The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2018 1219 REG CCSA ITEM 10ECITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of 12/19/2018 ACTION Adopted Reso No. 2018-3776 BY M. Benson E. Consider Resolution Authorizing the Destruction of City Records (Expired Business Registrations and Business License Records from 2005 to 2012) in the Community Development Department. Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2018-3776. Item: 10.E. MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Maureen Benson, City Clerk Prepared by: Blanca Garza, Deputy City Clerk II DATE: 12/19/2018 Regular Meeting SUBJECT: Consider Resolution Authorizing the Destruction of City Records (Expired Business Registrations and Business License Records from 2005 to 2012) in the Community Development Department BACKGROUND Staff is requesting authorization to destroy various records on file in the Community Development Department. The request is for the destruction of Terminated/Expired Business Registration records from 2005 to 2012, as specifically noted on Exhibit “A”, of the attached draft resolution. The records proposed for destruction consideration are Business Registration records. The approved City of Moorpark Records Retention Schedule (MRRS) notes the retention of Business License program records as five (5) years, in accordance with California Government Code Section 34090, which is the record series that closest relates to Business Registration records. The California Secretary of State’s Local Government Records Management Guidelines, dated February 2006, (CLGRMG) recommends retaining paid Business License records and reports for a period of terminated plus four (4) years in accordance with California Government Code Section 34090 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 337. When determining a retention period for a record series, the City considers a number of factors, including whether the records may be useful in certain types of litigation and will retain the records for the applicable statute of limitations period set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the City will review federal law and regulations to determine whether those laws or regulations impact the length of time a record should be retained. In this case, neither the California Code of Civil Procedure nor federal laws expressly require a longer retention period for the records proposed for destruction. Government Code Section 34090, et. seq., authorizes the head of a city department to destroy any city record, document instrument, book or paper, under his/her charge, without making a copy thereof, after the same is no longer required after the minimum retention Item: 10.E. 60 Honorable City Council December 19, 2018, Regular Meeting Page 2 period of two years has been met, with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and the written consent of the City Attorney unless the record falls into certain categories specified in Section 34090. In this case the records are older than the applicable retention periods in the MRRS, CLGRMG, California Government Code Section 34090 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 337. With respect to Government Code Section 34090, the records do not affect title to real property or liens thereon, are not court records or matters of pending or threatened litigation, are not minutes, ordinances or resolutions of the City Council or any board or commission of the City; and are not records required to be kept by statute. Additionally, these records are not an agreement, development project and/or capital project files. DISCUSSION The records proposed for destruction are noted below and on Exhibit “A” of the attached resolution, all such records meet or exceed required retention periods, and the applicable retention periods are included for reference. Their destruction has been approved and consented to by the Community Development Director, City Clerk, and City Attorney. The records are expired Business Registration records from 2005 to 2012. FISCAL IMPACT The destruction of the specified records noted in the attached draft resolution will not create an expense as the records proposed for destruction will be shredded at the City’s shredding event scheduled for January 2019. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2018-___ , authorizing the destruction of expired business license registrations and business license records from 2005 to 2012 in the Community Development Department Attachment: Draft Resolution 61 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF EXPIRED BUSINESS REGISTRATIONS AND BUSINESS LICENSE RECORDS FROM 2005 TO 2012 ON FILE IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, Government Code Section 34090 authorizes the head of a City department to destroy City records with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and written consent of the city attorney after the records are no longer required, unless another law imposes a different process; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 34090 does not authorize the destruction of: (a) Records affecting the title to real property or liens thereon; (b) Court records; (c) Records required to be kept by statute; (d) Records less than two years old; or (e) The minutes, ordinances, or resolutions of the legislative body or of a city board or commission; and WHEREAS, the California Local Government Records Management Guidelines recommend retaining business license records and reports for a period of terminated plus four (4) years in accordance with California Government Code Section 34090 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 337; and WHEREAS, the approved City of Moorpark Records Retention Schedule does not specifically include a record retention for business registrations, but does include business license program records retention as five (5) years after termination/expiration of the registration in accordance with California Government Code Section 34090; and WHEREAS, the records proposed for destruction are listed in Exhibit “A” and they have met their retention in accordance with California Government Code Section 34090, the City of Moorpark Records Retention Schedule, and Code of Civil Procedure Section 337; and WHEREAS, no other federal or state law affects the record retention periods for the City records proposed for destruction in Exhibit “A”. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the records set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto, are older than the applicable retention periods required by State law (Government Code Section 34090 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 337), are older than the applicable retention period recommended by the California Local Government Records Management Guidelines, and the City of Moorpark’s adopted Retention Schedule listing for the type of record series. Further, the City Council finds the listed records are not currently subject to a legal hold. 62 Resolution No. 2018-_____ Page 2 SECTION 2. “Legal Hold”, as used herein, refers to the duty of the City to preserve and not destroy any records that are potentially relevant to any of the following in which the City may be involved: a reasonably anticipated claim or litigation; an ongoing claim or litigation; a pending employee grievance; a pending regulatory or governmental investigation; a pending subpoena; a pending Public Records Act request, a pending audit, or similar legal matter. Any records subject to a Legal Hold must be preserved in all forms in which the record exists, including both paper and electronic formats. SECTION 3. The City Council further finds that the records do not affect title to real property or liens thereon, are not court records, are not minutes, ordinances or resolutions of the City Council or any board or commission of the City; and are not records required to be kept by statute. SECTION 4. The City Council also finds that the City Attorney, Community Development Director, and the City Clerk have given written consent to the destruction of said records, as shown on Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Clerk to destroy the City Records listed in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _____, 2018. ________________________________ Janice S. Parvin, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Maureen Benson, City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit “A” 63 Resolution No. 2018- Page 3 -- EXHIBIT "A" CONSENT FOR RECORDS DESTRUCTION Citations Sources: California Code of Civil Procedure: Section 337 California Government (GC) Code, Section 34090, et. seq. California Local Government Records Management Guidelines (CLGRMG) City of Moorpark Records Retention Schedule (MRRS) DESCRIPTION DATES OF RETENTION CITATION RECORDS TO REQUIREMENT (For longest BE (YEARS) retention period) DESTROYED Expired Business 2005 to 2012 Terminated/Expired MMRS Registrations and Business + 5 Years License Records Consent to Destruction: Maureen Benson, City Clerk Department Head Authorization : I certify that the records on the above list are no longer required, are eligible for destruction, and do not have to be retained based upon any record retention requirements imposed by any statute or law, or pursuant to a grant received by the City or a bond issued by the City, and are not related to or potentially relevant to any of the following in which the City may be involved: a reasonably anticipated claim or litigation, an ongoing claim or litigation, a pending employee grievance, a pending regulatory or governmental investigation, a pending subpoena, a pending Public Records Act request, a pending audit, or similar legal matter. I recommend that said records be destroyed. City Attorney Authorization: I do hereby certify that I am the City Attorney for the City of Moorpark, I have reviewed the above list of records and based upon the representations made herein by the department head, agree that the above-mentioned records are not records required to be kept by statute or law, provided destruction thereof has been approved by the City Council. My review has been limited to the descriptions contained on the list and did not involve review of the actual records. Based on the foregoing, I consent to the destruction, of the above-mentioned records. Kevin Ennis, City Attorney 64