Dissolved Teams > Data Access Advisory Team

March 5, 1998 Minutes

1. Call to Order

Jim Sydow called the meeting to order at 8:45 a.m. The meeting was held at the Fairview Community Center in Roseville.

Members Present: Lt. Gary Gary, Ramsey County Sheriff Department; Rick Gelbmann, Metropolitan Council; Susanne Maeder, LMIC; Jim Sydow, TIES; Jan Vanderwall, Roseville Area Schools (ISD 623)

Members Absent: David Arbeit, LMIC and Chair of the MetroGIS Coordinating Committee; Tom Bisch, Heritage Development; Gina Buss, BRW Inc.; Pat Cook, North Suburban Cable Commission; Ben Ferguson, Coon Rapids; Lisa Freese, Eagan; Allen Hoffman, Anoka County; Carol Kaszynski, Richfield; Mark Steward, Resource Strategies; Tim Morehead; Ben Verbick, LOGIS.

Support Staff: Tanya Mayer

2. Acceptance of the Agenda

The agenda was accepted by consensus.

3. Acceptance of the Meeting Summary

The November 19, 1997 meeting summary was accepted by consensus.

4. MetroGIS Updates

Policy Board and Coordinating Committee Meeting Summary

Gelbmann explained that the last Policy Board meeting focused on the MetroGIS budget and the need for long term funding. A presentation was made to the Policy Board on the benefits of MetroGIS, with specific examples from each sector: regional, county, city, watershed district and school district. Gelbmann explained that the Policy Board discussion continued on different ways to fund MetroGIS to cover the difference between the Metropolitan Council contribution and the budget that MetroGIS staff prepared.

5. Discussion

Data Access Advisory Team members offered the examples of Ramsey Co., with service member agreements, or of Dakota Co. for funding MetroGIS. TIES is also trying to develop a GIS service and service level agreements. They noted the difficulty to sell this without a tangible. Sydow noted that the TLG street centerline data is extremely beneficial and that we haven’t communicated the benefit enough. He noted that MetroGIS also provides a forum for discussion and interaction, a benefit difficult to measure. He offered the opinion that the Lakeville School District model is the best example of MetroGIS accomplishing something. A comment was made that MetroGIS is the coordinator, organizer and combiner of information into a finished product, and it is Not a clearinghouse to distribute data.

6. Team Tasks

A draft task sheet was handed out for comment and discussion. The following is the final Data Access Advisory Team priorities, in order of importance:

1. Meatadata Enhancement
   1. Hire an intern to contact various organizations
   2. Identify a method for the intern to get metadata
   3. Develop a key-word thesaurus
2. Data Delivery Support
   1. Maintain Data Finder as an ongoing service of MetroGIS
      1. Intake of metadata and browse graphic files
      2. Load data to Access database and web site
      3. Maintain web site
      4. Support users
      5. Develop functionality of site
      6. Plan and coordinate changes to Data Finder
3. Data Finder Enhancements
   1. Continue making suggestions for changes and updates to Data Finder.
      1. Geography query and internet mapping tool (e.g. Map Objects) – what should the tool be able to do for MetroGIS participants.
4. Enhance Access to Shared Data
   1. Identify on-line access issues for MetroGIS participants that want to provide data on-line.
      1. Speed of technology
      2. Security system
      3. Is there a need for a host FTP site for some MetroGIS participants?
   2. Identify data format compatibility issues (software formats, coordinate systems, accuracy, address matching).
      1. Software formats
      2. Coordinate system and procedures to change
   3. Identify common applications that many users would benefit from a coordinated development effort.
      1. Address matching procedures
      2. Coordinate system application
      3. Is there a need for an address thesaurus?
5. Integrate Datasets
   1. Identify issues and incompatibilities between datasets that were developed by different counties (issues that will arise once all counties have agreed to share data, e.g. spatial accuracy, data accuracy, data definitions, source data).
      1. Municipal boundary differences on a county boundary
      2. Soil survey differences
      3. Land use classification schemes

7. Next Meeting: None scheduled

8. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 AM.

Prepared by Tanya Mayer, GIS Specialist, MetroGIS