Kim, Thanks for sharing. I thought I would share info that a clerk shared with me this week. I have removed the name of the Town. This clerk receives fees as her salary. She is currently reserving $1.00 per page for restoration. The highlighted columns are the proposed model. She was pleased with the proposal as it would increase her salary and the restoration fund. She is going to continue to track the land record activity to see if each month has similar results. As you can see when there are larger documents the fee is reduced from the current fee. The feedback to the committee is so important as they move forward. Adjustments can be made in the future if the documentation warrants it. Karen Richard TC fee Restoration Total TC fee Restoration Total Current New 9 1 10 30 10 40 9 1 10 30 10 40 9 1 10 30 10 40 9 1 10 30 10 40 9 1 10 30 10 40 9 1 10 30 10 40 9 1 10 30 10 40 9 1 10 30 10 40 9 1 10 30 10 40 9 1 10 30 10 40 9 1 10 30 10 40 9 1 10 30 10 40 9 1 10 30 10 40 54 6 60 55 10 65 54 6 60 55 10 65 36 4 40 45 10 55 36 4 40 70 20 90 9 1 10 30 10 40 36 4 40 70 20 90 189 21 210 120 20 140 54 6 60 55 10 65 135 15 150 175 40 215 171 19 190 160 30 190 9 1 10 30 10 40 108 12 120 95 20 115 10 9 1 30 10 40 1018 121 1121 1380 350 1730 From: Vermont Municipal Government Discussion Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kim Seymour Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 12:22 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: H. 899 Recording fees - Clarification Hi - a question came up on my math - to clarify - this was a 5 document recording package. Hope that helps understand my math. Kim Kim Seymour Clerk/Treasurer Town of Weston PO Box 98 12 Lawrence Hill Rd Weston, VT 05161 Phone 802-824-6645 Fax 802-824-4121 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> www.westonvt.org<http://www.westonvt.org> <http://www.westonvt.org> Please note that this email message, along with any response or reply, is considered a public record, and thus, subject to disclosure under the Vermont Public Records Law (1 V.S.A. §§ 315-320). -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: H. 899 Recording fees From: Kim Seymour <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Date: Tue, February 27, 2018 12:37 pm To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Hi Karen and fellow clerks, I am very grateful for the time and energy that the committee put into the request for update fees. I can truly see how difficult it would have been to cull the requests down into something that would, hopefully, fit the needs of so many diverse towns. I did a quick analysis based on one document that came in last week. The total paid was $270. Based on the new fees it would have been $305. Not a huge increase by any means. More importantly, our existing restoration fund would have received $50 instead of $27 since our town only sets aside $1 per page of the current $10 per page fee. While the $1 per page has adequately funded the ongoing need to purchase supplies for land and vital records, etc., it is totally inadequate for any type of expansion or upgrades to the infrastructure or technology that we are challenged with now. Our 2013-14 vault expansion was funded by the town as part the expansion of the whole town office and paid for entirely by the local tax payers. The $10,000 spent in 2014 for roller shelving was totally paid out of local tax dollars. Each year since, I have asked for and have been granted more money to continue to film or re-film our documents; money to digitize our land records for easy of use and disaster recovery; and add new shelving in the old vault to store our permit files to ensure their safety in a more fire-retardant manner. Close to $33,000 and all from the tax payers pockets. How long would it have taken for the Land Records fund to have covered this expense at $1 per page? Far too long. Yes, the fees will increase the costs of recording. But I feel so strongly that going forward, the costs to maintain and improve the space for our documents will be borne by those who are using the systems. The current systems have already been paid for out of the pockets of the existing tax payers. Let's at least let the horse get out of the gate . . . let the proposal work it's way through this year's legislative process and request adjustments as we get further down the road. Respectfully, Kim Kim Seymour Clerk/Treasurer Town of Weston PO Box 98 12 Lawrence Hill Rd Weston, VT 05161 Phone 802-824-6645 Fax 802-824-4121 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> www.westonvt.org<http://www.westonvt.org> <http://www.westonvt.org> Please note that this email message, along with any response or reply, is considered a public record, and thus, subject to disclosure under the Vermont Public Records Law (1 V.S.A. §§ 315-320). -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: H. 899 Recording fees From: Karen Richard <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Date: Tue, February 27, 2018 10:44 am To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> It has been at least 10 years since the clerk fees have been updated. We started 2 years ago with a study of the land records fees taking into consideration that some towns have very robust reserve funds, others have none. Some towns have all of their records microfilmed, scanned and a complete backup of their vault. Others have never started the process. We witnessed towns that were flooded and lost their records, but could recover if there were backups either on microfilm or a scanned image. Some clerks are paid by fees, and are very much affected by the lack of an increase. Other towns pay handsome salaries with a yearly increase. Some towns are small and do not record a lot of records and others have a high volume of recording and a generous revenue stream to go with that. It is a very fine line to walk to address all of the above. Our goal was to increase the general fund, increase a clerk that receives her salary by fees, and to mandate a reserve amount like all other states that will take care of the preservation and computerization needs. We knew that such a drastic change would not be welcomed by all, but continued to collect the data and analyze the data as best we could. The committee could not approach the Legislature with a request to increase the per page fee from $10 to $15 in one shot as it is a large increase especially for mortgage deeds as well as the Governor has stated that he will not sign any fee increase bills. So many hours were spent understanding the financial model used by other states. The majority of the work is the first page: the receiving stamp, the indexing, printing cards, filing cards etc. Currently a one page document is $10, and a 22 page document is $220. There was a time when many mortgages were 20 plus pages, which is probably how we survived without an increase for so long. With the proposed model it would be $40 for a one page document and $145 for the 22 page document. Not all scenarios result in an increase, but in all fairness the fee should reflect the work. It is much easier to advocate for a model that is used in other states that is successful, rather than to continue using the per page fee without a mandated reserve to move forward, which is not really working for all towns. Currently if you reserve $2 per page, the one page document nets $2. And the 22 page nets $44. Under the proposed model the one page would be $10, and the 22 page would be $10 unless you opted for the additional $2 per page which would be $52. The committee worked really hard to build in flexibility based on the comments received. The committee listened to the comments re: local and municipal permits and filings and made an exception for that. They agonized when negative comments were received re: we don’t want to change the way we do business. They worked closely with VLCT on how to best proceed. There is still time to work the language for towns that do not need additional funds, but not at the cost of the towns that are desperate for some help. There are no easy answers. The committee made their decision on what is best for the majority. Although it will be a challenge to have this bill pass this year, it will have a better chance if we can come together and support it for the good of all. In the event this bill does pass, the committee agreed to collect data as they move forward so adjustments can be made if necessary. Regardless of the outcome, the committee feels it has brought much needed attention to this issue and appreciated having the opportunity to be heard in House Government Operations. Please consider that the committee was trying to address the needs of all towns and it is not an easy task to try to take everyone’s concerns and solve all of them. Karen Richard Legislative Chair for VMCTA From: Vermont Municipal Clerks Treasurers Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Townof Bloomfield Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:28 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: H. 899 Recording fees Good day I agree I find the new recording fees very confusing as well Samantha Meehan Town Clerk Bloomfield VT [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Bennington Town Clerk’s Office <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Well, it is officially a bill now…can someone explain it to me? It doesn’t look like there is any provision in the bill for those of us who have a Reserve Fund already in place, unless it is MORE than what the State is requiring us to do. Of course, it also isn’t a consistent recording fee like some of us wanted, but instead the first page fee/additional page fee. Very confusing. Here is the text of the bill: https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2018/Docs/BILLS/H-0899/H-0899%20As%20Introduced.pdf Cassandra Barbeau Town Clerk Bennington, VT mailto:[log in to unmask] find us on the web at http://www.townofbennington.org/TOB/departments/town-clerk/ Please note that this email message, along with any response or reply, is considered public record, and thus, subject to disclosure under the Vermont Public Records Law (1 V.S.A. §§ 315-320). Thank You.