Laith Weinberger v. Medford, City of - Law Department (SPR 20252075)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 24, 2025 SPR25/2075 Kevin P. Foley, Esq. City Solicitor City of Medford 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Room 206 Medford, MA 02155 Dear Attorney Foley: On July 17, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Medford (City) seeking an extension of time to produce records, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the City furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Laith Weinberger. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On July 2, 2025, Mr. Weinberger requested: [1] [A]ll approved building permits from the most recent ones in 2025 to those at least 10 years ago (2015)[;] [2] [A]ll of the fiscal year 2025 real estate assessment and tax data by each parcel id[.] Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Kevin P. Foley, Esq. SPR25/2075 Page 2 July 24, 2025 (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the City requests “an extension of time, not to exceed 30 business days, from the date of the grant of the extension, to furnish the records responsive to this request.” The City argues the following information in support of its request: The current request is very broad and far-reaching, especially considering that it seeks records going back more than ten (10) years of approved building permits involving a plethora of information about each permit that is not necessarily contained on the building permit itself but would need to be manually added or edited. A preliminary review shows that more than forty thousand (40,000) permits were approved during the timeframe set forth in the request. The City has already provided the requestor with the records concerning real estate assessments for FY25, however, the request related to building permits is an enormous undertaking. As grounds for allowance of the extension, the request, as presently constituted, encompasses more than 40,000 records going back more than ten (10) years and will require significant coordination, search and retrieval efforts and manual editing. After collecting these records, City staff would need to examine, segregate and redact the records, as needed before disclosing them. Although City employees work 35 hours each week to complete their regular duties, there is no dedicated staff assigned to review and redact records responsive to FOIA requests. As such, the records sought by the present request would need to be retrieved, segregated, reviewed and redacted during normal business hours in

Kevin P. Foley, Esq. SPR25/2075 Page 3 July 24, 2025 addition to completion of regular duties. The City is unaware of any public interest which will be served by expeditious disclosure. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, the capacity of the City to produce the records without an extension as well as the efforts undertaken by the City in fulfilling the current request, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The City is granted an extension of 30 business days. Petition to assess fees – Municipalities The Supervisor may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my understanding that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i).

Kevin P. Foley, Esq. SPR25/2075 Page 4 July 24, 2025 Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the City requests “permission to assess fees required to segregate and redact these records[.]” In an email to Mr. Weinberger and this office on July 18, 2025, the City provided the following information in support of its request: As presently constituted, the records sought seek the name, home address, email and telephone number of the applicants for permits. The disclosure of this information may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy under G. L. c. 4, s. 7(26) (c) and must be segregated and redacted. In addition, since the request seeks “all available information related to each permit” it implicates the deliberative process exemption under G. L. c. 4, s. 7(26) ([d]). In light of the City’s petition, I find the City has met its burden to explain how given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the City may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Fees in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the City requests a “waiver of statutory fee limits to charge for time spent segregating and redacting records” and provides the following in support of its request: The City states that the actual cost of producing the records is twenty thousand ($20,000.00) dollars, constituting eight hundred (800) hours at twenty-five ($25.00) dollars an hour, based upon all of the factors and set forth in this petition. Where the City only seeks to assess fees at a rate of $25.00 per hour, I find it is unnecessary to opine on the City’s request for a waiver of statutory limits on fees.

Kevin P. Foley, Esq. SPR25/2075 Page 5 July 24, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the City to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Weinberger has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Laith Weinberger