Our current RMS is old and the user technology is much the same today as when it was introduced. In addition, we want to make the change before the parent company of our RMS uh decides that it's end of life.

It's a very complicated process because it's not just about lifting and shifting the data. It's about introducing a whole new system with all new business processes, connections to Henipin County, all of the different things that the state that the police department has to connect to.

On the very very low side, you were looking at about 110 or 120,000 from the least expensive vendor. Um that's not necessarily the one that the group would select, but just to give you an idea. And the most expensive vendor of the three was um for three year that was a three-year roughly cost about 120,000 for the low side and then it was a um about 900,000 on the high side.

You do get a quantity discount and the hosting is a lot less expensive the more people you have on one shared system because you can have one set of infrastructure for a set number of people.

Even if you got the cheapest product that can't accomplish that, then you're in way worse shape and you're going to end up buying it twice cuz you're going to fail this.

So, we're sitting there virtually in shock because we're like, 'What? This means like a six for us because we're 27% of the budget. We're looking at this saying this is an additional I don't know what that is, but anyhow, X number of dollars.' We're like, 'That doesn't make any sense. How come it's been 20,000 all these years and now all of a sudden in the 11th hour you're telling us it's going to be increased from 20,000 to 155.'

This kind of activity is is not I would say almost unethical. Um I don't want to say they're I would I would say I'd carefully say it's it's not good um business behavior, put it that way.

I'd prefer if there's hours justification but it's really just a the way I understand it is just like a percentage allocation from each of their items that they think are related to the fire and based on the budget number of people just the couple other metrics that they're using to justify it.

Krauss Anderson in their proposal has uh ADA with facility needs as well for that $10,215. Um so if it's just strictly an ADA, um there's a there's there's probably a conversation that could get that to be even a little bit lower.

It is Minnesota Disability Law. They had people go out to different polling places to make sure is ADA accessible. So for elections for general, we weren't on this list. I don't know how these places are picked. Um but it could be a possibility of people coming to polling places to make sure we are in compliance.

Yeah, I think we should go ahead with it. And I like the idea of kind of chipping away at at these projects. It seems like we shouldn't have been grandfathered in and we should be proactive.

One of the, you know, kind of talking point distance changes is to change it from 300 feet from the, uh, property line to 200 feet from the, uh, primary structure. So that, uh, in the case in the example that was brought up at the last, uh, work session, that would allow for that um, resident that's maybe having some some difficulties operating a recreational vehicle on their property because of a of a neighbor um, maybe not not really wanting it. that would open up the majority of the of the property to being able to use those recreational vehicles.

The issue here is really not the ATV or the UTV, it's the noise and the right being disrespectful. It's not really the feet.

The state statute that defines recreational motor vehicle uh says any self-propelled vehicle used for recreational purposes. So plowing is not plowing and lawn mowing.

I and I'll say it again, they don't want to aggravate these neighbors. that I'm they don't want them out there with cameras and videotapes, but 200 is a normal square number. I'm quite 300.