Pennsylvania House Bill HB1658

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/25/25
• Refer: 6/25/25

Caption

Further providing for title of act; repealing provisions relating to fee schedule; providing for definitions and for fees for recordation of documents; further providing for County Records Improvement Fund and for county demolition fund; and making repeals.

Impact

The proposed amendments include establishing fees not exceeding $50 for the first 50 pages of recorded documents and additional charges for larger documents and excess names. The fees collected will be allocated to support improvements in record management and to fund the demolition of blighted properties in the county. This redirection of funds is expected to bolster local governance efforts in property management and improve overall public administration. Importantly, the bill repeals outdated provisions that previously dictated specific fee amounts, allowing greater flexibility for counties to manage recording fees effectively.

Summary

House Bill 1658 seeks to amend the existing Recorder of Deeds Fee Law, primarily targeting the fee structure for recording documents in Pennsylvania's counties. This bill aims to modernize and clarify the fees associated with the services of recorders of deeds in counties classified under the second A through eighth classes, as well as home rule charter counties. By establishing a flat-rate fee system, the bill intends to streamline the process and ensure consistency across different jurisdictions, which stakeholders believe will enhance efficiency in property record maintenance.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB1658 appears to be cautiously optimistic among supporters, who argue that a standardized fee structure will promote equity and transparency in local governance. However, there may be some concerns regarding how these changes will affect counties with varying needs and financial constraints. Some critics worry that the reduction in certain fee collections could potentially limit available resources for local services, although proponents counter that it will encourage streamlined operations and better fund crucial community needs such as blight remediation.

Contention

A point of contention arises from the balancing act between standardizing fees and maintaining local autonomy in fee-setting processes. While supporters see this as a positive step towards eliminating inconsistencies among counties, opponents might argue that it undermines the ability of local governments to tailor their fee structures to accommodate specific local circumstances and necessities. The discussions will likely revolve around how to ensure that counties can still address unique challenges effectively while adhering to a standardized framework.