|
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Henry called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. It was held at the Minnesota State Planning offices
in the Centennial Office Building, near the Capitol in St. Paul. Dave Gorg, the newest member of the Committee
representing the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), was introduced. He manages Mn/DOT’s
photogrammetric, geodetics, and GIS/Mapping units.
Members Present : Academics: Will Craig (CURA); Cities: Brad Henry (City of Minneapolis) and Dennis Welsch
(City of Roseville); Counties: Gary Stevenson (Dakota), Dave Drealan (Carver); Gary Caswell for Patrick O'Connor
(Hennepin); David Claypool (Ramsey), Jim Hentges (Scott), and Virginia Erdahl (Washington); Federal: Ron Wencl (USGS);
GIS Consultants: Larry Charboneau (The Lawrence Group); Metropolitan: Rick Gelbmann (Metropolitan Council); State:
David Arbeit (LMIC); and Utilities: Alan Srock (NSP).
Members Absent : Counties: Paul Leegard (Anoka), Business Geographics: Tim Nuteson (Dayton Hudson Corporation,
Metropolitan: Richard Johnson (Metropolitan Council); Non-Profits: David Piggott (Metro East Economic Development
Partnership); Schools: Lee Whitcraft (TIES); and Watershed Districts: Cliff Aichinger (Ramsey-Washington-Metro
Watershed District);
Support Staff : Randall Johnson and Theresa Foster
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as proposed with the addition of Item 5f – Regional Census Geography Information
Need Specifications.
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY
Welsch moved and Drealan seconded to approve the minutes for the Committee’s March 19, 1999 meeting, as
submitted. Motion passed unanimously.
4. SUMMARY OF APRIL 21ST POLICY BOARD MEETING
Chairperson Henry briefly summarized the major actions of the Policy Board at the April 21, 1999 meeting.
There was no discussion.
5. ACTION AND DISCUSSION ITEMS
MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial Model and Organizational Structure – Progress Report
Chairperson Henry summarized Project Steering Committee’s investigation of three options to identify an
appropriate organizational structure for MetroGIS. He also shared highlights of the June 2nd Steering
Committee meeting at which the Committee provided the consultant with feedback on preliminary model design parameters.
Policy Advisory Team Chairperson Erdahl invited interested Committee members to attend upcoming meetings on June
24th and July 7th at which the Team hopes to substantially refine the models to share with the
Policy Board on July 28th. Staff clarified that following the Peer Review Forum in August; a formal
recommendation will be sought from the Coordinating Committee prior to presenting the conclusions of the Study to the
Policy Board for action.
Chairperson Henry noted the model currently assumes local government units will pay a subscription fee that
would comprise a fair share of the cost to operate all aspects of the MetroGIS consistent with the functions adopted by
the Policy Board on September 30, 1998 (administration, outreach, technical assistance, data delivery, regional data
maintenance, etc) and that a credit is proposed for organizations that participate in a local GIS collaborative. Henry
acknowledged the need to coordinate these fee structures so as not to have a negative effect on the formation and
nurturing of the local GIS collaboratives. Stevenson stated he is uncomfortable with proposing subscription fees for
local government because he believes the Metropolitan Council needs the data under consideration by MetroGIS to carry
out its business operations. It was agreed to defer this discussion to the Policy Advisory Team as it considers options
for the fair share financial model.
MetroGIS Parcel Information Need
Desired Data Specifications for Parcel Boundaries:
Technical Advisory Team Liaison Claypool summarized the Team’s recommendations for the primary and
regional data custodian roles and responsibilities and for the desired specifications for a regional parcel data
solution. He also summarized the process used to develop these recommendations as outlined in the staff report to the
Committee.
Gorg noted the proposed regional parcel dataset is a subset of the need for a state parcel data solution and
asked if any thought had been given to coordinating the two needs. Arbeit noted the Governor’s Council on
Geographic Information is closely watching the efforts of MetroGIS with the idea that if a solution is achieved in the
metro area there is promise but no certainty for application elsewhere.
Stevenson commented he is not convinced there is a need for a regional parcel dataset and that the current
data and cost sharing agreements do not permit redistribution of county parcel data. Staff acknowledged that the
current agreements would need to be amended to accomplish distribution of an integrated parcel dataset but that the
existing agreements were never been meant to address the needs of the regional data solutions.
Stevenson commented those who need multiple county parcel data are capable of accomplishing the integration on
their own. Charboneau disagreed noting he does not believe school districts, some needing parcel data from three or
more counties, do not have the resources to perpetually integrate multiple county on their own and that the duplication
of effort that would result from numerous school districts and others would not be in the public interest as well as
contrary to the data sharing objectives of the MetroGIS.
Chairperson Henry asked each county representative to speak to this matter:
Hentges (Scott County) : Not opposed to a regional dataset but a new agreement will be needed to address
redistribution policies. Drealan (Carver County): Carver County understood, when it entered into the data sharing
agreement and when it endorsed the principles of MetroGIS, that a goal of MetroGIS was to facilitate development of a
regional parcel dataset. He also recognizes the need to work through liability issues to achieve this goal. Claypool
(Ramsey County): Believes development and regular updating of a regional dataset would be in the public interest but
cautioned that the integrity of the source datasets must be guaranteed. Opposed to a policy that results in partner
organizations having to hire a consultant or otherwise gear up internally to use another partner’s data. Such a
result would be inconsistent with the fundamental objectives that MetroGIS is attempting to achieve.
Erdahl (Washington County): Not opposed to a regional parcel dataset but the
solution must preserve the ability of counties to recover data development costs to supplement the costs of supporting
their GIS operations. She emphasized that the taxpayer is paying the bill and that we have an obligation to work
cooperatively to address issues as cost effectively as possible. Opposed to a policy that results in each unit of
government fending for themselves to integrate parcel data from multiple counties.
Welsch spoke in favor of pursuing a regional parcel data solution from his experience with the North Metro
I-35W Corridor Coalition. He concurred with others that without a regional solution, the resulting inefficiencies of
organizations continually reinventing the wheel and duplicating each other efforts is contrary to the objectives of
MetroGIS and not in the public interest.
Srock noted that development of a regional dataset is an investment in a product that would have value beyond
that of the seven individual primary datasets.
Caswell arrived.
Gorg noted that working together to solve common needs is obviously in the public interest. He supports a
coordinated and sustained effort as opposed to a continuous stream of negotiations to establish partnerships to finance
single purpose projects as they arise.
Stevenson (Dakota County) clarified he is not opposed to the concept of building a regional parcel database or
to the concept of a designating regional custodian. He restated he believes this should be the responsibility of the
Metropolitan Council to support and not ask local government to pay a subscription fee when the Metropolitan Council
has a business need for regional parcel data solution. Staff noted that the purpose of the fair share financial model
is to distribute the costs of MetroGIS, including general administration and regional data maintenance equitably and
consistent with benefit received from the presence of a regional GIS. As an option to local government paying a
subscription fee, Stevenson suggested that the counties contribute their parcel data to the Metropolitan Council and
the Council partner with the private sector to develop the regional parcel database with the understanding that non
government can have access provided the counties receive compensation for foregoing cost recovery policies on a
transaction by transaction basis. (Note: immediately following conclusion of the Committee meeting staff spoke with
each county representative and the private sector members of the Committee members. All agreed to meet to further
discuss the option of partnering with the private sector prior to the July 7th meeting with the financial
model consultant.)
The group agreed with the Team’s recommended data specifications for a regional parcel solution with the
following exceptions.
- Stevenson commented that reference to a quarterly update cycle should be a moot issue since the system
should be designed to permit a continuous flow of updated data. Gelbmann stated he agreed with this as an ultimate
objective but in the near term it is not a realistic objective.
- The group questioned the apparent inconsistency between requiring monthly updates from the primary
producers and requiring the regional custodian to post quarterly updates. Foster stated the monthly requirement was a
remnant from a previous draft and should have been replaced with "quarterly". Charboneau noted that it takes time
assimilate the changes from several primary data producers and offered that the requirement state the primary producers
must provide data to the regional custodian as necessary to accomplish a quarterly regional update.
- The group also commented that the horizontal datum specification should specify the specific
"adjustment", that Item 3 on page 27 of the agenda materials under strategy for a regional dataset is an appropriate
specification but the results should be required to be reported and explained in the metadata, and several members
thought reference to vertical datum information should be considered for inclusion in the specifications.
Motion: Stevenson moved and Gorg seconded to refer the proposed specifications for a regional parcel data
solution (page 27 of the agenda materials) back to the Technical Advisory Team to address the comments and suggested
modifications discussed by the Committee. Motion carried, ayes all.
Motion: Stevenson moved and Caswell seconded to postpone action on the roles and responsibilities for the
parcel data information need (page 25 of the agenda materials) until regional custodian specifics are worked out.
Motion failed, 3 ayes, 6 nays, 5 abstain.
Chairperson Henry asked for those who voted against the motion to share their reasons. Drealan, Welsch, and
Erhahl stated they were opposed to tabling without direction. Caswell noted he is not convinced there is a need for a
regional parcel dataset. Craig stated the remaining issues are policy based, not technical, and therefore should be
referred to the Policy Advisory Team. Welsch concurred. Drealan preferred to separate the definition of the roles and
responsibilities from their assignment to a particular agency, noting he agreed with the proposed roles, and believes
it would be beneficial to the overall process to define the desired roles and responsibilities at this time. Wencl
stated the regional parcel dataset will be the foundation for MetroGIS data solutions and that it is fundamental to act
on.
Motion : Claypool moved and Erdahl seconded to accept the roles and responsibilities suggested by the
Technical Advisory Team with any modifications that may result from the Technical Advisory Team’s reconsideration
of the issues raised by the Committee and to forward to the Policy Advisory Team the matter of recommending an
organization to serve as regional custodian for the parcel boundaries information need. Motion carried, ayes 13, nays 1
(Caswell).
Policy Chairperson Erdahl stated that the Policy Advisory Team would take this matter up as a component of its
work on the Fair-Share Financial Model. She also commented she does believe it would be in MetroGIS’ best interest
to pursue the notion of the Metropolitan Council funding all of MetroGIS. She believes that if this were to be the
case, obtaining widespread buy-in for MetroGIS could be compromised due to the political realities associated with the
Council’s regulatory responsibilities.
Chairperson Henry thanked everyone for their participation in discussion of these issues that are core to
moving MetroGIS to the next level.
Conceptual Implementation Strategy:
Randall Johnson summarized a proposal to use a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to identify candidates for a
regional parcel information need custodian. He explained that work on the RFP could begin as soon as the desired data
specifications are agreed upon but that the RFP would not be published until the Committee is comfortable that the
Policy Board will support moving MetroGIS to the next level. Given the preceding discussion, the group agreed that its
consideration of this proposal is premature until more specifics are decided about the roles of the regional custodian
and the role of the private sector as a financial partner to build and maintain a regional parcel data solution has
been decided.
MCD Jurisdictional Boundary Guidelines for Primary Producers – Strategy to Test
Staff introduced this topic by stating Washington County has developed a set of guidelines for capture,
updating and rectification of MCD Jurisdictional Boundary data inconsistencies as a pilot project for MetroGIS. Staff
also reiterated that the current policy of MetroGIS is that primary custodians will not be required to revise internal
business practices to accommodate the needs of MetroGIS and that any data manipulation to utilize primary data in a
regional solution will be paid by the user. He also noted that guidelines, such as those developed by Washington
County, would be offered to encourage primary producers to voluntarily accept and adhere to common practices that can,
in turn, simplify the work of the regional custodian. These efficiencies could then passed along in the form of cost
saving to the end user.
Technical Advisory Team Liaison Claypool summarized the Team’s recommendations for a strategy to test the
MCD Jurisdictional Boundary guidelines developed by Washington County. The Team recommended that two counties undertake
separate tests of these guidelines before MetroGIS endorses them.
Erdahl noted that if none of the other counties wishes to participate in the suggested test that the
guidelines developed by Washington County could be promoted for use by each county and if they choose to use them to
notify MetroGIS of suggest amendments as the need arises.
The group asked Gelbmann to summarize any issues that the Metropolitan Council ran into when it created the
regional MCD/County jurisdictional boundary dataset. Gelbmann noted that the Council ran into differences in accuracy
and missing data and had to make judgements to merge and integrate data form the primary sources. He noted that some of
these inconsistencies could be more effectively dealt with if common business practices were in place.
Arbeit stated there is currently no official uniform source of boundary information for cites in the state and
noted the MCD jurisdictional boundaries dataset is a topic of discussion for the Data Committee of the Governors
Council on Geographic Information. He stated the Data Committee is aware of Washington County’s work in this area
and encouraged the counties to review these guidelines and provide feedback.
Motion: Stevenson moved and Arbeit seconded to accept the MCD jurisdictional boundary guidelines developed by
Washington County as guidelines for MetroGIS with the understanding: 1) they are intended to be improved and enhanced
overtime and 2) the final report from Washington County will be updated to reflect the MetroGIS Policy Board’s
decision to endorse the Metropolitan Council as the regional custodian for the MCD Jurisdictional Boundary dataset.
Motion carried, ayes all.
MetroGIS Benefits Study – Progress Report
Craig reported the following preliminary conclusions from his study: 1) regional datasets are very useful, 2)
local user groups very beneficial to increasing levels of trust and thereby increased data sharing, and 3) school and
watershed districts could be frequent users of parcel data from multiple counties but must deal with costs of data
integration. Craig noted his study will include a MetroGIS Participant Satisfaction Survey. Gelbmann encouraged Craig
to touch on areas of benefit other than data access such as data standards, provision of an Internet tool to search for
data, etc. Craig noted there would be some anecdotal reference to these other forms of benefit in his final report.
Demonstration Topic for July 28th Policy Board Meeting
Chairperson Henry suggested and the group agreed that Policy Board Chairperson should summarize her testimony
and the testimony of the other panelists before the US House of Representatives subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology on June 9th. It was also agreed that the examples of benefits from GIS
technology included in the written testimony should be presented to the Board. Caswell apprised the group that an
outcome of the 1999 GeoData Forum, of which the subcommittee hearing was a part, appears to be a commitment on the part
of the FGDC to revisit and redefine governance expectations for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). He
also apprised the members of the concept of a "chaotic organization" that was introduced at the forum and his belief
that pursing this concept could be what is needed to define a workable governance mechanism for NSDI.
Regional Census Geography Information Need Specifications
Technical Advisory Team Liaison Gelbmann summarized the process and Team’s recommendation for desired
data specifications for a regional 1990 census geography dataset. These specifications include conformance with The
Lawrence Group’s Street Centerline Dataset and with parcel boundaries as defined by each of the counties. Gelbmann
also noted that the Metropolitan Council plans to move ahead with a contract with The Lawrence Group to develop this
dataset and, subsequently, a regional 2000 census geography dataset. The roles and responsibilities for maintenance of
these datasets will be worked out as part of the project and will be presented to the appropriate MetroGIS teams for
consideration.
Motion: Drealan moved and Craig seconded to endorse the desired regional census geography dataset
specifications recommended by the Technical Advisory Team and as presented in the agenda packet. Motion carried, ayes
all.
6. STRATEGIC INITIATIVES UPDATE
No discussion of the narrative that was provided in the agenda materials (page 47 of the packet).
7. INFORMATION SHARING
Randall Johnson summarized Policy Board Chairperson Reinhardt’s testimony on June 9th to a
subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives in conjunction with the 1999 GeoData Forum. Craig summarized his
efforts to speak with members of Minnesota’s Congressional Delegation while in Washington for the 1999 GeoData
Forum.
Charboneau noted that more and more organizations that his firm deals with know of and support the
philosophies of the MetroGIS initiative and as a result his firm is experiencing excellent cooperation obtaining
updates for their Street Centerline Dataset.
Theresa Foster noted she is coordinating a panel session for the 1999 State GIS/LIS Conference. The topic will
be datasets endorsed by MetroGIS; the process used to identify desired data specifications, standards and guidelines;
and pending regional datasets. She asked for volunteers to demonstrate the regional street centerline, MCD/County
Jurisdictional Boundary, and census geography datasets.
Due to lack of time, none of the other items identified in the agenda packet materials were discussed.
8. NEXT MEETING
Thursday, September 23, 1999. Craig suggested that staff look in to the availability for future Committee
meetings of the meeting room in the building where the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District is officed.
9. ADJOURN
Erdahl moved and Arbeit seconded to adjourn at 10:45 a.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Prepared by Randall L. Johnson, AICP, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
