Andrew Rovan v. Stow, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20253757)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 2, 2026 SPR25/3757 Denise M. Dembkoski Town Administrator Town of Stow 380 Great Road Stow, MA 01775 Dear Ms. Dembkoski: I have received the petition of Andrew Rovan appealing the response of the Town of Stow (Town) to two (2) requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 29, 2025, in requests identified as “Request #3” and “Request #4,” Mr. Rovan sought the following: Request 3 [1] Any and all MS4 Annual Reports (draft, final, unsigned, or amended) submitted to EPA Region 1 or MassDEP from January 1, 2018 through October 29, 2025). [2] Any and all emails, letters, and memoranda between the Town of Stow (including the DPW, Conservation Department, Town Administrator, or Town Counsel) and EPA Region 1 or MassDEP concerning MS4 permit compliance, reporting delays, deficiencies, enforcement, or corrective actions. [3] Any and all internal communications, meeting notes, or staff instructions regarding the preparation, review, or submission of MS4 Annual Reports for any permit year. [4] Any and all consultant contracts, invoices, purchase orders, and correspondence related to MS4 reporting or engineering support since 2018. [5] Any and all draft or final responses to EPA or MassDEP compliance letters issued under Sections 4.2 and 4.4 of the MS4 General Permit. 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

Denise M. Dembkoski SPR25/3757 Page 2 January 2, 2026 Request 4 [1] Any and all outfall inspection logs, field reports, screening records, and photographs for Outfalls 8 and 9 (and all other mapped outfalls within Stow) from January 1, 2018 through October 29, 2025. [2] Any and all Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) investigations, sampling data, and corrective-action memos conducted under MS4 Permit § 2.3.4. [3] Any and all street-sweeping, catch-basin cleaning, and drain through age maintenance logs for the Great Road / Pompositticut area from January 1, 2018 through October 29, 2025. [4] Any and all consultant or contractor reports, invoices, and emails pertaining to inspection, maintenance, or repair of stormwater infrastructure serving Outfalls 8 and 9. [5] Any and all citizen complaints, notifications, or staff emails concerning flooding, erosion, or discharge conditions around those outfalls since January 1, 2018. [6] Any and all records of illicit-discharge findings and subsequent remediation actions under the Town’s IDDE Bylaw § 7.4 and MS4 Permit § 4.3. Previous Appeal These requests were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3426 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 4, 2026). In my December 4th determination, I ordered the Town to revise its November 13, 2025 fee estimate or provide further explanation of how its fee estimate of $200.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Specifically, I ordered the Town to explain why 8 hours of search time is required to produce the responsive records and describe the task(s) involved in the search process. The Town responded on December 18, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Rovan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3757, was opened as a result. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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

Denise M. Dembkoski SPR25/3757 Page 3 January 2, 2026 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). The Town’s November 13th and December 18th Responses In its November 13, 2025 response, the Town provided a link to publicly available responsive records and stated: …[S]ome of your requests are made without key details, which may make it difficult and overly burdensome for the Town to respond… Specifically, in your Third Request, referenced above, Items 2, 3, and 5 are undated requests for permits requiring the Town’s personnel to make determinations regarding the actual scope of the documents requested. If you would like to narrow your request by providing the specific dates relevant to the documents sought in the Third Request items described, the Town will provide any responsive documents it may have… In addition, the Town assessed a fee of $200.00 to provide additional records responsive to Requests 3 and 4. In support of its fee estimate, the Town stated: It is estimated that it will cost $200.00 to search for and locate records responsive to the Third and Fourth Requests… That amount is based on estimated employee search time based on the voluminous records requested at eight (8) hours, times an hourly rate of $25.00 per hour. The employee search time quoted above is charged at the hourly rate of the lowest paid person capable of searching for the responsive records… The searches will be conducted in this instance by the Town’s Director of Public Works…Where the lowest paid employee capable of doing this work is paid at a rate of more than $25.00 per hour, you will be charged at the maximum rate. Please note that because the Town has a population less than 20,000 residents (approx. 7,200) as of the most recent Decennial U.S. Census, you will be charged for the first two hours of work associated with these requests. In its December 18, 2025 response, the Town stated: For this request, the Town also provided a minimal cost estimate of 8 hours at $25/hour, given the significant volume of records at issue, spanning many years.

Denise M. Dembkoski SPR25/3757 Page 4 January 2, 2026 Specifically, the Town will need to search hard copy and electronic records spanning a multiple year period, including e-mail communications, conduct searches of same, locate records using electronic and hard copy file searches by the Department of Public Works Director, including both internal and external records, for the topics identified in requests 3 and 4. The Town has already provided links to publicly available documents at no charge, but after careful review of the request and its records, has determined that this conservative good faith estimate is necessary for the time to search for and locate other potentially responsive records given the sheer volume of documents being sought, with no narrowing or clarification of same, for a multiple year period. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Rovan stated, “…the Town’s revised response does not cure the deficiencies identified in your determinations, including the lack of clarity as to whether responsive records exist, whether they were located or withheld, and how any proposed fees correspond to identified records.” Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Based on the Town’s responses, the Town has sufficiently explained the amount of time it requires to search for and compile the responsive records and appears to not be charging a fee for segregation or redaction. Further, the Town has confirmed that an hourly rate of $25.00 is equal to or less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid individual with the skill necessary to perform those tasks and has also confirmed it has a population less than 20,000 residents. Consequently, I find that the Town has met its burden to establish that it would take this amount

Denise M. Dembkoski SPR25/3757 Page 5 January 2, 2026 of time to produce the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d) (a records access officer may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record) This office encourages Mr. Rovan and the Town to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Rovan may wish to narrow the parameters or include applicable factors to enable the search to be processed. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a 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 municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Rovan is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Rovan