Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee favors House Bill 38 to modernize county code, adjust recorder fees
Summary
The House Political Subdivisions Committee favorably recommended HB 38, a package of county code updates that clarifies recorder practices, petition and voter-count rules, and standardizes ‘‘finance officer’’ terminology; a modest $5 recording-fee increase would apply to most counties but not Salt Lake or Utah counties while they hold surpluses.
The House Political Subdivisions Standing Committee on Feb. 4 favorably recommended House Bill 38, a multi-year effort to recodify and update Utah’s county code and clarify county officers’ duties.
Rep. James A. Dunnigan, the bill’s sponsor, said HB 38 consolidates policy items developed through a two‑year interim process and follows earlier technical recodification work in Title 17. ‘‘Most of these are consensus items,’’ he said, adding the changes are intended to help county officers ‘‘follow the law better.’’
The measure clarifies how to count active voters for petition thresholds and ties certain petition deadlines to ballot‑printing schedules to avoid organizers missing deadlines; it updates recorder recording practices for electronic records and clarifies which surveyor seal must be used. It also standardizes the label ‘‘finance officer’’ where counties use different titles so responsibilities are consistently described, without changing whether the position is elected or appointed.
Katie Minor of the Utah Association of Counties told the committee the changes are largely technical but address practical problems in modern county operations, including a recorder office workload that has grown markedly since fees were last updated.
Amelia Powers Gardner, a Utah County commissioner and former county auditor, described why Utah County retains a restricted recorder‑fee surplus despite running an operating deficit in the most recent year: prolonged backlogs in 2020 (about 210,000 recorded documents that year, producing multi‑month delays), a state auditor review, and subsequent investments that doubled recorder staffing and created satellite‑office plans funded from the restricted account.
Committee members questioned whether the bill would undercut the county recorder standards board or remove an independent auditor check on claims. Presenters said HB 38 does not open the statutory section that created the county recorder standards board and does not remove auditor duties; the change from ‘‘auditor’’ to ‘‘finance officer’’ is intended to clarify roles across counties, not to alter selection methods.
On recording fees, sponsors said the bill increases most counties’ fees by $5 to better cover service costs, but exempts Salt Lake and Utah counties while they hold surpluses or restricted accounts. Representative Walter asked for specifics on the fee change and county finances; presenters explained many smaller counties are operating at a deficit for recorder services and that fee increases are intended to make fees more closely cover service costs rather than shift them to other funds.
The committee adopted the second substitute and then favorably recommended HB 38. The committee recorded 18 votes in favor and 1 opposed (Representative Hansen). The bill now moves to the full House for further consideration.
