|
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Henry called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. It was held at the Minnesota State
Planning offices in the Centennial Office Building, near the Capitol in St. Paul. Les Maki and Jeremy Johnson, the
newest members of the Committee were introduced. Mr. Maki will be representing the Minnesota Department of Resources
(DNR). Jeremy Johnson will be replacing Paul Leegard as Anoka County’s representative. Paul Leegard recently left
Anoka County for a position with MnDOT.
Members Present: Academics: Will Craig (CURA); Cities: Brad Henry (City of Minneapolis); Counties:
Jerome Johnson (Anoka), Gary Stevenson (Dakota), Dave Drealan (Carver); Bill Brown for Patrick O'Connor (Hennepin), and
Jim Hentges (Scott), Federal: Ron Wencl (USGS); GIS Consultants: Larry Charboneau (The Lawrence Group); Metropolitan:
Rick Gelbmann (Metropolitan Council); Non-Profits David Piggott (Metro East Economic Development Partnership); Schools:
Dick Carlstrom and Lee Whitcraft (TIES); State: Dave Gorg (MnDOT) and Les Maki (DNR); Utilities: Alan Srock (NSP). and
Watershed Districts: Cliff Aichinger (Ramsey-Washington-Metro Watershed District)
Members Absent: Business Geographics: Tim Nuteson (Dayton Hudson Corporation, Cities: Dennis Welsch
(City of Roseville), Counties: David Claypool (Ramsey) and Virginia Erdahl (Washington); Metropolitan: Richard Johnson
(Metropolitan Council); and State David Arbeit (LMIC)
Support Staff: Randall Johnson and Theresa Foster
Visitors: Trudy Richter, Richter and Richardson (Fair-Share Model Consultant Team), Ed Krum and John
Connelly, co-chairs Technical Advisory Team, Steve Lehr (CB, Richardson and Ellis).
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as proposed.
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY
Craig moved and Stevenson seconded to approve the minutes for the Committee’s June 17, 1999
meeting, as submitted. Motion passed unanimously.
4. SUMMARY OF APRIL 21ST POLICY BOARD MEETING
Chairperson Henry summarized the major actions of the Policy Board at the July 28, 1999 meeting.
5. ACTION AND DISCUSSION ITEMS
MetroGIS Benefits Study – Report on Preliminary
Craig commented that his survey is comprised of two major components: 1) evaluate benefits of data
sharing and 2) evaluate satisfaction with MetroGIS activities and policy. No preliminary results are available on the
later but will be for the September 30th Policy Advisory Team meeting. Initial results for the data sharing
component of the survey indicate: 1) significant data sharing is occurring within counties, 2) substantially less
sharing of county data is occurring outside the county of origin among local units of governments, 3) the street
centerline dataset is single most used multi-county dataset with 74 licenses, 4) Data Finder and metadata education
efforts are appreciated – most acknowledge the need but put off do these tasks which these MetroGIS incentives are
overcoming, 5) and most are appreciative of the networking opportunities sponsored and facilitated by MetroGIS. There
is widespread recognition that these efforts have resulted in better working relationships among organizations
increasing trust and understanding that has, in-turn, resulted in increased data sharing activity. Craig’s
conclusion is that benefits are being derived from the data/products shared but that huge benefits are also being
received through the process element of MetroGIS that open the doors to communication among the stakeholders. data
sharing
MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial Model and Organizational Structure
In the absence of Policy Team Chairperson Erdahl, Randall Johnson summarized the Policy Team’s
preliminary recommendations that had been shared for comment at the September 16, 1999 Peer Review Forum. These
recommendations included a creating a formal organizational identity for MetroGIS separate from the Metropolitan
Council and implementing a voluntary subscription fee program to equitably share support for:1) development and
maintenance of regional data solutions in excess of the business needs of any one participant but useful to many and 2)
21 data sharing enhancement/facilitation functions that focus on collaborative approaches to common GIS issues and
opportunities.
Johnson also commented he believes that the message was not clear that the value of the regional
datasets was not in the data but in elimination of the need to individually internalize the costs to integrate/merge
the data received from multiple counties.
Chairperson Henry asked each member and visitors to comment on their perceptions of what was learned
at the forum (most of the members attended the forum).
- Stevenson: Disagrees that MetroGIS needs to be separate entity from the Metropolitan Council to
accomplish its objectives. He stated that many of the stakeholders have successfully and informal agreements
accomplished collaborative GIS activities.
- Brown: Believes many of the attendees reacted to the proposal without an appreciation for the
benefits that would accrue from the existence of datasets that eliminate the need to integrate data produced by the
individual counties.
- Piggott: The differences between the $500,000 (phase-in & partial functionality) and $900,000
(all functions supported) proposals were not clear. He encouraged the group to settle on one budget amount to eliminate
this confusion in subsequent discussions.
- Drealan: Many county officials are concerned about lost of revenue and the effect on ability to
cost recover. Statements from participants that they were clear about the MetroGIS vision and objectives not borne out
in their comments.
- Carlstrom: The school district officials who attended generally found the forum very informative.
However, they are relatively new to GIS and for the time being at least are comfortable with free access to the parcel
data currently available from the counties and to the regional street centerline data produced by The Lawrence Group
and distributed by the Metropolitan Council.
- Hentges: Cities believe they will receive relatively little benefit from MetroGIS. The proposed
fees are too high for local units of government.
- Aichinger: Attendance in addition to Coordinating Committee members too low to draw definitive
conclusions. Not convinced a separate organizational entity necessary. Need to better define benefit in terms of
current/future expenditure to support GIS. A dichotomy exists: those who are not using GIS do not appreciate the
benefits of the proposed functions and datasets and those who have mature GIS operations are asking what is the benefit
to them since they have already build what they need? Fees generally viewed to be too high even at the $500,000 level.
The proposed $1,000 credit for organizations participating in a local GIS users group generally though to be too low.
If a subscription fee is pursued it should have the flexibility to pay for only the data types needed and consideration
should be given to a substantially higher fee for non-members.
- Craig: To meet local government needs, every regional information need may not need to be filled
with a regional dataset. Several participants asked about the affect on the tax payer of lack of coordination among
government, utility, etc. organizations when meeting individual data needs and concluded that some cooperation is in
the public interest to minimize redundancies.
- Srock: Most will have a clear idea of the value of the proposed regional solutions until they use
them in their day-to-day operations. NSP does not need the accuracy that local governments need at the present time.
- Gelbmann: Many questioned fairness of proposed fee. Others expressed concern for the need for
more flexibility for those who might be only periodic users.
- Krum: What is the cost to the taxpayer for lack of coordination when meeting internal needs for
data? Need more education of value to smaller units of government and why important for them to participate.
- Foster: The vision is not widely understood.
- Gorg: Mn/DOT is very interested in a seamless regional parcel dataset. The higher the accuracy
the higher the interest.
- Maki: Noted that an high priority of the Governor’s Council on Geographic Information is its
Land Modernization initiative to assist counties develop and maintain computerized geospatial land records databases in
a format compatible with one another. The MetroGIS regional parcel database solution should be coordinated with this
initiative. DNR is interested in a successful seven county parcel data solution, applicable to the remainder of the
state, as it would reduce the integration they need to do internally.
- Chairperson Henry: In his experience with GIS, people do not understand the benefits until they
see their data on the map. He offered the philosophy that learning is best accomplished through a structured
"tell-show-do" environment, noting that he believes we are in the "tell" phase with most perspective MetroGIS
participants. He also noted that most of the Policy Advisory Team members experienced some sticker shock when the
results of the current model assumptions first shared by the consultant but after some thought the benefit to cost was
justifiable.
- Johnson: Inadequate support exists for funding development of regional datasets with subscription
fees paid by local government. There appears to be some support for a subscription fee to fund the continuation of
MetroGIS’ communication, research, outreach, data distribution (Data Finder) and consensus building aspects that
promote and document benefits of data sharing. That the most expedient way to develop regional datasets will, in the
near term, continue to be through small consortiums of organizations with investors other than local government, as was
the case with acquisition of a license for The Lawrence Group’s street centerline dataset, orthoimagery, etc. It
was noted that in her comments to a Congressional Subcommittee in June, Policy Board Chairperson Reinhardt asked the
federal government to absorb some of the risk for regional collaboratives by providing "bridge financing" until a
stable revenue stream can be established. Chairperson Reinhardt intends to speak with the MN Congressional delegation
to encourage them to support he C/FIP program that would provide funding to regional collaboratives such as MetroGIS.
Stevenson stated he believes the technical design for a regional parcel dataset could be developed
relatively quickly by staff and that through partnering with non-government interests its development could be financed
at a level acceptable to all. He also stated he believes providing access to non-government organizations for internal
business use is a logical extension of the philosophy set forth in the current GIS data and cost sharing agreements.
Srock mentioned he concurs there would be clear benefit to private sector interests that have not already invested
significant funds to develop a parcel database as has NSP. He does not believe there would be sufficient value to NSP
to participate financially.
Gelbmann commented he believes some of the most successful accomplishments of MetroGIS have involved
bringing together small groups of collaborators who have met a data development need. Fostering this
coordination/facilitator role to develop commonly accepted approaches should continue to be a focus of MetroGIS.
Wencl stated he believes that the federal government could benefit MetroGIS. But, because federal
policy states that if data are purchased/cost-shared they must become public domain, he does not believe the federal
agencies can make effective use of the proposed regional datasets at this time. He also is not sure which agency(ies)
would be in a position to pay an annual subscription fee.
Maki stated DNR created their internet-based Data Deli and decided to give their data away to anyone
who wants it for three reasons – 1) giving data away promotes sharing, 2) selling data created with public funds
creates ill will and 3) they could not cost effectively service the data requests. He also mentioned that data requests
took off once DNR developed desk top applications which enabled their people to begin use the data on daily basis and
suggested that MetroGIS may want to consider adding cooperative application development to the list of functions to be
supported.
Charboneau introduced Steve Lehr of CB Richardson & Ellis as one representative of thirty-some
private firms that have expressed interest in purchasing a regional parcel dataset for the metro area provided the
price is fair, noting that the current prices charged by the individual counties are generally viewed to be excessive.
Mr. Lehr stated his firm is very interested in collaborating with area counties to obtain and integrate parcel data for
a regional coverage. He emphasized their use would be for internal purposes, that is they would not repackage and sell
the data, that their goal is to use the same platform as the counties, but that they need some experience with the
county parcel data to decide whether obtaining it would be the most cost effective means to achieve their needs. He
likened the efforts of MetroGIS to the early days of the computer industry. The computer industry did not take off
until there was a critical mass of desktop users who had proven to themselves the investment was cost effective. He
predicted that a similar phenomenon will occur with regional dataset development and use. To gain the experience they
need, he offered to sponsor a pilot project that would not only further their understanding but also help MetroGIS to
continue to work through issues pertaining to development and access to a regional parcel dataset.
At the group’s request, staff explained that the average annual cost to support the MetroGIS
initiative over the past three years has been around $400,00 (4 FTE and 125,000 to $150,000 in direct project funding).
Stevenson commented that costs to support MetroGIS should continue to be absorbed by the Council as a function of its
regional government responsibilities as opposed to being shared with other participants. There was no group discussion
of Stevenson’s suggestion other than to acknowledge this is a policy matter to be taken up between the
Metropolitan Council and the MetroGIS Policy Board. He also agreed to supply staff and to head up a workgroup that will
work on a way to cost effectively develop a regional parcel dataset using county data to resolve data needs for
metropolitan, state and federal stakeholders. The Committee also concurred that it would be appropriate for the
Charboneau’s subcommittee that is looking into non-government participation in MetroGIS to work closely with
Stevenson’s workgroup as potential partners. Staff suggested that both groups become acquainted with the
subregional parcel data model prototyped by the North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition as a means to make sure everyone
has a similar understanding of the desired outcome.
Aichinger moved and Wencl seconded to: 1) that the logic of the proposed fair share model is valid
but that more local government benefit has been assumed than perceived and to find that it is in the public interest to
continue to mature the MetroGIS project and 2) to direct the Policy Advisory Team to modify the recommendation shared
at the Peer Review Forum as follows for consideration by the Policy Board on October 27th:
- Remove the data development function from the 22 core and desirable functions endorsed by the
Policy Board September 1998 for purposes of the implement a fair-share cost allocation scheme.
- Recommend a finding of adequate public purpose to move forward with development of a business
plan for MetroGIS as an entity that would focus on the previously identified non-data development functions that foster
data sharing and that the business plan should investigate the following matters in addition to the specifications
previously identified in the Policy Advisory Team’s recommendation:
- Undertake a thorough cost-benefit evaluation.
- Formalize a policy that development of regional datasets will be deferred to small groups of
interested parties guided by standards and guidelines endorsed by MetroGIS and that local government will not be looked
to to support development of regional data through the proposed subscription fee program.
- Evaluate the impact on the cost to support each of the other 21 endorsed functions, assuming
MetroGIS would not take the lead for the actual development of regional datasets.
- Evaluate the appropriateness of the Metropolitan Council paying for all of non-data development
coordination/facilitation functions as one of its duties as a regional government.
- Reevaluate the need for entity separate from the Metropolitan Council to accomplish non-data
development functions.
Motion carried, Ayes - 15, Nays – 1 (Stevenson). Stevenson stated he is opposed to the business
plan proposal if it involves establishment of MetroGIS as a separate entity from the Metropolitan Council.
Desired Data Specifications for a Regional Parcel Boundary Dataset
Staff explained the Committee had postponed action on this item at its June 17th meeting
and had directed the Technical Advisory Team to evaluate how the proposed specifications should address HARN
adjustments. Technical Advisory Team Co-chair Krum summarized the recommendation of the Team at its August meeting to
postpone a decision on HARN adjustments until 2001. An inconsistency for the update specification was also revised to
state "monthly".
Motion: Stevenson moved and Gelbmann seconded to accept the revised specifications as presented in
Appendix A of the accompanying staff report. Motion carried, ayes all.
Update - Subcommittee on Non-Government Participation
Charboneau stated that the subcommittee has prepared a list of over 30 non-government entities that
have expressed interest in obtaining parcel data for the metro area. Mr. Lehr affirmed his interest in assisting with a
pilot project to evaluate whether private sector interests can be met through collaboration with the seven counties.
Charboneau agreed to work closing with Stevenson’s regional parcel dataset workgroup (Item 4b). Use of the North
Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition’s prototype was again suggested as a place to ground both groups in a common
vision.
MetroGIS Business Plan
See Item 4b. Motion includes direction relating to preparation of a business plan. Stevenson
reiterated his objection to a conclusion that MetroGIS should pursue a separate identity form the Metropolitan Council.
Demonstration Topic for October 27th Policy Board Meeting
Stevenson offered a presentation Dakota County made to a health conference concerning a lead risk
study undertaken by the County. The Committee accepted Stevenson’s offer.
Draft Final Report – Fair-Share Financial Model Study.
Staff noted that a draft copy of the document had been emailed to each member late Wednesday
afternoon for the Committee’s information and background for this meeting. Staff will be submitting comments on
Friday and a final draft is expected within a week or so.
6. STRATEGIC INITIATIVES UPDATE
Staff briefly noted that the Metropolitan Council is in the process of filling a two-year temporary
GIS Specialist/Internet position. One of this person’s responsibilities will be to refine the requirements for
support of Data Finder. Staff also mentioned that negotiations are in progress to extent the Dakota, Ramsey and Scott
County data and cost sharing agreement for two additional years. There was no discussion.
7. INFORMATION SHARING
Staff called attention to the summary in the packet (page 54) of the data standards that have been
endorsed by MetroGIS and encourage the members to promote their use. Craig also noted that the topic of the October
NSDI Workshop in Denver will be a concept for an innovative organizational structure developed for the VISA Corporation
and is hopeful that the ideas shared may be applicable to the organizational issues with which MetroGIS is wrestling.
There was no discussion of the other items listed in the narrative.
8. NEXT MEETING
Thursday, December 16th, 1999
9. ADJOURN
Gelbmann moved and Arbeit seconded to adjourn at 10:45 a.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Prepared by Randall L. Johnson, AICP, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
