Arthur D. Wade III, PWS
All Day
8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Morning Sessions
____ 1. “TIIF” Reservations and Public Road Determination (3 General CEC) #8562 Larry Sharp, PSM ____ 2. Accounting and Business Tips for the Design Professional (3 General CEC) #8567 Michael Hajek III, CPA
____ 1. Estate Planning Essentials for the Transitioning Professional (3 General CEC) #8564 Claire A. Duchemin, Attorney at Law
____ 1. Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) for Mapping – A Panel Discussion Course Pending Board Approval (3 General CEC) #TBD John Clyatt, PSM; Bon Dewitt, PhD, PSM; and Sam Hall, PSM ____ 2. Following in the Footsteps (3 General CEC) #8563 Lamar Evers, PSM
12:15 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. 12:15 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. 12:15 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Afternoon Sessions
____ 1. The Surveyor and LiDAR System Technology (3 General CEC) #8093 Ted Knaak
____ 1. Social Media for Professionals and Their Clients (3 General CEC) #8565 Chad Thurner, PSM
____ 1. Florida Statutes Chapter 556: The Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act (3 General CEC) #7756 Brian Dean
____ 2. Digital Signatures for Surveyors (3 General CEC) #8561 Dolly Carwile, PSM
REGISTRATION Member $145 per day
Member On-Site Registration $145 per day Non-Member $200 per day Non-Licensed in Any State $ 95 per day
Total # of Days ________ Total Amount $ ________
Name: ____________________________________________ PSM #:___________ FSMS Member: _____Yes _____No
Emergency Contact: (Print Name) _____________________________ Emergency Phone: ________________________
Firm: ______________________________________________________ Sustaining Firm Employee: _____Yes ____No
Address: ______________________________________ City: ___________________ State: ______ Zip: __________
Telephone: _________________ Fax: ___________________ Email address: _________________________________
Payment Information: ________ Check Enclosed (Payable to FSMS) ________ VISA/MasterCard/AE
Card #: ______________________________________ Exp. Date: __________ Signature: _______________________
CVV Code#: __________ Credit Card Billing Address: ____________________________________________________
IF PAYING BY CHECK, MAIL FORM TO: FSMS, P.O. Box 850001-243, Orlando, Florida 32885
IF PAYING BY CREDIT CARD, FAX OR EMAIL FORM TO:
Cancellation Policy 30 days – Full Refund • 14–29 days – 50% Refund • 0-13 days – No Refund
We reserve the right to cancel a seminar for reasons beyond our control with no liability for reimbursement other than the seminar fee. 850.877.4852 [email protected]
Provider No. CE11 www.fsms.org The Florida Surveyor November 2014 33
Wednesday, November 12th AND Thursday, November 13th
Must attend both days to receive credit. You must bring a laptop.
SEATS ARE LIMITED! REGISTER EARLY!
8:30 am – 3:30 pm 12 General CEC – Course #8133 Dave Newcomer, PSM, PE This seminar will train the individual in the use of OPUS-Projects. For several years the National Geodetic Survey has provided users a method of computing survey grade single point GPS positions through the use of the Online Positioning User Service or OPUS. OPUS-Projects is an extension of that online service to provide the user with the knowledge and capability to complete an entire GPS campaign or project on line from downloading the data to least squares adjustment. Access to OPUS-Projects is restricted to individuals who have successfully completed this training. This is a hands-on seminar. You must bring your own laptop.
Dave Newcomer, PSM, PE currently serves as NGS Advisor. He is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a degree in Civil Engineering and a concentration in Geodesy. Mr. Newcomer is a licensed Professional Engineer and licensed Professional Land Surveyor in Pennsylvania. He has taught numerous seminars and courses on the global positioning system (GPS) including static GPS, real time kinematic GPS and how the GPS system works as well as courses on the use and adjustment of surveying instruments. He has published “GPS as a Fast Surveying Tool” (American Society of Civil Engineers: Journal of Surveying Engineering, 1990). Mr. Newcomer is a member of FSMS and the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Location: Orlando City Hall Overlook Room
400 South Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMBER: ______ $260 NON-MEMBER: ______ $320
NON-LICENSED IN ANY STATE: ______ $160
We reserve the right to cancel a seminar for reasons beyond our control. Due to the cost incurred for preparation of the seminar, you will receive a voucher in exchange for the seminar if it is cancelled. No refunds will be given.
Name: __________________________________________________ PSM#: _____________________ FSMS Member: _____ YES _____ NO Emergency Contact: ________________________________________ Emergency Phone: ____________________________________________ Print Name Firm: _________________________________________ Sustaining Firm: _____ YES _____ NO Work Phone: ___________________________ Address: _________________________________________________ City/State: ________________________ Zip Code: _________________ Email Address: ______________________________________________________ Fax: _____________________________________________ Payment Information: ______ Check Enclosed (Payable to FSMS) ______ VISA/MasterCard/American Express Card #: ________________________________________________ Exp. Date: _______________________ Billing Address of Credit Card: ______________________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________
IF PAYING BY CHECK, MAIL FORM TO: FSMS, P.O. Box 850001-243, Orlando, Florida 32885-0243 IF PAYING BY CREDIT CARD, FAX OR EMAIL FORM TO: 850.877.4852 [email protected]
Cancellation Policy: 30 days – Full Refund • 14–29 days – 50% Refund • 0-13 days – No Refund
Provider No. CE11 www.fsms.org
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 34
Lamar Evers, PSM
FSMS Live Seminar
Boundaries in Florida - St. Augustine Friday, December 5th
REGISTRATION DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 21st 8:00 am – 3:00 pm 6 MTS/L&R CEC Course #7666 This seminar will acquaint attendees with the history of land ownership and case law that impacts boundary surveying in Florida. Attendees will be educated on the history of land ownership in Florida, descriptions, evidence to be considered in performing boundary surveys and a discussion of relevant case law in Florida.
Lamar Evers, PSM is a professional land surveyor registered in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina. He is employed by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Division of State Lands, Bureau of Survey and Mapping as the Mean High Water (MHW) and LABINS Program Manager. He is the Bureau’s representative to the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers meetings. Mr. Evers is a Life Member of FSMS, a member of AAGS, and a Fellow Member of NSPS. He has served as FSMS Vice President, President-Elect, President, Immediate Past President and District One Director. As the NSPS Governor for FSMS, he served as Secretary
and Chairman of the NSPS Board of Governors and the NSPS Area 4 Director. Mr. Evers currently serves as the Immediate Past President of NSPS.
Location:
St. Johns River State College 2990 College Drive Portable D
St. Augustine, FL 32084 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MEMBER: ______ $130 NON-MEMBER: ______ $160
NON-LICENSED IN ANY STATE: ______ $80
We reserve the right to cancel a seminar for reasons beyond our control. Due to the cost incurred for preparation of the seminar, you will receive a voucher for a Correspondence Course in exchange for the seminar if it is cancelled. No refunds will be given.
Name: __________________________________________________ PSM#: _____________________ FSMS Member: _____ YES _____ NO Emergency Contact: ________________________________________ Emergency Phone: ____________________________________________ Print Name Firm: _________________________________________ Sustaining Firm: _____ YES _____ NO Work Phone: ___________________________ Address: _________________________________________________ City/State: ________________________ Zip Code: _________________ Email Address: ______________________________________________________ Fax: _____________________________________________ Payment Information: ______ Check Enclosed (Payable to FSMS) ______ VISA/MasterCard/American Express Card #: ________________________________________________ Exp. Date: _______________________ Billing Address of Credit Card: ______________________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________
IF PAYING BY CHECK, MAIL FORM TO: FSMS, P.O. Box 850001-243, Orlando, Florida 32885-0243
IF PAYING BY CREDIT CARD, FAX OR EMAIL FORM TO: 850.877.4852 [email protected] QUESTIONS? Call 800.237.4384
Cancellation Policy: 30 days – Full Refund • 14–29 days – 50% Refund • 0-13 days – No Refund
Provider No. CE11 www.fsms.org
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 35
Walt Robillard, Esq, PSM
FSMS Live Seminar Metes and Bounds
Thursday, December 11th
REGISTRATION DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 14th Milton/Pensacola 8:00 am – 3:00 pm CST 6 General CEC Course #8494 This seminar will examine the “other” area of surveying, which applies to over 50% of the Unites States... the Metes and Bounds System of surveying and land descriptions. This is a system that was created by common law and historical use. Topics include the distinction between deed and description, the types of descriptions recognized by the courts as well as landowners, how to write your own description and so forth.
Walt Robillard, Esq, PSM is a Professional Land Surveyor registered in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. He is a member of the Georgia Bar. He has worked and taught continuing education courses internationally in the areas of real property, law, surveying and forestry. He is an honorary Member of the Florida Surveying and Mapping Society and a member of the numerous state societies. Mr. Robillard is a past president of the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping and is the recipient of the Earl Fennell Award for Education. He was an original member of the Advisory Committee for the University of Florida Surveying program. Mr. Robillard is the co-author of the college textbooks Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location, Boundary Control and Legal Principles and the legal reference book Clark on Surveying & Boundaries.
Location: Santa Rosa County Public Services Building - Media Room
6051 Old Bagdad Hwy, Room 202 Milton, FL 32583
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMBER: ______ $150 NON-MEMBER: ______ $175
NON-LICENSED IN ANY STATE: ______ $80
We reserve the right to cancel a seminar for reasons beyond our control. Due to the cost incurred for preparation of the seminar, you will receive a voucher for a Correspondence Course in exchange for the seminar if it is cancelled. No refunds will be given.
Name: __________________________________________________ PSM#: _____________________ FSMS Member: _____ YES _____ NO Emergency Contact: ________________________________________ Emergency Phone: ____________________________________________ Print Name Firm: _________________________________________ Sustaining Firm: _____ YES _____ NO Work Phone: ___________________________ Address: _________________________________________________ City/State: ________________________ Zip Code: _________________ Email Address: ______________________________________________________ Fax: _____________________________________________ Payment Information: ______ Check Enclosed (Payable to FSMS) ______ VISA/MasterCard/American Express Card #: ________________________________________________ Exp. Date: _______________________ Billing Address of Credit Card: ______________________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________
IF PAYING BY CHECK, MAIL FORM TO: FSMS, P.O. Box 850001-243, Orlando, Florida 32885-0243
IF PAYING BY CREDIT CARD, FAX OR EMAIL FORM TO: 850.877.4852 [email protected] QUESTIONS? Call 800.237.4384
Cancellation Policy: 30 days – Full Refund • 14–29 days – 50% Refund • 0-13 days – No Refund
Provider No. CE11 www.fsms.org
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 36
FSMS goes Caribbean on Freedom of the Seas!!!!!
7 Night Eastern Caribbean Cruise including stops at Cococay Bahamas, St. Thomas, St. Maarten, with 3 full days at sea.
Cruise Departs Port Canaveral JUNE 14, 2015
What better way to vacation and obtain your Continuing Education credits than to join fellow surveyors, family and friends in the Caribbean. Explore the finest white-sand beaches and most translucent blue waters on CocoCay®. Create memorable adventures on your Caribbean cruise that will inspire you for a lifetime. Bask and relax at Magens Bay Beach in gorgeous St. Thomas and enjoy two countries on one island in St. Maarten under the sovereignty of France and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The most exotic islands await you in the Eastern Caribbean.
Pricing for Seminar Attendees
Cruise fares starting at $1265 per attendee based on double occupancy and includes 12 hours of Onboard Continuing Education Classes. Cruise fares for family and friends not attending CE Classes
starting at $995 per person. Balcony and Promenade Accommodations reserved.
Early booking gets you the best locations on the ship!
A small deposit of $250 dollars per person holds your cabin until final payment is due March 14, 2015.
For additional information contact Gail Oliver at 904‐687‐5655 or
via email gail@i‐travelagent.com i-travelagent ST#37648 Check out our new website at www.i‐travelagent.com
14 JUN PORT CANAVERAL, FLORIDA 15 JUN COCOCAY, BAHAMAS 16 JUN CRUISING 17 JUN CHARLOTTE AMALIE, ST. THOMAS 18 JUN PHILIPSBURG, ST. MAARTEN 19 JUN CRUISING 20 JUN CRUISING 21 JUN PORT CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
EARN 12 CECs!
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 37
FSMS Sails to the Caribbean on Freedom of the Seas Cruise
CRUISE REGISTRATION FORM Ship: Royal Caribbean Freedom of the Seas
Final Payment Date: March 14, 2015
Sail Date: June 14, 2015
Itinerary: Cococay, Bahamas; Day at Sea; Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas; Philipsburg, St. Maarten; 2 Days at Sea
Preferred Cabin Type: Balcony Promenade View ___________________
(Other categories available upon request) Trip Insurance – Starting at $89.00 dollars per person Yes No (Non refundable after final payment due date of March 14, 2015)
Registration Information
Legal Name of Guest 1: ___________________________________________D.O.B._______________
Legal Name of Guest 2: ___________________________________________D.O.B._______________
Crown & Anchor No: Guest 1:__________________________ Guest 2: _____________________________
Address: __________________________________City: _________________ St: _____ Zip: _______
Cell Phone #:_____________________________ E‐mail: __________________________________
Credit Card Authorization & Verification
Payment Options:
_____ Pay in Full at Time of Booking – Amount _____________ USD
_____ Deposit Only ‐ Amount ___________ USD
Cardholder’s Full Name: ______________________________________
Cardholder’s Billing Address: __________________________________
City: __________________________ St: ______ Zip: ____________
Cardholder’s Phone #: ________________________
Email form to gail@i‐travelagent.com or fax to 904‐517‐8390
Call Gail Oliver with i‐travelagent for additional information or questions: 904‐687‐5655 Check out our new website at www.i‐travelagent.com
Credit Card Authorization
I authorize (FSMS and i‐travelagent) and acknowledge that all charges above will be processed to my credit card as detailed. (If using a debit card, please be advised that this authorization may affect your checking account until final settlement of transaction). Credit Card Industry regulations prohibit merchants from requiring or making copies of your card.
Card Type: ___ American Express ___ Mastercard ___Visa Credit Card Number: __________________________________________________ Verification Code: _________ Expiration Date: _____________ Signature: ________________________________________________ Date:______________________________
(All payments are fully refundable up until finalpayment due date of March 14, 2015)
Royal Caribbean Cancellation Penalties Apply as Follows: Days prior to sailing Amount Date 74 to 57 days $250 per Guest 04/01/2015 56 to 29 days 50% per Guest 04/19/2015 28 to 15 days 75% per Guest 05/17/2015 14 to 0 days 100% per Guest 05/31/2015
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 38
Send photos to [email protected].
Gavin Collier Cramer volunteering
Wyatt McLaughlin - priceless
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 39
Tegan Desmond, PSM Joins CivilSurv Design Group Tegan Desmond, PSM, has joined CivilSurv Design Group, Inc. as a Senior FDOT Right Of Way Surveyor. Tegan has an outstanding resume in Surveying and Mapping, with particular expertise in Right-Of-Way Control Surveys and Right-Of-Way Mapping for public sector agencies. With offices in Lakeland, Fort Pierce, Sebring and Jacksonville, Tegan will be working with CivilSurv’s state-wide client base.
Need political information?
Check out these websites:
www.election.dos.state.fl.us
www.myflorida.com
www.edr.state.fl.us/
www.ethics.state.fl.us/
www.dlis.dos.state.fl.us/index_researchers.cfm
Licensee Reminder
Florida Statute 472.0204 Address of
Record
Each licensee of the department
is solely responsible for notify-
ing the department in writing
of the licensee’s current mail-
ing address and place of prac-
tice, as defined by rule of the
board. A licensee’s failure to
notify the department of a
change of address constitutes
a violation of this section, and
the licensee may be disci-
plined by the board.
Email changes to
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 40
Vehicle Tags are aluminum 6" x 12" standard.
Promote your profession!
Name PSM
Phone Email
Shipping address
Please check payment type credit card (VISA/Master/AE) check
Credit Card Number Expiration Date
Billing Address
IF PAYING BY CHECK, MAIL FORM TO: FSMS, P.O. Box 850001-243, Orlando, Florida 32885 IF PAYING BY CREDIT CARD, FAX OR EMAIL FORM TO: 850.877.4852 [email protected]
QUESTIONS? CALL 800.237.4384
Tag $9.50 x __________
(quantity)
__________
Shipping $2.50 (for first tag)
Add $1.00 for each addi-tional tag
__________
Total: __________
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 41
IF YOU EVER WONDERED WHY . . . ASK MIKE! Mike Whitling, PSM
Why is a group of individuals judging you called a “jury?” “Jury” is derived from the French jur, past participle of jurer, meaning to swear. In the English courts the jury consists of twelve men, whose verdict, in the cases of misdemeanor, felony and high treason, must be unanimous. In civil and revenue cases it need not be so. In Scot-land the number of the jury is fifteen, and the verdict is given by the majority. Why when things go your way are they said to “pan out?” The phrase comes from when prospectors panned for gold. They would swirl a mix of soil and water around the pan. Because Gold is very dense, with a little skill the pan could be swirled at just the right speed to allow the gold to settle to the bottom of the pan, while the dirt and low-density particles would wash over the side. This would continue until there was nothing left but gravel and maybe a little speck of gold if it “panned out!” Why is the origin and history of something called a “pedigree?” Believed to be derived from the French ‘ped de gru,’ which meant crane's foot. The crane's foot is said to resemble the /|\ symbol on genealogical trees. Why is something called “phoney” when it is not genuine? “Phoney or phony” is an English slang word ‘fawney,’ from the Irish word ‘fainne,’ meaning ‘ring.’ English fawney men (con artists) per-fected a scam (called the ‘fawney rig’) which involved the trickster finding a gold ring "of great value" (actually brass) and then agreeing to sell it to his victim out of the goodness of his heart. When the faw-ney men brought their racket to America, ‘fawney’ became “phoney,” which became a more general synonym for fake or false. The term caught on after it was used to describe what was happening in Eu-rope from September 1939 to April 1940 after the blitzkrieg attack on Poland. Lots of talk about war and retaliation but nothing ever hap-pened during that time. It came to be called the “Phoney War.” Why when you get an infectious disease are you put in “quarantine?” The word “quarantine” originates from the Italian 'quaranta, Giomi’ which means 40 days. During the days of the Black Death, the ships from China were not allowed to enter the Venetian ports for a period of 40 days; so that they could make sure the ship contained no plague causing rats. Between 1348 and 1359, the Black Death wiped out 30% of the population in Europe, as well as a significant percentage of Asia's population. They obviously did not want to re-peat this mistake in Venice and enforced a 40 (quaranta) days wait-ing time on the ships, before they could unload on the port. This was done to check whether anyone in the ship had developed any symp-toms of plague. Quick Facts: Americans were first introduced to the Reese’s Peanut Butter
Cup in 1928. The title of the Paul Simon 1972 hit single "Mother and Child
Reunion" was adopted from the name of a chicken-and-egg dish he spotted on the menu of ‘Say Eng Look,’ a Chinese restaurant in the Chinatown section of New York City.
Sweet potatoes aren't potatoes at all, but vine roots. They're also unrelated to yams.
J. Edgar Hoover got the idea for his "Ten Most Wanted Crimi-nals" list from a friend, a fashion designer who had invented the survey called "Ten Best Dressed Women."
Victor Willis, the original police officer and lead singer of the Vil-lage People, was once married to Phylicia Rashad, who por-
trayed mother Clair Huxtable on TV's The Cosby Show.
The Stetson hat was the brainchild of Philadelphia hatmaker named John Batterson Stetson. He had traveled West seeking a cure for tuberculosis, and when he returned to Philadelphia he began making hats suited to the needs of the western cowboy.
The heavy tea tax imposed on the colonies in 1773, which caused the "Boston Tea Party," resulted in America switching from tea to coffee. Drinking coffee was an expression of free-dom.
The small intestine is about four times as long as the average adult is tall. If it weren't looped back and forth upon itself, its length of 18 to 23 feet wouldn't fit into the abdominal cavity.
The tape recorder, or magnetophone, was invented in 1936, the year that the Volkswagen Beetle was launched. Dutch company Philips introduced the audio cassette in 1963.
Dentures in 19th century Britain were made out of teeth that had been extracted from the dead of the Waterloo battle. Teeth from the dead of the American Civil War were also shipped to Britain, where they were put into dentures.
A quarter has 119 grooves on its edge, one more than a dime. The reason the mint started using ridges was to prevent counter-feit and devaluing of the coin.
The blue blazer is named for a British naval ship, the HMS Blaz-er. The captain of this ship made his crewmen dress in identical blue jackets, and they soon became a fad.
The first button factory in the United States was established in 1800 in Waterbury, Connecticut.
The pashmina shawls of Kashmir are made from the wispy chin and belly hair of Himalayan goats. Since the goats themselves are inaccessible, the hair is gathered in strands and tufts from bushes in which it has become caught.
"Alphabet" is derived from the first two letters of the Greek alpha-bet: alpha and beta.
There were only 23 letters in the Classical Latin alphabet. During medieval times, the letter "I" was used for both "I" and "J," and the letter "V" was used for "U," "V," and "W." Hence the 26 letters in the modern alphabet.
Apples ripen six to ten times faster at room temperature than if they were refrigerated.
Johnny Carson secretly wrote jokes for David Letterman. In a January 2005 interview, former Late Show with David Letterman producer Peter Lassally revealed that the former Tonight Show superstar would send Letterman jokes for his monologue, well after his retirement and Letterman's move from NBC to CBS.
Switching letters is called spoonerism. For example, saying jag of Flapan, instead of flag of Japan.
In 1939, 1940, and 1941 Franklin D. Roosevelt, seeking to lengthen the Christmas shopping season, proclaimed Thanksgiv-ing the third Thursday in November. Following much controversy, Congress passed a joint resolution in 1941 decreeing that Thanksgiving should fall on the fourth Thursday of November, where it remains.
Spermaceti oil, made from the sperm whale, was used as trans-mission oil in the Rolls Royce.
America's longest-lived apple tree was reportedly planted in 1647 by Peter Stuyvesant in his Manhattan orchard and was still bearing fruit when a derailed train struck it in 1866.
Send your thoughts to [email protected]
The Florida Surveyor November 2014 43
H.O. Peters
Harry C. Schwebke
John P. Goggin
R.H. Jones
Hugh A. Binyon
Russell H. DeGrove
Perry C. McGriff
Carl E. Johnson
James A. Thigpenn, III
Harold A. Schuler, Jr.
Shields E. Clark
Maurice E. Berry, II
William C. Hart
Frank R. Schilling, Jr.
William V. Keith
James M. King
Broward P. Davis
E.R. (Ed) Brownell
E.W. (Gene) Stoner
Lewis H. Kent
Robert S. Harris
Paul T. O’Hargan
William G. Wallace, Jr.
Robert W. Wigglesworth
Ben Blackburn
William B. Thompson, II
John R. Gargis
Robert A. Bannerman
H. Bruce Durden
Buell H. Harper
Jan L. Skipper
Steven M. Woods
Stephen G. Vrabel
W. Lamar Evers
Joseph S. Boggs
Robert L. Graham
Nicholas D. Miller
Loren E. Mercer
Kent Green
Robert D. Cross
Thomas L. Conner
Gordon R. Niles, Jr.
Dennis E. Blankenship
W. Lanier Mathews, II
Jack Breed
Arthur A. Mastronicola
Michael H. Maxwell
John M. Clyatt
David W. Schryver
Stephen M. Gordon
Richard G. Powell
Michael J. Whitling
Robert W. Jackson, Jr.
Pablo Ferrari
Steve Stinson
Dan Ferrans
Jeremiah Slaymaker
Ken Glass
Russell Hyatt
Past Presidents
1
2
3 4
5 6
7
November 3rd-5th FDACS BPSM Meeting St. Petersburg November 12th-13th Seminar - OPUS Projects Orlando November 14th FSMS Board of Directors Meeting Tallahassee December 5th Seminar - Boundaries in Florida St. Augustine December 11th Seminar - Metes & Bounds Milton/Pensacola
January 22nd-24th 2015 Education Conference Sarasota February 27th FSMS Board of Directors Meeting Gainesville May 15th FSMS Board of Directors Meeting Tallahassee June 14th-21st Seminars at Sea Eastern Caribbean July 29th-August 2nd 60th Annual Conference Naples
DISTRICT 1 Bay, Calhoun, Escambia, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf,
Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Taylor, Wakulla, Walton,
Washington
DISTRICT 2 Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Clay, Columbia, Dixie,
Duval, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Marion, Nassau, Putnam, Suwannee, St. Johns, Union
DISTRICT 3
Brevard, Flagler, Indian River, lake, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Martin, St. Lucie, Volusia
DISTRICT 4
Citrus, Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sumter
DISTRICT 5
Collier, Charlotte, DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Lee, Manatee, Sarasota
DISTRICT 6
Broward, Palm Beach
DISTRICT 7 Miami-Dade, Monroe