|
Special Meeting
County Representatives to MetroGIS Coordinating Committee
May 2, 2000
Policy Advisory Team Chairperson Erdahl called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. The meeting was held at the
Centennial Office Building in St. Paul.
County Representatives Present: Dave Drealan (Carver County), Virginia Erdahl, (Washington County), Jim
Hentges (Scott County), Patrick O’Connor (Hennepin County), Ed Shukle (Anoka County) and Gary Stevenson (Dakota
County).
County Representatives Absent: David Claypool (Ramsey County)
Others Present: Randall Johnson and Theresa Foster of the MetroGIS staff and Kathie Doty, Richardson Richter
Associates, Business Planning Consultant Team.
Business Items:
- MCD/County Jurisdictional Boundary Dataset – Waiver of Intellectual Property Rights
Staff noted this item is a follow-up to direction received from the Policy Advisory at its March 20th meeting
and explained that Mn/DOT and Carver County had submitted waivers to permit the regional MCD/County Jurisdictional
Boundary dataset to be distributed free of charge to non-government. Erdahl noted that the Washington County is
scheduled to act on this proposal this afternoon and that County staff are recommending endorsement. Stevenson stated
that Dakota County Commissioners do not favor, at least at this time, free distribution of this dataset to the private
sector. Anoka, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Scott County officials had not yet discussed the matter with their Boards.
The group concluded that the matter should be postponed until issues surrounding private sector access to
parcel data have been resolved.
- Public Sector Evaluation of Regional Parcel Dataset
The group concurred that the public sector component of the regional parcel dataset pilot should proceed
independently of the work of the private sector access subcommittee to be chaired by Commissioner Kordiak. The group
reconfirmed its acceptance of the Metropolitan Council’s offer to finance and manage the distribution the regional
dataset to the public sector during the pilot project, tentatively scheduled to end December 31, 2000. It was agreed
that an the objective of the pilot, in addition to receiving feedback on desired enhancements to the dataset, is to
continue to evaluate the need for regional (centralized) distribution of data. Staff noted that the question of
streamlining the licensing procedure with the seven county data owners remains to be worked out. The license also needs
to include special pilot project requirements of licensees (i.e., participation in the evaluation of the dataset and
return of the data at the end of the evaluation period).
It was agreed that at the end of the pilot, the data recipients must return the evaluation copy of the
regional data and destroy any copies on their systems. The Council’s responsibility, as distributor of the data,
concerning the requirement to return the dataset, would be limited to a written reminder notice near the end of the
pilot period to all licensees and one follow-up written notice (approved by the counties) to any organization(s) that
had not submitted a certificate of destruction by a date to be determined by the Counties. The Council would also copy
the counties on any such follow-up letters.
Erdahl stated she prefers retaining the resolution format used for the draft authorization. The members also
requested that the authorization document clarify that this component of the pilot applies strictly to the public
sector organizations that are currently eligible to receive county data under the GIS Data and Cost Sharing Agreements.
Staff agreed to modify the draft county authorization resolution as discussed and speak to the Council’s
legal staff about the both the resolution and licensing options.
- Private Sector Access to Regional Parcel Dataset
A letter from Policy Board Chairperson Reinhardt will likely be mailed this week to each county requesting
them to identify their representative(s) to the subcommittee to be chaired by Commissioner Kordiak. There was some
discussion of objectives of the subcommittee, all believing that it should achieve its goal to provide a forum for the
private sector to communicate to county officials the parcel related data sought from the counties.
It was agreed that: 1) a common fee basis/method should be pursued by the counties, 2) the resulting fee
should be substantially less that the current combined county fees of $404,000 (parcel geography and attributes that
vary significantly from county to county), 3) the focus should be limited to parcel geography (line work) with the only
attribute being a PIN/PID, 4) access to additional attributes would be in accordance with fees currently charged by
counties whether or not incorporated into the regional dataset, 5) public sector needs should dictate any additional
the attributes to be added to those provided in version 1 of the regional parcel dataset, 6) an allowance should be
made in the fee structure for updates, and 7) the fee for the regional dataset will have no affect on the fee that
counties charge for their individual data.
All concurred that their current fee significantly diminishes potential sales of their entire parcel boundary
dataset. As a point of reference, it was generally agreed that the TLG Street Centerline Dataset is more complex then
version 1 of the regional parcel dataset and, as such, that the fee for version 1 of regional parcel dataset should not
exceed the $20-$25,000 fee for the TLG dataset. Stevenson suggested and the group concurred that a fee of $0.02/parcel,
which for the current regional dataset would equate to approximately $18,000, is in the neighborhood they could
support.
Each county representative agreed that prior to May 25 they would discuss with their respective County Boards
the characteristics of the desired fees. If necessary, the group agreed to reconvene May 25, otherwise the proposed fee
would be presented to Commissioner Kordiak’s subcommittee.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
