Magruder asphalt plant · 50 Roelker Road · Sunshine Law, Ch. 610 RSMo

Master Records Request Checklist — Requests of September 16 and September 21, 2026

Reference exhibit — my consolidated request history in one place, reconciled through September 21, 2026 against the City’s July 7, July 20, July 22, August 4, and August 6 responses and the September 2–4, 2026 production on Tony Beeny’s request. The operative requests are the numbered items (1–17) in the body of my July 31 email, as supplemented by Records Request 1, sent September 16, 2026 (the current consolidation and boundary-adjustment record, what the Commission was given on August 17, what the City held but did not furnish, and everything added since) and Records Request 2, scheduled to send Monday, September 21, 2026 at 8:00 AM (fire, fuel and liquid-storage review; the civil-plan changes and the differing acreage figures; the approval record for the changed plans; what became of the six filings; the July 10 Board of Adjustment requests; the photometric plan; and updated status on items previously answered “no record”). Both were pasted into the email body rather than attached, per the Clerk’s July 22 instruction. This checklist is attached so both of our records match. Where a record has been produced and published, the Provided column carries its exhibit number as a link to the document itself.

Scope, to be clear: Every line below is a request for existing public records under Ch. 610 RSMo — not a question, an interpretation, or a request to create a record. Where an item reads like a “how/why/whether,” it means “any record that shows” that fact. For any item with no responsive record, a written “no record exists” is a complete answer.

How to use: for each item, mark Provided, No record, or Withheld (with the statutory citation), and a date if it’s coming later. Items already provided are pre-checked with my thanks, and carry a linked exhibit number where the document is published. Scope, cost, privilege, and rolling-release terms are stated in the body of the July 31 email this checklist accompanies.

Asked now — two requests: September 16 and September 21, 2026

Split into two so length does not slow the first one down. Request 1 was sent September 16 at 3:26 PM and is limited to the consolidation and boundary adjustment. Request 2 is written, final, and scheduled to send Monday, September 21, 2026 at 8:00 AM. It is organized in seven sections: fire and safety review, the civil-plan changes and acreage figures, the approval record for the changed plans, what became of the six filings, the Board of Adjustment handling, the photometric plan, and updated status on items previously answered \u201cno record.\u201d Both were pasted into the email body, not attached. Each request authorizes up to $150 without a separate estimate, with a stated priority order so the strongest items are funded first; both ask for rolling production, cite the §610.023.3 three-business-day deadline, name the offices to be searched, and offer same-day clarification on any item that is unclear.

R1 · The current plat record

Items 1–2. The plat as it stands now, by date and sheet, approved or not, plus everything added, corrected, reviewed, or resubmitted after Aug 17 — and the transmitting correspondence for each.

R1 · July 15 deficiencies and §410.010(G)

Items 3–4. What the City now accepts as resolving each July 15 item — stream buffer, tax certification, title, unlabeled tract, coordinates — and the record of each §410.010(G) step: recommendation, ordinance, recording.

R1 · Next meeting and the Aug 17 baseline

Items 5–7. The file intended for the next Commission or Board action, the Sep 21 and Sep 24 agendas and posting records, any Magruder item docketed separately — and the Aug 17 packet itself, including what the City held that day but did not furnish to the Commission.

R2 · Fire, fuel and liquid storage

Section 1. Fire-district, Code Official, Building Official and engineer review of the tanks, fuels and liquid asphalt — 15,000 gallons of burner fuel, 7,000 of diesel, 50,000 of liquid asphalt · SDS sheets, flash points, storage and operating temperatures · permits and fire access · the City–Fire District responsibility agreement.

R2 · The plan changes and the acreage

Sections 2–3. 33 acres → 36.4 acres → storage gone · who asked, who reviewed, who accepted · any set received after July 8, 2026 · dimensions for the five acres · any written record of the eight acres · which set the City treats as operative · approval and transmittal records for each · satisfaction of the June 11 conditions.

R2 · The six filings, and the appeal

Sections 4–5. Where Petition Submissions 1, 2 and 3 and both Supplemental Clarifications went, and whether anyone replied · how the July 10 Board of Adjustment requests were handled · the record behind the July 16 determination that no appeal lay · any administrative use-classification determination.

R2 · Lighting, and status updates

Sections 6–7. The foot-candle plan first asked for July 14 and never answered, with any review or acceptance · and status-only updates on the eight subjects previously answered “no record” — requested only if something has since been created, received, located, revised, or issued.

Request 2 no longer asks for the five subjects the City has already answered in writing — the M-1 written determination, the 40%/75% calculations, §405.100(A)(7) desirability, the applicant narrative, and the Lot 5 setback document. Those stand closed on the City’s own answer and are not re-asked in any form; the rows below are retained so they are not requested again in error. Rows that these two requests renew or supersede are shaded green: the fire-district review, the Aug 17 packet and minutes, the petition-handling records, the June 11 conditions, the foot-candle lighting plan, the §610.023.4 statement of grounds for the withheld Hakim records, the June 1 workshop packet, and the dust and noise control plans.

Key ✓ Pre-checked = already provided H-3 = linked exhibit number; opens the record Orig # & 6/16 = from my original 6/16/26 request (expanded here for clarity) OLD + date = first requested on that date (6/30 – 7/31) · NEW + date = asked again on that date · ASKED 9/21 = first asked in the September 21, 2026 request ★ = top priority / longest wait Green = asked again in the Sep 16 and Sep 21, 2026 requests

Category

Orig #

Record requested

Provided

No Record Exists

Withheld (cite)

Date

This checklist mirrors — and does not narrow — my June 16 request for all public records on the project. For any item with no responsive record, simply marking “No record” is all that’s needed — I will leave it marked as such (not delete it) so it isn’t asked again in error. Thank you for your time and follow-up this week. — Dr. Jackie D. Ramey · 636-236-2126 · jackiedramey@gmail.com

Ch. 610 RSMo — the City’s obligations, and colorable violations on this record

The custodian must: (1) respond within 3 business days — produce, deny with grounds, or state the earliest date available (§610.023.3); (2) for anything withheld, give the specific statutory citation and reason in writing (§610.023.4); (3) charge only actual documented cost, at the rate in effect when the request was received (§610.026); (4) make a good-faith effort to locate responsive records before answering “no record exists.”

Colorable violations to date:

Aug 6 boilerplate narrowing: the response opens and closes by construing every item as a request for “existing records” only, disclaims any duty to answer questions or make determinations, and states production is not continuing — records created after Aug 6 require a NEW request. The 12-item follow-up is that new request.
No §610.023.4 statement of grounds for the redacted/withheld “R. Hakim Documents” and June 17 Items 3 & 9 — requested Jul 7, re-requested Jul 22, refused in substance Aug 6 (general §610.021(1) citation only, no per-record identification) and Jul 31, still not provided.
Unreconciled fee rate — billed at $34.87/hr (effective Jul 6) instead of $31.13/hr (the rate in effect when the request was received Jul 1); if not corrected after notice, risks becoming a fee violation under §610.026. Partly resolved: the $26.26 overpayment was refunded (check no. 057170), and on Sep 9, 2026 the Clerk stated the City “still owes you $20.34 from the July 14th request,” with the check to issue Sep 11 — not yet received as of Sep 16. The rate applied to each request has still never been reconciled in writing.
“No responsive records” contradicted by later production — the Aug 6 response answered that no responsive records existed for the Aug 18, 2025 P&Z packet (Item 12) and for setbacks, boundaries, storage calculations, and the M-1 basis. On Sep 2–4, 2026 the City produced the Aug 18, 2025 packet in substantial part on Tony Beeny’s request — the Clerk’s Aug 15, 2025 transmittal email, the agenda, the Jul 21, 2025 minutes, the Building Department report, Marschke’s 12-sheet civil set (cover 6/13/25), and all five Aug 27, 2025 attachments. Bearing on whether the earlier answer reflects the good-faith search §610 contemplates.
Records request answered with another project’s file — a request for the Fire Protection District’s review of this facility returned the District’s own materials for construction of its new fire station (station site plan and the District’s conditional use permit application), both from the same Aug 18, 2025 agenda. No fire review of the asphalt plant has been produced, and the asserted “preliminary fire approval” remains undocumented.
Items still never answered — the examples originally listed here have largely been resolved: the CBB invoice and payment detail were produced Aug 6, and the final traffic study and plant location/setbacks drew written answers Aug 6 (no responsive records, and “unable to determine the specific records being requested”). What remains with no response at all: the foot-candle/photometric lighting plan (asked Jul 14, nothing back as of Sep 21); the §610.023.4 statement of grounds (Jul 7, renewed Jul 22 and Jul 31); the developer-reimbursement records for the CBB study and whether CBB remains under contract for the unbilled 25%; and the July 22 follow-ups at 12:07 PM and 12:32 PM asking for written confirmation on the items the City treated as not requested. Silence is not one of the three permitted responses — §610.023.3 requires production, denial with grounds, or a date certain within three business days.
Documented cost, tested against the accounting — the City’s own Aug 6 breakdown on the July 31 request shows five research sessions on Aug 4–5 totaling $95.99 at $34.87/hr with zero copy pages, against $52.31 prepaid, leaving $43.68 due. Total paid to the City to date: $310.23. §610.026 limits charges to actual documented cost.

On the stated grounds for denial. The only ground the City has ever given is §610.021(1) — asserted June 17, 2026 as to Items 3 and 9, and repeated in general terms August 6, 2026 with no per-record identification. Two things about that are worth counsel’s attention. First, §610.021(1) is a permissive closure for legal advice; it does not reach underlying facts or an administrative determination, and §610.024 requires release of non-exempt portions. Second, the City later said on July 2 that “there are no documents related to this request” covering those same subjects. A record cannot be both privileged and nonexistent — and if the classification rests solely on privileged advice, then no independent administrative determination was ever made, which is the point the “No Route to Appeal” document turns on.

Not a legal conclusion — flagged for counsel alongside the M-1 classification complaint already filed. §610.027 allows civil penalties and attorney’s fees for a knowing or purposeful violation. Note for counsel: the Clerk serves as both custodian of records and City Administrator; whether that dual role bears on the §610.027 analysis is a question for counsel, not an assertion made here.