DuPage County recorder objects to proposed shift of document-fee revenue amid budget cuts

Liz Chaplin, the DuPage County recorder, told the county Finance Committee on Oct. 14 that her office has long operated from recording fees and should not have its operating budget shifted into document-storage and GIS special-fee funds now being used to support general government services.

Chaplin spoke during the committee’s budget discussion after presenting financial detail and a statutory interpretation. “Through recording fees, this office has generated enough revenue to operate without relying on a single taxpayer dollar,” she said, arguing the county’s proposed budget would redirect revenue “meant for public record services” into unrelated parts of government and create “the appearance of a shortfall where none truly exists.”

The dispute centers on where employees and routine operating costs should be budgeted. Chaplin told the committee she is seeking to move some staff positions out of special-fee accounts (document storage and GIS) and into the recorder’s general fund so the costs and the work they perform are in the same place. She said her office collected roughly $1.8 million in recording fees this year and that the document-storage fund has “over $3,000,000,” figures she presented to the committee.

Why it matters: County board members and staff said the committee must balance the need to preserve statutory services with the county’s wider fiscal constraints. The county’s chair proposed a budget that, the finance director told the committee, would keep the county on a balanced path amid uncertain state and federal funding. Several board members said the recorder’s overall personnel and operating request is substantially higher than last year’s adopted amounts.

Members of the Finance Committee pressed Chaplin for supporting analysis. Member Galassi and others noted that the recorder’s current 2026 request of $1,851,853 (as presented to the committee) is significantly higher than the chair’s proposed amount of $1,231,355 and higher than recent adopted budgets. Member Galassi also reminded the recorder that, under 5 ILCS 3-5005-4, compensation of deputies and employees is set by the recorder but remains subject to county board budget limitations. That statute was cited in the discussion; committee members repeatedly asked for market comparables and documentation that had been requested earlier.

Concerns raised included the timing and process for recent raises Chaplin’s office authorized this year. Several members asked why some promotions and pay changes took place without earlier involvement of human resources or finance staff; DuPage’s HR director and finance staff said the normal practice is to engage county HR and finance on pay changes and market analyses before increases are finalized.

Chaplin said some of the recent personnel changes were internal promotions and reclassifications and that her office is working with information technology on an RFP to replace its recording platform. She also said some special-fee line items (for example, bulk copy/sales printing tied to the document-storage program) fund services that produce revenue now remitted to the general fund after a recent board ordinance.

Several board members said they are sympathetic to Chaplin’s desire to fund employees and operations fairly but emphasized the committee’s responsibility to balance competing requests: the committee is dealing with approximately $34 million in total department and elected-official requests above anticipated revenues for 2026. Members from both sides of the discussion urged Chaplin and finance staff to meet and to provide the market studies and reconciliations that the committee asked for earlier in the process.

What happens next: The recorder’s presentation and the committee’s comments were entered into the public record and will be considered before the committee’s final budget vote. Chaplin asked for line-by-line meetings with the finance chair and staff; committee members said they would schedule follow-up sessions to review the comparisons, the special-fee fund structure, and the specific line items Chaplin identified.

Provenance: The recorder’s presentation to the committee begins at the transcript segment where the recorder introduces the revenue history and legal context for the recording and document-storage fees and continues through the committee’s full discussion, questions and final remarks about scheduling follow-ups. The presentation and subsequent exchange appear in the transcript starting at timestamp 2612.985 (recorder’s remarks) and concluding at 6727.180 (committee closing the discussion).