|
1. Call to Order
Chairperson Arbeit called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. The meeting was held at the Earle Brown Conference
Center in St. Paul.
Members Present: State: David Arbeit (LMIC); County: Pat O’Connor (Hennepin), Margo LaBau (Anoka), David
Claypool (Ramsey); Virginia Erdahl and Alternate Jane Harper (Washington), Jim Hentges (Scott), Dave Drealan (Carver);
Metropolitan: Richard Johnson and Rick Gelbmann (Metropolitan Council); Academics: Will Craig (CURA); GIS Consultants:
Larry Charboneau (The Lawrence Group); Cities: Brad Henry (City of Minneapolis) and Dennis Welsch (City of Roseville);
Federal: Ron Wencl (USGS); Watersheds: Cliff Aichinger (Ramsey-Washington- Metro Watershed District); Schools: Jim
Sydow (TIES); and Utilities: Alan Srock (NSP)
Members Absent: Business Geographics: Tim Nuteson, (Dayton Hudson Corporation); Economic Development
Partnerships: Scott Beckman (Dakota County Economic Development Partnership), Counties: Gary Stevenson, (Dakota)
Support Staff: Randall Johnson, Heidi Welsch, and Tanya Mayer
Visitors: John Carpenter and Jim Maxwell with The Lawrence Group and Chuck Ballentine with the Metropolitan
Council.
2. Acceptance of Agenda
MOTION: Member Charboneau moved and Member Welsch seconded to accepted the agenda, as submitted. Motion passed
unanimously.
3. Acceptance of the Meeting Summary
MOTION: Member Henry moved and Member Sydow seconded to approve the minutes of the December 18, 1997 and
January 22, 1998 meetings, as submitted. Motion passed unanimously.
4. Summary of the JANUARY 28TH Policy Board Meeting
Chairperson Arbeit reported that the focus of the January 28th Policy Board meeting was long term financing
for MetroGIS. The Board also adopted operating guidelines for MetroGIS and endorsed the use of the MN Geographic
Metadata Guidelines for use by MetroGIS participants.
Arbeit also summarized work that has been done to obtain grant funds for MetroGIS. David Arbeit and Randall
Johnson collaborated on a NSDI Framework Demonstration grant that requests $100,000. Member Craig has applied for an
NSDI Benefits grant in the amount of $40,000. If awarded the funds would be received by U of M CURA to document the
effectiveness of MetroGIS and the benefits of MetroGIS to the participants.
5. Action and Discussion Items
5a. MetroGIS Participant Satisfaction Survey
Chairperson Arbeit introduced this item by noting that significant work has been done by Member LaBau and her
staff to administer and compile the results of the survey. Member LaBau summarized the assumptions she and her staff
made as they tabulated and reviewed the results. She noted that generally low response rate of 46% is a story in
itself. Efforts were made to call and email participants that did not respond to the mailing. She stated that some
persons contacted by phone noted that they do not know how they fit in to the project and, as such, elected not to
participate. Especially low return rates occurred with the Data Content and Data Access teams. On the positive side,
those persons that respond, including the Data Access and Content Team members, rated MetroGIS pace and accomplishments
fairly high. Most respondents also believe the project needs to have several successes in 1998 to maintain project
momentum.
Criticisms generally expressed concerns of a large time commitment, need for the Coordinating Committee to be
more dynamic – reduce amount of rehashing of Team recommendations, becoming too much bureaucratic, too slow of a
pace, committee members do not understand how they fit it or how their work fits in the broader program, reduce the
amount of paper mailed – rely more on the website. The group agreed that more of the information could be put on
the web instead of being distributed through the mail. Member LaBau also emphasized the importance of the advisory team
liaisons to communicate the activities of the Policy Board and Coordinating Committee to their Teams.
Members Sydow, Liaison to the Access Team, stated that the Access Team viewed its charge to provide guidance
to staff with the Data Finder project at significant junctures in the process which he believes was accomplished with
only a few meetings. Member Charboneau suggested that Teams meet only when they have a task to accomplish. Member
Gelbmann, also a liaison to the Access Team, supported this philosophy.
Member Johnson arrived.
It was agreed that Teams should meet only when they have a task to accomplish, that it is the responsibility
of the Team liaisons to convey this expectation to their respective Teams, and that Teams are not expected to invent
their own agendas, but that the Committee expects Teams to propose tasks when they believe appropriate.
Member LaBau suggested two actions to follow up on the survey results. First, she suggested that the Policy
Advisory Team should be directed to look into the survey results, including specific comments regarding individuals and
leadership, and suggest appropriate changes. Second, she noted that a 'graceful exit policy' might be used to allow
people with no further interest or time for MetroGIS to leave the committees or teams. It was agreed that use of such a
policy should facilitate rebuilding teams with interested persons around a core of current interested members.
Chairperson Arbeit concurred and emphasized that teams should not be penalized for lack of interest among members that
may not have had much interest in the project from the beginning.
Member Charboneau expressed concern that support and input from committee and team members not be lost even if
they choose to leave the team. The group agreed that it is important to create ways for people to participate when they
feel they have knowledge to contribute without necessarily requiring them to participate in all of the teamwork.
Member Aichinger suggested that a letter should be sent to workgroups to explain the status of their work,
particularly if no discussion of the topic for a while. Member Srock concurred and suggested the results of the survey
should be available to the participants, if possible in electronic format.
The group thanked Member LaBau and her staff for their hard work on this project.
5b. Revised 1999 MetroGIS Expense and Revenue Proposal
Member Johnson explained that the Policy Board had begun to discuss long term financing for MetroGIS at its
January meeting. In response to the January discussion, Council management is proposing that the Council include
$375,000 for MetroGIS in its operating budget for 1999. This amount is a decrease of about $165,000 from the 1999
expenses proposed to the Policy Board in January and a decrease of about $50,000 from the funds committed by the
Council for MetroGIS in 1998.
Chairperson Arbeit explained that the decrease in the budget means that there will not be any funds for
supporting local programs, as had been the case in the past programs. Staff Johnson noted that the 1999 budget
reductions do not affect the GIS data and cost sharing maintenance amounts that will continue to be paid to counties
for the three year duration of the individual agreements. He also explained that the revised budget proposal includes
activities to identify gaps in core data and telecommunication needs and allows for continued support of the Data
Finder project.
Chairperson Arbeit stated that the revised budget proposal sets a framework to obtain a consensus on needs
upon which to move forward collaboratively to address the identified needs and that MetroGIS provides the environment
through which to accomplish collaboration. Member Gelbmann cited the Council’s cooperative orthoimagery project as
an example of a collaborative solution to a common need of several MetroGIS stakeholders. The group concurred that
MetroGIS provides an effective environment through which to work collaboratively on common problems and opportunities.
Member Erdahl expressed two concerns. First, given that the participant satisfaction survey rated the
newsletter and communication in general as important, cutting the budget for the semi-annual newsletter should be
reconsidered. Second, she questioned whether legal services from the Metropolitan Council would still be available to
work with the counties on the legal form that MetroGIS should take. Member Johnson affirmed that the Council’s
legal staff would be available to work on legal matters for MetroGIS.
The group concurred that the revised budget proposal is reasonable and acceptable with the exception of the
proposed budget reduction to temporarily suspend publication of the MetroGIS newsletter "Coordinates". Member Srock
offered assistance of his organization to help publish the newsletter.
Chairperson Arbeit asked that anyone with an organization that might be able to support a list-server or to
consider taking on a list server responsibility for MetroGIS. He noted that he would look into the matter at LMIC. He
also commented that even with the proposed budget reductions, the financial support proposed by the Metropolitan
Council to facilitate MetroGIS is unprecedented around the country. He thanked Member Johnson with the Metropolitan
Council for his active participation and support of MetroGIS with Metropolitan Council policy makers.
5c. 1998 Meeting Schedule
MOTION: Member Aichinger moved and Member Srock seconded to continue to meet every other month on the fourth
Thursday of the month beginning in April through the end of 1998, with the exception of the December meeting which
would be on the third Thursday of the month. Motion passed unanimously.
5d. Reminder of Election for Chair and Vice-Chair
Chairperson Arbeit reminded members that election of a Committee chair and vice-chair for 1998-1999 is
scheduled. He explained that although he would be willing to serve again as Chair, he would prefer that the role be
rotated.
Member O’Connor arrived.
6. Strategic Initiates Updates
6a. MetroGIS Data Finder
Member Gelbmann, Metropolitan Council GIS Coordinator and manager of the Data Finder Project, summarized the
status of this project. Tanya Mayer, Metropolitan Council GIS Specialist and Data Finder Project staff, demonstrated
the search options provided in the first version of the Data Finder. Searches by geography are proposed for the next
version. Map Objects programming activities are proposed to accomplish geographic searches and is included in the
approved 1998 budget and proposed 1999 budget.
Member Gelbmann shared the work program that the Data Access Team approved for itself on March 5th. The
Team’s priority activities, in order of priority are:
- Metadata enhancement – facilitate development of metadata for core regional data and post it with
Data Finder. Propose use of MetroGIS funded personnel to assist participants develop their metadata. The MN Geographic
Metadata Guidelines will be used. 15 of the numerous fields of metadata are required for each dataset for Data Finder
to properly function. All fields will be encouraged to be filled in but a submission will not be rejected if fields are
left empty unless part of the mandatory fifteen.
- Data delivery support – define a strategy to maintain Data Finder as an ongoing service.
- Data Finder enhancements – implement enhancements such as geographic searches.
- Enhance access to shared data – develop applications, scripts, facilitate telecommunication and
improvements, resolve institutional issues, etc. to improve on-line access to participant data.
Alternate Member Harper noted that the person(s) who will assist with metadata development must be prepared
with a list of very specific questions to elicit the needed information from participants. Member Claypool emphasized
that the key to data sharing is to get local officials to document their data. He suggested the documentation must be
built into each participant’s internal business process. Member Claypool gave an example that he will not accept a
dataset unless it is accompanied by complete metadata.
Member Wencl stated that he supports Data Finder as a good way to effectively implement metadata standards. He
concurred with Member Claypool that training of participants to develop metadata and to learn how to use it to evaluate
whether a particular dataset meets their particular needs is a critical need. He cautioned not to link to too many
related sites. The focus needs to be on the specific needs of MetroGIS. He encouraged the Data Access Team to work
closely with the Standards Team as it develops the geo-searching capability, emphasizing that geo-searching requires
standards. He also concurred with Member Harper’s concern about the method by which metadata is proposed to be
collected. It can not be effectively collected over the telephone and he is opposed to any process that focuses on a
subset of the MN Geographic Metadata Guidelines.
Member Harper noted that she could support less complete metadata for legacy data but that new datasets should
be required to have metadata fully compliant with the MN Geographic Metadata Guidelines.
Vice-Chairperson Henry stated that Data Finder is an excellent opportunity to show tangible results for
MetroGIS. He noted that the Minneapolis GIS service bureau staff spends a significant amount of time explaining the
data available and believes Data Finder could save these staff members substantial time.
Chairperson Arbeit thanked Member Gelbmann, Tanya Mayer and the Access Advisory Team for their hard work on
this very important project. He also concurred that MetroGIS should not give up complete metadata as called for by the
Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines for the sake of expediency. He noted that he has concerns that have yet to be
addressed as to the compatibility of Data Finder with the Minnesota State Clearinghouse and with NSDI clearinghouse
standards.
Member Gelbmann responded that he does not believe compliance with state and federal clearinghouse guidelines
is a problem. He also emphasized that all fields included in the metadata guidelines will be encouraged, but that the
reason for focusing on the subset is that Data Finder will not function if any of the 15 core fields is missing.
6b. Information Needs Project
Jurisdictional Boundaries: Alternate Member Harper, member of the Data Content Advisory Team and co-manager of
the Washington County Jurisdictional Boundaries Pilot Project, presented an overview of the project and the conclusion
that the Metropolitan Council is best suited to be assume the role of custodian of the regional dataset, in large part,
because the Council has produced a regional MCD/County jurisdictional dataset for its own purposes. Another product of
the project was the identification of several items that should be considered for standards or guidelines to facilitate
integration of boundary data across county boundaries.
Member Craig explained that the Content Advisory Team had unanimously accepted the findings of the Washington
County Pilot Project and that the Data Content Advisory team has recommended that the Policy Advisory Team lead
negotiations of an agreement with the Council to serve the role of regional custodian for this dataset and to pass
along the standards matters to the Standards Advisory Team for consideration and recommendation to the Coordinating
Committee.
The membership accepted the report and passed the Content Team’s conclusions to the Policy Advisory and
Standards Advisory Teams for consideration and recommendation to the Committee.
Member LaBau, Chair of the Policy Advisory Team, stated that she concurs with informing the Committee of the
substance of the Content Team’s conclusions and that bringing this matter before the Committee as an information
item is appropriate because the Committee is not being asked to endorse or otherwise take a position on the Content
Team’s work but rather is being given an opportunity to offer comments.
Framework Datasets: Member Craig reported that he and Jane Harper, with Washington County, has agreed to work
on this concept but that their work is on hold until summer to coordinate with a project Washington County intends to
undertake with the Washington County GIS Users Group.
Address Information Need: Member Craig offered a Data Content Advisory Team recommendation for the
Committee’s consideration. The group discussed the appropriateness of acting on a Team recommendation that is not
supported by a written report and not included on the agenda as an action item. The group concluded that because the
actions do not obligate any organization to any specific commitment and because the Content Team had met only the week
prior due to a rescheduling of this Committee meeting, that the Committee could act on the Content Team’s
recommendation.
Member Craig explained that his NSDI Benefits grant proposal, if awarded, would address recommendation Two
(stated below). [Grant awarded are expected to be announced by July 1998.]
Member Gelbmann, Metropolitan Council GIS Coordinator, requested clarification about the tasks the Team had in
mind to carry out recommendation two. No additional information was given other than a feed back loop is desirable.
TLG, the owner of the dataset, agreed that a feed loop is important to sustaining a dataset that meets participant
needs and agreed to work with the Council, which licenses this dataset on behalf of government, on this matter.
MOTION: Member Claypool moved and member Srock seconded the following four-part motion:
- That the Coordinating Committee endorse The Lawrence Group (TLG) street centerline file as a primary
source of addressing information for MetroGIS.
- That the Coordinating Committee negotiate with the Metropolitan Council to identify and monitor use and
potential enhancements to the TLG datafile.
- Findings of the address workgroup will be passed to the upcoming parcel workgroup for exploration of other
sources that might answer information needs related to addressing.
- That the Coordinating Committee or Policy Team analyze future revenue-sharing possibilities of the TLG
datafile.
The motion passed unanimously.
Member Craig stated that the Content Advisory Team believes that its responsibilities are complete for the
MCD/County Jurisdictional Boundaries and Address Information Needs.
6c. GIS Data and Cost Sharing Agreements
Randall Johnson summarized a negotiating session held the prior work with Hennepin County officials and noted
that significant progress was made to resolve remaining issues. He explained the negotiations with Hennepin County are
more complex than with the other six counties because both the county’s and the Council’s licenses are
exhibits to the agreements with is not the case with the other counties. Once the licenses are complete for the
Hennepin County agreement, staff will turn to finalizing licenses with each of the other counties.
7. Information Sharing: MetroGIS Related Activities
There was no discussion of either the two items listed on the agenda due to lack of time.
Chairperson Arbeit thanked Vice Chairperson Henry for chairing the January 22nd Special Meeting and for
facilitating the discussion, noted that Scott Beckman had resigned from the Coordinating Committee because he is no
longer associated with the Dakota County Economic Development Partnership, and expressed best wishes to Heidi Welsch
who resigned from MetroGIS to accept a position with Hennepin County.
8. Next Meeting: Thursday, April 23, 1998, 8:30 a.m. 10:30 a.m. Earle Brown Center, University of Minnesota
9. Adjournment
Member Aichinger moved and Member LaBau seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 a.m. Motion passed
unanimously.
Prepared by, Heidi Welsch Assistant GIS Liaison and Randall Johnson GIS Liaison
|
