Carroll County recorder urges pay adjustment, backs statewide fee modernization to support office costs

Carroll County elected recorder Andrew presented the office’s fiscal year 2026 worksheet and a multi-page exhibit to the Board of Supervisors on Jan. 27, asking supervisors to address a long-running salary gap between the recorder and comparable elected county officials.

The presenter told supervisors that salaries for elected county officials were historically set through a compensation board that applied percentage increases to all offices and that, after the compensation board was discontinued by recent legislation, the county’s recorded salary gap had widened. He said Carroll County now ranks among the largest gaps in the state, with an example gap between the recorder and a deputy approaching $9,408 in his materials and the statewide average gap shown as about $1,412.

The recorder asked supervisors to identify a fair, stable target gap and to avoid percentage-only raises that let the differential grow over time, suggesting phased adjustments if needed. He provided comparison data of neighboring counties and larger and smaller counties by population, and said the office’s duties have expanded over decades beyond traditional recordkeeping (records for land patents, transfer tax collection, vehicle and boat registrations with state agencies, vital records, apostilles, and confidential military records).

In addition to salary discussion, the recorder briefed supervisors on a Recorders Association-backed “modernization initiative” under consideration in the Legislature that would raise certain recording fees that have not been updated since 1985. He described a sample modernization proposal (a recording fee change from $7 for a one-page document to $10) and said those fees would be used for technology, security and statewide services including a proposed statewide property-fraud notification system and improved redaction/shielding workflows for privacy requests. He said the association and Iowa Land Records have circulated the proposal to county recorders and legislators; he identified contacts in the Legislature who could help carry the bill.

Supervisors asked clarifying questions about how the budget worksheet columns were organized and whether the highlighted figures reflected the 2.5% baseline that supervisors requested for county salaries. The recorder offered to re-submit corrected worksheets and exhibit materials with clarifications. He said he would be open to phased adjustments if supervisors determine a multi-year approach is necessary.

There was no formal board action on the recorder’s request at the Jan. 27 session; supervisors said they must weigh the request alongside other departments’ compensation asks and county-wide budget constraints.