DuPage County recorder outlines 2026 budget: projects $6.5 million revenue, asks $1.8 million from general fund; board members press on personnel and fund moves

Recorder Liz Chaplin presented the DuPage County Recorder’s 2026 budget to the county board on June 1, saying the office projects approximately $6.5 million in revenue for the county general fund while requesting about $1.8 million in appropriations — a net positive of roughly $4.7 million for the county, Chaplin said.

“My office isn’t just running well. We’re giving back more money than we take,” Recorder Liz Chaplin told the board, outlining goals to increase e‑recording, digitize archival materials and preserve records with fire‑ and water‑resistant bindings. Chaplin said the office is phasing out microfilm, implementing watermarking for documents on the public portal, expanding a property‑fraud alert program (which she reported has more than 13,126 members), and continuing community outreach events and veteran‑focused services.

Chaplin said the recorder’s office intends to add the ability for single e‑recordings without a subscription, introduce e‑certified documents with federal certification, and pursue digitization and indexing projects that reach back to the county’s earliest records. She told the board the office has retained staff through a transition and increased performance measures and customer service changes such as returning original documents immediately to in‑person customers rather than holding them for two weeks.

Chaplin also described financial housekeeping changes her office has implemented. She said her deputy of finance discovered that bulk storage fees had been redirected in prior years away from the county automation fund; Chaplin said the office will move those revenues into the county automation fund consistent with a 2003 statutory directive and in consultation with the state’s attorney.

Board members raised substantive concerns about elements of the proposed 2026 budget. Vice Chair Cahill said the recorder’s budget request represents a roughly 54% increase compared with recent budgets and urged Chaplin to look for cost savings and prioritization in light of county funding pressures. Chaplin and finance staff explained that part of the increase reflects a decision to move staff previously paid out of special revenue funds (document storage/dock storage and GIS) back into the general fund to align with auditor guidance; Chaplin said eight employees previously budgeted in those special funds were being moved to the general fund while IT staff remain in the special funds.

Member questions focused on three recurring issues: (1) headcount and where salaries are budgeted, (2) the size and conservatism of the revenue projection (Chaplin said the 2026 projection includes a 3% volume increase and a pending 2% recording fee adjustment based on a cost study), and (3) training, travel and other line items the board flagged for possible phasing or online alternatives.

Chaplin highlighted a few additional accomplishments and changes: ending microfilm and moving to full digitization; initiating watermarking to reduce unauthorized resale of documents; introducing an automated phone attendant; instituting CPR training for seven employees; retaining staff through the transition; and successful legislation (House Bill 1575) to waive fees for restrictive covenant corrections, which Chaplin said passed both the Illinois House and Senate.

On fund accounting, Chaplin said the recorder’s office will shift bulk‑storage revenues into the county automation fund where statute indicates they belong. She and deputy finance staff said the 2026 expense increases reflect moving staff costs back into the general fund where appropriate, adding one IT position to the special funds, and planned merit adjustments. The recorder asked the board to consider using surplus county revenues to help county programs; Chaplin suggested, for example, that some surplus could be used to support the county’s safe‑harbor/shelter programs, though she said budget decisions are ultimately up to the board.

Board members expressed both support for Chaplin’s transparency and concern over the magnitude of the requested increase. Several members praised the recorder’s outreach, the veteran programs, digitization plans and staff retention; others asked for follow‑up from the auditor and state’s attorney concerning which positions may lawfully be charged to special‑revenue funds and whether any of the 7 currently unfilled headcount slots should be reallocated or removed from budget planning.

Chaplin told the board she would provide additional documentation and said the office is willing to meet in executive session to explain security safeguards for sensitive programs such as property fraud alerts. The board did not take a budget vote at the presentation; the discussion will inform upcoming budget hearings and final appropriation decisions.