SB26-025 updates Colorado law governing land survey monumentation and monument records. The bill allows professional land surveyors to set reference monuments when required monuments or markers cannot be safely placed because they would be located in a traveled road within a federal, state, or other public right-of-way. It also extends the same reference-monument option to subdivision monumentation requirements.
The bill further modernizes recordkeeping by requiring monument records submitted by professional land surveyors to be filed in electronic format and by allowing county clerks and recorders to maintain copies of monument records electronically. It directs the State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers, and Professional Land Surveyors to adopt forms and technical specifications for monument records, while prohibiting the board from requiring paper submission for the forms covered by the bill.
Impact
The bill amends multiple provisions in Title 38 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, including laws on monumentation of land surveys, monumentation of subdivisions, public records for monument records, submission requirements, and board rules for monument record forms. Its practical effect is to give surveyors more flexibility when physical monument placement is unsafe and to shift monument-record administration toward electronic filing and storage for both surveyors and county offices.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was generally noncontroversial and technical in nature. It appears to have moved through the legislative process without recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, and it was ultimately signed by the Governor. The bill’s focus on safety and administrative modernization likely contributed to a favorable reception.
Contention
No specific opposition or disputed policy issue is reflected in the provided transcripts or vote history. The main policy choices in the bill are whether to permit reference monuments in traveled public rights-of-way when safe placement is not possible, and whether to require electronic rather than paper monument-record submissions. Any contention would likely center on implementation details for surveyors, county recorders, and the state board, but no explicit disagreement is shown in the available record.