Sarah B. Perez v. Lawrence, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20253691)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 29, 2025 SPR25/3690 Timothy P. Houten, Esq. City Attorney City of Lawrence 200 Common Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Attorney Houten: I have received the petition of Sarah Perez appealing the response of the City of Lawrence (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 22, 2025, Ms. Perez requested the following: [A]ll public records related to the Gateways Signage Project, including but not limited to the project referenced in the manual titled “City of Lawrence Gateways Signage Project - Invitation for Bids - Released August 25, 2021” (CBI Project No. CB181534.41) [1] All bids, bid submissions, bid scoring sheets, and evaluations[;] [2] Insurance certificates naming the City of Lawrence and CBI Consulting[;] [3] Graphic design invoices for the “Bread and Roses” logo[;] [4] All prevailing wage payroll reports and certified payroll[;] [5] All change orders (including proposed, approved, rejected)[;] [6] All contracts and amendments with CBI Consulting, SOCOTEC, or any vendors[;] [7] All correspondence (emails, messages, memos) between: [two identified individuals][;] CBI Consulting[;] Mayor’s Office staff][;] Purchasing Department[.] 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

Timothy P. Houten, Esq. SPR25/3690 Page 2 December 29, 2025 [8] All purchase orders, invoices, and payment records[;] [9] Project timeline updates, extension requests, and delay justifications[;] [10] Inspection reports, electrical permits, site permits, and approvals[;] [11] Records showing any penalties, performance bond claims, or liquidated damages[;] [12] All “Lawrence” sign design files, cost breakdowns, and fabrication invoices[;] [13] Locations of installations and any site assessments or safety reports[;] [14] Any internal financial reconciliation for this project[.] It is my understanding that the City assigned tracking number 2025-FOIA-1514 to this request. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the City. See SPR25/3563 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 10, 2025). In my December 10th determination, I found that the City had established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days, and that the City may assess fees for segregation and redaction of the responsive records. Concurrent with its petition, the City provided a fee estimate to Ms. Perez on December 3, 2025. Objecting to the fees, Ms. Perez petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3690, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record.

Timothy P. Houten, Esq. SPR25/3690 Page 3 December 29, 2025 If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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 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). Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Perez contends that “I am requesting that the appeals process proceed based on the City’s failure to substantively respond to my public records requests and its continued reliance on petitions rather than production. The City is fully aware that my requests seek information concerning the administration and use of public funds, and I am seeking these records in the public interest and for accountability to taxpayers.” The City’s December 3rd Fee Estimate In its December 3, 2025 response, the City gives a total fee estimate of $75, and provides the following explanation: The request is very broad and far reaching, especially considering that the statutory definition of “public records” means all books, papers, maps, photographs, recorded tapes, financial statements, statistical tabulations, or other documentary materials or data regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by the government entity unless such materials or data falling within one or more of the exemptions found within G. L. c 4, §7(26) or other legally applicable privileges. Under the circumstances, there is no doubt that the

Timothy P. Houten, Esq. SPR25/3690 Page 4 December 29, 2025 records sought by this request, as presently constituted, are subject to: G. L. c 4 , §7(26), exemption (d) the deliberative process exemption involving inter-agency and intra-agency memoranda and letters on legal and policy matters; exemption exemptions (o) and (p) regarding withholding the name, home address, personal email and telephone number of government employees and their family members. In addition, all confidential communications with and the City Attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and assistance are protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege. Suffolk Contr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 450 (2007). . . . The City fully understands and agrees this petition does not include the first two hours spent segregating, redacting and reproducing records under the provisions of 950 CMR 32.07(m)(1). In addition, the City understands and agrees that “segregation time” does not include time expended to review records for accuracy and correct errors. The City provides the following good faith estimate for the actual cost to retrieve, segregate and redact the records. The City states that the actual cost of producing the records is Seventy Five ($75.00) dollars, constituting five (5) hours at twenty-five ($25.00) dollars an hour, based upon all of the factors and set forth in this petition. The actual cost, not to exceed $320.00 [sic] would be used to pay the actual costs of producing all records sought by 2025-FOIA-1514. For the foregoing, good cause reasons, the City respectfully requests allowance its petition to charge fees of $75.00, total for time spent segregating and redacting records to be produced in response to 2025-FOIA-1514. Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate In its fee estimate, the City has indicates that it is not assessing fees for the first two hours of work. Additionally, as noted above, the City was previously approved to assess fees for segregation and redaction of the responsive records. However, in its fee estimate, the City has not confirmed that it is assessing fees at an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skills to perform the tasks. Further, although the City has estimated that it would take five hours to retrieve, segregate and redact the records, it is unclear why the City requires this amount of time to complete the request. Additionally, it is unclear the number of pages that the City intends to segregate or redact, nor the number of minutes the City requires to redact each page of the records. Accordingly, the City must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). For the reasons discussed above, I find the City must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fees assessed are consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d).

Timothy P. Houten, Esq. SPR25/3690 Page 5 December 29, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Perez with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Perez may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sarah Perez