Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recorder Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richland County recorder clarifies equipment‑fund accounting, leaves scanning‑clerk slot in budget
Summary
At the Oct. 16 Richland County Board of Commissioners meeting, the county recorder reviewed the office’s proposed 2026 budget, explaining a $900 revenue item tied to a vendor contract and saying a proposed scanning‑clerk position remains in the budget as a contingency.
The Richland County Board of Commissioners heard a budget presentation from the county recorder on Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025, during which the recorder said the office’s team is operating smoothly and explained several line‑item questions from commissioners.
The recorder said a $900 revenue line item in the equipment fund relates to a contract provision giving the vendor the option to sell certain records. “There was a contract signed with our vendor,” the recorder said. The recorder said the $900 currently appears under different categories in different parts of the packet and asked staff to correct the revenue classification so the line item is consistent across summary and detail pages.
Why this matters: commissioners said consistent labeling helps budget reviewers and county accounting. Commissioner comments focused on ensuring position titles in submitted budgets match the county’s Munis financial/human‑resources system so payroll and budgeting align.
In the presentation, the recorder said the office had included a scanning‑clerk position in last year’s budget and left a full‑time scanning‑clerk slot in the 2026 request as a contingency. “So right now to answer you today, I don't have a plan on doing so, but I like to leave it in there just in case the market really ramps up,” the recorder said, explaining the office will monitor demand and return if it needs to fill the role.
Commissioners pressed on how the scanning‑clerk pay was set. The recorder said the salary was point‑factored through county HR and that she would verify the notes: “I can go back and verify my notes,” she said. The transcript records commissioners asking whether the point‑factor had been completed through Jenny (county HR).
The recorder identified the vendor contract date as May 4, 2023, and said the contract names Galvos/Cofile in connection with the $900 entry. The recorder said the $900 currently shows as “other” on the packet summary but as a fee in the revenue detail and asked to have the county accounting detail corrected; she said the dollars would not change, only the classification.
The recorder also confirmed that two staff members have portions of their salary charged to the equipment fund and clarified how raises affect the split between the equipment fund and the general fund.
No formal board action was taken on the recorder’s budget during this segment; commissioners asked for minor corrections to the packet and for the recorder to confirm position titles in Munis.
Looking ahead, the recorder said she would verify the point‑factor documentation for the scanning‑clerk pay and update the revenue detail so the $900 appears consistently in the packet.
