|
1. Call to Order
Jim Sydow called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. The meeting was held at the TIES offices in Roseville.
Members Present: Lt. Gary Gary, Ramsey County Sheriff Department; Rick Gelbmann, Metropolitan Council; Mark
Steward, Resource Strategies; Jim Sydow, TIES; Jan Vanderwall, Roseville Area Schools (ISD 623); Susanne Maeder, LMIC;
Ben Ferguson, Coon Rapids; Carol Kaszynski, Richfield
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; Lisa Freese, Eagan; Allen Hoffman, Anoka
County; Tim Morehead; Ben Verbick, LOGIS
Support Staff: Tanya Mayer; Heidi Welsch; Rick Peterson
2. Acceptance of the Agenda
The agenda was accepted by consensus.
3. Meeting Summary
The April 10, 1997 meeting summary was accepted by consensus.
4. MetroGIS Updates
4a. Coordinating Committee Meeting Summary
Gelbmann explained that the last Coordinating Committee meeting focused on the findings and recommendations of
the Information Needs / Business Object Modeling project. The Committee will be recommending the following four
information need categories (paraphrased) as the first set of priorities: jurisdictional boundaries; land use plans;
parcels; street centerlines. The committee also discussed a 7 step process for moving from information need to data
sets.
5. Web Index Model RFP and Selection Process
Mayer reported that 35 RFP's were sent out and 5 proposals were received. The proposals were from: Barr
Engineering Inc.; Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.; Lynne Bly & Associates, Inc.; Minnesota Mindfood
Inc.; and McDonnel Dettwiller. Gary stated that it may be important to ask other leaders in this field such as
Intergraph why no proposal was submitted. The proposals ranged extensively in proposed price, timeframe, and services
to be included. Mayer, Gelbmann, and Peterson had reviewed the proposals prior to the meeting.
Sydow stated that proposals should include an interactive process and a guaranteed deliverable. The team
agreed. Gelbmann noted that it is important to consider the characteristics of MetroGIS organization (i.e. volunteer;
widely distributed, etc.) as a contractor is chosen. Sydow asked who will own the webpage. Since MetroGIS does not yet
have a legal status (such as a joint powers agreement, etc.) which allows ownership, Metropolitan Council will own the
webpage. Each team member reviewed the proposals before the committee continued its discussion.
The team ruled out 2 of the proposals. The team agreed that an opportunity to interview the remaining 3
companies would be beneficial. Ferguson motioned and Vanderwall seconded to invite the remaining 3 proposers to respond
to team questions in an interview format. Motion passed. Sydow asked that staff prepare a spreadsheet of criteria and
rating for the 3 proposals. Each proposer will be directed to prepare comments on the follow question areas: 1) search
engine design; 2) Commitment of personal; 3) overall flexibility of the proposer on this project. Each proposer will be
given 10 minutes of presentation time followed by questions from the team.
6. Next Meeting: Tuesday, 27 May 1997
7. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 AM.
Prepared by Heidi Welsch, Assistant GIS Liaison, MetroGIS
|
