Mena, Katherina v. Danvers, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20262407)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 29, 2026 SPR26/2407 Catherine S. Ellsworth Town Clerk Town of Danvers 1 Sylvyan Street Danvers, MA 01923 Dear Ms. Ellsworth: On June 25, 2026, this office received the petition of James Donnelly, Esq., of Murphy Hesse Tooney & Lehane LLP, on behalf of the Town of Danvers (Town) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. 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 Town furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Katherina Mena. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 11, 2026, Ms. Mena requested the following: 1. Building Department Records • Building permits and permit applications. • Commercial building permits. • Permit revisions, amended applications, resubmissions, change orders, and revised plans. • Plan review comments. • Correction notices. • Inspector field notes. • Certificates of inspection. • Certificates of occupancy. • Violation notices and enforcement actions. 2. Plumbing and Water System Records • Plumbing permits and applications. 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

Katherina Mena SPR26/2407 Page 2 June 29, 2026 • Plumbing inspection reports. • Water service connection records. • Drain connection records. • Leak investigations. • Water-loss investigations. • Abnormal consumption investigations. • Water meter installation, replacement, relocation, repair, and maintenance records. • Records identifying which meter(s) served which tenant spaces. • Utility account records identifying meter assignments and service locations. 3. Backflow and Cross-Connection Records • Backflow prevention device inspection reports. • Maintenance records. • Testing records. • Certifications. • Cross-connection control program records. • Related correspondence. 4. Fire Suppression and Sprinkler Records • Fire suppression permits. • Sprinkler permits. • Hood suppression permits. • Fire suppression inspection reports. • Sprinkler inspection and testing records. • Impairment notices. • Maintenance records. • Fire alarm integration records. • Records relating to accidental discharge, leaks, impairments, failures, or repairs. 5. Fire Prevention Records • Fire Prevention inspection reports. • Fire code violations. • Correction orders. • Certificates of inspection.

Katherina Mena SPR26/2407 Page 3 June 29, 2026 • Occupancy reviews. • Correspondence and field notes. 6. Mechanical, HVAC, and Sheet Metal Records • Mechanical permits. • HVAC permits. • Sheet metal permits. • Hood ventilation permits. • Exhaust system permits. • Make-up air unit permits. • Mechanical inspection reports. • Correction notices. • Final approvals. • HVAC repair records submitted to or maintained by the Town. 7. Electrical Records • Electrical permits. • Electrical inspection reports. • Service upgrades. • Panel upgrades. • Load calculations. • One-line diagrams. • Panel schedules. • Correction notices. • Final approvals. • Records identifying electrical service modifications and tenant connections. 8. Health Department Records • Food establishment permits. • Plan reviews. • Inspection reports. • Correction notices. • Certificates. • Related correspondence.

Katherina Mena SPR26/2407 Page 4 June 29, 2026 9. Utility Infrastructure Records • Records identifying water, sewer, gas, and electrical meter locations. • Meter numbers and serial numbers. • Records identifying which tenant spaces were served by each utility meter. • Utility infrastructure plans. • Utility relocation or modification records. 10. Correspondence and Supporting Documentation • Emails. • Memoranda. • Inspector notes. • Photographs. • Engineering reports. • Consultant reports. • Contractor reports. • Incident reports. 11. [A]ll plan revisions, resubmissions, correction notices, and inspector comments. 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). 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

Katherina Mena SPR26/2407 Page 5 June 29, 2026 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 Town requests, “that it be permitted to charge $25 per hour to search review, segregate and potentially [redact] email records that are responsive to Part 10 of the request.” In support of its petition, the Town provides the following information: In this case, the Town has identified approximately 3,861 emails which are potentially responsive to the Request after a search of its internal email system. Given that many of the emails contain lengthy attachments, the Town conservatively estimates that it will take approximately 128.7 hours (i.e. 2 minutes per email) to review all 3,861 emails and segregate and potentially redact any information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Law. The Town anticipates that the emails may contain personal email addresses and personal cell phone numbers of members of the public contacting public officials about the subject property. As such, these emails contain information exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Each email needs to be reviewed to determine whether there is any information that is exempt from disclosure contained within.

Katherina Mena SPR26/2407 Page 6 June 29, 2026 In light of the Town’s petition, I find that the Town 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 Town may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Ms. Mena and the Town to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Mena may consider narrowing the scope of her request to enable the Town to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The Town must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. 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

Katherina Mena SPR26/2407 Page 7 June 29, 2026 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, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the Town may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Ms. Mena is advised that she may appeal the Town’s fee estimate within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Please note, Ms. Mena 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: Katherina Mena