Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County-recording fee bill fails after debate over 'may' vs. 'shall' and consumer costs
Summary
Representative Susan Cohen's bill to let county recorders charge fees for multiple items filed on one document (HB81) prompted extended debate about consumer costs and whether counties should be required ("shall") or permitted ("may") to charge. The House rejected the measure on a final vote, 31-40.
Representative Susan Cohen, sponsor of House Bill 81, opened floor debate by saying the proposal addresses a narrow issue in the county recorder's fee statute: when multiple recordable items are combined on a single paper, recorders should be able to charge the fees that would have applied had the items been filed separately.
Cohen said: "The changes in this piece of legislation are very simple...if they are combined into 1 document, they can be charged the fees that would normally be charged if they were filed in 2 documents." She told members she brought sample documents to illustrate the point.
Opponents warned the change could raise closing costs and create inconsistencies across counties. Representative Adair argued the measure could let counties "take and charge more than is absolutely necessary to do it," adding, "It is not fair. It is not right." Several members said county recorders already vary and that permissive language could create shopping for counties or uneven treatment.
Representative Barrington offered an amendment to change the permissive language "may" to mandatory "shall," arguing it would create uniformity so all counties impose the fee the same way. That amendment was put to the body and failed to pass. Members then debated the underlying bill at length with technical explanations about recording fees (first page, additional pages) and administrative workload.
When the House voted on HB81, the clerk announced 31 yes votes and 40 no votes; the bill failed to pass the House.
Debate highlighted competing priorities: recorders' workload and revenue needs versus consumer cost and statewide consistency. The transcript shows members asked for fiscal-note context (a fiscal analyst estimate of about $10,000 statewide was cited by a proponent), and several members declared conflicts of interest on the record where they had professional ties to the title industry.
