Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City committee: off‑site records contract with Iron Mountain exceeds 2025 appropriation; 2026 budget must absorb costs
Summary
Committee members learned a signed contract with Iron Mountain for records storage includes a one‑year $180/month fee plus an $800 return shipment and cancelation penalty, pushing the project above the $10,000 appropriation and prompting requests to add roughly $1,700 to the 2026 budget or leave files off‑site until contract end.
Madam Chair and staff told the Rules & Public Policy Committee on Nov. 5 that a previously executed contract with Iron Mountain requires payment for a full contract term and additional fees to retrieve or cancel storage earlier than the contract end date.
A staff member reported that the city has been paying "$180 a month" for off‑site storage, and that ending the contract now would still require paying the monthly charge for the year plus an "$800 fee to ship it back to you and a $200 fee to cancel the contract," while leaving the records at Iron Mountain until the contract expires would avoid the cancelation penalty but leave hard copies off‑site. "The entire contract is it comes due," the staff member said when explaining the company’s terms.
The committee noted the total already exceeds the $10,000 the council had appropriated for the records work and discussed two options: keep documents off‑site through the contract term and carry monthly storage costs in 2025 then budget for return in 2026, or pay to bring the hard copies back now and absorb the one‑time shipping and cancelation fees. One member summarized the arithmetic, saying the city needs to add roughly $1,700 to the 2026 budget to reflect the storage and return costs.
Committee members also described local space constraints if hard copies return to city offices. A member said the council room has some room but shared storage and reorganizing files would be required for hard‑copy access. Staff confirmed scanned electronic records are already cataloged and available, and that the question is whether it is cost‑justified to pay to return boxes while storage and filing space remains tight.
The chair asked staff to ensure the additional amount is included in the 2026 budget planning and scheduled follow‑up during the budget review process. The committee made no immediate formal vote on the point during the meeting; it recorded the budget impact and directed staff to include the additional appropriation in next year’s budget materials.
Next steps: staff will include the extra storage/return costs in the 2026 budget documents and present options — contract completion vs. early retrieval — at the upcoming special budget meeting.
