County recorders: fees.

Assembly Member Bennett presents a measure that ties county recording and indexing fees to current cost realities while directing proceeds to the county recorder’s office for modernization and archival purposes. The core change establishes a base recording fee of fifteen dollars for the first page and four dollars for each additional page, subject to a cap that allows charges to reflect the office’s reasonable costs. It supersedes the prior framework that allowed up to ten dollars for the first page and three dollars for each additional page, preserves a separate baseline modernization surcharge, and adds new per-page add-ons to address formatting and dimensional requirements. The bill also repeals the existing archival provisions and replaces them with ongoing authority to fund modernization, archival programs, and permanent preservation of document images through dedicated recorder-office funds.

Beyond the base costs, the measure creates multiple, parallel revenue streams. The base fees must not exceed reasonable costs; counties may also levy a one-dollar per page surcharge for dense printing and a three-dollar per page surcharge for pages that do not meet specified dimensions, with the former not subject to the cost cap and the latter directed to support modernized information-system operations. A baseline modernization surcharge—one dollar for the first page and three dollars for each additional page—continues to be dedicated to the recorder’s information-system functions. The authorization to collect an additional one-dollar fee to fund a social-security-number truncation program remains, subject to local board authorization and periodic auditor reviews; all fees collected under these provisions are dedicated to and used solely by the recorder’s office, with exemptions for entities already exempt from recording fees retained. The measure also contemplates operating-day and indexing-timeliness provisions under separate authorization, with associated oversight.

From a governance perspective, the measure frames these changes as a state-mandated local program, while asserting that no state reimbursement is required. The fiscal impact will depend on each county’s cost structure and how the multiple fee components interact, requiring counties to harmonize schedules, comply with the cost-recovery cap, and implement the dedicated-use provisions and reporting requirements, including public auditor reviews for the social-security-number truncation fund. The accompanying findings note that the recording and indexing fee schedule last changed in 2010 and that inflation and wage growth have created budget challenges for the recorder’s office, underpinning the rationale for aligning fees with cost recovery and for supporting timely processing of land-record documents through updated fee authorities.