O'Neil, Corey v. Haverhill, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20262122)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 10, 2026 SPR26/2122 Kaitlin M. Wright City Clerk City of Haverhill 4 Summer Street Haverhill, MA 01830 Dear Ms. Wright: On June 4, 2026, this office received the petition of Alexander M. Castro, of Mead, Talerman & Costa, LLC, on behalf of the City of Haverhill (City) seeking a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to a public records 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, Corey O’Neil. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On May 20, 2026 Mr. O’Neil requested the following: …all communications between or among the Mayor, City Solicitor, Fire Chief, and all City Councilors regarding the following, for the period of January 1, 2025, to the present: Hecate Energy LLC, its subsidiaries, affiliates, or any entities acting on its behalf. The Ward Hill Energy Center project. Any Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) or energy storage proposals associated with the aforementioned project. In an email to the City on June 5, 2026, Mr. O’Neil expressed opposition to the City’s fee petition. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (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). 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

Kaitlin M. Wright SPR26/2122 Page 2 June 10, 2026 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 determination 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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 Petition In its petition, the City requests “a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request.” In support of its request, the City provides the following information concerning anticipated redactions: To the extent that the responsive records disclose (1) the confidential

Kaitlin M. Wright SPR26/2122 Page 3 June 10, 2026 communications between the City and its legal counsel undertaken for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or assistance; (2) attorney opinion work product sought in anticipation of or during the pendency of litigation; or (3) certain attorney fact work product under Mass. R. Civ. P.26(b)(3) that was prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial, the responsive records must be withheld or redacted accordingly. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) and (d); Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 449-50 (2007); DaRosa v. City of New Bedford, 471 Mass. 446, 459 (2015). The lowest paid City employee capable of reviewing the responsive records to determine whether they must be so withheld or redacted is City Solicitor Mead, Talerman & Costa, LLC, who is paid at a rate of $225.00 per hour. … The City Solicitor is the City’s lowest paid – and only – employee with the knowledge and skill required to review and redact or withhold the responsive records in accordance with the Commonwealth’s Public Records Law. This is especially true considering that the responsive records include communications with the City Solicitor in its capacity as such. 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 assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In light of the factors in G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv), I find the City may assess a fee limited to $75.00 per hour for attorney review. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City may assess a fee limited to $75.00 per hour for attorney review. The City may not assess a fee of over $25 per hour for other tasks. Please note, Mr. O’Neil 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: Corey O’Neil