HB 2067
In CommitteeHouse
Document recording fee
Concerning the document recording fee.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill eliminates most surcharges on document recording fees and caps the base fee at $30 per document, aiming to restore the fee to its original purpose of covering actual administrative costs. It repeals six laws that authorized dedicated surcharges used to fund state programs like library operations and housing initiatives.
- Replaces the current tiered and surcharge-based document recording fee structure with a single flat fee of $30 per document (or actual cost, whichever is less).
- Repeals six statutes authorizing specific surcharges, including fees for historical preservation, local government archives, mortgage fraud prosecution, housing programs, and growth management planning.
- Requires county auditors to charge no more than $30 per document for recording instruments, regardless of page count or number of transactions.
- Maintains other recording-related fees (e.g., copies, marriage licenses, oaths), but removes several associated surcharges.
- Transfers any remaining funds in the now-repealed centennial document preservation and modernization account to the state general fund.
Who is affected
- Document filers (e.g., homeowners, real estate agents, title companies, banks) — Residents and businesses paying to record legal documents (like deeds, mortgages, or liens) at county auditor offices will pay a flat fee of up to $30 per document, rather than the current tiered fees and multiple surcharges.
- County auditor offices — County auditor offices will collect a standardized fee (capped at $30 per document or actual cost, whichever is less) and must stop collecting several previously authorized surcharges.
- State programs and agencies (e.g., Washington State Library, state archives, housing programs) — State agencies and programs that previously received funding from document recording surcharges (e.g., library operations, historical preservation, mortgage fraud prosecution, housing programs) will lose those dedicated revenue sources.
- Marriage license applicants — Marriage license applicants will still pay $8 for the license itself, plus $5 and $10 added fees (total $23), but the $10 fee is now explicitly designated for the displaced homemaker act rather than general fund use.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Capping the document recording fee at $30 per document (or actual cost, whichever is less) significantly reduces out-of-pocket costs for everyday Washingtonians—especially low- and middle-income homeowners, first-time buyers, and renters who must pay recording fees when refinancing, purchasing, or renting property—where current fees can exceed $50–$100 per document depending on page count and transaction type.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(1)By eliminating multiple surcharges that functioned as de facto taxes unrelated to document recording, the bill restores the legal distinction between a fee (compensating for direct service cost) and a tax (raising revenue for general or unrelated programs), reinforcing due process and transparency in government收费 practices.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(1)The $10 marriage license fee remains dedicated to the Displaced Homemaker Act (DHA), ensuring continued funding for a vital state program that supports individuals—particularly women—who have left abusive relationships or long-term caregiving roles and need job training and reentry support.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)A flat $30 fee simplifies the fee structure and reduces confusion for low-income and non-English-speaking residents who may struggle with complex, tiered fee schedules—potentially reducing errors, delays, and barriers to accessing property records and legal protections.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(1)Small real estate agents, title companies, and mortgage brokers may benefit from predictable, lower per-document costs—especially in high-volume transactions—though savings are modest and may be offset by county-level service reductions.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
Eliminating dedicated surcharges for mortgage fraud prosecution (RCW 36.22.181) removes a dedicated funding stream for prosecuting predatory or illegal mortgage lending practices, potentially weakening consumer protection capacity in an area where Washington has seen significant fraud, especially in low- and moderate-income communities.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1); Sec. 3(1)-(6)Repealing surcharges funding the Washington State Library operations account (RCW 43.07.129) and Archives Building account (RCW 43.07.410) eliminates dedicated support for public access to historical, genealogical, and educational resources—services that disproportionately benefit students, researchers, rural communities, and low-income residents who rely on state libraries for free access to information and digital resources.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)-(2), Sec. 4Repealing the Covenant homeownership program assessment (RCW 36.22.185) and growth management planning surcharge (RCW 36.22.240) eliminates funding for programs that supported affordable housing development and regional land-use planning—critical tools for addressing Washington’s housing shortage, especially for first-time, low- and moderate-income homebuyers.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 3(4), Sec. 3(5)While county auditors are capped at $30 per document (vs. current average ~$35–$50+), the bill does not provide state reimbursement for lost surcharge revenue—meaning counties may need to cut services, reduce staff, or shift costs to other local services to make up for the $100M annual revenue loss across state and local programs.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5); Sec. 3(1)-(6)Real estate title companies, closing agents, and mortgage lenders—many of which operate as small-to-mid-sized businesses—may face increased administrative burden in adapting to fee changes and potential delays if county offices reduce staffing due to revenue loss, though the direct impact on overall business activity is modest.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(5); Sec. 3(1)-(6)
Who Is Most Affected
Homebuyers and refinancers—especially low- and moderate-income households—will see immediate, direct savings on recording fees, with the largest benefit for those completing multiple transactions (e.g., refinancing with multiple pages). However, they may indirectly suffer if counties reduce access to public records or delay services due to budget cuts.
Title companies and mortgage lenders may benefit from simpler, lower-cost transactions, but face risk if counties reduce staffing or slow processing times due to revenue loss—potentially increasing closing delays and operational friction.
State and local programs that relied on dedicated surcharges—especially library operations, archives, housing affordability initiatives, and mortgage fraud enforcement—will face significant budget shortfalls and likely need to cut services or seek alternative funding, disproportionately affecting underserved communities that rely on these public goods.
Marriage license applicants—especially low-income couples—will still pay $23 total, with $10 now legally tied to the Displaced Homemaker Act, preserving a key support service for survivors of domestic abuse and caregivers reentering the workforce.
Counties—especially rural and under-resourced ones—will lose up to $100M in dedicated revenue across state and local programs, forcing difficult choices: cut local services, raise other fees, or reduce staff—potentially undermining local capacity to support public safety, housing, and economic development.