|
1. Call to Order
Vice Chairperson Henry called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. The meeting was held at the Metropolitan
Council offices in St. Paul.
Members Present: State: David Arbeit (LMIC) [arrived during agenda item 5d(1)]; County: Jim Hentges (Scott),
Alternate Gary Caswell for Pat O'Connor (Hennepin), Virginia Erdahl (Washington), Gary Stevenson, (Dakota), Dave
Drealan (Carver); Margo LaBau (Anoka), David Claypool (Ramsey); Metropolitan: Richard Johnson (Metropolitan Council),
Rick Gelbmann (Metropolitan Council); Schools: Jim Sydow (TIES); Academics: Will Craig (CURA); Economic Development
Partnerships: Scott Beckman (Dakota County Partnership); Utilities: Alan Srock, (NSP); GIS Consultants: Larry
Charboneau (The Lawrence Group); Cities: Brad Henry (City of Minneapolis); Dennis Welsch (City of Roseville).
Members Absent: Business Geographics: Tim Nuteson, (Dayton Hudson Corporation); Watersheds: Cliff Aichinger
(RamseyWashingtonMetro Watershed District); Federal: Ron Wencl (USGS)
Support Staff: Randall Johnson, Heidi Welsch, David Vessel, Tanya Mayer, Mark Kotz, Rick Peterson
Visitors: Rick Person (City of St. Paul), Chairperson of the Data Content Advisory Team
2-3. Acceptance of Agenda and Meeting Minutes
The agenda was approved by consensus.
MOTION Member LaBau moved and Member Caswell seconded to accepted the minutes of the April 24, 1997. The
motion carried unanimously.
4. Summary of the May 28 and July 30 Policy Board Meetings
Randall Johnson asked if the committee would like a summary of the two previous Policy Board meetings. Member
Craig noted that there was a good summary in the written meeting materials. The group agreed that a verbal summary was
not necessary.
5. Action Items
5a. Generalized Work Program
Randall Johnson explained that the work program will become a regular report to the Coordinating Committee and
Policy Board. He asked for comments on the format and the substance of the report. Member Craig requested that more
detail be included on the support arrangements with counties. He noted that a 1 page summary document would be
sufficient. Member Craig also asked that timelines for some of the specific projects (such as the jurisdictional
boundaries work of the Data Content Team) include estimated dates. Member Erdahl agreed that a synopsis of each
county's data and cost sharing agreement with the Metropolitan Council would be helpful. Member Welsch requested that
the name of the responsible team and contact be placed next to each project on the timeline.
5b. MetroGIS Web Index Project
Member Sydow introduced this item, noting that the Data Access Advisory Team had posted an RFP (request for
proposals) last spring. The team met with 3 vendors and selected Lynne Bly and Associates.
Member Gelbmann explained that the Metropolitan Council had authorized entering into a contract with Lynne Bly
and Associates. He explained the anticipated timeline and work program for the web index project. Although there have
been some delays, good progress has been made to execute a contract. The contract is under review by the Council's
legal staff and should be reviewed by the vendor shortly.
Member Gelbmann explained how the web index fits in with the NSDI (National Spatial Data Infrastructure)
Clearinghouse Project. Metadata will be sent from MetroGIS to the Minnesota node of NSDI and then to the national
repository. 'DataLogr', a software tool developed by the State of Michigan, will be used to enter metadata for
MetroGIS. A statewide license for use of 'DataLogr' has been purchased by the State of Minnesota (LMIC) and the
Metropolitan Council. 'DataLogr' may been modified slightly to accommodate the needs of the MetroGIS web index.
Member Gelbmann further explained the types of data searches that will be available through the web index
include: text query, participant index, thematic query. He noted that the project seeks to use existing technologies as
much as possible. Some datasets will be available via FTP (File Transfer Protocol) while others will require
participants to contact the dataset owner before it will be released. This method is proposed to preserve control over
security of datasets by their owners. Member Charboneau asked if data will be available to private as well as public
entities. Member Gelbmann explained that the web index project allows dataset owners to make access decisions. Thus it
is likely that different levels of access (i.e. public information; licensed information; etc.) will exist for data
maintained by MetroGIS stakeholders. He also noted that policy-related access issues will be framed through this
project for consideration by the MetroGIS Policy Board.
Member Caswell asked if the NSDI State Node had been located. Mark Kotz confirmed that a temporary test site
has been established but could not state whether official designation of a site had occurred. Member Srock asked if a
site will be available for shared datafiles. Member Gelbmann responded that a test FTP site for the Lawrence Group
Street Centerline data and Dakota County is currently underway. Gelbmann explained that the project is attempting to
create a flexible base and that focus is currently on the framework of the project.
Member Erdahl noted that decisions pending about public vs. private data access to data through MetroGIS are
also among the first decisions that have been addressed or will need to be addressed at the county level. Member
Gelbmann noted that Anoka County's GIS Data and Cost Sharing Agreement is to include a pilot project involving data
sharing within the entities other than government.
Member Henry asked if there will be an inventory of relevant data that already exists on the web. Gelbmann
explained that an inventory is not part of this consultant contract but that a component of the MetroGIS Information
Needs Project (see Item 5c) includes identification and evaluation of existing datasets against the desired
specifications for each priority information need.
5c. Work Program -- Information Needs Project
Rick Person, Chairperson of the Data Content Advisory Team, introduced himself and explained that the Data
Content Advisory Team has been working to refine the Information Needs work program. He asked the group to recall the
Board approved 7-step information needs methodology and the 13 information needs that the Board identified as
priorities. The work program outlined by the Content Advisory Team refines the 7-step methodology by listing detailed
tasks and participant roles.
He explained that strategies to access data necessary to address the top 4 information needs endorsed by the
Board are planned to be complete by June 1998. Member Gelbmann commented that the information need workgroup work
program is an evolving process and that changes should be expected as more workgroups complete their recommendations
for each of the priority information needs.. Member Welsch noted that an attempt should be made to coordinate the
Metropolitan Council and state requirements for updated land use plans with the land use plan information need.
Member Craig noted the importance of multiple datasets to answer a single information need as described in the
work program. The group agreed that different scale projects may require different datasets comprised of the same type
of information. For instance, a project which maps the number of households per municipality in the region would not
need jurisdictional boundaries at as detailed of a scale as, for example, a project requiring the exact area for taxing
purposes within the boundaries.
Member Craig also pointed out the importance of defining the 'data class authority' as described by the Team's
work program.
There was general acceptance of the tasks and roles outlined in the Information Needs Work program endorsed by
the Data Content Advisory Team.
MOTION: Member Caswell moved and Member Sydow seconded to accept the Data Content Advisory Team's
recommendation to begin work on the Street Addresses and Land Use Plans information needs as soon as possible. Motion
carried unanimously.
5d-1 County and Minor Civil Division (MCD) Boundaries
Rick Person, Chairperson of the Data Content Advisory Team, explained that a workgroup of experts met on 2
June to define desired data specifications for jurisdictional boundaries. At that meeting, the workgroup agreed that
top priorities should be county, city and township (minor civil division-MCD), and school district boundaries. Staff
compiled the data specifications for existing datasets in the Dataset Comparison Document.
He stated that the Data Content Advisory Team met on 6 August and recommended: "that the Metropolitan Council
assumes responsibility for compiling the best available data sources for county and MCD boundaries, re-compile them on
a regular basis , and make them available to MetroGIS participants. Organizations contributing data to the effort will
be responsible for documenting the data using the Minnesota Metadata Guidelines for Geographic Information. The dataset
will be evaluated at least once a year and a recommendation made to MetroGIS regarding the best available source and
the need to re-compile the data to reflect changes."
Member Gelbmann, Metropolitan Council, distributed a memorandum that outlined three concerns with the Team's
recommendation: Which data should be used?; Who will be the interim dataset custodian?; Who will be the long-term
dataset custodian? Gelbmann explained that the Metropolitan Council would like to postpone discussion of the long-term
custodian for MCD and county boundary datasets until the Team has considered Washington County's pilot project which
addresses jurisdictional boundaries. Issues concerning phasing out of the Minnesota Municipal Board being dealt with at
the state level may also need to be considered by the team. Member Gelbmann noted that he expects Washington County's
pilot project will produce information useful to MetroGIS and that there may be an opportunity to incorporate the need
for a digital municipal boundaries dataset into the discussions concerning the phase out of the Minnesota Municipal
Board.
There was some discussion of positional accuracy by the group. The committee agreed that it is important
understand that 'best available dataset' vis-à-vis positional accuracy is constantly changing. There may be more
than one boundary map necessary to meet the needs of different interest groups. The team also agreed that consistency
is important (i.e. it would be good if different projects originate from the same dataset so that data can be combine
and compared with ease.)
Member Caswell questioned whether a regional boundary layer needs to be compiled. He argued that an adequate
source of this data is available from the counties. Member Claypool noted that some MCD boundaries are not adequately
documented in County records. He favored the Team's proposal to assign the on-going maintenance of the proposed
regional jurisdictional boundaries dataset to a particular organization as a means of improving the accuracy of this
data. Members Craig and Gelbmann also stated that a regional dataset is needed because it is too time consuming to
request boundary data from individual counties and consolidate it for various multi-county policy discussions and
research projects. The consensus of the group was that a regional dataset should be pursued.
Member Srock noted that it would be in the best interest of MetroGIS to make available as soon as possible
several datasets with explanatory metadata that address high priority information needs, even if only interim
solutions. The group agreed.
The group asked for clarification of the term 'MCD'. Member Craig explained that "MCD" means 'minor civil
division' and refers to any type of civil division of a county including municipalities, townships, villages, boroughs,
etc. In the metro area, the only 'minor civil division' that still exist are municipalities and townships.
Member Welsch asked about the status of other jurisdictional boundaries such as watershed districts and taxing
districts. Person explained that the workgroup identified a long list of jurisdictional boundaries of interest to
MetroGIS. County, MCD, and school districts were set as first priorities by the workgroup.
Member Sydow noted that it is important to separate the task of defining and obtaining a dataset(s) from the
on-going maintenance of the dataset(s). Member Erdahl stated that it is premature to determine a long-term solution for
County and MCD boundaries and that it would be good to postpone the decision until further work has been completed by
the Washington County pilot project and the Data Content Advisory Team.
MOTION: Member Caswell moved and Member Charboneau seconded to table discussion of a county and MCD
jurisdictional boundary dataset until the Data Content Advisory Team has had an opportunity to further consider: 1)
Washington County's jurisdictional boundaries pilot project, and 2) legislation regarding phasing out the Minnesota
Municipal Board. Motion carried unanimously.
5d-2. School District Boundaries Person explained that the 2 June workgroup had agreed on several
specifications for school district boundary datasets. Since the issue is quite complex, the Data Content Advisory Team
has recommended that the Washington County pilot project on school district boundaries be expanded to include
appropriate metro area representation for further study before the Team offers any recommendations concerning a
dataset.
MOTION: Member Caswell moved and Member Sydow seconded to endorse: 1) the dataset specifications as presented
in the staff report for a regional school district boundaries dataset and 2) to accept Washington County's proposal to
include appropriate representatives from around the metropolitan area for school district boundaries in its pilot
project and to provide recommendations to the Data Content Advisory Team regarding resolution of school district
boundary discrepancies. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Advisory Team Activities Update
Policy Team: Randall Johnson, MetroGIS staff, explained that the Policy Advisory Team is testing its proposal
to phase out the Steering Subcommittee. The proposal is to hold joint meetings of the Advisory Team liaisons and the
Policy Advisory Team to streamline the MetroGIS organizational structure.
Standards Team: Mark Kotz noted that a draft of the Address Guidelines brochure is available. He noted that
comments had been sought from many people in the field of GIS. Kotz encouraged the committee members to share the
document with people in their organizations involved with recording address data.
7. Information Sharing
Member Craig explained that a Metadata Satellite Downlink workshop will be happening on October 15. Interested
persons should contact Chris Cialek at 297-2488. Mark Kotz noted that he will be giving a metadata workshop at the
Minnesota GIS/LIS Conference on October 1 in St. Cloud.
Member Arbeit and Member Craig discussed the University of Minnesota Digital Information Summit which will be
taking place October 22 at the Hyatt. Jack Dangermond, ESRI President and CEO, is scheduled to give the keynote address
to the Spatial Information Technology portion of the summit. The summit will focus on ways that the University can help
government and the private sector.
Member Arbeit noted that the Governor's Council on Geographic Information recently received endorsement of a
Land Records Modernization legislative proposal from the policy subcommittees for the Association of Minnesota Counties
and the League of Minnesota Cities. Endorsement is now being sought from the executive boards of both organizations.
This is an important and positive step toward statewide funding for the initiative. The group agreed that the MetroGIS
Policy Board should be apprised of this matter at its September meeting.
Member Henry asked about the status of the Addressable Street Centerlines dataset created by the Lawrence
Group which is proposed to be made available to public agencies through a license obtained by the Metropolitan Council
and the MnDOT. Member Gelbmann stated that updated data will be delivered to the Council next week (September 2-5) and
that an FTP site will be established soon. He noted that there will be a session regarding availability and access to
this data at the Mn GIS/LIS Conference on October 2-3.
Person noted that a Metro Data Fair will take place at the American Public Works Association national
conference on September 16. Member Gelbmann will also be speaking at the APWA conference on behalf of MetroGIS.
9. Next Meetings:
The committee changed the next meeting date to: Friday, October 24 8:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Location to be
Determined
10. Adjournment
MOTION: Member Claypool moved and Member Henry seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 a.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
Prepared by Heidi Welsch, Assistant GIS Liaison
|
