Iowa House Bill HF328

Iowa 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/11/25
• Refer: 2/11/25

Caption

A bill for an act relating to county recorder fees and land record information systems management.(See HF 1031.)

Summary

HF 328 would revise Iowa law governing county recorder fees and the county land record information system. It requires county recorders to upload data and images of recorded documents to the land record system and directs the system to allow uploads from each county’s recording software provider. The bill also narrows and clarifies the stated purpose of the existing $1 per-transaction fee used for statewide land-record internet services, tying it specifically to maintaining the statewide internet site dedicated to preserving and maintaining public records. The bill further authorizes a county board of supervisors, or other alternative county government, to adopt an additional recorder fee of up to $10 per transaction for instruments filed or recorded in the recorder’s office. The measure was introduced as a follow-up to HF 1031 and was later withdrawn, so it did not become law in this form.

Impact

If enacted, HF 328 would amend Iowa Code section 331.604 by changing county recorder participation requirements, revising the permitted uses of the local government electronic transaction fund, and creating optional county-level authority to impose an added recording fee. It would affect county recorders, county boards of supervisors, the treasurer of state, and users of recording services such as property owners, title companies, lenders, and others filing land records. The bill also removes several previously listed purposes for the $1 fee, including certain standards-setting, integration, and redaction functions.

Sentiment

The available vote history suggests the bill had meaningful support in committee, passing the House Committee on Ways and Means by a 16-8 vote. No committee transcript is available, and there is no recorded floor debate in the provided materials, so the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the committee result and the bill’s withdrawal. The withdrawal indicates the proposal did not advance to final enactment despite committee approval.

Contention

The main points of contention appear to be the fee structure and the scope of state versus local control over land-record systems. Supporters likely favored the bill’s modernization of electronic recording and the option for counties to raise additional revenue for recorder operations, while opponents may have objected to the new optional $10 fee, the narrowing of the $1 fee’s purposes, or the removal of explicit policy and privacy-related functions such as redaction. The 16-8 committee vote suggests the measure was not unanimous and that these fiscal and administrative changes were debated.