|
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LaBau at 1:35 p.m. It was held at the Roseville City Hall.
Members Present: David Arbeit, Will Craig, Virginia Erdahl, Brad Henry, Richard Johnson, Margo LaBau, and
Dennis Welsch.
Members Absent: Patrick O'Connor
Visitor: Beth Hobbs, Gina Buss, and John Lunde of the Fair-Share Financial Model consultant team.
Support Staff: Randall Johnson and Theresa Foster
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
Staff noted that due to recent developments with Item 4b, Beth Hobbs’ presentation to the Board,
tentatively scheduled for January 27th, has been postponed and therefore has been dropped from the Team’s agenda.
Richard Johnson moved and Welsch seconded to accept the agenda as revised. Motion carried unanimously.
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY
Richard Johnson moved and Welsch seconded to approve December 3, 1998 meeting summary, as submitted. Motion
carried unanimously.
4. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
4a. MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial and Organizational Project
Beth Hobbs introduced Gina Buss, who will be assisting her with Task A and John Lunde with Task B (Estimate of
Costs of Collaboration). Hobbs gave members an opportunity to review a schematic flow chart she is developing to
illustrate relationships among the thirteen MetroGIS Business Information Needs and eventually relationships between
MetroGIS Information Needs and the seven NSDI framework theme. No additions or modifications were made to the project
philosophy statements presented on page 9 of the agenda packet which had been agreed upon between staff and the
consultant team. Staff agreed to forward Beth’s latest monthly report, dated January 15th, to the Team members.
John Lunde and Gina Buss presented a draft detailed work plan for Task B to the team for discussion and
direction. This Task has two main components--describe the characteristics of datasets maintained by primary producers
of regionally significant data and identify the tasks and level of effort necessary to integrate the primary datasets
into a regional dataset as well as manage the data consistent with MetroGIS expectations. John will use approved
regional data guidelines or suggest likely guidelines where not yet established by MetroGIS. A combination of surveys
and interviews will be used to document specific tasks and effort needed to integrate primary datasets into regional
datasets and to support Data Finder, outreach activities, and the MetroGIS decision support process. John and Gina will
then estimate costs on basis of the tasks and level of effort identified during the interviews. The method and scope of
interviews were the main focuses of the discussion.
It was agreed that the persons interviewed should be members of organizations that have been identified, or
will likely be identified, as ""primary producers" of data needed to address one or more of the 13 MetroGIS Business
Information Needs. It was also agreed data needs are out of scope if they have not been identified through the MetroGIS
Information Needs process. Team members were uncomfortable with the suggested use of surveys and limiting the
interviews to one-on-one, largely by telephone. It was agreed that a combination of a survey followed up with a focus
group would produce more insight into practices and concerns.
The consultant team was asked to inform those that they should assume MetroGIS will not expect primary
producers to incur costs in excess of their internal business needs to supply data for a regional dataset. Even so, it
was noted that some organizations may perceive supplying data as a cost for other reasons, such as diminished revenue
potential. Chairperson LaBau pointed out that the interim data sharing agreements include a "data maintenance payment"
which she believes adequately compensates Anoka County for participation.
Finally, John and Gina were asked to add to their list of prospective interview candidates Roseville,
Maplewood, and Lakeville school districts for socioeconomic data and Nancy Reed of the Mosquito Control Commission,
Cliff Aichinger of the Ramsey-Washington-Metro Watershed District, and Board of Soil and Water Resources for natural
resources data. The consultant team was also asked to share their list of interviewees with MetroGIS staff for comment
before initiating the interviews for comment and to allow MetroGIS staff an opportunity to speak with management in the
affected organizations and obtain permission for their staff to participate.
Will Craig will provide Beth with a few examples of benefits organizations are realizing from data sharing to
share with focus groups.
4b. Report to Legislature – Information Policy Task Force
Staff handed out a summary of the revisions the Task Force made to its draft recommendations on January 19th.
Arbeit reported that the Information Policy Council (IPC) had met that morning and this matter was a topic of
discussion. Next week a subgroup of the IPC will meet to consider a response to the recommendations. Members of the IPC
expressed concern for the limited amount of opportunity to comment on the draft recommendations and for the lack of
discussion of objections that had been raised. Arbeit also reported he had read the comments submitted by the League of
Minnesota Cities and found them to be representative of many organizations and well supported. Comments from the
Association of Minnesota Counties will also be forwarded to the Legislature as an appendix to the Task Force’s
report.
Richard Johnson reported that a work group of the Governor’s Council on Geographic Information (GCGI) is
preparing a synopsis of the recommendations to share with Council’s Executive Committee, possibly as soon as the
week of January 25th. Members agreed that the Task Force’s recommendations appear to be an overreaction to some
organizations not abiding by the current law. Members also agreed it critical that commentors not to be perceived as
taking issue with the high level goal of making data developed and maintained by government accessible to the public.
It was agreed that the emphasis of the comments from MetroGIS should point out the unfunded mandate created by
the proposed recommendations. Members found it difficult to comprehend the reasoning for introducing to move away from
a user fee and special purpose partnerships to a property tax-based funding scenario where everyone will pay whether or
not benefit is received.
Motion: Richard Johnson moved and Henry seconded to recommend at the January 27, 1999 Board meeting that the
Board reconvene to respond to the recommendations of the Information Policy Task Force or authorize MetroGIS managers
to develop a position statement to present during the Legislative hearing process. Motion carried unanimously.
Staff was asked to prepare a report from the Team to share with the Policy Board on January 27th. Topics are
to include:
- Lack of opportunity to comment on the draft recommendations and limited debate on the issues that were
raised
- The Task Force does not appear to have accomplished its principal charge to identify ways to simplify the
extremely complex Data Privacy Law
- Assume a sponsor(s) will introduce the recommendations for consideration in each House
- Focus on the unfunded mandate that would result, in particular, from the recommendation to eliminate the
option of cost recovery which would push funding for GIS operations to the property tax or result in cutting back on
some aspects of the GIS program, as well as, diminish incentive for partnerships
- Note that elimination of the option to recover the cost of data development is contrary to current
directive to run government more like a business and seek out new revenue sources
- Suggest MetroGIS should develop a position but wait until the Task Force’s recommendations are
sponsored and converted to the form of proposed law
- A summary of organizations who submitted comments to the Task Force
- Copies of the actual recommendations should not be included in the report but should be available if Board
members ask for them
4c. January 27th Policy Board Meeting Agenda
No action or discussion. The requested direction was received prior to the meeting.
4d. Framework Data Policy
Members agreed with the staff recommendation to postpone discussion of the topic of "framework" data policy
until the more is known about what the 1999 Legislative will do with the recommendations of the Information Policy Task
Force.
5. INFORMATION ITEMS
No discussion.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None
7. NEXT MEETINGS
The Team agreed to meet monthly through the Spring on the 3rd Wednesday of the month, at 8:30 a.m. at the
Roseville City Hall with the exception of the March meeting which will be on the 2nd Wednesday. The dates are as
follows: February 17th, March 10th, April 21st, and May 19th.
8 ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:35 P.M.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, AICP, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
