# Conway Finance Copies of Flock Invoices The Finance production contains scanned copies of the same two Flock invoices already documented in the Conway PD and City Clerk productions. ## What's inside - `Dunlap FOIA request_Flock camera invoice 1.pdf`, page 1 — INV-56859, dated January 24, 2025, due March 25, 2025, “Year 1 of 36 Month Term,” twenty Flock Safety Falcon units, `$60,000.00` balance due. - `Dunlap FOIA request_Flock camera invoice 2.pdf`, page 1 — INV-81961, dated and due December 16, 2025, “Year 2 & 3 of 36 Month Term, 2026 - 2028,” twenty “Flock Safety LPR, fka Falcon” units, `$120,000.00` balance due. Page 2 contains payment-remittance instructions. These details are printed verbatim on the cited invoice pages. Neither invoice shows a payment posted; the payment evidence comes from the City vouchers and trial balances ([[Flock Payment Records — INV-56859 and INV-81961]]; [[Conway Flock Payment Trial Balances]]). ## Key takeaways - The copies add Finance-office custody/provenance but no new contract amount, billing-period, or product finding. - INV-81961's invoice page says “Payments: $0.00” and “Balance Due: $120,000.00”; that is invoice status when issued, not proof the City never paid it. The January 16, 2026 voucher and trial balance document the later payment. ## People and organizations mentioned - [[Flock Safety, Inc.]] — vendor. - [[Conway Police Department]] — billed customer. - [[Lt. Andrew Burningham]] — billing contact; contact details are not repeated here. ## Concepts invoked - [[Flock Camera-as-a-Service Procurement Model]] - [[Asset-Forfeiture Funding for Surveillance Procurement]] ## Cross-references - [[Flock Safety Invoices INV-56859 and INV-81961]] — prior clean stand-alone invoice analysis. - [[Flock Safety Past Due Balance INV-81961]] — prior dunning chronology. - [[Flock Payment Records — INV-56859 and INV-81961]] — City payment vouchers. ## Surveillance-PII handling The second invoice's remittance page contains banking and payment-routing data. Those values remain in the immutable evidence layer and are intentionally not republished. ## Open questions / follow-ups - None specific to the duplicate invoice content; the live issue is reconciliation of the informal Asset Forfeiture Log to the native City ledger.