|
Chairperson Rick Person called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. at the Metropolitan Council Offices in St.
Paul.
Members present: Chair Rick Person (City of St. Paul); Jane Harper, (Washington County); Will Craig (UM CURA);
Bart Richardson (DNR Forestry); David Claypool (Ramsey County); Kent Treichel (Wilder Foundation)
Members absent: Judie Erickson (City of St. Louis Park); Kathy Johnson (Metropolitan Council) Marcel Jouseau
(Metropolitan Council), Marcia Broman, (Metropolitan 911 Board), Nancy Pollock, (Metropolitan 911 Board); Dale Nikkola
(Anoka Electric Cooperative); and Michael Munson (Metropolitan Council); Roger Carlson (City of Minneapolis); Dennis
Carlson (Anoka-Hennepin IDS #11) Tim Zimmerman (Hennepin County); John Connelly (St. Paul & Ramsey County Charter
Commissions); Don Yaeger (LMIC)
Visitors: Martina Johntz, Washington County, Jim Chinquist, Metropolitan Council, Jim Maxwell, The Lawrence
Group
Support Staff: David Vessel; Heidi Welsch, Mark Kotz
2. Accept Agenda
The agenda was accepted as presented.
3. Accept Meeting Summaries
The meeting summary from December 5, 1997 was accepted.
4. Summary of the December 1997 Coordinating Committee Meeting and January 1998 Policy Board Meeting
Will Craig described the work of the last Coordinating Committee meeting. Operating guidelines were adopted;
the MN GCGI metadata guidelines were adopted; discussion of the soils data compilation occurred. Craig explained that a
participant satisfaction survey was also presented. David Claypool noted that in addition to the Coordinating Committee
issues, the Policy Board discussed budget issues of MetroGIS. Specifically, discussion concerns how funding for
MetroGIS will continue beyond 1998. There has not been a resolution yet. Craig noted that MetroGIS is applying for 2
grants through the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC): one is a demonstration grant and the other is a benefits
grant.
5. County and Minor Civil Division Boundaries
Jane Harper presented the Washington County pilot project report on Municipal Boundaries. She noted the
regional issues, in particular: 1. Who should maintain the primary source data? Harper noted that the pilot group had
considered several alternatives. They recommend that maintenance of primary data be the responsibility of individual
counties because they have the greatest internal need to keep an accurate record for taxation purposes.
A second important regional issue is: Who will compile the primary data into a regional coverage? Harper and
Johntz noted that several options had been researched and that Metropolitan Council seems to be the best choice at this
time.
MOTION:
Craig motioned and Harper seconded to recommend primary custodians of the MCD and County Boundary layer be the
individual counties and that the regional custodian be the Metropolitan Council. Mark Kotz displayed a copy of the
current MCD and County boundary layer that he recently finished compiling. He noted that it took approximately 1 week
of his time. Kotz noted 2 issues of concern. 1. Who is eligible to receive a copy of the compiled data? More
specifically, are there issues of intellectual property rights involved in the compilation and distribution of the MCD
and County boundary layer? 2. Kotz also noted the critical need for complete metadata, including accuracy of individual
lines. Harper stated and the team agreed that it would be helpful for Kotz to summarize the issues to include in a
findings report to the Policy Team. Claypool noted that it is important for counties to know when disagreement on
boundaries between counties occurs. The motion passed.
Harper suggested that MetroGIS needs a shared employee to help with metadata. The team agreed that some kind
of shared metadata staff resource could be useful.
Craig recommended adding a paragraph to the Washington County report which would explain how parcels relate to
boundaries (i.e. do boundaries attempt to follow parcel lines or not.) He also suggested minor modification of some of
the technical report to be more software general.
Welsch noted that a chart, which explains the NSDI framework components and their relationships to MetroGIS,
is included in the report. She asked that team members note any tasks or issues that seem to be missing. Harper noted
that training of users is not included in the table. The team agreed this would be a good issue to add.
6. Addressing Information Needs
Rick Person explained that the workgroup had met in December. Since then, staff work has been done. David
Vessel described two other MetroGIS projects related to the addressing information need. First, The Lawrence Group
(TLG) street centerline datafile was made accessible to all units of government and 4-year colleges or universities in
the fall of 1997 through license agreement with Metropolitan Council and MnDOT. Second, the Data Standards Team
recently completed a publication entitled "Guidelines and Issues for Working with Addressing Information".
Vessel explained that most of the information needs (revolving around geocoding for the most part) as detailed
in the addressing workgroup could be answered by the TLG data. He described a second set of very specific information
needs that will not be answered by the TLG. Many of this second group of needs will require planimetric data which is
not likely to be available for several years, at best. Vessel further noted that many information needs will be
answered by combining parcel boundary information with TLG dataset. [Staff noted that 'parcel' is a top information
need and is likely to form a workgroup in the near future.]
Craig posed the question and the team concurred that through use of the TLG, the Data Content Team can declare
one of the top information needs as tentatively answered. The team briefly discussed use of the TLG to update TIGER
files for the Census Bureau. Vessel noted that sharing the TLG files with the Census Bureau was part of the license
negotiation and is being handled by Rick Gelbmann, Metropolitan Council GIS Coordinator.
The team discussed potential revenue-sharing possibilities of the TLG dataset. The group agreed that the
Policy Team or Coordinating Committee should review this possibility.
MOTION: Craig motioned and Treichel seconded the following recommendation:
- The Data Content Advisory Team recommends that the Coordinating Committee endorse The Lawrence Group
street centerline file as a primary source of addressing information for MetroGIS.
- The Data Content Advisory Team recommends that the Coordinating Committee negotiate with the Metropolitan
Council to identify and monitor use and potential enhancements to the TLG datafile.
- Findings of the address workgroup will be passed to the upcoming parcel workgroup for exploration of other
sources that might answer information needs related to addressing.
- The Data Content Advisory Team recommends that the Coordinating Committee or Policy Team analyze future
revenue-sharing possibilities of the TLG datafile.
The motion passed. Harper noted that some form of the TLG vs. workgroup uses matrix as included in the agenda
should be shared with the Coordinating Committee.
7. Next Meeting
Due to recent changes in staff, Vessel explained that the team should expect a slow-down until new staff is
hired. Thus, no new meetings were scheduled. Team members were directed to call David Vessel with any Data Content Team
questions or Randy Johnson with any general MetroGIS questions.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
Submitted by Heidi Welsch
|
