|
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:40 PM by Chairperson Erdahl. It was held at the Roseville City Hall.
Members Present: David Arbeit (LMIC), Partick O’Connor (Hennepin County), David Claypool (Ramsey County),
Virginia Erdahl (Washington County), Brad Henry (AMM-Minneapolis), Jerome Johnson (Anoka County), and Dennis Welsch
(AMM-Roseville).
Members Absent: Cliff Aichinger (Ramsey-Washington–Metro Watershed District)
Consultant Team---MetroGIS Business Plan: Trudy Richter
Visitors: Rick Gelbmann, (Project Manager, MetroGIS Data Finder and Metropolitan Council representative to the
Coordinating Committee) and Gary Stevenson (Dakota County, member of the Coordinating Committee, and manager regional
parcel data workgroup).
Support Staff: Randall Johnson and Theresa Foster
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
The agenda was accepted, as submitted.
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY
The summary of the December 1, 1999 meeting was accepted, as submitted.
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
4a. Status of Regional Dataset Development
Ms. Richter shared a summary table of the status of the Business Information Needs process for the top
thirteen information priorities. No comments or concerns were raised about the content or scheduling presented in the
table. The only concern raised was with the term "completed". It was agreed that a footnote should be added to explain
that "completed refers to the portion of the project agreed upon and that further work may be undertaken at a later
date as information needs change and evolve."
4b. Process for Completing the MetroGIS Business Information Needs
Ms. Richter shared the Business Information Process as it had been modified to include the updates requested
by the Coordinating Committee (add a title and change Existing Dataset to "Sets") on December 16th 1999 and asked if
there are any further changes desired before she incorporates the illustration into the Business Plan. No further
changes were suggested.
4c. Prioritizing MetroGIS Functions and Time Allocations
Ms. Richter summarized her analysis of the distribution of MetroGIS staff support time among the functions
identified for MetroGIS, noting that the functions in the case-by-case category can not be supported with the staff
currently assigned to the project, in addition to those functions in the Postpone Funding category. She also stated
that several other tasks and needs, important to support of MetroGIS but not specifically listed among the categorized
functions, can not be supported with the current staffing allocation (e.g., coordination of physical data development,
several administration tasks, professional training needs, lobbying, grant writing and other fund raising).
The members discussed the need for support of Data Finder separate from the State’s Geodata Clearinghouse
and concurred with the Team’s December 1st conclusion that Data Finder is needed for the foreseeable future. All
agreed that in the future, MetroGIS’ internet-based data searching and retrieval needs might be able to be merged
with the State’s site but also concurred that we are not there yet. Arbeit also mentioned that the State’s
Clearinghouse philosophy encourages development of regional and local (county) nodes.
The group also concluded that there is not a consistent understanding among the policy makers that Data
Finder’s primary focus is as a tool to search metadata as opposed to obtain actual data. They also concurred that
some decision makers, and others for that matter, may be thinking about receiving information from Data Finder that is
derived from the data (maps, query results, etc) as opposed how to obtaining raw data. These conclusions led to a
discussion that application development will be a key to satisfying what some decision makers are thinking of as a
deliverable. Staff noted that a portion of the 1.25 FTE of technical support provided to MetroGIS by the Metropolitan
Council is allocated to application development. The group concurred with Gelbmann’s suggestion that these
resources should be used to test and demonstrate applications designed to assist the user to quickly obtain information
from MetroGIS’ data resources.
It was also agreed that the order of the functions in the mission critical category should be revised to place
Data Finder functions immediately ahead of the Data Sharing Agreement function and that the Data Finder function text
should be revised to clarify its primary function is as a tool to search for metadata. Ms. Richter agreed to make these
changes.
The group discussed ways to supplement existing staff resources to accomplish tasks that can not be otherwise
supported. It was agreed that the Business Plan should present outsourcing, volunteers from participant organizations
on as needed basis, and grant funding to supplement the resources provided by the Metropolitan Council as options to
address functions and tasks that could not otherwise be supported. It was also agreed the .20 FTE included in the
proposed time allocations for participation in NSDI activities by the Policy Coordinator should remain as is an
investment in MetroGIS in terms of access to additional funding resources and knowledge transfer.
4d. Private Sector Access to Parcel Data
Ms. Richter summarized a proposal for a means to provide access to parcel data to non-publicly funded
organizations and to minimize county support requirements through collaboration with MetroGIS. She noted that the
concept had been shared with Policy Board Chairperson Reinhardt who endorsed it and that it would be shared with the
Policy Board on January 26th. Each of the county representatives in attendance endorsed the proposed concept as a
win-win for all involved. Chairperson Erdahl also stated she believes it is in each county’s and MetroGIS’
best interests to do what we can to make data more accessible and to communicate these new policies to the Legislature
during the expected debate on Information Policy in the coming session.
Each of the county representatives concurred that the proposal should be modified to allow for MetroGIS to
receive a fee in addition to "pass through funds" to the counties as compensation for administering the proposed
one-stop program and procedures. All agreed that development and support of the proposed program will not be a trivial
undertaking and that caution must be exercised to not under fund the coordination function that would be supported by
MetroGIS. The county representatives agreed to schedule a meeting for immediately following the January 26th Policy
Board meeting to negotiate among all seven counties a non-government fee for access to their parcel data, assuming a
non-redistribution restriction, and an administration fee from each county to pass along to MetroGIS to support the
program. The county representatives also agreed that MetroGIS should have the right to set and receive a fee in
addition to the individual county fees for access by non-publicly-funded organizations to the assembled regional parcel
dataset. It was also agreed that public-funded universities and colleges should be treated as if a government entity.
Ms. Richter commented that the counties would need to agree upon a single licensing agreement to minimize the
support time for this already complex undertaking.
Welsch asked for clarification of the deliverable(s) and benefits to non-government entities. Staff summarized
them as a reduced fee from standard non-government fee because of the non redistribution restriction, the subscription
fee would provide continuous access to updates as they become available to the all members of MetroGIS (proposed as
quarterly), a one-stop-shop for parcel data from all seven counties as provided by the counties or assembled into a
regional dataset, the latter for the cost to assemble in addition to the payment to the counties.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
6a. Agenda for January 26, 2000 Policy Board Workshop Meeting
Ms. Richter shared for comment policy issues proposed for Board discussion at the January 26th meeting. It was
agreed that if the timing and/or form of the organizational structure for MetroGIS remains a discussion item that a
specific recommendation should be provided (i.e., pursue a JPA organization, notwithstanding its shortcomings, to
address immediate needs, with the understanding that a different form may be pursued in the future.)
The group also agreed that the Fair-Share Financial Model should be modified to recognize GIS Users Groups as
eligible for membership (combinations of several forms of local government) and that neighborhood groups should, for
the sake of testing a policy, be treated as third party agents of municipalities.
7. NEXT MEETING
Thursday, February 10th. (The Wednesday, January 19th meeting was cancelled.) Members were encouraged to
attend the January 26th Policy Board meeting.
8 ADJOURN
Arbeit moved and Claypool seconded to adjourn at 4:05 PM. Motion carried, ayes all.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, AICP, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
