# ASP Fixed LPR Budget, Surveys, and Deployment State The release preserves three versions of Leonardo's F4 site survey together with budget and installation correspondence. They document changing proposal and field states; no one message or survey is treated as the final as-built inventory. ## Budget state On 2025-01-20, Leonardo wrote that the newest plan had `"39 F4 cameras vs. the original at 25 cameras"`, raising the F4 base from `$369,915.00` to `$448,110.00`. With Street Sentry unchanged at `$73,324.00`, the email's table gives an updated `$521,434` total and a `+$78,195.00` delta. It proposes `"removing any of the front tag facing cameras"` as one reduction option (`RE_ ARKANSAS STATE POLICE - FIXED LPR Project - Budget .msg`, body). ## Survey-version comparison The installation narratives in the attached PDFs support different totals: | Survey version | Listed sites | Sum of stated F4 quantities | Evidence | |---|---:|---:|---| | 2024-10-24 | 10 | 36 | `RE_ Leonardo - ELSAG ALPR System Arkansas State Police roll out follow up_.msg`, attachment `Arkansas State Police - Site Survey - F4.pdf`, pp. 1-42 | | 2025-01-23 | 9 | 26 | `RE_ ARKANSAS STATE POLICE - FIXED LPR Project - Budget .msg`, same-named attachment, pp. 1-41 | | 2025-02-06 | 9 | 26 | `Re_ FCU ETA.msg`, same-named attachment, pp. 1-41 | The count method adds each narrative's explicit `"Installation of [N] - LPR Cameras (F4)"` quantity, rather than counting photographs, lanes, or mounting-hardware rows. The January 23 attachment, for example, states `"Installation of 4 - LPR Cameras (F4)"` at its first site and supplies comparable statements for the remaining sites (attachment pp. 6-38). > [!contradiction] Thirty-nine-camera budget statement vs. twenty-six-camera attachment (T058) > The 2025-01-20 body says the attached updated survey has 39 F4 cameras, but the attached 2025-01-23 survey's nine installation narratives total 26. The reply does not identify a reconciled bill of materials or final camera schedule. Tracked at [[T058 - ASP Thirty-Nine-Camera Budget Statement vs Twenty-Six-Camera Site Survey|T058]]. ## Installation and permit state A 2025-07-16 message enumerates nine sites and says, `"Site 2 is West Memphis (I-40) but is on hold until permanent sign is rebuilt"` (`RE_ This Should be All of Our Fixed Sites.msg`, body). The September scan dashboard later displays seven reader rows and `"1 - 7 of 7 items"`; those records cover different moments and do not establish that the nine sites should equal seven reader groups (`ALPR DATA REPORT MAY-SEPTEMBER 2025_Redacted (Open Investigations Redaction).pdf`, p. 3). In a later permit chain, one participant reported uncertainty over whether traffic-control-device permits were needed and said some earlier cameras `"still need to be finished up (whether installed or adjusted) since the initial install was interrupted by weather"` (`Re_ ALPR Requests.msg`, body). On 2025-12-17, ARDOT replied: `"My leadership has determined that permits will not be required. That also covers our previous installs"` (`RE_ ALPR Requests (3).msg`, body). The December chain refers to Phase 2 survey and city-permission materials, but the produced message copies carry only signature-image attachments. Their absence is a production gap, not evidence that the documents never existed. ## Open questions - The final camera-level bill of materials, installed/accepted inventory, and reason for the 39-versus-26 mismatch. - Which of the nine July sites were active in each monthly dashboard and how reader groups map to physical cameras. - The missing Phase 2 survey and city-permission records. - Whether the December no-permit decision generated a written ARDOT determination beyond the email.