|
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m by Chairperson Erdahl. It was held at the Roseville City Hall.
Members Present: David Claypool (Ramsey County) Partick O’Connor (Hennepin County), Virginia Erdahl
(Washington County), Eli Cooper (Metropolitan Council) Brad Henry (AMM-Minneapolis), Jerome Johnson and Ed Schukle
(Anoka County), and Dennis Welsch (AMM-Roseville).
Members Absent: David Arbeit (LMIC)
Visitors: Rick Gelbmann, (Project Manager, MetroGIS Data Finder and Metropolitan Council representative to the
Coordinating Committee), Dave Drealan, (Carver County and member of the Coordinating Committee), and Jim Hentges (Scott
County and member of the Coordinating Committee)
Support Staff: Randall Johnson and Theresa Foster
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
The agenda was accepted with the addition of item 4e, Regional MCD/County Jurisdictional Boundary dataset.
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY
The summary of the February 17, 2000 meeting was accepted as submitted.
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
4a. MetroGIS Business Plan
Randall Johnson stated the Team’s February 17th finding that the proposed 2.75 FTE for MetroGIS’
coordination functions and 1.25 FTE for Data Finder and data management support were acceptable provided these proposal
were the minimum necessary to achieve the proposed functions. A detailed accounting of the time allocations used to
develop the 2.75 FTE proposal was provided in the agenda packet for the Team’s consideration. .
The Team unanimously accepted the following allocation of the proposed 2.75 FTE as the minimum necessary to
accomplish MetroGIS’ priority functions: 1 FTE or equivalent each for a Policy Coordinator and a Technical
Coordinator and .75 FTE or equivalent for administrative support. Staff noted that when negotiating the specific
responsibilities for Data Finder and data management support it was agreed that .75 FTE of this time would be
consistent with the Council’s internal business or not needed once MetroGIS moved to an operational phase, thus
the 1.25 FTE preliminary estimate was reduced to .5 FTE time chargeable to MetroGIS, for a total of 3.25 FTE proposed
for MetroGIS in 2002.
Staff also advised the Team that Chairperson Reinhardt has authorized rescheduling of the March 29th Board
meeting to April 26th to provide additional time to finalize the Business Plan and to avoid a conflict with an AMC
function.
4b Regional Parcel Dataset Pilot Project
Staff summarized that direction had been received at the January 26th Policy Board meeting to conduct a
regional parcel data pilot and that the Policy Advisory Team had endorsed a concept at its February 17th meeting for a
pilot that would involve free distribution of the regional parcel dataset by CD-ROM to the public and private sectors
with the understanding the recipients would participate in an evaluation of the data content and distribution
mechanism. Staff noted that to achieve the target to begin distribution by May that several tasks would need to be
accomplished. Each of these tasks was explained, clarification was sought as the objectives and a task manager
assigned. The following unanimous actions were taken by the Team:
- The Metropolitan Council’s offer was accepted to distribute the regional dataset.
- Counties which have provided licenses to the private sector will consider extending these licenses to the
time when the regional parcel dataset is available to provide continuity in the review evaluation process.
- The pilot project should extend to December 31, 2000. The recipients will have access to the regional
dataset for the entire period. A forum will be held in September and data recipients will be invited to participate in
small feedback sessions throughout the pilot in addition to submitting a written evaluation.
- Each county should authorize the Council to distribute its portion of the regional dataset by letter of
understanding and authorize the Council use a modified version of its license. MetroGIS staff agreed to draft a sample
"letter of understanding" and a modified license for review and comment by the counties. Steve Lehr will send MetroGIS
staff copies of each of the four letters of understanding (Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington Counties) to use a
prototypes for a standard letter.
- Members acknowledged that some recipients may be reluctant to destroy the data once received. It was
agreed that a "certification of dataset destruction document" should be sent with the invitation to participate to
insure the recipients are aware of this requirement. Jerome Johnson and Larry Charboneau agreed to provide a prototype
of a certification used by software companies and or the US Census Bureau to use as a place to start.
- Larry Charboneau agreed to speak to Dakota County to provide documentation for the regional parcel
dataset in addition to that provided in the readme file on the CD-ROM. Charboneau will work with Theresa Foster to
clarify the minimum information necessary.
- MetroGIS staff will prepare a mailing list for the letter of invitation from the licensees for the TLG
Street centerline dataset and a list of private sector organizations identified by the Non-government Partnership
Workgroup chaired by Larry Charboneau. The list will be sent to the Team members to review for any candidates that
should be added.
- The Technical Advisory Team will by responsible for designing the evaluation form to be filled out be
each recipient of the data. In addition to technical review it was also agreed that the questions should include
something like given the current county fees system how do you feel about this product?
- County officials agreed they should meet in June to continue their dialogue about an modifying their
individual fees for parcel data.
- The remainder of the tasks listed in the staff report were accepted in concept. Details for each will be
decided at a future meeting(s).
4c. Meeting Schedule
Member agreed to the following meeting dates: May 25, July 27, August27.
4d. Demonstration Topic - April 26th Policy Board Meeting
Staff was asked to speak with Gary Stevenson to demonstrate the features of the regional parcel dataset.
4e. Regional MCD/County Jurisdictional Boundary Dataset
Staff noted that the reason for this bringing this matter to the Team is that in a past week two requests for
this data had been received from the private sector. It was explained that in May 1997 each of the counties had
authorized the Metropolitan Council to distribute the regional MCD/County Jurisdictional Dataset to government
organizations without need for a license and that the a policy for distribution to non-government was deliberately
postponed to consider the broader implications of designating datasets as "public domain".
The current tasks and time involved per request for the data distributor as well as the requester were
explained. Staff noted and that use of an anonymous FTP distribution process could significantly reduce the processing
time for both parties. However, use of an anonymous FTP distribution process also raised the policy question of
designating this dataset as public domain to allow distribution to public and non-public organizations.
Representatives from six of the seven counties were present (no one from Dakota County was able to attend).
Staff asked if any of the counties would be opposed to authorizing distribution of the regional MCD/County
Jurisdictional Dataset to the private sector. No one raised an objection as some of the counties currently provide this
data to the US Census Bureau. Consequently, staff was directed to prepare a draft letter for each county to use to
authorize the Council to distribute this dataset to non-government organizations. It was agreed that if all of the
counties grant their consent, this dataset will be designated "public domain" and if any one of the counties does not
grant their consent, the status quo will be maintained.
5. INFORMATION SHARING
There was no discussion of the items presented in the agenda packet materials
6. NEXT MEETING
May 25, 2000, if necessary
7 ADJOURN
The meeting concluded at 3:40 p.m.
Prepared by, Randall Johnson, AICP MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
