|
1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Henry called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. It was held at the
Minnesota State Planning offices in the Centennial Office Building, near the Capitol in St. Paul.
Members Present: Academics: Will Craig (CURA); Cities: Brad Henry (Minneapolis);
Counties: Gary Stevenson (Dakota), Dave Drealan (Carver); Gary Caswell and Chuck Kruger 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); Schools: Dick Carlstrom (TIES); State: David Arbeit (LMIC) and Dave Gorg
(MnDOT), and Utilities: Alan Srock (NSP).
Members Absent: Business Geographics: Tim Nuteson (Dayton Hudson Corporation,
Cities: Dennis Welsch (City of Roseville), Counties: Jeromy Johnson (Anoka; State: Les Maki
(DNR), Non-Profits David Piggott (Metro East Economic Development Partnership) and Watershed
Districts: Cliff Aichinger (Ramsey-Washington-Metro Watershed District). (Richard Johnson resigned
from his position with the Metropolitan Council, effective December 20, 1999. A replacement representative to the
Coordinating Committee had not been named at the time of the Committee’s meeting.)
Support Staff: Randall Johnson and Theresa Foster
Visitors: Trudy Richter, Richter and Richardson (Fair-Share Model Consultant Team), Steve Lehr and
Jeff Auger (CB Richard Ellis) and Shannon Txx (ESRI)
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as proposed.
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY
Craig moved and Arbeit seconded to approve the minutes for the Committee’s September 23, 1999
meeting, as submitted. Motion passed unanimously.
4. SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 27th POLICY BOARD MEETING
Chairperson Henry briefly stated the major actions of the Policy Board at the October 27, 1999
meeting. There was no discussion.
5. ACTION AND DISCUSSION ITEMS
Regional Information Need Solutions
Census Geography – Roles and Responsibilities
Rick Gelbmann, liaison to the Technical Advisory Team and manager of the Census Geography project,
summarized the Team’s recommendations outlined in Attachment A of the corresponding staff report, noting that the
Metropolitan Council had accepted the role of regional custodian for the census geography information need.
Gelbmann explained that the Council had entered into a contract with The Lawrence Group (TLG) to
build a 1990 regional census geography dataset, registering it to the both the regional street centerline dataset and
parcel boundary data maintained by the counties. The 1990 dataset is currently undergoing testing. When the testing is
completed the final data specifications will be documented. He also noted that work on development of a 2000 regional
census geography dataset will begin as soon as preliminary boundary information is released by the Census Bureau, which
is expected to occur by summer 2000.
Gelbmann also explained the Metropolitan Council will own the regional census geography dataset but
once complete it will freely distribute it via the Internet. However, the address ranges associated with the street
centerline dataset will not be attached to the census geography dataset. The Committee commended the Council for
accepting the regional custodian responsibility and for deciding to make it freely available.
Gelbmann moved and Stevenson seconded to recommend that the MetroGIS Policy Board approve the data
specifications and roles and responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council, in its role as regional custodian for the
1990 and 2000 Census Geography Information Needs, as presented in Attachment A of the accompanying staff report. Motion
carried, ayes all.
a(2) Land Cover – Data Specifications & Roles and Responsibilities
Rick Gelbmann, liaison to the Technical Advisory Team and member of the Department of Natural
Resource’s (DNR) Land Cover project team, summarized the Technical Advisory Team’s recommendations as
outlined in the corresponding staff report, noting that the DNR had accepted the role of regional custodian for the
MetroGIS Land Cover information need.
Gelbmann stressed that land cover is the not same as land use and that the proposed recommendations
relate principally to vegetation types. He also noted that although the DNR was heading up the project it is based on
pilot studies conducted in the metro area. And since DNR has a ways to go to achieve endorsement as a statewide
standard, the Technical Advisory Team elected to endorse the proposed classification scheme as a "best practice" for
the time being. Wencl, also a liaison to the Technical Advisory Team, noted that he suggested the "best practices"
recommendation for MetroGIS participants because the proposed scheme is a hybrid of existing classification schemes and
he is uncomfortable endorsing as a standard, in particular, until DNR has received endorsement throughout the state.
Stevenson commented that the classification scheme, with its five levels, is very complicated and
that few local government officials will have the expertise to use all of the levels but that the flexibility built
into the scheme should accommodate local needs. He also concurred it is too early to endorse as a standard. Arbeit
encouraged MetroGIS to be involved in the upcoming discussions to seek endorsement of this scheme statewide to ensure a
crosswalk between metro and statewide needs. The group concurred but decided not to include in its formal action.
Gelbmann moved and Arbeit seconded to recommend that the MetroGIS Policy Board:
- Approve the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) as a current best practice for all
land cover analysis projects in the metro area.
- Approve the general data specifications and regional data custodian responsibilities as stated in
the accompanying staff report.
- Approve the Technical Advisory Team’s recommendation to co-sponsor a training session with
the DNR for all interested MetroGIS stakeholders.
Motion carried, ayes all.
Regional Data Development Process
Theresa Foster, MetroGIS Technical Coordinator, presented the schematic of MetroGIS’ Business
Information Needs process noting it describes the processes that have been used to date to address priority MetroGIS
business information needs. Foster commented that by design it is a flexible process. Foster then introduced Trudy
Richter who is assisting MetroGIS to prepare a business plan. Ms. Richter noted that it is important to the Business
Planning process to clearly identify each of the steps in the process and to tie them back to the Policy Board’s
policy decision on October 27, 1999 to concentrate MetroGIS role on coordination activities necessary to achieve data
solutions for the its priority regional information needs. Ms. Richter also noted that an equally important component
of the schematic is the task (upper right-hand corner) to identify business information beyond the current 13
priorities to ensure a long-term focus. Staff Johnson noted that once work is well in hand to define the specifications
and custodial roles and responsibilities for the top thirteen information needs, the current plan is to readminister
the survey that was prototyped by MetroGIS in 1997 to establish additional information need priorities.
Wencl moved and Craig seconded to approve the schematic illustration of the MetroGIS Business
Information Needs process, as presented in the accompanying staff report, subject to adding a title and changing to
text box "Existing Dataset" to "Existing Datasets". Motion carried, ayes all.
Regional Parcel Data – Technical Design Update
Stevenson, project manager for the regional parcel technical design pilot, provided the Committee
with a written (see the handout that is attached to this summary for more information) and oral summary of the
accomplishments of the pilot project. He provided a live ArcView presentation that illustrated how six of the seven
counties parcel boundary data had been merged to form a regional dataset. Anoka County data had not yet been received
due to turn over of staff at Anoka County. Stevenson noted that several issues remained to be dealt with which involve
varying procedures among the seven counties (multiple pins, right-of-way coding, etc.)
In his report to the Committee, Stevenson stated that the pilot "definitely demonstrated that a
Regional Parcel Database can be can be accomplished with little effort and expense. He also offered a possible scenario
in which MetroGIS maintains an FTP site where a server runs automated procedures to combine, verify, and install data
for applications. Counties could run automated pre-processing procedures to prepare the data, transform to UTM, and
upload the data to the MetroGIS server." He also stressed that it is extremely important that no modifications should
be made to the parcel geometry at the server level, that each county should remain responsible for its data and that
each county should update the data based on its individual business needs for its own users.
Stevenson stated he believes the pilot study workgroup has accomplish its goal but that the workgroup
is prepared to continue to work on a means normalize parcel attribute data among the seven counties, and cooperatively
develop procedures and applications for pre-and post-process data of parcel data.
At this point, Stevenson provided a live demonstration of the merged parcel data using ArcView
software. The file with parcel boundary data and limited attributes from six counties is currently about 380 megabytes
in size. Steven estimated with the addition of Anoka County’s data and expansion of the attributes to a core set
consistent with the prior work of the Technical Advisory Team that the entire file would be under 500 megabytes or
capable of being distributed on a single CD-ROM. Stevenson also commented that the parcel boundary data provided by
each of the six counties was very similar in accuracy because each used GPS to capture the boundary coordinates and as
such "stitching them together" was straight forward with few gaps and overlaps that would cause problems for regional
applications.
Krueger asked what type of scripting was involved to merge the boundary data from six counties.
Stevenson noted scripting was not used. His team simply converted each county’s data to UTM and the fit together
as shown in the demonstration. He further noted there was nothing to stitch together.
Arbeit stated that workgroup’s work is very encouraging. He also asked what was learned from the
I-35 Corridor Coalition’s experience integrating on a smaller scale. Stevenson stated that I-35W elected to
"rubber sheet" Anoka County parcel boundary data to line-up with the more accurate Ramsey County data. Stevenson
believes this process involves more resources than needed where the other six counties adjoin, again due to similarity
in the manner in which they each collected their parcel boundary data. Stevenson stressed the need for a policy that
data maintained by each county should not be modified by others. Arbeit asked what would be lost if post processing
currently undertaken by I-35W is not done. Stevenson commented that his perspective no significant issues would arise
although he acknowledged he has not worked with Anoka County’s data.
Gorg asked how the National Data Accuracy Standard would be applied to the regional dataset. It was
agreed it would be applied to each county separately and that the accuracy component of the metadata would mostly
likely vary from county to county.
Craig praised the pilot project workgroup, noting their work is a dream come true and don’t
stop. Craig’s comment led to discussion of issues and next steps, including the need for testing by a variety of
stakeholders and associated access/licensing concerns. Chairperson Henry asked each county representative to express
their thoughts about issues and next steps:
- Claypool (Ramsey) cited a need for a high level of communication and active participation by each
of the counties in the decision-making concerning how their parcel data will be merged into a regional solution and
policies concerning distribution of merged data.
- Stevenson (Dakota) noted that he is beginning to see a change in philosophy among county board
members and their concern for too much information currently available that may evolve into opposition to a regional
parcel dataset.
- Erdahl (Washington) supports development of a regional parcel dataset but would like more
information about the cost to the county to supply data to MetroGIS before full speed ahead. Stevenson noted that he
expects the vast majority of the cost to the counties will involve the need to develop automated procedures. Staff
Johnson noted that a principle of MetroGIS is that the users and or grant funds will be expected to pay for costs that
exceed internal business needs.
- Drealan (Carver) stated he is very pleased with the work to date and definitely believes worth the
effort. He raised a concern that Carver County staff have little time to supply data to MetroGIS and supported the
automated approach.
- Hentges (Scott) supports the work and findings concerning parcel boundary data but is concerned
that normalizing parcel attributes for access by cross-county applications may be more difficult and time consuming,
noting that without access to standardized attributes the value of parcel data is substantially diminished. Craig
suggested that the workgroup continue it work on normalizing parcel attribute data for each of the seven counties by
concentrating initially on the 24 core attributes already identified by a workgroup he headed up for the Technical
Advisory Team.
- Caswell (Hennepin) strongly supported the need to provide automated processes to allow users to
integrate data from multiple counties but questioned the need to provide regional datasets. This comment initiated a
discussion concerning the need for local government users of multiple county parcel data (watersheds, school districts,
and cities located on county boundaries) to test the procedures and to assist MetroGIS define the meaning of the
mission statement phrase "data … in a form readily useable".
Gelbmann offered a suggestion for the next steps (expand the pilot study to include Anoka
County’s parcel boundary data, define a distribution mechanism, and define a common license agreement) and offered
to provide and staff a FTP site at the Metropolitan Council.
Gorg stated that Mn/DOT is a proponent of and user of regional datasets and, as such, offered to head
up a workgroup of state and regional interests to evaluate the value added by existence of a regional parcel dataset as
opposed to the user having to merge data from each of the seven counties on their own, notwithstanding the existence of
automated procedures.
Chairperson Henry commented that licensing will be a key issue and asked the group how it wished to
proceed with the concept of access by non-government interests. Charboneau commented that MetroGIS needs to find a way
to fund itself, noting that the private sector is a logical partner and from his experience is willing to pay for
access as a natural course of doing business provided the fee is reasonable. The user should be permitted to obtain the
data and do as they choose with it.
Craig concurred with Henry that licensing and access policies must be worked out upfront and in place
before the data is available for distribution.
Trudy Richter, MetroGIS Business Plan consultant, offered a revised listing of next steps for the
Committee’s consideration (lead entity in italics):
- Complete the regional parcel dataset (add Anoka County) and develop a mechanism to expand the
core attributes to the 24 previously identified by a workgroup of the Technical Advisory Team (Regional Parcel
Data Pilot Study Workgroup)
- Develop distribution mechanism (Metropolitan Council GIS Unit working with Pilot Study
Workgroup)
- Resolve licensing and data sharing issues among government interests and their designated
3rd parties (County representatives to Coordinating Committee)
- Evaluate added value of a regional parcel dataset to state and regional interests
(Mn/DOT)
- Evaluate privatization option and access by non-government entities (Trudy Richter working
with existing public-private partnership workgroup)
Erdahl moved and Craig seconded to approve the five next steps as stated above with the understanding
that: 1) policy issues must be dealt with before any substantive work is undertaken by the pilot study workgroup to
develop automated procedures and 2) successfully addressing the difficult issues that were ignored for the pilot study
(many-to-one relationships, differences in coding procedures among the counties, etc) are at the core of a broadly
supported solution, and 3) the policy issues should be presented to the Board at its January 2000 meeting for direction
and information. Motion carried, ayes all.
The county representatives affirmed that they did not need any assistance from MetroGIS staff to
resolve licensing issues concerning access by other government entities to the regional parcel dataset created by the
regional parcel data pilot study workgroup.
Chairperson Henry asked the group for permission to extend the meeting beyond 10:30 a.m. All agreed
to do so.
MetroGIS Business Plan – Function Priority Rankings
Craig presented an overview of the methodology and results from his 1999 MetroGIS Benefits Study. The
majority of his remarks pertained to component of the study that pertained the ranking of the 22 functions that the
Policy Board had endorsed for MetroGIS in September 1998. The survey asked each of 150-plus respondents to answer on a
1-5 scale how important each of the functions was to their organization and to answer yes or no to whether MetroGIS
should invest in each of the functions. Craig commented that the county respondents do not generally see the need to
invest in many of the functions but are willing to provide their data to those who are willing to finance the
functions. The overall results of the function rankings were presented in a 9-cell, two-axis matrix. Decision rules for
five function categories as endorsed by Policy Advisory Team at its December 1st meeting, were summarized.
Staff noted that the Policy Advisory Team was seeking assistance from the Committee to better
understand the diversity in the rankings among the organization types concerning the functions that fell into the
Selectively Desirable (Med/Med) category to help it complete its recommended function rankings for the MetroGIS
Business Plan. No comment was received regarding the proposed function category names or decision rules.
The only function that received comment was G – Create and maintain datasets for MetroGIS
…. Staff stated that the MetroGIS Policy Board had taken action on October 27th based, in part, upon
preliminary results from this survey. That action was to limit MetroGIS’ involvement in development of regional
datasets to fostering the coordination activities necessary to achieve broadly supported regional datasets but not to
directly finance the actual data development through a subscription fee or other means. Craig noted that he believes
one of the reasons for the diversity among the respondents was the survey question was too broad – if a respondent
disagreed with a couple of the 13 priorities he believes they may have given a lower rating. He also commented that the
concept of a one-stop-shop for data for multiple entities is generally more desirable to a data user, such as himself,
as opposed to the need to contact numerous data producers on one’s own. After a lengthy discussion, the group
concluded that the current policy of case-by-case versus a blanket endorsement for regional dataset development and for
a primary focus on guidelines and best practices are the most appropriate roles for MetroGIS.
2000 Meeting Schedule
Erdahl moved and Arbeit seconded to set the following meeting schedule for 2000: February
17, April 27, June 29, September 28, and December 14. Motion carried, ayes all.
National GIS-T (Transportation) Conference - MetroGIS Presentation
Rick Gelbmann reviewed the proposal to have MetroGIS represented in the presentations at the National
GIS-T Conference to be held in the Twin Cities March 27-29, 2000. Gorg commented that he supports the idea, noting that
many organizations around the county recognize the value of the partnerships that Minnesotan’s have been able to
develop and maintain. MetroGIS is an excellent example and should be shared at the conference. Randall Johnson stated
he and other MetroGIS officials will be presenting at the National NACO Conference in Washington D.C the first week in
March and that the presentation materials might also be useful at the GIS-T Conference. Chairperson Henry volunteered
to present at the GIS-T conference. No decision was made as to who else might participate in the presentation, other
than Rick Gelbmann who will be moderating the session, or who will prepare the presentation materials.
6. STRATEGIC INITIATIVES UPDATE
There was no discussion of the information provided in the agenda materials.
7. INFORMATION SHARING
There was no discussion of the information provided in the agenda materials other than for th4e
application to the MN Board on Innovation and Cooperation. Steven stated that he is opposed to the application if the
funds would be used to hire a consultant to define the technical specifications for a regional parcel dataset. .
8. OTHER BUSINESS
Claypool updated the group on the progress of Steve Lehr’s private sector pilot project to
evaluate the usefulness of county parcel data to the information needs of CB Richard Ellis. (Refer to the memorandum
from Steve Lehr that is attached to this summary for more information.) Mr. Lehr stated that the private sector would
appreciate an opportunity to be involved in the ranking of data priorities. He also asked for a commitment from the
group to allow his group to remain involved in the work of MetroGIS given their large investment. Erdahl commented that
Mr. Lehr’s investigation is an outgrowth of the public-private partnership subcommittee of the Policy Advisory
Team (Erdahl, Claypool and Charboneau) charged with finding ways to involve the private sector as directed by the
Policy Board. The group concurred that Mr. Lehr should be provided with all of the county parcel data and leave it up
to them to decide what is useful and what is not.
NEXT MEETING
Thursday, February 17, 2000
9. ADJOURN
Erdahl moved and Claypool seconded to adjourn at 1:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Prepared by, Randall L. Johnson, AICP MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
