HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08052003 - C.45 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS =-` - Contra
FROM: Stephen L. Weir, County Clerk-Recorder :) „_;
Costa
DATE: July 10, 2003 �A� -----
County
SUBJECT
--
SUBJECT: SUPPORT OF AB 578 (LENO)—ELECTRONIC RECC3RDING
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)AND BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
SUPPORT and endorse AB 578 (Zeno) and notify our Legislative Advocate of this position.
FINANCIAL. IMPACT:
If AB 578 passes,the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office would experience significant cost savings
in personnel and postage costs. The Recorder's Office could save up to three positions and
approximately $150,000 in postage costs each year. After full implementation (three years), the total
cost savings would be $300,000 annually.
Contra Costa County already has the technology to record documents electronically, so no further
capital expenditure is necessary. We purchased the equipment and software in 1996-1007 with the
goal of moving to electronic recording, but the lack of legislation allowing electronic recording prevented
implementation of the program.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
This bill will allow California counties to electronically record property documents through the same
digitized process Orange County has been successfully using for five years. It will also allow California
counties to record financial documents, such as Deeds of Reconveyance, through a digital process
(paperless).
AB 578 will allow trusted entities (such as title companies) to record documents by scanning and
submitting them via secure private networks. This will occur only after they have met state-approved
and tested system and security requirements and after entering into specific contracts with County
Recorders.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: Z Yes SIGNATURE:
--RECOMMENDATION of COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR � RECOMMENDATION of BOARD COMMITTEE
.—APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES) '-,
ACTION ON Btk,R�ON 5, 2003APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS:
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT: Nom ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED: August. 5,__2003
JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY: f '
cc. Elections Office DEPUTY
5
Board of Supervisors
July 10, 2003
Page 2
Title companies account for 60% of the documents recorded in Contra Costa County. If title companies
scan and transmit the documents, Recorder's Offices will be able to reduce the amount of scanning and
mailing they currently process. This will save Contra Costa County up to$300,000 annually in personnel
and postage costs.
Title companies benefit through quicker recordation of documents and faster notification of recordings.
Nome buyers/sellers benefit because they can act upon closed escrows quicker. (Seller receives
proceeds faster; buyer can move into the home faster.)
Contra Costa County has sponsored two electronic-recording bills in the past, AB 1732 (Torlakson) in
2000 and AB 478 (Canciamilla) in 2001. Opposition by the District Attorneys' Association of California
caused the demise of both of these bills.
County Recorders and District Attorneys across the state have worked in concert over the past year to
craft a bill that is acceptable to both entities. We believe we have a bill that will gain the approval of both
houses and the Governor.
The County Recorders' Association of California (CRAG) is strongly supporting AB 578 (Leno). As
Contra Costa County's Clerk-Recorder, 1 am in strong support of AB 578 and believe it will benefit both
Contra Costa County and its constituents.
AB 578 passed the Assembly floor on Monday, July 7, 2003 on a 76 to zero vote.
I urge the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to endorse AB 578 and to notify our Legislative
Advocate of that position.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The current real estate boom has found us behind on many non-essential functions in the Recorder's
Office. Electronic recording would alleviate many of these functions. Failure to approve AB 578 will
continue to make a difficult situation worse;the Recorder's Office will be unable to keep up with the huge
volume of work, and the County may be at risk of losing the revenue the Recorder's Office receives to
complete the daily index within the required amount of time (over $500,000 per year).
SLW:ceb
r:Electronic Recordingisupport of AB 578,bos