Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Records And Scanning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grimes County clerk seeks $120,000 from records fund for scanning; clerk outlines preservation priorities
Summary
County Clerk Vanessa presented FY2026 requests from fund 21 and fund 54 for records management and scanning projects, detailed current fund balances and proposed scanning of probate and mortgage books. The court reviewed fund balances and asked clerk to return with project approvals when ready.
Vanessa, Grimes County clerk, presented proposed FY2026 expenditures from the county’s records-management funds (fund 21 and fund 54) and outlined a multi-year plan to scan probate books, mortgage/charter-mortgage volumes and other permanent records.
Vanessa told the court Fund 21 (records management) had a balance of $166,114.39 as of the meeting and Fund 54 held $126,288.63. She said the office collects roughly $7,000 monthly into the fund and that an audit by a scanning vendor resulted in an $11,000 credit the office expects to apply to future projects.
Why it matters: The county clerk is custodian of permanent county records. Digitization reduces access time, supports disaster recovery and helps the county preserve materials that are legally required to be retained.
What the clerk proposed and why - FY2026 request: Vanessa proposed a $120,000 scanning budget in Fund 21 (project-based), with an additional $80,000 identified in Fund 54 for complementary work. The funds are restricted; they are fee-based revenues collected at recording and are not general-tax revenues. - Priority projects: scanning recent probate books to complete an earlier phase of preservation; scanning historic mortgage/charter-mortgage books (64 volumes) with two alternate quotes (scan-only or scan-plus-preservation), and ongoing in-house scanning of criminal files into the county’s LGS record system.
Court discussion and clarifications Commissioners asked whether originals could be destroyed after scanning; Vanessa recommended retaining originals as an additional backup and noted statutory retention rules apply (records older than 1950 have mandatory retention). The court discussed archival options including off-site archiving (for example, Texas State Archives) but did not adopt a new policy.
Vanessa confirmed ongoing scanning work: criminal records were already scanned and available in LGS; probate volumes from older eras had been scanned earlier and the current proposal would complete probate coverage through more recent decades. She said some projects could be done in phases to spread cost across fiscal years.
Next steps and fiscal constraints Auditor Jesse confirmed the fund balances and said unspent monies in funds 21 and 54 roll into those funds' reserves. Vanessa said she would return with formal project proposals seeking court approval before contracting. The court did not vote on any projects during the hearing.
