|
1. Call to Order
Chair Rick Person called the meeting to order at 2:08 p.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 IS); Roger Carlson (City of Minneapolis); John Connelly (St. Paul & Ramsey County Charter
Commissions); Michael Munson (Metropolitan Council)
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
(Connexus Energy); Dennis Carlson (Anoka-Hennepin IDS #11); Kent Treichel (Wilder Foundation); Don Yaeger (LMIC); Tim
Zimmerman (Hennepin County); John Lunde (Sufficient Systems)
Visitors: Mark Kotz, MetroGIS Standards Team; Randall Johnson, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator Metropolitan Council
Staff: Theresa Foster, MetroGIS Technical Coordinator
2. Accept Agenda
The agenda was accepted, as submitted, except Item 5c will be handed out, and Item 6a will be added to agenda
and handed out to the members.
3. Accept Meeting Summaries
The meeting summary from September 29, 1998 was accepted.
Munson arrived
4. Update on Standards for County and MCD Boundaries
Kotz reviewed the Standards for County and MCD Boundaries that the Data Standards Advisory Team had forwarded
on to the Coordinating Committee on June 25. The Coordinating Committee concluded that the standard should go out for
peer review. Kotz reviewed the revised letter and standard and asked the Data Content Team for comments on the letter
and peer review candidate selection. Kotz suggested that the Jurisdiction Boundary workgroup participants review the
letter and standards. Harper noted that when asking the peer reviewers to comment on the standard, they should also
submit level of effort for implementation of the standard. Reviewers need to provide feedback on coordinating efforts
as well as costs asssociated with implementing the standard. Harper suggested that the reviewers should also be
selected from the business information needs focus group, and that the judicial system needs to be one of the selection
criteria.
Craig arrived
Kotz departed
5. Update on the Parcel Information Needs Workgroup
5a. Overview of the November 5 Parcel Workgroup Meeting
Foster reported on the November 5 parcel workgroup meeting where 30 MetroGIS stakeholders participated in.
Foster recognized the hard work that the management team, facilitator, coaches and recorders put into the workgroup
process. Overall education in parcel mapping was achieved and definitions for parcel boundary types were identified.
All workgroup candidates concluded that further work on parcel data specifications (accuracy, attributes and id) need
to be clearly identified for further information sharing.
5b. Turn-Around Document
Foster reported on the progress of the turn-around (summary) document for the parcel boundary workgroup. The
turn-around document was e-mailed to each participant on November 25, in order to provide direct feedback and comments
of the business information workgroup. The participants were asked to complete their review of the turn-around document
by December 18 in order to move the workgroup process forward in a timely manner.
5c. Next Steps for the Parcel Information Needs Workgroup
Foster summarized the next steps need to finish the parcel boundaries business information need. Further work
need to be done to clearly define parcel types, spatial accuracy and recommended custodians of parcel boundaries. Paul
Leegard, Anoka County, suggested the formation of an ad-hoc workgroup to clearly define our needs, from workgroup
feedback. The meetings and recommendations will be forwarded to the Data Content Team (Technical Team) for approval and
direction if necessary. Recommendation from the Data Content Team is that the workgroup begin in late December and
reach a consensus by the next Technical Team meeting in February. Recommend that we adopt the Governor’s Council
guidelines for establishing a unique PIN for parcels. Recommendation forwarded to the Coordinating Committee for
approval. Form another ad-hoc workgroup to focus on the address attribute component of the parcel dataset. Craig
suggested that we form a small workgroup to deal with attributes of parcels and will start work in early to
late-January. Harper agreed and suggested that the workgroup report back to the Technical Team in February of their
progress on attribute information for Participation.
Motion: Person adopted recommendations of ad-hoc workgroup formations and adoption of Governor’s Council
guidelines for establishing a unique PIN for parcels and Craig seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. Next Information Need Priorities
Foster reported to the members that the next top information need identified by the Data Content Team on
September 29 was future land use. Focus on research will be centered on the I-35W Land Use project. As part of the
update on business information needs a timeline was introduced for comment on the remaining nine priority information
needs. Harper stated that the Jurisdictional Boundaries Workgroup needs to be further broken down into types (County,
MCD, School District, Watershed). Munson stated that Census Boundaries for the year 2000 workgroup will be finished
with preliminary work by May 99, Data Specifications June or July 99, November 99 will be sufficient to hold a
workgroup. Census boundaries will be a major focus for local governments. MetroGIS stakeholder support will be greatly
appreciated, Munson and Gelbmann will provide detailed feedback to the Technical Advisory Team.
Motion:Person moved and Craig seconded to approve the 13 Priority Information Needs Timeline for the Business
Information Needs Project.
Motion carried unanimously.
6a. Hydrographic Workgroup Information
Foster reported that following the future and existing land use workgroups, the next top information need
addressed will the the characteristics of water features. In regards to this timeframe the MN Governor’s Council
on hydrographic information is reforming the hydrographic committee and has asked for MetroGIS stakeholders to provide
local and regional representation on this committee. Clearly this is a proactive approach to forming the hydrographic
workgroup and these participants will form the organization team for the workgroup in September 1999. Harper suggested
that we look into what is in scope for the hydrographic committee (ie. does it include well water or storm ponds). If
these criteria fully meet the needs of MetroGIS stakeholders then we should participate. Foster stated she will be
going to the December 9 reorganization meeting and will notify Data Content Team members of development and follow up
on questions suggested by members.
7. Update on Strategy to Address Suggested Enhancements to TLG Street Centerline Dataset
Johnson summarized the status on the enhancements to the TLG Street Centerline Dataset. The matrix has been
updated by TLG and staff. Staff will send out the updated enhancements to the TLG dataset in late-December along with a
letter stating the updated version. The newly formed Technical Team will look into a strategy for obtaining the
enhancements suggested by forum participants and include this in the work program for 1999.
8 Discussion on Reorganization of Technical Advisory Team
8a. Revised Mission Statement and Consolidated Work Program
Johnson summarized the draft purpose statement and a draft of the 1999 work program for the Technical Advisory
Team. The draft proposals are scheduled for presentation to the Coordinating Committee for endorsement on December 17.
Data Content members were asked to comment on the attached purpose and work program. Harper suggested that the Data
Access Team provide a timeline for proposed work for 1999.
8b. Appreciation of Data Content Members
Person thanked the Data Content Team members present for all their hard work for the past two years and
invited them to continue on with the MetroGIS mission and serve on the Technical Team.
8c. Next-Steps – Proposed Call for Technical Team Members
Person reported on the consideration of a formal resolution to organize the new Technical Team members.
Each existing member of an advisory team (content, standards, access) will be mailed a thank you/invitation
letter the beginning of February along with a copy of the milestones and proposed agenda format for the Technical
Advisory Team. The Data Content Team was asked to review the proposed material and provide comments. Harper stated that
the participants should know that their work is not finished and if they choose not to be a member of the new group
that they can still participate in ad-hoc workgroups. Craig stated that the guidelines should limit total candidate
participation for the group to 20 people. Harper noted the instead of using non-technical GIS professionals, state as
non-technical professionals.
Motion: Harper moved and Craig seconded the acceptance of the guidelines and work program, with the
aforementioned changes, for the proposed Technical Advisory Team.
Motion carried unanimously.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
Submitted by Theresa Foster, MetroGIS Technical Coordinator
|
