Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recorder Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Recorder says changing recording fee could add $200K to county general fund; document fund supports digitization
Summary
The recorder told the board the recorder's office budgets are largely status quo but noted a pending proposal to raise recording fees could increase general-fund revenue by roughly $200,000 to $300,000 and described the document management fund and potential digitization projects.
Recorder Kim presented the Johnson County recorder's proposed FY2026 budget for departments 11 and 87 and said both budgets are largely status quo, with expected revenue "just over a million" depending on real-estate activity.
Kim told the board she had not included a pending legislative fee increase in the budget packet but described the potential impact if a proposal to raise the base recording fee from $5 to $10 per page were enacted. "If we were to get the increase we are looking for, which is to go from $5 per page to $10 per page, it would increase our general fund revenues by somewhere between slightly over $200,000 or slightly under $300,000," Kim said.
The recorder also reviewed the $1-per-document document management fund (department 87), which statutes allow the office to keep and spend on technology innovations and preservation of historic records. Kim described one potential project: digitizing historic mortgages (deeds back to 1840 and plats) and said a full mortgage-digitization effort would be a low six-figure undertaking.
Kim noted a separate technology expense: the office's indexing software, TOT Systems, is increasing by about $800 a month after several years without an increase. That cost will be recorded as an office expense tied to statutory duties.
Why it matters: a legislated fee increase (if enacted) would provide a modest boost to the county general fund and could support recorder initiatives such as indexing and digitization; however, Kim did not include any fee-change revenue in the FY2026 packet because the legislature had not acted.
Board response: board members asked clarifying questions about how revenues are calculated, and the chair thanked Kim for the presentation. There was no vote or formal action on fee changes during the meeting.
Next step: recorder staff said they can present more detail about a fee-change proposal in a future meeting if the legislature moves forward.
