SB 938 revises Missouri law governing land surveying and related record-preservation funding. The bill increases the general recording user fee from $4 to $6 for instruments recorded by county recorders, and it changes how those fees are distributed. Under the bill, a larger share is directed to the Missouri Land Survey Fund, a portion is set aside for additional preservation of local records, and the remaining amount from the added recording fee is deposited into the Missouri Housing Trust Fund. The bill also increases the separate additional fee collected on certain recorded instruments from $2 to $3.
The bill also updates section 60.590 to continue authorizing the Department of Agriculture to obtain certified copies of records from local and state offices, and to produce, reproduce, and sell maps, plats, reports, studies, and records at fees set by rule to cover costs. It preserves the existing framework for the department’s land survey-related revolving services fund and adds a nonseverability clause tied to administrative rule review provisions in chapter 536.
Impact
SB 938 would amend Missouri’s recording-fee statutes and redirect fee revenue among several state and local funds. It would increase costs for recording instruments, expand funding for land surveying functions, support preservation of local records, and provide additional revenue to the Missouri Housing Trust Fund. It would also maintain and clarify the Department of Agriculture’s authority to charge cost-based fees for reproducing survey-related materials and records, affecting recorders of deeds, the Department of Agriculture, the state treasurer, and parties who record documents.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable legislative support, as reflected by passage in both chambers with substantial margins, though not unanimously. The Senate vote was closer, suggesting some reservations, while the House vote was more decisive. Overall, the voting history indicates broad acceptance of the bill’s funding and administrative changes.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on the fee increases and how the added revenue is allocated. Recorders, property owners, businesses, and others who file documents may object to higher recording costs, while supporters may emphasize the need for stable funding for land surveying, record preservation, and housing-related programs. The inclusion of a nonseverability clause tied to chapter 536 rulemaking review may also draw attention from those concerned about administrative authority and legislative oversight.