# 2026-05 Conway City Clerk Clarification on FOIA-2026-126 On 2026-05-29, City Clerk/Treasurer [[Denise Hurd]] replied to [[Joshua Dunlap]]'s 2026-05-28 [[2026-05 Conway (f)(3) Log Request and FOIA-2026-126 Follow-Up|follow-up]], resolving all three open administrative questions on the City of Conway's FOIA-2026-126 production. **No new records were produced** — the attached PDF is a byte-identical duplicate of a document already in the [[2026-05 City of Conway Produces Project Stratus Records|May 26 production]]. ## Sources This is a FOIA-correspondence event; its record lives in Gmail, not in `raw/`. - City Clerk reply, [[Denise Hurd]] to [[Joshua Dunlap]], 2026-05-29 ([thread](https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#all/19e41be6d2204d32)), attaching `51430NE_Conway Development Corporation Lollie Rd Rezone, REZ I-3 to A-1_REZ-0425-0052.pdf`. - **Dedup note.** The attached PDF (SHA-256 `e1a9711b…`, 3,835,671 bytes) is **identical** to the copy already produced on 2026-05-26 and ingested at `raw/city-conway/project-stratus-2026-05-26/` (documented in [[Rezone Ordinance O-25-39 and REZ-0425-0052]]). It was therefore **not re-ingested** as a new record. ## What happened Hurd answered the three asks from the 2026-05-28 follow-up: 1. **The four "PLACEHOLDER" cards are not withheld records.** "The 'PLACEHOLDERS' you refer to are simply that … part of a working document from the Planning department … Those placeholders were for items they were waiting on or expected to be included in the final Agenda, which I have attached to this email … Whatever the items were, they would have been included in the final Agenda which you received through your request." The City's position: the PLACEHOLDER cards are working-document stubs **superseded by the produced final agenda** (the REZ-0425-0052 packet), not § 25-19-105(f)(3) exemption-based withholdings. No (f)(3) log is owed because nothing was withheld. 2. **FOIA-2026-129 is duplicative of -126.** "The FOIA-2026-129 is a separate file that contains everything in our possession that relates to the proposed data center project. You would have received the same information in FOIA-2026-126." 3. **The City holds no utility-service-agreement records.** "As your request was circulated through all departments … to my knowledge, we do not have any of the utility-service-agreement components in your request. You should be able to get those from Conway Corp." This confirms the City Clerk's Item-4 no-records finding spans all City departments and routes utility records to [[Conway Corporation]] — consistent with (and now corroborated by) Conway Corporation's own [[2026-05 Conway Corporation Produces Project Stratus Records|2026-05-29 production]]. ## Significance - **Resolves the PLACEHOLDER open question** that had kept the [[2026-05 City of Conway Produces Project Stratus Records|May 26 production]] logged as "PLACEHOLDER review pending." On the City's account, the cards are not a partial-withholding requiring a (f)(3) log — a defensible reading, though it rests on the City's characterization of its own working document rather than an itemized log. - **Closes the FOIA-2026-129 cross-reference** as a duplicate, not a separate withheld set. - **Confirms the City/Conway Corp custodial split** the investigation had inferred: land-use records with the City, utility records with Conway Corporation — both now produced. ## Notes The clarification is administrative housekeeping, but it cleans the City of Conway FOIA-2026-126 ledger: with Conway Corporation's 2026-05-29 production also in hand, both halves of the Conway request are now substantively answered. What remains unproduced is engineering work product referenced but not attached (the Black & Veatch Final Engineering Report and Rate Analysis memorandum), which sits with [[Conway Corporation]] / [[Black & Veatch]], not the City.