|
Special Meeting - January 22, 1998
1. Call to Order
Vice Chairperson Henry called the meeting to order at
9:00 a.m. The meeting was held at the Earle Brown Conference Center in St. Paul.
Members Present: Cities: Brad Henry (City of Minneapolis) and Dennis Welsch
(City of Roseville); County: Margo LaBau (Anoka), Dave Drealan (Carver),
Alternate Jay Wittstock for Gary Stevenson (Dakota), Alternate Gary Caswell
(Hennepin), David Claypool (Ramsey), Jim Hentges (Scott), and Virginia Erdahl
(Washington), Economic Development Partnerships: Scott Beckman (Dakota County
Partnership); Federal: Ron Wencl (USGS); GIS Consultants: Larry Charboneau
(The Lawrence Group); Metropolitan: Richard Johnson and Rick Gelbmann
(Metropolitan Council); Schools: Jim Sydow (TIES); State: David Arbeit (LMIC).
Members Absent: Academics: Will Craig (CURA); Business Geographics: Tim
Nuteson, (Dayton Hudson Corporation); Utilities: Alan Srock (NSP); Watersheds:
Cliff Aichinger (Ramsey-Washington- Metro Watershed District)
Support Staff: Randall Johnson and Heidi Welsch
Visitors: John Carpenter, (The Lawrence Group), Thomas Bisch (Heritage
Development), Marcia Broman (Metropolitan 911 Board), Roger Carlson
(Minneapolis Assessors Office), Dennis Carlson (Anoka-Hennepin School District),
Dick Carlstrom (TIES), John Connelly (Ramsey County Charter Commission), Chuck
Krueger (Hennepin County), Suzanne Fliege (The Lawrence Group), Elliott Graham
(Ramsey County), Jane Harper (Washington County), Mark Kotz (Metropolitan
Council), Paul Leegard (Anoka County), Jim Maxwell (The Lawrence Group), Lili
Pan (Model Cities of St. Paul), James Peigat (Hennepin Conservation District),
Ernie Peterson (City of St. Louis Park), Nancy Pollock (Metropolitan 911 Board),
Jim Ramstrom (MN Planning - LMIC), Carol Swenson (University of MN Design
Center), Mark Vander Schaaf (St. Paul Department of Planning and Economic
Development), David Windle (City of Roseville), Don Yaeger (LMIC)
2. Presentation -- Socioeconomic Database Proposal
John Carpenter, Vice President for Strategic Consulting with the Lawrence
Group, thanked the Coordinating Committee for this opportunity to share with
it a database development proposal he believes consistent with MetroGIS
objectives, noting that "socioeconomic characteristics of a specified area"
has been cited a priority information need for MetroGIS. The proposal would
integrate socioeconomic, demographic, and parcel attribute data from a variety
of sources using blockface geography.
Mr. Carpenter prefaced his remarks by stating The Lawrence Group has no
interest in owning or licensing the proposed database. Rather, their interest is to provide GIS services to the
consortium of organizations that would contribute to and have access to the database. He also stated that access to
the proposed database would be controlled by the consortium participants and that data sharing would be in a very
controlled environment.
{Note: copies of slides used in the presentation are available upon request}
Mr. Carpenter summarized how public and private organizations use socioeconomic, demographic, and parcel attribute
data to address their business needs and noted some shortcomings with existing data sources to address these needs.
He also stated no single organization has a critical mass of this type of data and generally do not produce all
the data they need to address their business needs but that he believes solutions to these issues lie with
local databases: e.g., school census, utility connects, Dept. of Motor Vehicles for age and owned vehicles, and
Dept. of Economic Security for employment data.
The cornerstone of the proposal is to integrate varied
data sources at the blockface level of geography. The blockface concept is proposed as a balance between critical
data privacy concerns that must be overcome to make it possible for the key data producers to consider
participating and a fine enough level of detail to be useful. John emphasized that GIS technology is the key to
cost-effectively integrating these data, it provides more` flexibility than currently available for the whole of
the data involved, and it provides a good bridge between address-based data (households and businesses) and
parcel-based data (land and dwellings). He also noted that the proposed database would support numerous
applications and the blockfaces could be easily "rolled-up" to support both area and corridor analysis. An example
was provided to illustrate the advantages of analysis using blockfaces versus conventional census block
geography.
John noted that the current plan is to test and prove the concept with a few public sector
pilots and that discussions are in progress to begin these pilots in 1998. It was emphasized that private sector
involvement is a long term goal and that any private sector involvement would have to meet the requirements of or
fit a profile established by the collaborative.
The concept of relying upon a creditable third party to
aggregate data from the individual sources and return the source data to the producer was offered as a way to
address concerns surrounding the need to guarantee confidentially. John also shared that in his discussions
with prospective participants (public and private), he has learned that most would prefer a third party integrator
to minimize issues of trust and to test the cost-effectiveness of contracting for this service. He restated his
earlier comment that The Lawrence Group has no interest in owning the data, rather TLG’s interest are to
support the needs of collaborative and to build upon use of its street centerline dataset that has been made
available free of charge to government by the Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT.
John closed his presentation by summarizing benefits of this project to MetroGIS and shared some thoughts on the roles that
MetroGIS could play in its development. He encouraged MetroGIS to take an active role in the policy matters but
noted that The Lawrence Group has a client base (public and private) that needs better data and is interested
in pursuing this concept with or without MetroGIS’s participation.
Vice-Chairperson Henry recessed the meeting at 10:00 am. He asked each Committee member and each visitor to come back after the break prepared to talk
about their thoughts about the proposal and to share any concerns that they believe will need to be overcome
for this proposal to be successful.
The meeting was called back to order at 10:15 am.
The following comments were received. A brainstorming format was used (each person was asked to state their comments but there
was no discussion). Vice-Chairperson Henry stated that the Coordinating Committee would take these comments
under advisement at its next regular meeting and decide how it wishes to proceed.
|
No.
|
Commentor
|
Comments
|
|
1
|
Paul Leegard
|
How to convert (parcel?) points to blockfaces
|
|
2.
|
Jim Ramstram
|
- Some agencies sell these data to support their programs
- We can not get the same the level of detail here as in Wisconsin
|
|
3.
|
Dennis Welsch
|
- New datasets are opportunities for new revenues. How to distribute, to whom, and for
what reasons.
- Data Practices Act and Intellectual Property Rights issues for MetroGIS to overcome to
achieve data sharing.
|
|
4.
|
Dave Drealan
|
Data standards are at the core
|
|
5.
|
Elliot Graham
|
What does The Lawrence Group bring to the project that MetroGIS can not do for itself?
|
|
6.
|
Jane Harper
|
a) Define reasons why the project has not already been done What can MetroGIS do to overcome
barriers? b) What opportunities exist to further objectives of MetroGIS?
|
|
7.
|
Dick Carlstrom
|
a) If there is to be data sharing between school districts, cities, and counties, aggregation
of school district census data will be necessary overcome data privacy concerns. b) Enthusiastically supports the
blockface concept as an effective method to accomplish the required aggregation.
|
|
8.
|
Jim Sydow
|
a) A better definition is needed of the types of data that school districts can share outside
of their organizations. b) Believes parcel attributes aggregated to the blockface would probably be adequate for
many school needs for parcel data, such as attendance boundaries for individual schools. Probably do not need parcel
boundaries.
|
|
9.
|
Mark Kotz
|
a) In addition to data privacy/legal issues also anticipates trust and control issues among the
data contributors. Supports looking into the proposal of a third party to aggregate data to minimize these
concerns. b) How would blockfaces be coordinated with zip + 4 geography?
|
|
10.
|
Don Yeager
|
a) Suggests doing an inventory of working/successful collaborative efforts b) Need to
identify prospective pilot/demonstration opportunities.
|
|
11.
|
Carol Swenson
|
Consider providing access for academic research
|
|
12.
|
Roger Carlson
|
a) This is a good idea and should be pursued b) Need to work out timeliness of updates to
source databases and to the summary databases to accommodate user needs.
|
|
13.
|
Mark Vander Schaaf
|
a) This is a good idea and should be pursuing. Very relevant to his economic development
responsibilities. Increasing demand for more detailed information to compare localize situation with the regional
context (e.g., jobs versus housing) Very difficult to meet these expectations with existing data sources. b) He is
currently involved in a pilot project with the Dept. of Economic Security which he believes would be better served in
the context of MetroGIS than limited to the City of St. Paul. (1)Would gladly turn over the to a higher entity to
protect against confidentially issues with other limited area projects. (2) More organizations can use the data and
should be involved (community development councils, neighborhood groups, etc.) (3) Concurs that colleges and
universities should have access to support revised curriculums to do more neighborhood based research. Good adjunct
source of assistance to local government. (4) Disclosure rules for small area geography fairly restrictive.
|
|
14.
|
Virginia Erdahl
|
a) Good idea, worth pursing b) Will The Lawrence Group street centerline database be
integrated with county parcel data.
|
|
15.
|
Chuck Krueger
|
a) Agree that issues with Data Practices and Intellectual Property Rights Laws need to be
addressed to successfully implement data sharing. b) Believes there is room in a collaborative effort for each
organization to address their revenue concerns. c) Suggested that if MetroGIS pursues The Lawrence Group proposal,
that the 3rd party contract should be determined through an open bidding.
|
|
16.
|
Jay Wittstock
|
a) Cost benefit analysis should be conducted. Benefit to Dakota County not apparent b)
Inventory would be useful c) Frequency of updates will be an issue given the large size of this database. d)
How will the blockfaces be integrated with parcel (boundary) data. e) Expensive to update. f) Suggest and RFP
process to select the 3rd party integrator is MetroGIS involved.
|
|
17.
|
Rick Person
|
a) The Lawrence Group’s street centerline database is a useful regional foundation upon
which to add additional attributes. b) Need to correct errors in the file before adding new attributes.
|
|
18.
|
Dennis Carlson
|
a) Privacy must be guaranteed for school districts to be a participant in MetroGIS. This
proposal appears to satisfactorily address the need for a balance between the value of the data and the need for data
privacy. b) The proposed 3rd party integrator would lend credibility to the process. c) Allocation of resources
are increasingly being based on socioeconomic data.
|
|
19.
|
David Claypool
|
a) Concept is good. Ramsey County GIS Users Group representatives believe in the interest of
the county and MetroGIS to pursue. b) Inventory is important c) Ownership of the dataset will be a critical
issue -- by the collaborative or by the providers of the source data. d) Supports the concept of a 3rd party vendor
to aggregate the data but needs to be an open selection process.
|
|
20.
|
David Arbeit
|
a) Thanked The Lawrence Group for bringing this concept to MetroGIS. b) Reflected that had
the developers of the DIME files in the 1960’s understood the value of this data to others they could very well
have adopted a similar concept of summary geography. c) Concurred with the challenges identified by John Carpenter
but emphasized the resulting product is worth the effort to attempt to resolve them. d) Builds on MetroGIS
principals and the spirit that we have seen so far. e) If MetroGIS does not get involved, concerned that the market
for this data will evolve into a proprietary dataset. f) Hopes the notion of collaboration with the private sector
does not limit discussion of creative solutions to the needs identified by MetroGIS.
|
|
21.
|
Rick Gelbmann
|
a) Good concept. In the spirit of MetroGIS b) Useful for regional needs, employment and
other socioeconomic data does not fit neatly into existing summary geography. c) 3rd party aggregation a distinct
advantage to creatively leverage other resources to efficiently develop and maintain the product without having to gear
up internally but the should be a competitive process. d) The "right" level of aggregation is a sensitive matter.
Need to do testing to assure the concept will effectively address data privacy. We can not afford any disclosure of
private information.
|
|
22.
|
Margo LaBau
|
a) Even if we can resolve all of the challenges, who do we pay for this. b) Will
organizations have to change their business practices to participate?
|
|
23
|
Chuck Ballentine
|
a) Believes beneficial to regional decision making. b) Has a pilot program been thought
about? What will the costs be to participate? Up-front funding requirements?
|
|
24.
|
Brad Henry
|
a) What is the timeframe for deliverables? b) Will TLG pursue with or without MetroGIS
involvement?
|
|
25.
|
Gary Caswell
|
a) The content is Number 12 on the list of MetroGIS Information Needs. Everything costs time
and money. How to reconcile with work on the other priority needs?
|
|
26.
|
Chuck Krueger
|
a) Who will have the rights to the software? Would the 3rd party have these rights?
|
|
27
|
David Arbeit
|
a) If we organize on the proposed blockfaces, how to technically decompose census geography to
the block face. b) Clarify what TLG wants MetroGIS to do?
|
Larry Charboneau, President of The Lawrence Group (TLG), introduced himself as a member of the
MetroGIS Coordinating Committee and thanked everyone for their comments. He noted that if nothing else is done, the
fact that over 40 people from a variety of interests gathered to talk about the concept is a huge accomplishment.
He also stated that he believes that a concept that brings the public and private sector together to
collaboratively address common needs is consistent with the basis principals of MetroGIS.
Member Charboneau commented that TLG is offering the concept to MetroGIS because TLG wants the concept to be successfully
implemented and because they believe broad public sector participation would substantially add to the robustness of
the product. Notwithstanding, he stated that TLG will pursue the concept with or without MetroGIS’s
involvement. TLG is open to an RFP approach to select the 3rd party vendor and are confident that their expertise
would prevail. He acknowledged that funding will be needed and concurred that conducting pilot projects is the
appropriate way to proceed to test the concept.
John Carpenter added that the purpose of this special meeting was to get a general feeling for the support for this concept and to find out if MetroGIS wants to be
involved. He emphasized that TLG is responding to a need, not driving the process. And he restated that there
is a need for more finely organized data to support planning which will require partnerships, such as MetroGIS, to
successfully implement. It was recognized that implementation would be in small pieces and, consequently, that
broadly agreed upon standards are important to knit together the pieces. He agreed the cost and benefits need
to be documented and noted that TLG is willing to participate and support this need.
John Carpenter concluded his remarks by restating that TLG is very experienced with address issues noting their clients in the this area
include over 50 school districts, all major utilities, numerous cities and several state agencies. They have
credibility among their clients that had to be earned.
Chuck Krueger asked if the concept would permit the public sector to receive private sector data. Larry Charboneau stated this is a possibility, noting that the
private sector has many of the same issues as government and that the private sector is excited about the
possibilities provided privacy and security issues can be overcome.
Mr. Charboneau restated that this project has a huge support element and asked who within MetroGIS is going to take it on. He believes a vendor relationship
is an appropriate solution and that the attendant challenges are solvable. He also stated that he believes the
presence of blockface data would enhance revenue potential for the more detailed source data which would remain
under the control of the originating organizations.
David Arbeit asked when it would be possible to see a prototype. John Carpenter noted that work has begun with the City of Roseville and is still taking shape. The idea
is to start with a city base and to add to it. He noted that TLG is also working with TIES to look at
aggregation issues that pertain to school districts. More should be known in the next few weeks. Dick Carlstrom,
with TIES, stated that this work with TLG is being undertaken to build a foundation for other school districts as
they begin to implement GIS.
Member Sydow stated data privacy issues need be elevated to the State level.
He suggested that MetroGIS work as an advocate on behalf of local government and request the State to give
clear direction on an acceptable level of data summary that would permit local government to share data. David
Claypool added that clarification is also need as to what is and is not private data.
Member Charboneau added that the real estate industry, through its multiple listing services, is working nationally to share data
with the public sector and is interested in collaborating with MetroGIS.
Member Erdahl concurred that revisions are needed to the Data Privacy. She suggested that framing problem as a result of advances in technology
may be the most appropriate way to present the matter to law makers. David Arbeit noted that a task force of
state agency representatives is currently looking into this matter.
3. Adjourn
Vice-Chairperson Henry thanked everyone for their participation and adjourned the meeting at 11:30 am.
Prepared by: Randall L. Johnson, MetroGIS Support Staff
|
