|
1. Call to Order
Chairperson Arbeit called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Council
offices in St. Paul.
Members Present: State: David Arbeit (LMIC); County: Alternate Gary Caswell for Pat O'Connor (Hennepin),
Alternate Jane Harper for Virginia Erdahl (Washington), Margo LaBau (Anoka), David Claypool (Ramsey); Metropolitan:
Rick Gelbmann (Metropolitan Council); Academics: Will Craig (CURA); GIS Consultants: Larry Charboneau (The Lawrence
Group); Cities: Brad Henry (City of Minneapolis); Federal: Ron Wencl (USGS)
Members Absent: Business Geographics: Tim Nuteson, (Dayton Hudson Corporation); Watersheds: Cliff Aichinger
(RamseyWashingtonMetro Watershed District); Counties: Jim Hentges (Scott), Gary Stevenson, (Dakota), Dave Drealan
(Carver); Metropolitan: Richard Johnson (Metropolitan Council), Schools: Jim Sydow (TIES); Economic Development
Partnerships: Scott Beckman (Dakota County Partnership); Utilities: Alan Srock (NSP); Cities: Dennis Welsch (City of
Roseville)
Support Staff: Randall Johnson, Heidi Welsch, Tanya Mayer, Mark Kotz
Visitors: Dick Elhardt, NSP
2 and 3. Acceptance of Agenda and Meeting Minutes
MOTIONS : Member Henry moved and Member Gelbmann seconded to accepted the agenda. The motion carried
unanimously. Member Henry moved and Member Charboneau seconded to accept the meeting summary from August 28, 1997.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Summary of the September 28 Policy Board Meetings
Chairperson Arbeit reported that the Land Records Modernization initiative of the Governor's Council on
Geographic Information had been presented to the Policy Board by Committee Members Claypool and Stevenson and Jeffrey
Grosso of Goodhue County. The Board acknowledged the merits of the initiative and directed staff to prepare a letter of
support for Chairperson Reinhardt's signature. Also summarized was a presentation given by Jerry Knickerbocker, Chair
of a workgroup to the Public Utilities Commission, about mapping standards for telecommunication utilities being
considered for a bill to the 1998 State Legislature. The Board directed the Coordinating Committee to provide input to
the Commission regarding this issue.
5. Action Items a and b) MetroGIS Addressing Standards and Addressing Informational Document
Mark Kotz, Standards Team staff, and Ron Wencl, Team Liaison, explained the Standards Advisory Team's
recommendations concerning standards for address data. The Team had begun work on addressing data issues approximately
18 months ago. After much study, it concluded that there should not be a mandated MetroGIS standard for addressing
data. Kotz explained the purpose and content of a document prepared by the Standards Team entitled "Issues and
Guidelines for working with Address Data". The Committee had reviewed the document earlier this year but asked for a
broader review by users of address data before the Committee gave further consideration. A list of the additional
persons that had been invited to review the document was presented in the report. Kotz noted that no substantive
changes had been made as a result of the broader review. Kotz also mentioned that the Team believes this document
should be looked upon as a living document, that is, the intent is to update it as needed to reflect current thinking.
There was discussion of the implications of the term 'guideline'. Member Caswell asked why the Team is
concerned about recommending definitive guidelines or standards. Kotz stated that the Team considered factors
including: there are different needs for different types of addressing applications; there has been considerable
investment in systems currently in use; and the Addressing Guidelines document is meant to help users choose the most
appropriate and useful techniques and standards.
Member Claypool spoke in favor of the proposed guidelines document, particularly noting the section which
highlights common problems with address matching that can be minimized through the use of standards. Alternate Member
Harper stated that significant new investment within the Region is imminent and encouraged MetroGIS to promote
standardization where possible from this point on. She also challenged MetroGIS decision makers to look to the future
(what can be) and not decide courses of action on the basis of past work and investment that is not consistent with
current needs She stated that she supported the promotion of the Team's "Issues and Guidelines" document as a place to
start and as more is learned, more information can be added to these guidelines. Member Gelbmann noted that a domain
table for addressing data needs to be developed as a standard in the future.
Chairperson Arbeit stated that a single recommendation that combines action on a guideline and the document,
rather than two separate motions as presented in the report, is needed for clarity of presentation to the Policy Board.
Member Henry suggested that a connection should be made between the proposed guidelines and The Lawrence Group (TLG)
dataset. Member Charboneau agreed that it will be important for users of TLG's centerline dataset to follow the
guidelines proposed by the Standards Team. Member Charboneau confirmed that TLG's centerline dataset conforms with the
proposed guidelines, noting Jim Maxwell of TLG is a member of the Standards Team subgroup that developed the document.
The consensus of the Committee was the "Issues and Guidelines for Working with Address Data" document is
exceptionally well done. After much discussion of the most appropriate course of action for subsequent Board
consideration and promotion of the document, the Committee decided the two matters before it (guidelines and
information document) should be merged into one recommendation to the Policy Board. The Committee also agreed with the
Team's recommendation that MetroGIS should not pursue a mandatory addressing standard and concluded that: a) all
MetroGIS participants should be encouraged to use the guidelines set forth in this document to insure their systems are
capable of taking advantage of the significant public investment to obtain public access to TLG's street centerline
dataset and b) before the MetroGIS Policy Board considers the document, it should be modified to prominently state in
the introduction the advantages of designing address data bases that comply with the suggested guidelines. This
statement was included on page 10 of the draft.
Alternate Member Harper commented that the document is difficult to read for the nonGIS professional, yet the
nonGIS professional is often involved in GIS system development. The group acknowledged the merit of modifications to
improve the readability of the document, such as the addition of glossary, but decided that it is in the best interest
of MetroGIS to distribute this version and improve upon it with subsequent versions. Alternate Member Harper concurred.
The group concurred that the MetroGIS website should not be relied upon as the primary means to distribute the
"Issues and Guidelines for working with Address Data" information document. Given the universal need for this data, the
group concurred that all MetroGIS participants need to be aware of and encouraged to use these guidelines. Options were
discussed for distribution of this document. The group concurred with a suggestion of Member Gelbmann to provide a copy
to each licensee of TLG's dataset. It was agreed the document should be mailed to all key MetroGIS stakeholder
organizations, to post a copy on the MetroGIS website, and to advertise its existence and how to obtain a copy. (Note:
At a subsequent meeting with Policy Board Chairperson Reinhardt concerning presentation of this matter to the Policy
Board, staff agreed to investigate the cost of printing and mailing the document to the 400+ local government MetroGIS
stakeholders for discussion of funding options with the Policy Board.)
MOTION: Member Charboneau moved and Member Henry seconded to adopt the following motion: Whereas many of the
benefits of MetroGIS derive from reliably locating events, (places, people, and things); and whereas there are
technical requirements for successfully doing this, the Coordinating Committee recommends that the MetroGIS Policy
Board adopt and promote use by MetroGIS participants of the addressing data guidelines set forth in the document
entitled Guidelines and Issues for Working with Address Data, prepared by the MetroGIS Standards Advisory Team and as
approved by the Coordinating Committee on October 24, 1997. The motion passed unanimously.
5c. Jurisdictional Boundaries Information Need Strategy
(Note: Committee discussion of this item had been tabled on August 28, 1997 to give the Data Content Team an
opportunity to discuss information not previously available to it.) MOTION: Member Caswell moved and Member Charboneau
seconded to remove the item from tabling. Motion passed unanimously.
Member Claypool, Liaison to the Content Team, reviewed the previous concerns of the Coordinating Committee
with this item and the current Data Content Team recommendations for: a) the dataset specifications for municipal,
township, and county jurisdictional boundaries and b) refinements to the Information Needs Workgroup process to
delegate responsibility to the Policy Advisory Team to evaluate dataset custodian issues and to delegate responsibility
to the Standards Team to develop data standards from the desired dataset specifications identified by the Information
Needs Workgroups.
Member Claypool explained the Team's current thinking that each of the seven counties should be designated as
the official source of detailed jurisdictional boundary data and another agency, such as the Metropolitan Council,
should be responsible to compile the source data into a regional dataset and to maintain the regional dataset. He
summarized the dataset specifications recommended by the Team, in particular, that the regional dataset would maintain
the precision of the county parcelbased databases. He also reported the Metropolitan Council has agreed to share its
MCD (city/township) and county jurisdictional boundary dataset recently compiled for its internal business needs until
such time as a 'better' dataset becomes available.
Member Craig raised a concern that a single boundaries dataset based on parcel-level data will be too large
for the general desktop mapping needs of some MetroGIS participants, such as the research community. Mark Kotz
explained that through data generalization techniques the precision of a parcel based dataset could be retained in a
manner that supports a variety of system requirements and applications. Alternate Member Harper reported that the
Washington County pilot project will be addressing the need for generalization and improved usability of the data.
Member Craig and others concurred that the parcel-based specification is workable if revised to state the precisional
accuracy is to be "derived from parcel boundaries".
The group agreed that reliance on the county and MCD boundaries dataset, recently compiled by the Metropolitan
Council, is an appropriate solution to the MetroGIS jurisdictional boundary information need until issues concerning
long term custodianship of the regional dataset are resolved or until a 'better' dataset becomes available.
Alternate Member Harper expressed concern about the phrase in recommendation #2 in the staff report that
limits the frequency of updates to "as needed by Metropolitan Council". She noted this phrase is inconsistent with the
needs and goals of MetroGIS, noting that every MetroGIS participant must look beyond our internal needs to create the
sought after valueadded for the Region. She also emphasized that for MetroGIS to be successful, key stakeholder
organizations must recognize that the needs of the greater good may go beyond their individual needs and that the
specifics of any such discontent need to be brought before the Policy Board for discussion. Member Gelbmann, GIS
Coordinator for the Metropolitan Council, agreed to delete the phrase "as needed by the Metropolitan Council for
internal purposes" from the recommendation and agreed that the Metropolitan Council would recompile the regional
dataset when apprised that significant changes have occurred.
Member Gelbmann commented he believes the information needs process could be improved for subsequent datasets
if negotiations with candidate custodial organizations would occur before deliberation by the Coordinating Committee.
He supports the Content Team's recommendation #3 to delegate these data custodian responsibilities negotiation to the
Policy Team for discussion prior to Coordinating Committee consideration.
Member Wencl questioned the role of the Standards Team in defining the dataset specifications. Member Claypool
explained that the Content Team believes its responsibility, primarily through the work of each information needs
workgroup, is to identify specifications for each dataset needed to address the thirteen priority information needs and
that it should be the role of the Standards Team to develop specific standards for each of the general specifications.
The group concurred with this philosophy. Alternate Member Harper noted that the Washington County pilot project will
address issues concerning many of the jurisdictional boundary standards needs. Mark Kotz stated that he strongly
supported the Content Team identifying the desired specifications and then forwarding this information to the Standards
Team.
Member Claypool explained to expedite the process, the Content Team is proposing to send its standards and
custodianrelated findings directly to the Standards and Policy Advisory Teams and to inform the Committee of these
transmittals as information updates. The group agreed that teams and staff should be relied upon to communicate amongst
themselves and to intervene only if a problem arises that requires the Committee's attention. Member Claypool also
noted the importance of the Content Team completing as much of a task as possible before handing it to another team.
Staff stressed that Data Content Team's work on the jurisdictional boundaries information need has been very useful to
define deliverables and more clearly state expectations for each component of the Information Needs Workgroup Process.
The Committee concurred to modify its information needs process adopted on August 28, 1997 to incorporate the following
collaboration element among its Teams for the MCD/County Jurisdictional Boundary dataset and for subsequent datasets
needed to address priority information needs:
a) The Data Content Team is responsible for compiling a set of "findings" regarding: Potential Dataset
Custodian Organizations; Logistics and Procedural Issues; and Dataset Custodial Responsibilities. The findings will
include results of staff research as well as information from the Washington County pilot project on municipal
boundaries. This set of findings will be used by the MetroGIS Policy Advisory Team to make a recommendation to the
Coordinating Committee for the dataset custodian organization.
b) The Data Content Team is responsible for compiling data specifications for the MCD and County boundaries.
These data specifications will be used by the MetroGIS Standards Advisory Team to make a recommendation to the
Coordinating Committee for the data standards for the subject dataset.
The Committee unanimously accepted the following data specifications for the MCD/County Jurisdictional
Boundary dataset: The dataset should be metrowide with more precisional accuracy than the existing metrowide coverages
provide. The dataset should provide metadata, entity and attribute information, unique identifiers, official map names,
label points, and contact information for each county or MCD jurisdiction. The horizontal datum should be NAD83 and the
dataset(s) should be in a format that can be converted to as many other formats as possible. The positional accuracy of
the jurisdictional boundaries must be derived from parcel layers where the parcel layers conform to positional accuracy
requirements that are yet to be determined.
c) Upon receipt of recommendations from its Content, Policy, and Standards Advisory Teams, it will be the
responsibility of the Coordinating Committee to recommend a custodian organization, its responsibilities, and data
standards for a regional MCD and County boundaries dataset and subsequent datasets needed to address priority MetroGIS
information needs. Deliberations regarding the jurisdictional boundaries dataset shall incorporate the results of the
Washington County Municipal Boundaries pilot project.
It was agreed that Policy Board action is not required to implement these process refinements. (Note: on May
28, 1997, the Policy Board endorsed a sevenstep, high level, information needs methodology and directed the Committee
to enact a process achieve the objectives of the high level methodology for each of the thirteen information needs the
Board had identified as high priorities for MetroGIS. The Committee approved the initial detailed process at its August
28, 1997 meeting with the understanding that refinements would be made as the need was recognized.) Staff noted that a
brief summary of refinements stated above would be included in the Board's information update materials.
Member Henry expressed concern that no connection had been made in the data specifications to TLG street
centerline dataset concerning MCD and county boundaries. Member Charboneau stated that the private sector will not
generally have access to county parcel data and therefore will not be able to use parcelbased boundaries. Member
Gelbmann agreed that some integration with TLG dataset is needed.
MOTION: Member Henry moved and Member Charboneau seconded to:
a) Endorse MetroGIS use of the Metropolitan Council's MCD/County boundaries dataset. The Council will
re-compile the dataset from the most accurate sources when significant changes have occurred. This solution will remain
in effect until a long term data custodian is designated by MetroGIS and/or until a "better" (for example more
positionally accurate or more up to date) dataset becomes available. Debate of long term custodial needs will consider
the results of the Washington County MCD jurisdictional boundaries pilot project.
b) Present this interim solution to the Policy Board for its information and discussion.
Vote on the motion: Ayes 9, Nayes 1, Abstain 0. Motion carried. Alternate Member Caswell opposed the motion
because he disagreed with the need to forward an interim solution to the Policy Board for discussion and comment.
To accommodate Member schedules, Items 5f and 5g were considered next, starting with Item 5g.
5g. Process to Develop Distribution Policies for Regional Soils Dataset.
Member LaBau, Chair of the Policy Advisory Team, explained that the Policy Advisory Team is recommending
creation of a new Team to address policy issues related to distribution of a regional soils dataset that the
Metropolitan Council is in process of compiling through collaborative agreements with various organizations. Different
portions of the regional dataset will remain the intellectual property of the organizations that provided or assisted
with the development of data for the regional dataset. The new advisory team would report directly to the Coordinating
Committee and would be responsible for recommending solutions to issues involved with distribution of a regional soils
dataset with multiple intellectual interest claims. The team would be subject to the same operational guidelines as
each of the other MetroGIS Advisory Teams, including designation of a Liaison from the Coordinating Committee.
Chairperson Arbeit noted that although the new Team's focus would be on the regional soils dataset, it is
likely that the questions and solutions debated by the Team will have relevance to other regional datasets. It was
agreed that the Policy Board should be invited to designate one of its members to participate on the team and that the
team name should be revised from "Soils Advisory Team" to Soils Data Distribution Advisory Team".
Staff noted that Policy Board approval is not required to establish this new Advisory Team but suggested that
since a Policy Board member is proposed to be invited to serve on the Team, that the concept should be presented to the
Board for discussion. Staff suggested the Committee designate a Liaison(s) to this new Team at its December Committee
meeting and that the liaison and staff work together to populate the Team.
MOTION: It was moved and Member Henry seconded that the Coordinating Committee:
a) Endorse the Policy Advisory Team recommendation to create a Soils Data Distribution Advisory Team that
would report directly to the Committee, whose membership would be comprised of persons who are members of each
organization with a verifiable intellectual ownership claim in the pending regional soils dataset, for the purpose of
recommending policies for distribution of the soils dataset complied or derived from source data with multiple owners
and consistent with MetroGIS objectives.
b) Invite the MetroGIS Policy Board to designate one of its members to represent the Policy Board on the Soils
Data Distribution Advisory Team.
The motion passed unanimously.
5e. Use of Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines by MetroGIS Participants
Due to time constraints, the group agreed to postpone review to the next meeting.
5f. Operating Guidelines for Coordinating Committee
Member LaBau, Policy Advisory Team Chairperson, summarized the proposed changes to the Committee's interim
operating guidelines outlined in the team's report dated October 14, 1997. These changes are proposed in response to
direction received from the Policy Board and Coordinating Committee over the past several months concerning private
sector participation in MetroGIS, voting and quorum requirements, and other operational matters. The revised guidelines
also eliminate the Steering Subcommittee and consolidate its responsibilities with those of the Policy Advisory Team.
Member LaBau asked if anyone had any questions or concerns. None were offered.
Member LaBau explained that final action could not be taken by the Committee until the December meeting
because current and proposed procedures require 15 days of prior member notice to act on an amendment to the
guidelines. She encouraged the membership to speak with staff during the next two weeks if they have any concerns about
the proposed guideline amendments. It was agreed to act on this matter as a consent item at the December meeting if
there are no unresolved concerns at that time.
Due to time constraints, there was no discussion of the guideline implementation issues outlined in the staff
report.
Members Gelbmann, Henry, and LaBau left the meeting at 10:45 a.m. The remaining members agreed continue to
meet until 11:15 a.m.
5d. GIS Mapping of Telecommunication Utilities
Chairperson Arbeit explained that the Policy Board had directed the Committee to respond in writing to the
Mapping Subcommittee of the Rights of Way Task Force to the Public Utilities Commission concerning pending rules for
mapping of telecommunication utilities. Staff explained that Member Claypool had prepared a draft letter included in
the packet, at staff's request, for the Committee consideration. Member Claypool explained the importance of knowing
where utility lines are physically located and that use of handheld GPS receivers would be a cost effective way to
acquire the location as well as provide very useful information to government agencies. Legislation passed during the
1997 session authorizes public road authorities to dictate mapping and reporting requirements for utility
infrastructure constructed within public rights of way. This 1997 law does not require submittal of data for utilities
constructed prior to the effective date of the proposed rules.
Dick Elhardt, NSP, attending for Al Srock, stated that requiring the capture of x, y, z coordinate values has
an enormous cost potential for the utility industry. He also questioned whether local government has the capability to
import this huge volume of data. Mr. Elhardt explained that NSP prepares "as built drawings" but does not currently
collect x, y, z coordinate values and that they tie their utility construction locations to landmarks, not precision
coordinate control points. Chairperson Arbeit noted that he senses a willingness among the task force membership, that
includes utility representatives, to comply with the intent of the law, provided a reasonable standards are developed.
Mr. Elhardt concurred.
Member Claypool explained that he is concerned that a compromise will be reached that involves scanning of
paper asbuilt drawings which would result in essentially unusable data for local government GIS use. His preference is
for a reliance on collection of coordinate values that would be useable by any GIS.
The group agreed that Chairperson Arbeit will use Claypool's draft letter and the Committee's discussion as a
basis for a letter to the Rights-of-Way Task Force and that Chairperson Arbeit would sign the letter.
5h. 1998 Meeting Schedule
Due to time constraints, the group agreed to postpone discussion of this matter to the next meeting.
6. Advisory Team Activities Update
Due to time constraints, this item was skipped.
7. Information Sharing MetroGIS Related Activities
No discussion.
8. Other Business
None
9. Next Meeting: Thursday, December 18, 1997, 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., Earle Brown Center, Room 52, University
of Minnesota
10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
Prepared by Heidi Welsch, Assistant GIS Liaison; and Randall Johnson, GIS Liaison
|
