Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Register Of Deeds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves Register of Deeds budget after debate over proposed fee increases
Summary
The Register of Deeds presented revenue projections and proposed increases to search and online-service fees. Supervisors challenged the assumptions; after discussion the committee approved the budget but recorded at least one dissenting vote.
Get email alerts on the Register Of Deeds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Register of Deeds presented estimates for real estate transfer fees and register of deeds revenues for 2026 and proposed several fee increases designed to raise additional revenue. The presenter said real estate transfer fees and registered-deeds fees historically account for most office income and that year-to-date collections were up this year (approximately 20% for transfer fees and about 9% for registered-deed fees).
The Register proposed raising the in-person document search fee from $5 to $7 and increasing the LandShark online service fee from $5 to $7. The presenter also proposed increasing monthly subscriber fees (CoreLogic, Zillow and others) from $800 to $1,000 to better reflect usage and market norms. The presenter said she felt comfortable projecting $650,000 in register of deeds fees but was less comfortable with $675,000; she said she would "strive for" the higher number but that $650,000 was a more defensible projection.
Supervisors pressed on the assumptions. One supervisor asked for the historical basis for the projection and whether the department's year-to-date receipts supported the higher number; others said adjusting revenues upward without strong supporting trends risks underdelivering on county revenue targets. A motion to reduce the proposed register of deeds revenue was made but died for lack of a second. Supervisor Gierston moved to approve the Register of Deeds budget, and the motion passed on a voice vote with Supervisor Nudo recorded as voting no.
Committee discussion emphasized the importance of grounding revenue projections in historical data and warned against optimistic upticks used solely to force a lower levy.

