Budget staff told commissioners Oct. 2 that state law constrains the uses of recorder fees and that the county has observed a growing recorder fund balance that merits review.

At the session one commissioner observed that the recorder's fund balance is large; in the discussion a figure of about $40 million in the recorder-related fund was raised. Budget staff responded that state law requires fees be spent only on permissible recorder services and that the county must be careful in reassigning or transferring those dollars.

Budget staff explained that the county learned from an earlier audit and that internal service funds (ISF) were instituted in 2021 to more accurately allocate shared costs (HR, IT, auditor's office) to departments that consume those services. "It is state law. There is legitimately a state law that says you cannot use fees to pay for anything except for those services," Budget staff said. Staff proposed continued use of ISFs and identified several recorder functions (records management, capital, ISF charges) that could be paid from the recorder account if properly documented.

Why it matters

Recorder fees are a dedicated revenue source; improper use can trigger audit findings and legal risk. Commissioners asked staff to meet with county legal counsel and the recorder's office to identify permissible capital and records-management expenses that can be charged to the recorder fund.

Clarifying details

- The recorder-associated fund balance discussed in the meeting was described in rough terms as "about 40,000,000" (as spoken at the session).

- Staff said ISFs were implemented beginning in 2021 to better assign the fully allocated cost of shared services back to fee-supported departments.

Next steps

Budget staff and county counsel were asked to meet with the recorder's office and return to commissioners with a recommended list of recorder-eligible expenses, clarifying how capital expenditures, ISF charges, and records management can lawfully be charged to the recorder fund.