Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recording Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee hears proposal to raise county recording fees; sponsor and clerks argue costs outpaced fees
Summary
Representative Julie Darling presented HB192 to raise recording fees (first page to $20, $10 for additional pages) to fund clerk services and record preservation; clerks and the Montana Association of Clerk and Recorders testified that fees have not kept pace with inflation and technology costs.
Representative Julie Darling opened the House State Administration Committee hearing on House Bill 192, saying the bill would authorize county clerks and recorders to increase recording fees for documents such as deeds and mortgages.
Julie Darling, sponsor and representative for House District 84, said current recording fees "have not been increased since the 1980s" and described a proposed structure that would set the first page at $20 and each additional page at $10, with a biannual inflation adjustment and an increase in the amount deposited to the records preservation fund.
Eric Semerad, president of the Montana Association of Clerk and Recorders and Gallatin County clerk and recorder, testified with comparative national figures and a historical breakdown of Montana fees. Semerad said the current $8-per-page fee is a product of incremental additions since 1985 and noted that adjusting the first-page fee reflects the fact that "the bulk of the work is indexing the document, and that's essentially the same whether it's 1 page or a 100 pages." He explained the association’s rationale for front-loading the fee and said a $20 first-page fee would include the $2 land information and a $2 record preservation allocation.
Amy Reeves, treasurer, clerk and recorder for Lewis and Clark County, described local budget impacts and rising costs for payroll, technology, and maintenance. Reeves noted that revenue increases have lagged operating-cost increases and said modern recordkeeping systems and associated maintenance expenses add to county costs.
Committee members asked clerks about national comparisons and the practical effects of front-loading fees versus flat fees; Semerad reiterated national first-page averages and said some states charge substantially higher first-page fees. No opponents appeared at the hearing.
The sponsor closed by pointing members to fiscal-note handouts showing estimated additional county revenue and asked members to consult local clerks and recorders before voting. The hearing closed with the committee reserving questions for later consideration.
