AN ACT Relating to eliminating the document recording tax;
HB2067 would eliminate the current document recording tax structure in Washington and replace it with a fee-based system tied to the actual cost of recording documents. The bill states that the document recording fee was originally created to cover county auditor administrative costs, but over time it has been increased and used to fund programs beyond recording services. The legislation’s stated purpose is to restore the charge to a true fee by limiting what county auditor offices may collect from the public to no more than their actual costs of document recording, or less if the county chooses.
The bill rewrites the fee schedule for county auditors and recording officers, including fees for recording instruments, copies, oaths and affidavits, marriage licenses, plats, and miscellaneous records. It also preserves or references several existing surcharges and assessments related to recording, modernization, emergency nonstandard documents, library operations, archives, and other state programs, while repealing a number of statutes that direct recording-related surcharge revenue to specific funds and programs. In addition, any residual balance in the Centennial Document Preservation and Modernization Account would be transferred to the state general fund, and the act would take effect June 1.
HB2067 would substantially revise Washington statutes governing county recording fees and related surcharges, including RCW provisions that currently authorize document recording taxes and earmarked surcharges for historical preservation, archives, mortgage fraud prosecution, covenant homeowners’ associations, and growth management planning. By repealing selected surcharge statutes and replacing the existing structure with a cost-based fee framework, the bill would reduce or eliminate dedicated revenue streams for several state and local programs that are currently funded through recording transactions. County auditor offices would be limited to charging only their actual costs for recording services, changing both the amount collected from the public and the distribution of those revenues.
The bill’s stated rationale suggests a reform-oriented, taxpayer-focused approach, emphasizing that recording charges should reflect administrative costs rather than serve as a broad revenue source. Based on the text alone, the measure appears intended to lower or constrain fees and simplify the recording system. No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or voting pattern to indicate broader support or opposition beyond the bill’s framing.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s effect on programs currently funded by recording surcharges. Supporters would likely favor restoring the fee to its original administrative purpose and reducing what they view as hidden taxation, while opponents may object that the bill removes stable funding for archives, preservation, modernization, housing-related programs, and other public purposes tied to recording revenue. County auditors and local governments may also be concerned about implementation and revenue loss, whereas taxpayers, title companies, and property record filers would likely benefit from lower or more cost-limited charges.