Edward Tricker v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20252650)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 15, 2025 SPR25/2650 Romina Moniz Administrative Manager City Solicitor’s Office City of New Bedford 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Ms. Moniz: I have received the petition of Edward Tricker appealing the response of the City of New Bedford (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 1, 2025, Dr. Tricker requested the following records dated between January 1, 2024 and August 1, 2025: [1] Personnel and Usage Logs [a] Daily sign-in sheets, rosters, attendance logs, usage records, or other documentation identifying the number and identity (or agency affiliation) of all individuals who used the range on each calendar day. [b] Schedules or calendars indicating planned or recurring training events at the range. [2] Firearms and Ammunition [a] Inventories, usage reports, or procurement records identifying all types, makes, models, and calibers of firearms and ammunition used or stored at the range. [b] Records documenting quantities of ammunition expended on-site or transported to and from the facility. [3] Oversight, Supervision, and Safety Protocols [a] Policies, procedures, standard operating protocols (SOPs), training manuals, or administrative directives concerning the management and supervision of range activity. [b] Records identifying designated range safety officers, supervisors, or individuals responsible for overseeing live-fire exercises and general safety compliance. 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

Romina Moniz SPR25/2650 Page 2 September 15, 2025 [4] Incident Reports and Complaints [a] All records documenting or referencing accidents, injuries, near-miss events, safety violations, property damage, or stray bullet incidents involving the range. [b] All citizen complaints, internal reports, or claims filed in connection with range activity or adverse effects experienced by surrounding residents or property owners. [5] Law Enforcement Reports and Activity Logs [a] Any New Bedford Police Department reports, internal memoranda, dispatch logs, communications, or narratives referencing the range for any purpose, including routine use or unplanned incidents. [6] Environmental Monitoring and Testing [a] All records of environmental assessments, tests, or evaluations conducted at or near the range, including but not limited to: [i] Lead contamination in soil, water, or air[;] [ii] Noise level monitoring or sound studies[;] [iii] Conservation impact studies[;] [iv] Reports prepared by MassDEP, EPA, or private contractors[.] [7] Interdepartmental and External Correspondence [a] All emails, memos, letters, or communications (including attachments) authored, received, or copied by any City of New Bedford employee, official, or police officer that reference or discuss the range. This includes references to: [i] “Woodcock Road”[;] [ii] “Rifle range,” “shooting range,” or “range”[;] [iii] “Training facility”[;] [iv] “Lead contamination,” “noise,” “conservation land,” or “jurisdiction”[;] [v] Interactions with Dartmouth officials or state/federal agencies[.] [b] Please include metadata: sender, recipient, subject line, date/time, and complete message contents. [8] Financial and Budgetary Records [a] All budgets, expenditure records, purchase orders, or invoices reflecting costs associated with operating or maintaining the range, including labor, equipment, ammunition, and facilities improvements. [b] Records of any grant applications, state or federal funding, or earmarks used for law enforcement training or environmental mitigation related to the range. [9] Legal Opinions and Jurisdictional Analyses [a] Any legal memoranda, internal communications, or interoffice correspondence concerning the legal status, liability, land ownership, or intermunicipal authority governing the use of the range.

Romina Moniz SPR25/2650 Page 3 September 15, 2025 [b] Any records referencing the risk of litigation, indemnification, or claims management related to range operations. [10] Zoning, Permitting, and Planning Records [a] All zoning determinations, building permits, occupancy certificates, special use authorizations, or land-use approvals concerning the range property. [b] Any documentation submitted to or received from the Town of Dartmouth, including zoning boards, planning boards, or conservation commissions, about the site. [11] Third-Party Contracts, Assessments, or Consultants [a] All contracts, scopes of work, reports, invoices, or deliverables produced by engineering firms, environmental consultants, legal advisors, or contractors engaged to review or advise on the range or surrounding area. The City responded on August 15 and August 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Dr. Tricker petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2650, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response on September 9, 2025. 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). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first (two) 2 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).

Romina Moniz SPR25/2650 Page 4 September 15, 2025 The City’s Responses In its August 15, 2025 response, the City informed Dr. Tricker that it possessed no records responsive to Items 6, 9, and 11 of the request. The City further stated that records responsive to Items 4 and 10 of the request may be in the possession of the Town of Dartmouth. The City further assessed a fee of $258,535.00 to produce records responsive to Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 of the request. The City estimated that it would require 10,341.4 hours to produce responsive records, at an hourly rate of $25.00. The City confirmed that $25.00 per hour exceeded the hourly rate of the lowest paid individual capable of responding to the request. The City’s estimate included time necessary to redact records pursuant to the following statutes: G. L. c. 93H, § 1; 18 U.S.C. § 2721; 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a)(1); G. L. c. 41, § 97D; G. L. c. 6, § 167; G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(j); and G. L. c. 66, § 10B. The City stated that it was also likely to redact or withhold records pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law, but clarified that it was not assessing a fee for time spent reviewing records under these exemptions. In its August 27, 2025 response, the City stated that its fee estimate was “… a good-faith estimate and is based upon how the requested records are kept, the City’s experience fulfilling similar records requests, and the scope of [the] request.” The City encouraged Dr. Tricker to narrow the scope of the request to reduce anticipated costs. In its September 9, 2025 response, the City provided Dr. Tricker with a count of the email communications responsive to each of the search terms listed in Item 7. The City encouraged Dr. Tricker to modify his request to reduce the volume of responsive records. In a September 10, 2025 email communication to the City, Dr. Tricker suggested several possible modifications to the request, including more specific date ranges and keyword searches involving Boolean connectors. In light of the City’s responses and Dr. Tricker’s willingness to modify the request, I encourage Dr. Tricker and the City to communicate directly in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Dr. Tricker and the City communicate further as described above, Dr. Tricker may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Romina Moniz SPR25/2650 Page 5 September 15, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Edward Tricker