FOIA Request #26-46: Year 4 Billing Revealed — Other Documents Withheld
Filed: February 19, 2026
Response: February 26, 2026
Status: Granted in Part, Denied in Part
What Was Requested
I requested contracts, agreements, or amendments related to ProsecutorbyKarpel.
This was a focused request designed to obtain the complete contractual framework and all invoices for the ProsecutorbyKarpel system.
What Was Provided
The Prosecutor’s Office provided one document:
Invoice #76350 dated 01/27/2026
Invoice Details
This invoice reveals critical new information:
- Invoice Number: 76350
- Date: January 27, 2026
- Reference: “Delta Year 4 Annual Billing: June 2027–May 2028”
- Bill To: Delta County Prosecutor’s Office-MI, Attn: Dianna Collins
Line Items:
- Annual PBK Maintenance (9 users @ $450.00): $4,050.00
- PBK External Agency & eSubpoena: $1,000.00
- Annual PBK Hosting Fee (9 users @ $100.00): $900.00
- PBK E-Discovery Annual Service Fee (9 @ $125.00): $1,125.00
- PBK Annual Interface Maintenance: LEIN: $1,000.00
- PBK Annual Interface Maintenance: VINE: $1,000.00
- PBK Annual Interface Maintenance: MSP Lab: $2,000.00
Invoice Total: $11,075.00
What This Reveals
Confirmed Total Costs
With this fourth invoice, the confirmed total paid to Karpel Solutions is now:
| Invoice Date | Amount | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 10/26/2023 | $43,662.50 | Year 1 |
| 06/30/2024 | $22,150.00 | Year 2 |
| 06/25/2025 | $32,587.50 | Year 3 |
| 01/27/2026 | $11,075.00 | Year 4 |
| CONFIRMED TOTAL | $109,475.00 |
The ProsecutorbyKarpel system has cost Delta County taxpayers at least $109,475 to date.
Multi-Year Contract Confirmed
The invoice references “Delta Year 4 Annual Billing: June 2027–May 2028.” This confirms that:
- The Prosecutor’s Office has entered into a multi-year agreement with Karpel Solutions
- Financial obligations extend at least through May 2028
- The contract was structured with annual billing cycles
- Future costs are almost certain beyond the current confirmed total
Detailed Cost Breakdown
For the first time, we have a line-item breakdown showing exactly what the annual costs include:
- Maintenance fees: $4,050 (core software maintenance)
- External agency access: $1,000 (eSubpoena functionality)
- Hosting: $900 (cloud storage for the system)
- E-Discovery: $1,125 (digital evidence processing)
- Interface integrations: $4,000 total (LEIN, VINE, MSP Lab)
This reveals that ProsecutorbyKarpel is not just case management software — it’s an integrated system connecting to multiple state databases and external services.
Number of Users
The invoice references “9 users” for both maintenance and hosting fees. This tells us:
- The system is licensed for 9 concurrent users
- Annual costs scale with user count
- The Prosecutor’s Office is paying for multiple staff access points
What Was NOT Provided
Despite acknowledging the existence of other responsive documents, the Prosecutor’s Office refused to provide them under the Densmore exception.
The response identified these documents but refused to release them:
- Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan & Delta County Prosecutor’s Office Contract for ProsecutorbyKarpel
- Karpel Solutions Invoice dated 10/26/2023 (Note: This is DIFFERENT from the 10/26/2021 invoice provided in Request #25-201)
- Karpel Solutions Invoice dated 06/30/2024
- Karpel Solutions Invoice dated 06/25/2025
Reason for Denial
The Prosecutor’s Office claimed these documents were “already provided” in FOIA Request #25-201 and refused to reproduce them under Densmore v Department of Corrections.
This denial is improper for several reasons:
- The 10/26/2023 invoice is DIFFERENT from the 10/26/2021 invoice provided in #25-201 — different dates, different billing periods, different amounts
- The contract was only partially provided in #25-201 — we need the full contract with all terms, conditions, and financial obligations
- The other invoices (06/30/2024 and 06/25/2025) should be provided in full context with the new Year 4 invoice — having only one invoice makes it impossible to understand the full financial picture
What Should Be Included
A complete response to this request should have provided:
- Full Contract: The complete ProsecutorbyKarpel contract showing:
- Total contract term and renewal provisions
- Total obligated amount over the full term
- All financial commitments
- Service level agreements
- Termination clauses
- All Invoices: Every invoice related to ProsecutorbyKarpel from the start of the contract to the present, not just selected ones
- The Correct Invoice: The 10/26/2023 invoice (not the 10/26/2021 invoice provided in #25-201)
- Amendments and Addendums: Any modifications to the original contract
- Service Agreements: Separate agreements for specific services like LEIN integration, VINE integration, and MSP Lab interface
Why This Matters
The Year 4 invoice represents a significant development:
Financial Transparency
- The confirmed total has jumped from $98,400 to $109,475 — an 11% increase
- The public deserves to know what the full contractual obligation is
- The “Year 4” label suggests this is an ongoing commitment, not a one-time expense
Future Obligations
- The reference to “June 2027–May 2028” billing confirms future costs
- Without the full contract, taxpayers don’t know how much more will be spent
- The public needs to understand the long-term financial commitment
System Scope
- The line-item breakdown reveals ProsecutorbyKarpel is an integrated system with multiple external connections
- Each integration (LEIN, VINE, MSP Lab) represents ongoing costs and potential privacy/security considerations
- The public deserves to understand the full scope of data being shared with external systems
Incomplete Picture
- Providing only one invoice creates a misleading picture of costs
- Refusing to provide other invoices prevents the public from seeing year-over-year cost trends
- The Densmore denial is being used to fragment the financial record
The Pattern of Obstruction
This response continues the pattern of providing some information while blocking access to the complete picture:
| FOIA Request | Request | What Was Provided | What Was Blocked |
|---|---|---|---|
| #25-201 | All financial records | 3 invoices + contract | No funding sources, no migration costs |
| #26-44 | Migration status | 156 pages of emails | No formal status, no completion report |
| #26-45 | Migration timelines | NOTHING | 5 timeline-related emails |
| #26-46 | Contracts & invoices | 1 new invoice | Contract + 3 other invoices |
| #26-56 | Data exclusions | NOTHING | Data exclusion documentation |
| #26-57 | Full financials | NOTHING | Contract + all invoices + funding sources |
The Prosecutor’s Office is dripping out information piece by piece while blocking access to the complete picture. This is not transparency — it’s obstruction by fragmentation.
What’s Next
Follow-up Request #26-57 seeks the complete financial picture including:
- The full contract
- All invoices
- Funding source information
- Total obligated amount
- Migration, training, and implementation costs
The Prosecutor’s Office has denied Request #26-57 under Densmore. That denial is being appealed to the Delta County Board of Commissioners.
The appeals process is ongoing. We will update this page as the appeals are considered and decisions are made.
Note: The confirmed total of $109,475 may represent only a portion of the actual costs. Without full access to the contract and all invoices, the true financial commitment remains unknown.
Leave a comment