Who is the FOIA officer?
Answered in Town letter. Michael G. Turner. The Town says a verbal appointment was confirmed by Council September 23.
Next record: Underlying appointment date, authority and confirming motion; qualifying training records.
PUBLIC RECORD · GRETNA WATER
The record moved. The questions sharpened.
Town responses, regulator correspondence and the publisher’s dispute, organized so you can check the evidence yourself.
Correspondence reviewed: September 26, 2026September 9 routine sample: total coliforms and E. coli absent at VDOT (030). Franklin Boulevard-specific verification remains unresolved.
CONCRETE PROGRESS
Answers now on the record.
- The Town identifies Michael G. Turner as FOIA officer.
- Turner acknowledges directing the Chief and another officer to deliver the response.
- The Town supplies an itemized narrowed estimate and clarifies regular business-hours inspection.
- A September 9 DCLS report is released, with its sampling location and limits visible.
ACCOUNTABILITY CONTINUES
Specific records still matter.
- The unexplained change from $558.55 to $588.33 and inconsistent worksheet arithmetic.
- Appointment, Council motion and qualifying training documentation.
- Franklin Boulevard-specific verification, and the complete plant funding/procurement file.
- Policy and assignment records for police handling of an administrative request.
Answered and outstanding.
Who directed police delivery?
Acknowledged. Turner says he asked the Chief and another officer. Jones reports an intimidating effect and disputes the need.
Next record: Delivery policy, instruction, assignment/time records and explanation for the later proposed repeat delivery.
What does inspection cost?
Disputed. September 23: $558.55 printed staff subtotal. September 24: $588.33 demanded. Both cover the narrowed combined request tracks.
Next record: One corrected actual-cost worksheet, time records, scope allocation and treatment of estimate-preparation charges.
Is a laboratory result available?
Partly answered. A September 9 VDOT (030) routine sample reports absent total coliforms and E. coli.
Next record: The specifically described Franklin Boulevard verification or a statement that no responsive record exists.
Can the records be inspected after September 23?
Clarified. The 3:15 p.m. September 23 email says regular weekday hours, 8 a.m.–4:30 p.m. The fee dispute remains.
Next record: Agreed inspection arrangements and resolution of disputed charges, not a claim that only one afternoon was offered.
What is Gretna’s plant funding position?
Still unresolved in this email packet. The Town points to assembled records. No complete application-to-award ledger was supplied in these attachments.
Next record: Final applications, award/denial notices, agreements, design/procurement records and construction milestones.
The Town’s response belongs beside the criticism.
The September 20 request for response was acknowledged September 21. The September 23 and 24 letters and the inspection-hours clarification are now linked in full, with privacy redactions. The Town says FOIA requires existing records rather than answers to general questions and explains why it directed the delivery. Jones disputes the charges and describes the encounter as intimidating.
No court finding of intimidation or FOIA liability is established by this publication. The source room distinguishes each side’s account from the document comparison and current statutes.
Compare both sides of the correspondenceMake your own request useful.
Record dates, locations and agency reference numbers. Ask for existing reports, contracts or logs with a defined date range and an advance estimate. Digital delivery and inspection can reduce copying costs; neither automatically erases lawful actual search or access charges.
This tracker does not determine whether a particular tap is safe. AI-assisted reporting. The publisher is the requester and complainant in parts of this record. Advertising and paid access never determine editorial judgment.
CIE · Source and editorial review recorded
Cultural Imprint Engine · Qualitative review · No numeric score
This publication snapshot records a source, context, rights and presentation review bound to this exact revision. Native revocations and later changes require a new readback before the next publication. It does not rate a public official or policy. Image metadata review does not verify pixels, playback or later changes at an external source.
Reviewed .
Receipt: d38ef836-da36-4ef2-b224-0f97c0a687a3
Sources and corrections standard →